Peer reviewed paper on complex model of jitter anywhere?
My point was you pull up someone for using 'delusion' in a way that doesn't fit with you, but then produce a big arm wavy conjecture on the cause for an effect that had not been proven to exist.
And it only seems 2 years ago that you were singing the praises of the DAC3. I'm glad I follow at least 2 decades behind state of the art.
@soundbloke. Yes I can swap between the two interpretations of the image. Not necessarily at will though
Of course it might trigger a bias effect (we've discussed it in the context of the Meyer/Moran experiment; it was not fortunate that at least Meyer was regularly over the years, that any controlled experiment could only end in a negative result) but in our evaluation of an experiment we have to weigh the possible impact on the results.
As long as the conditions of the said experiment do not skew the "identification" process results, the mentioned bias would not be of relevance in such a case.
Overall we know that any information given to the particiants of an experiment can lead to bias effects; the knowledge of being subject of an experiment, the knowledge about the effect und test, the expectations (or knowledge) about a imagined (or really preferred) results and so on.
Therefore a reasonable weighing process in the analysis of an experiment is a crucial point, otherwise we would have to dismiss any experimental result (at least in the sensory realm) because some kind of bias was most probably always present .
Edit: Nice pic, but as we all know that numerous examples like that exist that show in which way our perception can be mistaken (or more precisely can't really decide which version is "real"), how does it help in our discussion??
Last edited:
I agree. What it says is that the certainty some apply to their subjective findings is misguided regardless of the test procedure - unless the results can be corroborated by some objective measure, the difficulties and uncertainties of which is another subject.
But related to that, you might also like to consider test subjects listening to the same piece of music repeatedly over the same reproduction system, and how they may learn to perceive details in time that were not discernible at the start - and also how they may learn to perceive details that are simply figments of their imagination.
This discussion should be about certainty - or rather the acceptance of the uncertainty that is inherent in all our perceptions. And I will supply here my own private, uncorroborated notion that I am coming to the belief that those who think they can perform with higher certainty than others are those that are more prone to delusion in their assessments as a result.
Firstly (as posted previously) I thought the bin of rubbish was an apt way of describing the contribution of those defending Bybee products to this discussion. Secondly, it shows how one can perceive what is not real rather well. And nobody here knows (without cheating) whether the photograph is real or constructed: Any assertion of certainty without objective corroboration (the cheating in this case) is misguided.
I would rather you put some effort into disclosing the numerous errant assumptions you have stated I have made.
Go take a look at Bob Ludwig's shop and the mastering engineers that work with him. Extremely doubtful they are all imagining things they hear on mixes that need fixing. It is their occupation to be catch small errors others have missed.
Is the conclusion being formed here that an entire occupation is based on fixing delusional problems that don't exist?
My own private, uncorroborated notion is that you guys are letting yourselves become deluded in your own little isolated imaginary world.
As an aside: regarding Bybees, obviously they don't do what it says in the advertising, but I believe people who tell me they can affect sound, usually a little for the worse, sometimes a little for the better.
If one notices the things are rated for a few amps (!). Makes sense then to run a few amps through them using an ultra low distortion power amp such as AHB2 and bridge the device with an AP. Probably, some measurable effects will be seen.
Then the argument here will shift from whether or not they do anything (of course they do!), to whether the effects can be audible. With enough careful listening panel research we could probably show there is a small audible effect in some cases. Then the argument would shift to is it just an overpriced effects box. Blah, blah, blah, just more arguing about something that people decided long ago they don't like and don't want to believe in.
You guys are just as biased as any listeners. You are biased against me because I say things you don't like to hear and do want to disbelieve. You can't make reality up by rationalizing that things must be like you want them to be. They are what they are, and it takes research not debate to settle what the facts actually are.
Is the conclusion being formed here that an entire occupation is based on fixing delusional problems that don't exist?
My own private, uncorroborated notion is that you guys are letting yourselves become deluded in your own little isolated imaginary world.
As an aside: regarding Bybees, obviously they don't do what it says in the advertising, but I believe people who tell me they can affect sound, usually a little for the worse, sometimes a little for the better.
If one notices the things are rated for a few amps (!). Makes sense then to run a few amps through them using an ultra low distortion power amp such as AHB2 and bridge the device with an AP. Probably, some measurable effects will be seen.
Then the argument here will shift from whether or not they do anything (of course they do!), to whether the effects can be audible. With enough careful listening panel research we could probably show there is a small audible effect in some cases. Then the argument would shift to is it just an overpriced effects box. Blah, blah, blah, just more arguing about something that people decided long ago they don't like and don't want to believe in.
You guys are just as biased as any listeners. You are biased against me because I say things you don't like to hear and do want to disbelieve. You can't make reality up by rationalizing that things must be like you want them to be. They are what they are, and it takes research not debate to settle what the facts actually are.
We are all biased as listeners - and as objective testers of listening tests too if we assume that the subjects are linear operators. But what appears to separate people in this discussion is an acceptance (or not) that we are all prone to perceptual error - and that without objective verification, delusion is increasingly likely to be the cause or an errant percept.
Reality is what it is, but your perception is not reality. It is instead a model of your sensed reality that is prone to error. What it takes to settle matters is objective corroboration where there is plenty of room for debate in how to model non-linear test subjects.
Bybees are simply garbage (go read their own website carefully and you will see they even admit it!). Your assertions (and those of John Curl) to the contrary do nothing but damage the credibility of your other claims. And that is sad, because I have tried to make clear, there are good reasons to support the "subjectivists" and to doubt the accuracy of double blind test results that fail to take account of our non-linear learning capabilities. But that uncertainty does not give reason to state that everything one perceives is real.
Last edited:
I would suggest that observing mastering and recording practise might indeed be very enlightening. I remarked previously on how preferred analogue equipment requires ADC-DAC elements in the chain of which you appear blissfully unaware. I also recall a visit to a well-known London mastering suite where the dithering was defeated because the engineer did not understand the options available. I know the album he was working on at the time, but there must have been many albums before that were released undithered (and where, for example, reverberation did not simply fall away into benign noise).
We agree on that.
Also, no disagreement that you probably encountered a small number of people with surprisingly good listening abilities. I believe they exist, although some here might be biased to accept a claim to that effect coming from you and not if coming from me. Does't change the underlying fact of whether such listeners exist or not. Illustrates that people's beliefs are formed in ways that are in general not very reliable.
Where has the existence of people with different sensory acuities been questioned? One fact I have tried to make clear here is that ALL listeners are eminently capable of 'deceiving' themselves by perceiving things that have no real basis.
It is their perceptions for which reliability is not certain. One's beliefs stem from one's perceptions (possibly from somebody else's) and depend on the level of certainty one ascribes to a given perception.
The word used was 'innumerable' which FWIW I take to be a stronger claim than 'numerous'.
I'm afraid this is the problem I have, often I can't believe they are serious, it's just a game they like to play or maybe appeals to the target audience.
I’ve been trying to affix reason to any of this......what’s your endgame soundbloke?
Most everyone in the audio hobby or business is aware that our senses are as fickle as a woman in menopause, some are just better at handling it than others.
The mention of recording/sound engineers is a perfect example of handling (or averaging may be a better term) these delusions for transference via media.
I might add it’s all under the microscope of peer review......separating the wheat from the chaff comes natural.
Most everyone in the audio hobby or business is aware that our senses are as fickle as a woman in menopause, some are just better at handling it than others.
The mention of recording/sound engineers is a perfect example of handling (or averaging may be a better term) these delusions for transference via media.
I might add it’s all under the microscope of peer review......separating the wheat from the chaff comes natural.
I have no endgame here. I have simply pointed out that there are fundamental flaws in many of the assertions stated in this forum, and that nobody has immunity from those flaws. Possibly too (my private thought), one who asserts the contrary (due to some prior acquired motivation that I do not understand), serves only in making themselves more fallible. Maybe you should instead question the "endgame" of those who appear to be unable to even question their stance here - I would certainly be interested to learn of it.
...A review process that would have considerably reduced the number of contributions to this thread I would suggest.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.