There's some heated discussion in this Objective Fullrange Driver Comparison thread, same old "sounds good" versus "measures good" arguments.
Outside of the diyAudio community, there's this big dress color debate/meme/buzz thing going on.
I think there may be some parallels here. You can "measure" the colors on the dress, e.g. RGB values as the Wired article did. And someone familiar with RGB values ought to be able to predict what the dress's colors would look like. But instead you have different people seeing different things.
Perhaps if the dress was viewed under the visual equivalent of an anechoic chamber, everyone might see it the same?
It appears to me that the brain has some additional "processing circuitry" for vision, something that known measurements can't predict. If that is indeed true, it's not a stretch to think the same applies to sound processing in the brain.
Outside of the diyAudio community, there's this big dress color debate/meme/buzz thing going on.
I think there may be some parallels here. You can "measure" the colors on the dress, e.g. RGB values as the Wired article did. And someone familiar with RGB values ought to be able to predict what the dress's colors would look like. But instead you have different people seeing different things.
Perhaps if the dress was viewed under the visual equivalent of an anechoic chamber, everyone might see it the same?
It appears to me that the brain has some additional "processing circuitry" for vision, something that known measurements can't predict. If that is indeed true, it's not a stretch to think the same applies to sound processing in the brain.
The "additional processing" that the brain does for sound is to ignore the reflected sound, to focus on the direct sound.
Take two people, one that can easily ignore reflected sound, and someone that can't.
It is not surprising that the same stereo could sound different to either of them.
Take two people, one that can easily ignore reflected sound, and someone that can't.
It is not surprising that the same stereo could sound different to either of them.
We are all different and we each perceive things in our own unique way. Does that dress still look pretty when worn by a man? not to me it don't but it might to some out there 🙄
Consensus on anything is rare, if it happens at all, it's usually because we have been won over by a convincing enough argument.
Consensus on anything is rare, if it happens at all, it's usually because we have been won over by a convincing enough argument.
Yes sound and light have many similarities
white reflects the 'local color' off screen (to me obviously)
color as light is an additive process.
direct sound + room reflected sound is also additive at our ears.
white reflects the 'local color' off screen (to me obviously)
color as light is an additive process.
direct sound + room reflected sound is also additive at our ears.
You need to be careful that you are not conflating two different issues. "What colour is this dress" is a question about human perception of colour; from there we could go on to determine what physical characteristics cause most people to see 'blue'. "Are these two dresses the same colour" is another useful question, assuming the test is done with eyes alone. We should be suspicious of people who claim to be able to distinguish between two different shades of blue, but then lose this ability when they are prevented from reading the label.matt_garman said:
"Do you like this dress" is a question about personal taste, as are many "sounds good" issues in audio.
Agreed and very likely - exactly why so many folk judge what they like hearing as correct, when the brain is merely misinforming them. And the dress was clearly white and orange lmao
I.e. The brain is very good at justifying misconception, hallucinations and holographic auditory hifi experiences, far more adept at doing so than any loudspeaker.
Last edited:
Quite unnecessary.
There are plenty of examples where the human brain tricks the conscious mind of its owner.
That's what i thought too.
Maybe he was providing an example of a brain fart....
Having a laugh from time to time is quite necessary. Doctors say so.
Or is it the mind that tricks the conscious brain? Who's the boss? Who likes submission? Actually it would be easier to say we're being fooled all the time: by the brain, by the mind and by unfaithful friends.
Last edited:
Lighting can be corrected for, so that the camera gets a good shot. Monitors can be calibrated. You don't even need an anechoic chamber equivalent, just enough data to correctly white-balance it at the time and place the picture was taken, and then view it on a decent monitor. For analogies, recording EQ (lacking) and then room correction EQ (mostly lacking).
If tilting your monitor vertically changes colors you see, instead of slight washing out, our monitor is a very weak link (TN), and should not be trusted to use for color, any more than a pair of Beats should be trusted for anything more than a fashion statement. Ideally, you should have some confidence that your monitor aligns closely to sRGB, if not Adobe RGB. May TNs, and some eIPS, will have poor whites, such that anything fairly bright looks near-white, and near-blacks will look much lighter than they should. Given the gobs and gobs of blue (as viewed with PVA, S-IPS, and AH-IPS monitors, that all had factory calibration for sRGB, and of which 2 are very near Adobe RGB on 'standard' settings, based on reviews), with no source for it other than the cloth, that's the only way I can think anyone would be able to see it as white.
If tilting your monitor vertically changes colors you see, instead of slight washing out, our monitor is a very weak link (TN), and should not be trusted to use for color, any more than a pair of Beats should be trusted for anything more than a fashion statement. Ideally, you should have some confidence that your monitor aligns closely to sRGB, if not Adobe RGB. May TNs, and some eIPS, will have poor whites, such that anything fairly bright looks near-white, and near-blacks will look much lighter than they should. Given the gobs and gobs of blue (as viewed with PVA, S-IPS, and AH-IPS monitors, that all had factory calibration for sRGB, and of which 2 are very near Adobe RGB on 'standard' settings, based on reviews), with no source for it other than the cloth, that's the only way I can think anyone would be able to see it as white.
apparently the original digital photograph was exposed such that it's 'blown out' to within a couple of bits dynamic range and probably further processed to accentuate the high lights to trick us. This would never happen viewed in real life lighting conditions, sorta like looking at the world right after a bright flash has hit our eyes.
Its like being asked to review a HiFi speaker system on Utoob
Its like being asked to review a HiFi speaker system on Utoob
Last edited:
The experience you get from music is a different experience that the one you get from visual arts, people have written essays about this....
Anyway this is all very silly. Sorry to say. Should we start talking about perspective ?
Anyway this is all very silly. Sorry to say. Should we start talking about perspective ?
Sex is also some kind of trickery and no-one complains. Enjoy music if you can, if you don't don't listen. It is really that simple. Oh and a sure way of not enjoying anything is by over-analyzing.
I'm an self appointed painter / artist as well an a trained electronics designer. colour theory is pretty interesting and can get deep as you want, unfortunately I get caught up in the details of paint pigments, the processes, and mediums for example like oil glazing. perspective is pretty generic to 'realism' styles and that is a tired subject to most modern artists I think.
sex ? no one complains on audio forums for sure, there are other places I can point you to read all the complaints you want.
Diego Velázquez painter from Saville perhaps the all time greatest,
I would love to see a few of his , up close in real life.
one of his most famous located in Madrid have you seen it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Meninas
Last edited:
I'm that too (among other things, hehe). Your avatar shows good taste.
It's crazy what the eye can see and it's also crazy what the ear can hear. You only need to stay awake.
*Yeah Velazquez. Not my fav but he was awesome.
Last edited:
Thanks man🙂
I remember discussing your 1st handle round here. being somewhat a fan of Tarkovsky too.
like all good art , music, sometimes the best films are left open only to feelings, analyzing them for universal meaning is almost useless.
I remember discussing your 1st handle round here. being somewhat a fan of Tarkovsky too.
like all good art , music, sometimes the best films are left open only to feelings, analyzing them for universal meaning is almost useless.
I do photography (cant be bothered with painting these days) and have all my monitors and printer calibrated (I also have different light sources to check my prints under...), as the eye cant be trusted. Funnily when this was compared to audio the hard core "we hear everything" were also the supporters of setting up monitors by eye is the best method..... Yet we have automatic white balance etc.
Now a discussion on depth of field and bokeh (especially bokeh) would be a better choice for a good debate🙂
Now a discussion on depth of field and bokeh (especially bokeh) would be a better choice for a good debate🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.