The more we know, the better. In audio we haven't yet arrived at the point where we have the knowledge that would allow us to explain such a simple thing like summing localization. Hence every single detail that might look unimportant could be of significant value. We first have to collect these "minute details", then we can start to evaluate their importance. Sorry if that sounds like a very "German" process to you but in the end we'll probably know something new. Sounds appealing to me.
Best, Markus
"And yes the tuning does change, but it doesn't change the frequency response, it changes the sensitivity at the frequency of those hairs....we have about 120 dB range to sound. The remaining 60 dB is done by mechanically tuning and detuning the physical system to keep it within the 60 dB range that the nuerons are capable of."
So the tuning always changes all the hairs together to adjust dynamic range?
Because if the sensitivity of only some are changed, it would affect freq response.
So the tuning always changes all the hairs together to adjust dynamic range?
Because if the sensitivity of only some are changed, it would affect freq response.
a few weeks ago, I did a demo of switching polarity to a group of over 10 people in a normal meeting room one side glass wall. Some people heard the difference, some people did not, some people could describe the difference they heard.
Some people even hear a difference when an unconnected button is pressed. These kind of tests are absolutely useless.
Yes Markus, I have to agree with you here. I've seen and done so many of these kinds of "null" changes being "heard" that I know they are meaningless.
Markus
I have nothing against what you suggest, it just doesn't seem very practical to do things that way. It's expensive and time consuming and those are two things are usually in very short supply (they are with me). And if the reward at the end is anticipated to be be marginal or risking (the way that I see it) then not many are going to take up these sorts of tasks. But be my guest!
"The tuning chnges are dominately a change in sensitivity at a particular frequency which is used cognitively to allow for an extension of the dynamic range. "
I don't mean to be dense, but I don't see why more sensitivity at one band of freq but not others doesn't equate to different freq response.
Or is it that it would if you were measuring it with an instrument but perceptually it doesn't sound like it?
I don't mean to be dense, but I don't see why more sensitivity at one band of freq but not others doesn't equate to different freq response.
Or is it that it would if you were measuring it with an instrument but perceptually it doesn't sound like it?
That's like saying there is no association between the brain and behavior.
Thats not what I said at all. The association is nonlinear - extremely important since there is not usually a strong "linear" corellation in a nonlinear system and I said that the correlation bewteen cell firings and "preception" is not a strong one. Lets not take this statement too far however.
What I was saying is that we are not going to learn a great deal about "perception", which has a very strong cognitive aspect to it, by looking at cell firings. It's like trying to understand gravity by looking at electron motion - the connection is very weak, not that it doesn't exist. Its simply better to look at planets if we want to study gravity as the linkage is much stronger.
Thank God, science does not need to be practical
That's how science works. Example: Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 3 Billion Euros
- 10000 scientists and engineers involved
- Took decades to build
- Outcome?
I have seldom seen tests like this absolutely useless, mainly the inability to interprete what's going on. I have never seen any listening test that is conducted without any questionable aspects either.
Last edited:
Looks like you didn't understand what I wrote: Even if there's no real difference, people tend to believe to hear a difference just because someone told them that something has changed.
This is basic knowledge and this error would have to be eliminated in any scientific experiment. You're arguing on a level no serious scientist would even talk to you.
This is basic knowledge and this error would have to be eliminated in any scientific experiment. You're arguing on a level no serious scientist would even talk to you.
Show me a listening test that has no error!
Lots of the listening results can be explained by certain measurements that cause masking effects, probably 100% of the listening tests don't even log the proper systems measurements data, yet claim inaudibility of certain things. If you can show me one listening test that is accurate beyond doubt, I will read what it talks about and tell you where it is lacking. If I cannot, then I will retreat from this thread.
As for polarity testing, in the particular session that I last mentioned, some people admit that they hear significant difference in some of the playback material, but not in others. I think this tells enough that people know whether they hear the difference or not. It is the same experience I have had as well.
Last edited:
Please look up the difference between a scientific experiment and listening tests like the one you performed. Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George - this doesn't mean a thing. Random guesses would have the same effect.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.