That would depend on the target market and how exclusive you want them to believe they are
Exactly, there are things going on between the ears that can only be explained on a subconscious level, for example.....have you ever just ‘known’ something but had no idea why? Call it intuition, call it predication, a hunch.....whatever, you call it it’s usually best paid attention to.
Yes well as unique as most seem to want to believe they are I’m gonna go out on a limb and say we’re much more alike than different.
Let me speak British so you understand......Bullocks!
I’m capable of acquiring knowledge on a subconscious level.....even as a child. Example; I grew up in a rural farming community, one day as a small child I’d heard the term ‘why don’t you go play on the yellow line’ well this kindly stayed with me as a curiosity......where was this yellow line? And why should I go play on it? Until one day they paved the dirt road we lived on and put a beautiful yellow stripe right down the middle, there it was my glorious yellow line to play on! Before the paint even dried I had my matchbox cars out playing cars on the new pavement following the luminous yellow line as if it were the yellow brick road......this occurred at the age of 4 as near as I can figure out and is one of a handful of early memories I can remember like it was yesterday, the smells of the fresh tar and paint ....the complete joy in the moment. Anyway the point is even as engrossed as I was with playing when I heard a car coming I would pack up and go to side waiting for him to pass, there was absolutely zero thought process involved in this it just happened, about a half dozen times before I was spotted by grandma who came running out of the house screaming like a banshee! I explained calmly that it was ok to play on the yellow line and that’s what it was there for......she then retorted with my first lesson in sarcasm!
Exactly
Again.....Bullocks!
If their targeting that small of market it’s not very good business and y’all have nothing to fret. 😀
Are you suggesting learning to correlate head related transfer function with positional awareness is a conscious process?
How small is "that"? It's the business model, how many people buy Bentleys, excluding Mr Marsh?
I stand corrected 😛
People with Bentleys are not going to suffer poverty from overspending on a dac......pain free for everyone as near as I can tell.
Last edited:
Why can't people answer straightforward questions and feel compelled to go off on bizzare tangents at every/any opportunity? 😉
Silbatone announced a limited 10 unit release of the RI-25 amplifier in 2011.
The lounge is nothing but bizarre tangents......just trying to fit in!
If you want straightforward. What difference does it make to anyone? if anything all the fuss will bring attention and curiosity from potential clientele, hmmmm......maybe that’s part of the master plan! 😉
Limited edition is a good marketing plan. Fostex issued a limited number of drivers at a silly price in presentation box that may well never get used, purely an investment.
Isn't it a matter of definition?
Of course different theories about learning exist, but I've a faint memory that the term "cognitive learning" was/is defined in a way based on conscious activity.
@mountain bob,
why so harsh?
There is a lot of evidence for the theory that our internal representations of the outer world are quite far from "reality" . Interpretation of stimuli from the outer world, delivered via the physiological functions is part of the brain and what our mind thinks about "realitiy" is already a processed version of it.
So it is an illusion, but based on reality.
As long as we know why one uses the terms and about the meaning these terms are supposed to convey it should work.
The term "delusion" in audio related discussion is often used with a negative connotation but soundbloke's explanation should be sufficient to get his rationale behind the usage.
Harsh.....ehhh
As a realist or at least one who goes to great lengths to ensure (assure?) reality is as it seems, I find the excuses unacceptable.
As a realist or at least one who goes to great lengths to ensure (assure?) reality is as it seems, I find the excuses unacceptable.
Last edited:
I don't understand what you mean with "unacceptable excuses" .
A lot of experiments were made to examine what our senses/brain/mind team does and there is a lot of internal work done to establish an internal representation that is consistent with our experiences. That's why I so often emphasized in the past the nonlinearity of humans (seen as a system) response and the intersubject variability in the context of the usual stereophonic reproduction. We (means brain/mind team) are constantly trying to form from the cues, given by the sound events reproduced by the reproduction system, an internal representation that fits (in the best way) to our memorized experience of reality.
Objectively there is a big difference between the original sound events and the two-channel stereophonic reproduction of it, but that it nevertheless can be quite convincing is the result of the hard work done by our brain.
Last edited:
Agreed. We can understand what he means.
However, it seems to me there already is a better set of terms for what he wants to say. Why is it not sufficient to use existing terminology and call normally perceived reality 'constructed,' as in, "our perception of reality is an internally constructed model, not reality itself.' That leaves room for the normal misperception found in listening comparisons to be more properly described as illusion rather than as delusion.
Changing the subject for a moment, if there is something new to be learned about the correlation between measurements and perception then opening a new thread for the topic might be a wonderful idea. Don't want another useless never-ending debate though.
You are indeed under a common delusion. It is impossible to imagine yourself as you were as a child when you acquired the knowledge that you describe. Instead you are describing yourself the with the knowledge you have learned at that time since.
No because your brain is not aware of what a head related transfer function is. You become consciously aware of objects and their position, after which you have learned that association and it becomes a process that no longer requires conscious awareness until you perceive an error in that model.
Last edited:
Definition and application... You cannot perceive anything unless it first raises consciousness. As I tried to point out above (rather badly, sorry), it is different from learning in other parts of our neural network which we do not perceive - but of which we cannot then be aware.
One interesting point is that we are constrained to talking of matters here or anywhere in a single dimension of time, when information processed by our cognitive apparatus is known to exploit higher orders.
Not always! 🙂
Nothing I have said is meant to be negative or intended as a insult. It is more than likely too that we are have one common spectacular delusion in common - that being the perception of our "ethereal" selves. But that is stretching the topic of this thread somewhat and heading into a philosophical circle...
Please provide references for your claims.
I ask because what you say sounds like it comes from a mix education/reading and your own imagination/conclusions. When it comes to the subject of learning it sounds like something derivative of Piaget's theories.