You are confusing two different areas of the brain.
Our perception is only a mapping of reality. It is not reality. The mapping is non-linear and hysteretic with no guarantee of fidelity to the reality on which it is based.
No surprise there, everything audible is physical so it must be measurable. Question is can you work it backwards, can you predict from looking at measurements whether your amazing test subjects will find fault with an audio device, predict how they will perceive it?
Accuracy in reproduction is my ‘better’ and by that I mean, it’s so believable that your bringing the performance into your listening room.
Yah,yah.......how do you know what it sounded like if you weren’t there?
Thats where the experience comes in, I wouldn’t expect someone who’d never been exposed to music at its source to get it. But if you’ve put in the time it’s a little different.
Soundbloke, exactly what I meant by psychobabble.......reality is real, what is real for me is real for you, unless your the delusional one?
YouTube
Yah,yah.......how do you know what it sounded like if you weren’t there?
Thats where the experience comes in, I wouldn’t expect someone who’d never been exposed to music at its source to get it. But if you’ve put in the time it’s a little different.
Soundbloke, exactly what I meant by psychobabble.......reality is real, what is real for me is real for you, unless your the delusional one?
YouTube
Last edited:
That perceptual apparatus in the mind that processes sound before we hear it in conscious awareness is also part of System 1. It constitutes the vast majority of the mind. It does many things, but you can't observe how it does any of it. Its operation is hidden from what you consider to be you, that is to say, hidden from your conscious awareness. Jeez, study Kahneman (and a few others) in depth if you can find the time, its well worth it.
That is not strictly true because it is evidently possible to hear things that are not real. The "voices" of serial killers and the passing of London Underground trains on certain recordings spring immediately to mind.
You will find exactly that target expressed in some of my other posts in this forum and in this thread. Given the amount of general confusion even regarding what measurements are on this forum, I am thinking of starting a new thread in the hope of developing such models further. But as a general pointer once again, our perceptual apparatus exploits at least third-order analysis, so it is highly unlikely to arrive at such a test with only existing second-order measures.
There are several models existing for human memory and and incorporated a first time span during which the raw auditory input is processed but vanishes quit fast (depending on the specific model it ranges from a few hundred milliseconds to roughly 5s), then there is in one model the so-called "working memory" and at the end the longterm storage.
It is assumed that the more brain areas are participarting in categorizing of the information while transferring it to the longterm memory the better the longterm storage and further that this memory could be lasting longlife (access/retrieval of it might be gtting more difficult later/after very long time, though)
The premise is an active process on the auditory information.
Beside that, there seems to exist a more direct pathway for auditory information (to brain and storage) that is not related to conscious processing.
Last edited:
I have but I have moved along with my profession to more up-to-date models of the workings of the brain.
I have some experience working with people suffering from the hearing of voices. It it not at all the same thing as misperception of music reproduction. I could go into detail about differential diagnosis between the two, but will leave off here for now.
It is more accurately expressed as a short time window in which we process events according to our emotive response. Where that emotive response is sufficient (and where we have first discerned a difference between our senses and our pre-existing perception), so we are increasingly likely to establish the new information in our cognitive memory. And thus the model of a short-term and a long-term memory arises.
Delusion in our perception is the same wherever it arises in our cognition, not least because our cognitive apparatus is the same throughout our brain.
In my experience that represents a major difficultiy wrt perceptual evaluation that listeners have to master.
While the auditory events trigger an instant emotional response the evaluation part requires analytical (hence conscious) processing of the information, and establishing another internal representation by usage of descriptors for sonical properties.
I agree with you on that. As for figuring out what caused you to like or dislike, numbers would be useful.
I would say it is more of a difficulty for those who advocate blind testing. We are all capable of learning and of mastering that learning in any particular field (at least so far as our sensory abilities allow). But modelling such a capability would be a very significant undertaking.
The two system model of cognition is not a model of the brain nor is it intended to be. It is only one part of a body of experimental research that remains very important for many purposes and for multiple fields of study. Its taught in business schools, in Economics, in Medicine, used by the US Military (now studied and emulated by China), etc. Kahneman is still worth in-depth study, but one can imagine that its not without having to do any work to find out what it is.
Of course there is also Tetlock's work. People are looking to his Good Judgement Project to predict the geopolitical future of the world, so far is group has outperformed the NSA, the CIA, and US Military Intelligence all combined. And his group does it without any access to classified information.
Wall Street wants in on it too. Tetlock's research mostly focuses on the mind (a useful abstraction), and less so the physical structure of the brain.
You aren't the only one here that likes to jump to conclusions when you don't know enough. Hoped for better from you.
Have a nice day 🙂
I am not sure of how any of that is of relevance to this discussion. Indeed Tetlock's exposition might be regarded as the antithesis of the subject herein.
What conclusions? What jumps? It was establish long ago that the cerebrum is homogeneous throughout its extent.
How do you know if he really is or it's just a claim? Or perhaps you can ask him about it the same style as the following quote.
Hahaha!
Do not worry about hurting my sentiments, I am not so sensitive and could care less about your opinions as well. When you suggest that something has high levels of distortion, well, guess what, those are measurable. You are wrong in this case, there are not "high levels of distortion" in the output of the AKM 4499. Now if you have some other criticism of this chip you are welcome to point that out for discussion, but distortion is readily measurable and is already proven to not be a problem.
Also, I would prefer to use this DAC in its "direct DSD" mode, which passes the DSD input directly to the conversion stage, skipping the delta sigma modulator entirely. In this case, the theoretical SDM distortions you speak of are not an issue. This approach instead would use the DS modulator in the conversion software, which running on a computer can be many times more sophisticated than that applied on a small chip, such as to avoid any problems with the maths (much higher precision maths can be applied).
Do not worry about hurting my sentiments, I am not so sensitive and could care less about your opinions as well. When you suggest that something has high levels of distortion, well, guess what, those are measurable. You are wrong in this case, there are not "high levels of distortion" in the output of the AKM 4499. Now if you have some other criticism of this chip you are welcome to point that out for discussion, but distortion is readily measurable and is already proven to not be a problem.
Also, I would prefer to use this DAC in its "direct DSD" mode, which passes the DSD input directly to the conversion stage, skipping the delta sigma modulator entirely. In this case, the theoretical SDM distortions you speak of are not an issue. This approach instead would use the DS modulator in the conversion software, which running on a computer can be many times more sophisticated than that applied on a small chip, such as to avoid any problems with the maths (much higher precision maths can be applied).
Hearing voices is the same as misperception of music reproduction? Really?
If someone is hearing voice and you titrate them up on olanzipine over three days, the vast majority of such people will stop hearing voices before the end of the third day.
It is then your position that olanzipine should prevent misperception of music reproduction?