I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#13,927
Hi,

terry j said:
has to be of some value? That amount will be different to each I'll grant you!

Maybe to Tom it will have the biggest significance, no matter which way it goes😀

Still, I think you are right. If it comes up negative, then it will NOT change for one second someone out there who thinks 'Ahh, he cannot but I can hear these differences'.

About the only possible change I can see is if Tom did in fact hear the differences, and SY for one would be very intrigued (I hazard) and possibly start some investigation of his own.

Pure simple intellectual curiosity I'd say.

In any case, your question has me wondering. Why did you post this just a little while ago?? So, let's develop an acceptable test method to at least establish or not the audiblilty of this and other doubted cable areas and be done with it.

Can I assume that from what you know of the test to be done, it is significantly flawed?? Is that what lies behind your most recent comment on the matter?

If you have doubts about the methodology I think SY (and all of us) would like to know what it is, that way any improvements can be made.

It will also prevent an after the fact excuse..surely you can understand why that is also important?🙂

Gee, I must be on a lot of peoples ignore...😱...any update on when this might occur?
Click to expand...

Sure, it has "some" value but nothing to write home about. Scientifically speaking it has nil value no matter how wel intendend....

Other than that, yes, you read me perfectly well.😎

Cheers, 😉
 
#13,928
Hi,

abraxalito said:
A quite extraordinary claim. Do you have the extraordinary evidence to back this up? Those who have studied the progress of science (thinking in particular of Kuhn, Feyerabend and Smolin here) found otherwise.
Click to expand...

I've always enjoyed reading Kuhn.
Thank you for bringing that up even though it won't change the fact about me having a theory all of my own.
The biggest resistor to evolution is a man's pride not facts.🙄

Cheers, 😉
 
#13,931
WithTarragon said:
The wiki article states the window goes from 2 - 50 ms. This is nonsense and I can't imagine Dr Blauert would give such a large range. There are a number of phenomenon that loosely fall under this topic (precedence, Haas etc). Yes, there are many data sets. The specific metrics differ and trying to describe them in a general way and to a general audience is not useful (or even possible)
Click to expand...

Why is 2-50ms nonsense? The numbers are from Blauert. You can look it up in Blauert's book "Spatial Hearing".

Up to 2ms we observe summing localization, i.e. the perceived direction of sound is NOT SOLELY determined by the first arriving sound (that would be one part of the presence effect's definition) but by all sounds arriving within that time window. Reflections delayed 50ms or more lead to the perception of echos. 50ms is an average for speech. For percussive sounds like clicks it's much shorter, for music it can be much longer.

The important point is that the precedence effect allows us to perceive a single sound in the presence of multiple reflections. The sound and its reflections is located in the direction of the first arriving sound.
Haas found that within a smaller time window the presence effect is active even if the level of reflections is higher than that of the direct sound.
 
Last edited:
#13,932
Oh, so 'extraordinary' here actually is a subjective, highly contextual term only pertaining to the perception of people who do science. Thanks for clearing that one up, I'd often wondered if that was the case when I'd seen the claim bandied around.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that gibberish means.

Good luck getting anything published in a journal without that pesky evidence stuff.
 
#13,933
Frank, many here would do well reading Kuhn. Science is mostly jerks and starts, and repression before the paradigm shifts. If everyone here would just look at the history of science, many would be very surprised how difficult it was to get almost new idea in place, in spite of even the evidence at the time. People, even smart, educated people, seem to have a big problem with acceptance of new ideas.
 
#13,935
SY said:
I have no idea what that gibberish means.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to express it again in words of fewer syllables.

You produced the saying 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' on this thread.

When I pointed out a claim you made which to me looks extraordinary, you said in effect that must be because I don't 'do science' (whatever that might mean). Implication: "if you did science(TM), it would not appear at all an extraordinary claim".

So my conclusion is that the word 'extraordinary' in your saying is only defined in reference to people who do science(TM) - just because I find your claim extraordinary doesn't mean it really is, because you can use a word with whatever meaning you like.

Any clearer now?

Good luck getting anything published in a journal without that pesky evidence stuff.
Click to expand...

What pesky evidence stuff? I can't follow your gibberish here.
 
#13,938
john curl said:
Frank, many here would do well reading Kuhn. Science is mostly jerks and starts, and repression before the paradigm shifts. If everyone here would just look at the history of science, many would be very surprised how difficult it was to get almost new idea in place, in spite of even the evidence at the time. People, even smart, educated people, seem to have a big problem with acceptance of new ideas.
Click to expand...

It's incredibly presumptious to think there is any profound undiscovered science involved in any of this audio stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom