The list was recited to me verbally. I heard the same things and had my own mental list. What you seem to be complaining about is that natural language is not as precise/unambiguous as mathematical language.
I'm not complaining at all. Apologies. I was asking for clarification around how you drew a conclusion and the order of events.
No further explanations are needed.
Moving on...
No further explanations are needed.
Moving on...
It is obvious that there is no singer because what we are talking about is a REPRODUCTION of that event, NOT the REAL event.
If and when the sound reproduction is faithful enough then it will seem to you that the singer is right there.
The fact that the singer is not there does not affect the fidelity of the reproduction.
Nor does it make it illusory.
It is a perfectly and truly elaborated real sensorial perception.
But it's only a reproduction by design, and you certainly can't "forget" that.
In my opinion the real hoax is that one thinks that he can lock up and reduce the sound perception inside an oscilloscope.
Hi,
IMO Taking concepts to extremes is of no use to anyone or anything.
I did not say that the perception of the stereophonic effect would be an exact and perfect reconstruction of the original event or superimposable on what happens in real life.
Nor did I say it would work for every type of event.
Let's go back to the current and rudimentary approach since we can't afford much else.
If you want your critical listening to be, I won't say, shareable, but at least compared amicably with the critical listening carried out by another person, it is necessary first of all that both people are NORMAL.
I leave the definition of NORMALITY to another occasion.
Therefore both must enjoy the same physical, mental and emotional conditions; they must not have taken hallucinogens or other psychotropic substances, they must have an auditory system in similarly good condition and listen to the same system with the same track.
They must be focused on what they are doing.
After listening to them in the same position and at the same volume in the same environment with the same level of background noise, the two friends can then, if they really want, compare their mutual hearing experiences.
If the conditions listed above have been previously met they will have heard the same thing.
As everyone knows hearing is a sense and as such hearing is an extremely complex system, but it is also (relatively) predictable.
Everyone can hear the dry and strident high notes if you have met the above conditions.
Everyone can hear the high forward and croaking sounds.
Everyone can hear the long, booming and rubbery bass.
If they have met the above conditions the perception of the stereophonic effect will be very very similar if not the same for the two listeners.
Can't it be measured?
Well, we'll survive anyway.
As for me, I like to compare my ideas with those of other respectable members on this forum, but really what's really important is having fun.
Then maybe there will be a very young person (I forgot, age also has its importance, not only because hearing can weaken with advancing age, but because with age sometimes even musical tastes change and what you can or can't "bear" it) which will say that he likes long, booming and rubbery basses.
And he has every right to do so, but this does not unify the shared experience in the slightest.
Perception is subjective in the sense that it is the subject who experiences it, but perception also has an objective value.
That statement about brain processing, is speculative. Some would agree, plenty of neuroscientists would disagree. We plain don't really know.
Relatively straightforward to eliminate via well established techniques though, for elimination purposes.
Just above the first post on a page is the series of numbers for the pages in a thread. On the right side of that are two boxes, "Jump to new" and "Unwatch." Click Unwatch.
I refer to some concepts in the book, "Thinking Fast and Slow," a National Science Foundation book of the year, BTW. In particular, the two system model of cognition. Also some of my opinion on the subject derives from studies of how Cognitive Behavioral Therapy works. https://fherehab.com/learning/cbt-can-change-your/#:~:text=CBT works by basically coaching,those neural pathways over time. According to the two system model it amounts to a rewiring of the fast system, System 1.
The slow system is conscious awareness, System 2.
There is also a paper on perceptual training for a visual identification task. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027970/
Last edited:
Extremes? It was entirely in relation to your implied adequacy of 2+ mic recording. Unless your intent was that a 'stereo effect' is good enough, which is a value judgement separate from any technical shortcomings in recreating the original localisation cues. It's shifting reproduction toward production, which is fine since it describes the vast bulk of music today but has little relevance to reproducing an acoustic event.
Speaking of brain training I'm having excellent results using the acoustic Schumann frequency 7.8 Hz binaural beat on YouTube. Anyone care to try? I play it on my iPad whilst listening to headphones. I’m kind of afraid to do a real test cause it sounds super duper and I don’t want to find out it’s all in my head. 😫
Here I fully agree. I mean, really, locking up perception in an electronic measuring equipment? How stupid can you get ??
Luckily, I don't think such a person exist. If one does exist, I have never met one. Have you?
Jan
"Someone should" then make an audio file set, that goes through what can be heard if not already, then with training, that covers the popular suspect categories. For example, one such might be distortion, where various levels are subsequently introduced in the odd and even flavors, of course ending with levels that are supposedly undetectable.
Channel crosstalk, phase-flipping in frequency bands, phase flipping of distortion orders, dynamic compression, of course overall FR in the recording, jitter - how does one know random jitter introduced in the digitization of an analog tape isnt worse than and irrecoverable from, no matter how good the playback clocks.
Such a thing might be a smash or a flop, depending on the potential customers. Who know how many might prefer to leave their head in the sand, instead of spend the $100 to learn -
@rdf I spoke of "extremes" because it seemed to me that your comment was too technical oriented (not my intent) about recording techniques and because I had the impression that you were trying to find a technically exhaustive explanation of a possibly perfect reproduction of the stereophonic effect from the point of view of event recording.
A hint for completeness since I've never really been interested in recording techniques and consequently I could not have a satisfactory technical conversation about this topic neither for you nor for me myself.
A hint for completeness since I've never really been interested in recording techniques and consequently I could not have a satisfactory technical conversation about this topic neither for you nor for me myself.
Well, it's a 'future possible enhancement' , so extremely speculative. I think we are safe in our lifetime.
Your grandchildren have to figure it out for themselves ;-)
Jan
Your grandchildren have to figure it out for themselves ;-)
Jan
Stereo as an illusion. Why not? Illusion sounds good. In psychiatry and psychology, an illusion or illusory misjudgement is a delusion of the senses that is based on a misinterpretation of real sensory impressions. In other words, something that exists is perceived - but not for what it actually is. In contrast to hallucination, there is a source of stimulation in the illusion. The reason for an illusory misjudgement can be that an anxious person moves in the dark and, for example, recognizes another person in a tree. Fatigue or intoxication can also cause this phenomenon.
So, the stereo image might be an illusion, or rather an illusory misjudgement. All major criteria are met for this definition: The singer in the room is caused by is something existing, notably an audio signal, while there is no physical singer in the room at all. Instead, the definition for a hallucination is not met. Because there is a physical stimulus making the singer in the room appear. So stereo might be an illusion, but certainly not a halluzination.
There is one essential objection against the "illusion" term. While listening to the singer in the room your senses are not blurred, as in the case of an illusion. Not at all. The audio information reaching your sensory system is very well tailored (in terms of intensities and phase) and intended to evoke an auditive perception or a singer in the room. It is aimed at a perfectly functional receptor. Opposed to the defective state of a receptor suffering an illusion. And also you as the stereo listener preliminarly do your very best to hear and welcome the singer in the room. This definitely does not match with the outer setup of a spontaneous neuropsychological malfunction, as commonly unterstood and named as illusion in psychology.
As for me, I will continue kindly naming my stereo singers in the room my stereo phantoms. Easy to use, easy to handle. I rub my sterelo, the phantom appears. And then the phantom kindly disappears again at my will. And best of all … phantoms have the potential to be real mind ticklers and teasers for us objectivists.
So, the stereo image might be an illusion, or rather an illusory misjudgement. All major criteria are met for this definition: The singer in the room is caused by is something existing, notably an audio signal, while there is no physical singer in the room at all. Instead, the definition for a hallucination is not met. Because there is a physical stimulus making the singer in the room appear. So stereo might be an illusion, but certainly not a halluzination.
There is one essential objection against the "illusion" term. While listening to the singer in the room your senses are not blurred, as in the case of an illusion. Not at all. The audio information reaching your sensory system is very well tailored (in terms of intensities and phase) and intended to evoke an auditive perception or a singer in the room. It is aimed at a perfectly functional receptor. Opposed to the defective state of a receptor suffering an illusion. And also you as the stereo listener preliminarly do your very best to hear and welcome the singer in the room. This definitely does not match with the outer setup of a spontaneous neuropsychological malfunction, as commonly unterstood and named as illusion in psychology.
As for me, I will continue kindly naming my stereo singers in the room my stereo phantoms. Easy to use, easy to handle. I rub my sterelo, the phantom appears. And then the phantom kindly disappears again at my will. And best of all … phantoms have the potential to be real mind ticklers and teasers for us objectivists.
Last edited:
Glad to hear that from you.
Are you talking about stupidity?
I would rather talk about personal convictions, and the so-called irreducible objectivists don't always seem too adequate (and I didn't say smart).
Furthermore we don't have a lie detector here.
However, just as it was evident, mine was a metaphor which had an intellectual significance, if you didn't get it it's not my fault.
By some measures, hallucination in schizophrenia is related to dopamine excess or over sensitivity to dopamine (a brain neurotransmitter). It might be viewed as a source of stimulation for the hallucinations. Often there is some other stimulation as well, sometimes arising from emotional stress.
There are also reflex reactions that arise from deep in the brain. Its why you may jump when you see out of the corner of your eye a stick or a hose coiled up in the lawn. Part of your ancient brain registers "Snake!," and you move before you even know why.
Last edited:
Posting this here before the topic goes in a different direction. Highly recommended.
https://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/2011/01/welcome-to-how-to-listen.html
Hugo
https://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/2011/01/welcome-to-how-to-listen.html
Hugo
- Status
- Not open for further replies.