Merril, I believe you deserve apologies from those who have decided to attack you based on their lack of knowledge of facts. The truth of characters will be revealed according to those who are empathetic sufficiently to willingly admit their errors and make remedy without reservation.
Dan.
There are acts of commission and acts of omission. You chose not to say anything for a long time. Now you choose to say something. Why?
Also, your writing style seems to have changed over time. The writings that used to be an Merrillaudio have been taken down. Did you ever write in a particular style or use particular terminology with the intent of creating an impression of similarity to any writings formerly posted at or linked by Merrillaudio?
Yes, connection to the music is what happens when the playback system is providing an sonic illusion that better matches to what our internal auditory perception models expect.
We don't yet know what it is in the signal that is providing this better match but IMO the best approach requires a deep understanding of the workings of auditory perception along with a deep understanding of EE & measurement techniques & possibly a good understanding of perceptual testing. is it any wonder not much progress has been made in this so far? 😀
Here's my take in why the better playback systems provide a deeper connection with the replayed music - it is simply because the auditory perception processing does not have to work as hard in figuring out the signals it is receiving & therefore it has more processing energy available for the higher cognitive level aspects such as emotional connection, etc.
I've said it before but let me repeat - the auditory system is constantly, moment-to-moment, working on the signal stream coming from the auditory nerve - it is just a stream of electrical impulses - two streams actually, one from each ear (which is very important, IMO). It is categorizing what signals from this stream belong to what auditory objects - so does this sound happening at 1 sec & at 1.5sec & later at 10secs belong to the same saxophone or the sousaphone. It uses all sorts of techniques to try to achieve this categorization of the whole sound stream & thus keep a stable internal model of the auditory world but it is always using a best guesstimate of what fits where in this ongoing internal model it creates that best matches the stream of nerve impulses along the auditory nerves. It dynamically adjusts this model as it receives new info - when we walk into a room for instance we internally take a couple of seconds to adjust to the new sound stream (impulse stream) that is now happening. A even better example is the shift of what we hear when we do the McGurk test - we hear BA but when we focus on the video image of the lips, we then re-anlayze it internally as FA - switch back & forth rapidly to try to feel how this makes you feel (it's disorientating) & realise that we are constantly doing this re-evaluation all the time with the nerve signals arriving from the auditory nerves but luckily most of the signals we receive do not cause such a major re-evaluation - the McGurk effect is exploiting a very specific technique that is used by auditory perception where lip shaping is a very important part of analyzing the sounds of what is being said (we tend to look at lips when listening to people)
Given this internal state of auditory processing (always living on the edge of confusion), anything which even slightly doesn't fit with the internal auditory model that is continually being built, will cause a small re-evaluation of the model & require some extra processing to do this re-evaluation & establish the changes to form the new on-going model
In pychoacoustics this re-evaluation is called MMN mismatch negativity - it's when there is an odd stimulus in a sequence of stimuli
Now when such a mismatch doesn't occur (or fewer occur in a listening session) then we have a more relaxed listening session with more emotional connection to the sound - it's firstly a connection to the truthfulness of the sounds, which allows a deeper insight into the music itself.
What might be the difference in the audio signal that causes this better fit to the internal model? Again we need to reference what causes MMN in music signals
Merrill,
Good. I am glad to finally hear this. My confusion has dissipated.
It means I can now once again fade into the background, and continue to enjoy listening to real people talking about audio at a level of intellectual fidelity otherwise unavailable to me.
Bravo Merrill, you got there in the end, and I am sorry I ever doubted you.
ToS
Last edited:
Sorry, but your attempt to shift the burden of proof does not work. 😉
I still give you the benefit of doubt that you are are honestly convinced that your claim is true. So it should be easy for you to bring up evidence for your claim, and your claim was quite special as you responded to a post by mmerrill99 about scientific research, that he and I already had presented, with:
Later you claimed that you've had presented evidence by posting the thread-title and two excerpts from my posts over at hydrogenaud, but your post about this topic was just:
Obviously, neither the thread-title nor the two sentences that you've posted brought any evidence for your claim.
You still did not fullfill your obligation to bring evidence for your specific claim - quoted above - about snake oil sales pitch, and the "got exposed" part.
You have to link to posts in that thread that contain evidence about what you've claimed. Can't be that difficult, can it? 😉
Let's look at an example:
If I were claiming that the member "Evenharmonics" is lying on diyaudio.com and, asked for evidence, would just provide the title of a thread in such a way:
Have you forgot about "John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III" ?
and further quoted two excerpts from your posts like:
Maybe these quotes might help,
"I've stated many times that speakers (& room acoustics) are the bottleneck in audio replaying electronics."
"Is there any description on what kind of comparison that would be?"
that would be, following your reasoning, evidence to back the claim "Evenharmonics is lying on diyaudio".
And now, again following your reasoning, it would be up to you to show that you were not lying at diyaudio .......
I doubt, that you would really agree to this suggestion.... 🙂
Last edited:
Mark, this will be the last question I feel I will answer about Merrill Audio
The reason I spoke out was because I was weary about the DBT ABX debate as I said in this post "Who really cares about this endless debate - just enjoy your hobby, the music, the equipment, whatever gives you pleasure."
Then ToS made a post I couldn't understand & didn't know where it was coming from as i was discussing the realities of Foobar ABX testing with real-world examples. Tos post was about his cable Vs one cost £100/ft. I just didn;t know what he was talking about & asked which he answered & I realised he was assuming I was Merrill Audio & referring to £100/ft cables on offer from them.
I just decided to correct him with the truth & maybe I had had a few drinks which made me decide what the hell, who cares
I didn't realise my writing style had changed - maybe I got to know the personalities better since I started posting, I don't know? I seem to remember you had a bit of a problem with me at he beginning of my posting on here over ABX testing & maybe I was a bit more abrasive then than now but my point then was the same as my point now - Fobbar ABX testing is not a reliable, sensitive & useful blind test for use on audio forums unless that's what people think is fun & I don't believe it's fixable for casual use.
I really don't know anything about Merrill Audio postings & this is not the first time they have been referenced. I asked then & ask again now - can someone link me to these posts so I can see what people are talking about - the same way of expressing myself, the same terminology, whatever else people are finding similar?
Maybe, or maybe not. But a quick search of your contribution on this forum, since 2014 when you registered, shows that the only topic you are interested in is the holy war against blind testing, in whatever form it comes.
Not a shred of constructive idea, design idea, schematic, results (at least from simulation), answers to legitimate questions, no contribution of the kind that builds the DIY universe. I find this very strange for somebody that claims he has no vested interest in commercial audio.
As one of the oldest "alive" members on this forum, there's nothing new to me in your behavior, I've seen this many times, only that others (including your Jakob peer) freely admitted, sooner or later, their (at least wanna be) belonging to a commercial audio op.
That's in general not a sin, obviously, but attempting to distort facts and reality to accommodate a commercial interest is, at least in my book.
Last edited:
Merrill,
Good. I am glad to finally hear this. My confusion has dissipated.
It means I can now once again fade into the background, and continue to enjoy listening to real people talking about audio at a level of intellectual fidelity otherwise unavailable to me.
Bravo Merrill, you got there in the end, and I am sorry I ever doubted you.
ToS
OK, I got there long before "the end" but you wouldn't accept my "Nope" & the amateur sleuth (actually not a sleuth, just someone who wants to always find the worst in everything) Evenharmonics was leading you down the garden path with his 2+2 makes 5 logic
So let me correct you - it's not that I got there in the end - you finally shook off EH skewed influence & got there in the end, yourself
Thanks Dan but I don't deserve apologies any more than you or JC or any others who are constantly attacked on here deserve apologies.
I don't necessarily agree with all you or John post but I believe you are both on the right track & we are all on our own audio journey in this hobby so I respect your journey & JCs & others & hope to learn something from the posts of people who are still curious about sound & not so much from people who think they know it all, already
Merrill my dear chap,
Evenharmonics has not had the slightest jot of influence upon my thinking. I am my own man, and you have completely underestimated my wicked sense of deadpan humour - despite the prolific sprinkling of emoticons.
Still, it is pleasing to read your recent post in response to Dan employing the most joined up thinking I have ever heard from you. This is what we all want from you in this erstwhile league of gentlemen.
Welcome back sir, and game on!
ToS
Last edited:
It's in the thread (title I quoted). Didn't you revisit it to refresh your memory? You should have. But you didn't or pretend that you didn't for obvious reason.
You brought up Zwicker Fastl 4 times on this forum, 14 Aug. 2010, 8 Nov. 2011, 9 Nov. 2011, 25 Jan. 2017 (in reply to me).
Another research / study you brought up on Hydrogenaudio, "As Cohen writes it:" which you brought up 3 times on this forum, 22 Feb. 2015, 14 Nov. 2018 (in reply to mmerrill99), 21 Nov. 2018.
List of exposing posts on Hydrogenaudio:
On 11 May 2015 by krabapple:
"You guys wouldn't give a damn about Type II errors except that DBT results so often undercut the foundations of high-end belief systems that support your livelihoods."
You guys meaning Jakob(x) and jkeny.
On 11 May 2015 by late Arnold B. Krueger:
"It is becoming clear that the study of formal rhetoric and reason may not be one of your strengths, Jakob.
What you have just presented is a well known form of "Argument From Authority", which is well known to lead to fallacious conclusions:
The Fallacy Of Argument From Authority
Not only that, but I've explained on this thread several times why audiophile sighted evaluations can't be tests, and quite clearly these explanations were beyond your understanding.
Since you can't comprehend the explanations that I provided Jakob, repeating them again would be gigantic waste of my time.
I personally think that you really don't have the intellectual tools to follow this discussion. I doubt that like JKeny you understand DBTs well enough to do them, even with a lot of assistance. It looks for all the world that you are shilling for JKeny."
On 12 May 2015 by Porcus:
"I know that very well, and I know (and to a wide extent support) the critique against p-value-based inference, but (I) the procedure does in any case set out to test whether the null is compatible with the data, although the "with" is not commutative, and (II) it is completely irrelevant to what appears to be the main issue, which is how quacks attempt to elevate any claim taken out of the air, to the status of the null.
Relativizing the null is the chief strategy of anti-science these days; sometimes as plainly open as claiming that evolution is "theory" and creationism is "theory", and sometimes obfuscated, like jkeny's unspecified "valid". The reason is of course the bleeding obvious one; asking for evidence ruins the business for quacks and miracle men."
Expecting more denial march...
We know that a lot of members claim being interested in (following a) a scientific approach wrt audio hobby (be it just using technology to listen or any diy stuff), and based on that claim a lot of demand for controlled listening tests (favoring often a certain kind like "Foobar ABX")
Despite that, there is little to no appreciation to see (from a lot of members of this group) for any evidence presented (unknown before to this community ) showing some of the difficulties using test protocols.
Maybe I missed it, but did someone, just for example, like DF96 ever posted along the line "thanks, didn't know that, will try for the future to encourage other people to consider the evidence and avoid these traps" ?
Of course, we know that we all are humans, but instead we see a lot of attempts to "shoot the messenger"´and that doesn't comply to the honesty approach that should be the basis of our discussions.
Despite that, there is little to no appreciation to see (from a lot of members of this group) for any evidence presented (unknown before to this community ) showing some of the difficulties using test protocols.
Maybe I missed it, but did someone, just for example, like DF96 ever posted along the line "thanks, didn't know that, will try for the future to encourage other people to consider the evidence and avoid these traps" ?
Of course, we know that we all are humans, but instead we see a lot of attempts to "shoot the messenger"´and that doesn't comply to the honesty approach that should be the basis of our discussions.
Interesting enough, I distinctively recall a "jkeny" user on this forum, with a very similar approach with what we see today, which got banned around 2010 (if memory serves).
But enough of this detective work, after all who cares... BS is BS, that is BS, disregarding on who's perpetrating it
Is this a sign of admission instead of denial? If so, for almost 2 months of your allegation at me should be noted for the persistence of those in audio business.
Did it occur to you that, in despite of the scientific shell you are wrapping your opinions, most likely this is because your average credibility is too low to be taken seriously?
What are the reason for your lack of credibility (not only on this forum) would be an interesting discussion (not that it would reveal anything new, though), but somehow I don't think you would like to go there 😀.
Last edited:
+1
Unfortunately, it will probably be some years before 'Cognitive Psychology: Biases and Heuristics,' or the equivalent becomes a required course for engineering undergraduates. Something of that nature is now taught in business schools, economics schools, the US military, and to some extent in medicine (more in the form of journal articles for medicine, last time I checked anyway).
Last edited:
If it's the one who sells or used to sell so called organic design DAC for over $900, then yes, that's him. His last post here was on 13th of August, 2011.
OK, good - I would stay away from EH if I were you
I presume you mean the one about the workings of auditory perception & our better connection to the sound with better playback systems?
I've said all this before, maybe not as well structured or maybe people assuming I was Merrill Audio, meant I was just being disregarded as FUD?
It's difficult to post cogently about the link between auditory processing & audio reply & often when I read back a post I find I have missed out an important point but can't edit/correct it.
Anyway. to my way of thinking, this connection between an understanding of auditory processing & the signal produced by our replay systems is where the next advance in audio is to be found. I expect new measurements to result from this which will only be designed by a better understanding of auditory processing.
So what causes a mismatch in the signal according to auditory perception? Well first you have to understand what techniques are used by auditory perception to categorise the nerve signals as coming from the sound made by audio objects & form them into audio streams (i.e the sound of the second violins in the orchestra can be followed as an audio stream). All of this is being researched in a field of psychoacoustics called Auditory Scene Analysis (ASA for short)
Actually, so far as I am aware, what Jakob2 says about science and perceptual testing is correct. Whether or not he is more theorist than practitioner I have no way of knowing, but I don't see why it matters so long as what he says is not incorrect.
Telling the truth, pleasant truth or not, does not justify retaliatory attacks in the form of political debate tactics.
If 16/44 has been correctly processed to 24/192 then the bit stream contains exactly the same information, so he is expressing a preference for differences in the DAC process not differences in the actual data. If it has not been correctly processed then he is expressing a preference for incorrect processing.mmerrill99 said:
The "illusion" was encouraged by you repeatedly declining to confirm or deny the alleged connection; there was always a hint of ambiguity on those rare occasions when you said anything on this at all. The quote here is the first time I have seen you give a clear denial. Thank you for at last being clear.
It would be more accurate to say that I rarely use emoticons. When I do use them I use old-fashioned ASCII versions. Generally when I write I use words, because I am usually trying to convey meanings and words are useful for that purpose.tapestryofsound said:
OK, as this thread has over this weekend gone through an epic clear out of FUD, and as one of the little people who sits in the background listening avidly to the murmuring of the gods of audio - I ask you all to please keep it real.
On a good day, you people are a top class crew, and it is real pleasure to have my leftfield musings and considerations accepted as part of the debate.
Radio silence for now from ToS
- Status
- Not open for further replies.