Certainly true, but other than the fact that they probably weren't in exactly the same physical position, so the sound wasn't absolutely equivalent, I'd contend that we're no longer talking about the stimulus. We're talking about what they had for breakfast, how much their arthritis hurts and probably the local weather conditions. Actually, we talking about everything that's ever happened to them to bring them to this point in time. Interesting, but absolutely useless for deciding if equipment designs are better or worse. I'll stick with my measurements and maybe a nice rum and Coke for use as a tone control.
CH
I'm not happy with MP3's and I try not to use them, actually in my two MP3 players I have half music in WAV (and the other half in high bitrate MP3).
But...when I tried to connect my Creative Zen through Chord iChord to my main system's amp, I was surprised by the very listenable, actually enjoyable, sound. 🙂
I don't like the loss of refinement MP3 brings, but the music I love remains the music I love, and listening to it (even on the go) is priceless!
Ok, maybe one could sum it up like this?
One can measure what the ear percieves but it's a totally different ballgame when it comes to interpreting those measurements.
We're no where near understanding how the brain decodes the signals from the ears.(Ok, we do understand some but not all) We've only scratched the surface of understanding how a person percieves music and the intricate details there in.
One can measure what the ear percieves but it's a totally different ballgame when it comes to interpreting those measurements.
We're no where near understanding how the brain decodes the signals from the ears.(Ok, we do understand some but not all) We've only scratched the surface of understanding how a person percieves music and the intricate details there in.
There's a logic contradiction here, because "perception" relates to the mind and not to physical facts alone (not even remotely). So no one can measure what the ear/mind perceives. 😉
Last edited:
Uhm? Isn't that pretty much what I wrote?
I suppose one could replace percieve with register for the ear part?
I suppose one could replace percieve with register for the ear part?
Whatever... You can't isolate the ear part from the brain/mind part! Man isn't a merely physical entity, he's so much more...
That is exactly correct. Which is why when one is interested in determining whether a change in a system causes a perceptible change in perception because of the sound, one needs to do a controlled test, i.e., remove influences other than the sound. Otherwise, there are a million (at least) other factors that could change perception, totally unrelated to the reality of the sound wave.
However, in fact, man perceives reality through a coherent synthesis of all the different sensory perceptions involved (because they always are all involved).
So if you remove the contribution of all the other 4 (or whatever) senses, and leave the hearing to do all the job (of knowing reality, however directly sound-related in our case) alone, the kind of knowledge you get to will be more limited, more uncertain, or at least you'll get there much more slowly.
Which must explain why in blind tests even the "better" audiophiles are reported (because I was never interested in trying that myself) to be fooled easily...
I find it interesting to also relate this to the way the blind and deaf tend to develop other, mysterious to us, faculties for knowing (interacting with) reality, when fatally deprived of those natural sensory faculties of man. It makes me think that the senses act as a whole, so that when one is compromised the others must develop more...
Last edited:
Precisely the opposite. Don't control things and you end up spinning your wheels endlessly following false leads and working on stuff that has nothing whatever to do with the sound. If that entertains you, great, but for goodness sake, don't attribute it to any sort of reality.
I will argue that the body (and ear) are just sensory organs and easily distinguishable from the mind. The mind is doing all the interpretation of the signals sent byt the rest of the body.
A microphone and a general pressure sensor will measure what the ear and body registers. (I doubt there is much smell involved?) Interpreting the data otoh will be difficult.
One should be able to use the data for one thing though with current technological knowledge. If there is no measurable difference there is no difference for the ear/mind to pick up.
Now comes the debate about ear vs measured sesitivity. Is the ear better than the equipment and so forth...
A microphone and a general pressure sensor will measure what the ear and body registers. (I doubt there is much smell involved?) Interpreting the data otoh will be difficult.
One should be able to use the data for one thing though with current technological knowledge. If there is no measurable difference there is no difference for the ear/mind to pick up.
Now comes the debate about ear vs measured sesitivity. Is the ear better than the equipment and so forth...
Not really: sound is in correspondence with all of the other aspects of realty (color, taste...). Everything is in correspondence with something else that man tends to oppose - by creating endless isolated cathegories of reality - if you look deeply enough. Unfortunately, rational reason (which is directly responsible for all these endless divisions and oppositions) alone can't get to an in-depth knowledge of reality (even less so of man's inner reality) by any means, by its own nature.
Last edited:
Ah really? I would reckon that you can practically isolate the mind from the body then 🙂 i.e. you can locate the mind, and thus prove that certainly it must be distinguished from what you call the body.
And isn't the brain part of the body? Can you possibly isolate the mind from the brain? 😉
Therefore, and since brain-ears are just one sensory machine, can you separate them from the mind?
Many audiophiles (and whoever wants to make it a science) have this funny aim of objectifying something which is diverse by nature (mainly due to the mind part of the equation); thus proving that despite all their pretensions of rationality, they don't get to the real "human nature" thing at all; and that, just by virtue of their supremely rational approach, they have a most subjective understanding of man (and of their particular interest in audiophile audio).
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.