Its useful to calibrate each person's usage of the terms, I'm a bit clearer now how you use the words. In which case in your idiolect I needn't use 'perception' at all.
Seems by using 'if' you're potentially denying their experience. Markw4 stated they found the possibility they made a difference which I took to mean in their reality sometimes the sound was changed. But you refuted that with 'No they have not' which I take to deny that was their experience. Whether or not that experience arose from delusion is beside the point here.
The knowledge to which I am referring is that established in my cognitive model of the world. And in that model I know that Bybees are a fake because they are even sold as such. It is not my mind that is closed.
Go with what suits you. But @soundbloke uses perception for cognitive model so you'd likely get confused if you interacted with him.
Use it when that is what you are talking about.
No.
To clarify anything that has been misunderstood or where my replies might have been lax, Markw4 (as an example) is and was delusional in any experience/perception that Bybees make an audible difference.
Matt I tried to find it but it’s a bit like Facebook trying to find anything here!
Somebody bought and tested the in-line bybees back in 2012 .....real measurements and subjective. Ended up with tiny resistance and mostly inductance (can’t recall #) but one of the findings was there was some kind of signal dependence.
Somebody bought and tested the in-line bybees back in 2012 .....real measurements and subjective. Ended up with tiny resistance and mostly inductance (can’t recall #) but one of the findings was there was some kind of signal dependence.
The fact that you can be shown what is inside that thing and continue this discussion is very disappointing.
Why not? Its a conditional and admits the possibility they didn't experience what they said they experienced.
So now you wish to take back your 'No they have not'?
Markw4's original statement claimed that Bybees can be audible. They are not audible. If some people state they are not audible, it makes no difference to my response.
No I do not. Anyone who states they have heard the effects of Bybee devices are deluded.
So the presence of Bybees guarantees no delusions can be heard?
Looks to me like an inconsistency then. Markw4's statement was about some people's experience and you looked to deny that with 'No they have not'. What were you referring to if not their experience?
Which looks like a deflection to me and not the content of your original claim. But do show me my error if not.
I did not say that.
I referred to the fact that such an experience was delusional.
I refer you to Markw4's statement.
Do you have anything constructive to offer this discussion or are you merely trying to derail a discussion with pedantry? Do show me how if not.
Just as further clarification, I started in this thread by refuting (with good reason) the argument that objective measures (as currently available), blindly applied or otherwise, were sufficient to show whether something was audible or not. I further pointed out that there also exists uncertainty in subjective testing because delusion was a fallibility of which we all are capable of experiencing (no matter how good we believe our hearing to be). Essentially I described a fuzzy, ill-defined "middle ground".
I had no "camp" to stand in, no axe to ground and no real reason to contribute other than boredom during a lock down. But it has become increasingly clear to me that there is one side in this debate who are open to rational discussion and one side that cannot be. It is disappointing because my interest in audio engineering started in this field subjectively many decades ago. So I ask again, how does one who prides themselves on their hearing ability ever let it be known that they cannot hear the insertion of a particular device?
I had no "camp" to stand in, no axe to ground and no real reason to contribute other than boredom during a lock down. But it has become increasingly clear to me that there is one side in this debate who are open to rational discussion and one side that cannot be. It is disappointing because my interest in audio engineering started in this field subjectively many decades ago. So I ask again, how does one who prides themselves on their hearing ability ever let it be known that they cannot hear the insertion of a particular device?
Indeed you did not, it was a question of mine to try to get a handle on your use of the word 'audible'. If something's 'audible' in your idiolect does that mean it cannot be heard as a result of delusion?
But to refer to delusion you'd have had to actually use that word 'delusion' would you not? But you didn't.
Not trying to derail anything, just exploring the extent of your self-consistency as you did with Markw4 over the 'innumerable' claim he made. Highlighting an inconsistency in your words to me is pertinent to the discussion just as repeated highlighting Markw4's omission of examples to support his contention appeared to be to you.
Are you open to acknowledgement of your own inconsistency in this particular matter or not?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.