Same as the list of things humans can't possibly hear, its not a matter of can/can't hear, rather its a matter of degree under particular circumstances.
Some people's lists include claims of no one being able to hear quantizing noise on an undithered CD, they believe 16-bits is already overkill. Other people's list includes the phase shift from a 100kHz pole that PMA heard.
The first quote is you excepting yourself from your own rules......You don’t leave a whole lot of room in how your coming across for any others to possibly be able to do so (except for maybe the two you listed early on that surprised you) it’s almost as if a person isn’t qualified by someone such as yourself that any connection to reality couldn’t possibly be so (or at least highly unlikely)
In my opinion of course....as deluded as that might be.
I thought I heard that too, mainly as increased sibilance in the vocals, similar to Pavel's impression.
P.S. I don't consider my hearing acuity to be anything special, remember I have tinnitus, which Planet10, amongst others no doubt, consider grounds enough to dismiss certain posts of mine
Last edited:
That statement is nonsense.
I have never stated that anyone is unable to engage in critical listening to discern audible differences. I state instead that everyone who does is subject to the same uncertainty in their perceptions as anyone else.
“I have never stated that anyone is unable to engage in critical listening to discern audible differences. I state instead that everyone who does is subject to the same uncertainty in their perceptions as anyone else.”
What I’m trying to say is there are varying degrees.....depending on training and experience some are able to tackle these uncertainties with a bit more certainty than others.
You leave no room for a middle ground or taming of this delusional beast in your explanations.
We get that it exists do you get it can be tamed?
What I’m trying to say is there are varying degrees.....depending on training and experience some are able to tackle these uncertainties with a bit more certainty than others.
You leave no room for a middle ground or taming of this delusional beast in your explanations.
We get that it exists do you get it can be tamed?
If you see no holier than though attitude here than you could be deluded too Bill
Maybe I am, becuase I don't. I just see someone approaching the discussion who has come from an academic background. Just language barrier
So they make it up, how is that different from making up claims of what should be audible (with training)? BTW a single 100kHz pole has phase shift at audible frequencies.
It cannot be removed as it appears to be a corollary of the way in which we cognitively resolve the world around us. (It might even have some purpose that evolution has sought to maintain). The uncertainty can (to a large extent) be resolved by objective corroboration, however, but without such measures, the uncertainty remains. Training merely directs one to perceive something, not to establishing certainty that the perception is a faithful representation of reality.
Last edited:
Another one of those blue moons when I'm in agreement with you Bill
I thought we'd already had our agreement for the year?
Of course it does, but PMA said the result 'would never be accepted,' meaning that the amount of phase shift should have been to small to be audible according to published research (and prevailing dogma).
Wow did I?
I just wanted to point to the (for me) fact that the actual implementation is far more important than highlighting and worshiping the absolute parameters of new developed DAC chips.
But please go on...
Seems that kind of talking past each other takes place; if one has never asserted that all perceptions are deluded and the other(s) have never asserted that no delusion can occur, then there should be some ground in the middle....
Unfortunately I don't know about a procedure that is able to remove any uncertainty; it might reduce it, though.
The last sentence in your post could mark the crucial point in the mutual disagreement/misunderstanding as in my understanding, corrobation indeed gives reason to have more confidence in the expert's evaluation.
Up to now I was always able to corrobate my "sighted" impressions by controlled "blind/double-blind" listening tests (taste tests as well btw) when challenged or challenging myself, so I have some confidence in my perceptions, but I still don't claim neither infallibility nor to have better listening abilities than all others. To the contrary, as stated before, in our experiments with listeners I've met people with truly surprising skills, sometimes in peoples who were not the least interested in "hifi reproduction".
Part of the process is being able to realize when differentiating gets very difficult and then to conclude that the uncertainty will be higher.
Of course my assessment is based on my personal point of view wrt to practical relevance (at least to me).
If I don't think the difference is of importance I don't bother to do any controlled test on the effect .
The assertion that regardless of any training the uncertainty range should be considered to be always the same doesn't sound right.
Unfortunately I don't know about a procedure that is able to remove any uncertainty; it might reduce it, though.
The last sentence in your post could mark the crucial point in the mutual disagreement/misunderstanding as in my understanding, corrobation indeed gives reason to have more confidence in the expert's evaluation.
Up to now I was always able to corrobate my "sighted" impressions by controlled "blind/double-blind" listening tests (taste tests as well btw) when challenged or challenging myself, so I have some confidence in my perceptions, but I still don't claim neither infallibility nor to have better listening abilities than all others. To the contrary, as stated before, in our experiments with listeners I've met people with truly surprising skills, sometimes in peoples who were not the least interested in "hifi reproduction".
Part of the process is being able to realize when differentiating gets very difficult and then to conclude that the uncertainty will be higher.
Of course my assessment is based on my personal point of view wrt to practical relevance (at least to me).
If I don't think the difference is of importance I don't bother to do any controlled test on the effect .
The assertion that regardless of any training the uncertainty range should be considered to be always the same doesn't sound right.
So what? Seeing yellow in a video display is not necessarily a faithful perception of reality. The important thing for design of video displays is that humans all tend to experience the same errors/quirks of perception which can be exploited to make an RGB display appear as yellow. We are creating an illusion of accurate reproduction. Therefore we can use a group of trained humans to judge perceived color accuracy. In the end, that is really what we care about anyway. If we wanted to create a display as a calibrated light source for a science experiment then that would be another matter entirely.
That said, we can and do try to measure and model human perception so that we know what will satisfy most people without needing to go to the trouble of getting a lot of people's opinions. When we do that we need to keep in mind we have a model of reality, not reality itself.
Last edited:
I will go further and suggest too that training might even leave one more likely to hear artefacts that are not real. In essence a skilled person is someone with a greater set of possibilities with which to perceive information. The critical factor would be the modulator that drives us/causes us to discern and learn. That modulator might be a result of our individual biochemistry or some learned motivation, likely many other things. And if we want to perceive something out of nothing, there is absolutely nothing that appears to prevent us from doing so - other than a real demonstration that reveals any falsehoods. I have a neighbour who sits in her garden inside a tetrahedral metal frame to keep her healthy. She reassures me every time we talk that her presence is proof it works.
(BTW please do not let this speculative post detract from any of my other contributions in this thread).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.