Upon closer inspection, objectivists and subjectivists may have more in common than they like to believe...
And there is nothing that you state that I wish to discourage. But ask yourself what would it take to convince you that something you perceived and therefore that you believed was real was in fact a delusion? Trusting our ears in applications such as we are discussing here - or even the beliefs of others we describe an effect to (that are potentially then the subject of bias) - can be a significant source of error.
Yes, we may lack the appropriate vocabulary for now, and a lot of more testing should be done here, but my impression is that time behaviour is the most important and underrated quality in audio. Measuring sine waves has brought us further, but has also limited our scope and mind-set…
Yes, it can be a significant source of error, and I have experienced this from time to time myself. If a subjectivist would deny this, he would simply be dishonest to himself.
The German expression "verschlimmbessern" comes to mind, and taking a step back is sometimes a wise thing to do.
Yet, when I make up the balance, I would be nowhere as far as I have come by accepting my senses to be a sort of rudder when riding the waves...
Last edited:
Hopefully the overlap due to the uncertainty of both camps is now apparent
Hear, hear, is what you English chaps used to say!
In this instance the ears are the only thing we can trust.....if we make a physical change and by happenstance it is perceptually ‘better’ to us....then undo the changes and it comes back to the same point repeatedly, I’m going to assume (since repeatable) it’s at least real in my little universe!
Then you refer to higher order measures such as the bispectrum? As commented previously, our perception does indeed employ the means for (at least) bispectral analysis of audio signals. And in higher order measures you might find evidence for the audibility of noise floor modulation and for phase response deviations that many reports indicate should not be audible (Ohm's Acoustical Law, for example).
I am not sure if that was a mistake because your first language is not English or a very clever remark in spite of of English not being your first language. I shall assume the latter
Or you just continue to affirm the delusion in your mind. That process of affirmation is acutely important in the way our perceptions develop. I am not saying you are wrong, because it is what you perceive, but you would do well to also acknowledge the possibility that you are deluded in your repeated perception.
Somewhere you just have to trust that you’ve done all in your power to verify and label your perception as a temporary reality. Otherwise, like Lucas says.....we’re in a permanent limbo.
If it’s verifiable through repetition (especially if it’s the result of bumbling blindly!) then it’s real to me
Edit.......Bumbling Bob, blindly beseeching bipartisanship!
Last edited:
Please indicate in the picture below where you would like me to put the 3rd speaker.
(Not that there is anything at all wrong with the existing stereo illusion.)
Attachments
No, to reduce the chance of "limbo", you need apply an appropriate analysis that strives to remove the uncertainty in the claims.
But "real to you" is not necessarily representative of reality. Nobody can doubt the veracity of your beliefs, only the certainty that you ascribe to them being representative of reality, and especially so when their perceptions differ to your own.
I would suggest that you should have thought of that beforehand.
You cannot assert that with any certainty whatsoever until you have heard what would have been possible with an appropriately driven central third loudspeaker. And I am in a position where I can reliably inform you with a high degree of certainty that the stereo image you do experience will be comprised significantly to that you could have enjoyed had you employed such a third loudspeaker.
Does it occur to anyone else that shufflers are effects boxes, the exact thing that Scott Wurcer so strongly objects to?
If shuffler effects are okay, then how about a little 2nd harmonic if it improves the illusion?
If the room is a little dry, add a little reverb, that should be okay too...
If shuffler effects are okay, then how about a little 2nd harmonic if it improves the illusion?
If the room is a little dry, add a little reverb, that should be okay too...
And here you assume that those of us lumped into the subjective side of the venn diagram do not work on optimising the hell out of things. It's just that DACs are the least of the problem unless you are building one for fun.
A common understanding of Ambience is needed here. But if you mean the feeling of the recorded space that's certainly worthwhile, but it's room, speakers and EQ (DSP or otherwise) that matter there not the DAC IMO. There are gross errors to correct (and seasoning to add)
They are absolutely NOT effects boxes! They are the tool required to compensate for well-known, well-documented, long-established problems in stereo reproduction. You might, however, regard the room response that acts to necessarily blur the defects in stereo as an effect - and I use blur in a genuine technical sense.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.