Hard to pin down a moving target.......your all over the place, if you can’t see it then there’s no point.
Yes Matt, it took a bit of digging but it’s there.......has to do with subliminal cues as related in psychoacoustics.
All above my pay grade!
Yes Matt, it took a bit of digging but it’s there.......has to do with subliminal cues as related in psychoacoustics.
All above my pay grade!
Last edited:
WHERE??? WHERE ARE MY CONSTANT ERRORS???
What colours? Which side? I have explicitly criticised the "fundamental" objectivists. What you appear to dislike is someone who offers an opinion that differs from your own or that asks for rigour to back up your assertions.
They are all nonsense and, once again, I have asked explicitly for a scientific explanation of how they 'work'.
Yes, I could change my mind because I am open-minded.
Then the comments were not astute. Maybe he can contribute for himself? I have never stated anything that "skips" past psychology or that dismisses it. I have pointed out instead that it is behavioural modelling and different from the mechanisms of perception that I have been discussing.
Indeed you have invited it, but when it came from me you queried my motives, my purpose in criticizing.
Do you think merely inviting criticism is sufficient?
No, I answered your query. And clarified my response. You then implied I was deluded, to which I replied my perception of your motivation was something I would keep to myself. Please do not try and deflect the discussion from the topic. It has gotten to be tiresome.
So let's get this clear - you are now denying that you questioned my motives, my purpose in criticizing?
Thank you Bob, I shall be interested to read them when you post them, genuinely, I'm not just trying to be a pain in the *** 🙂
I never said anything like that to deny. As far as I see, you misunderstood something I said and I clarified my position. And as I have stated already, I have kept my perception of your motivations to myself. Such judgements are out of place here, good or bad.
More obfuscation. So back to my earlier question to you, which was :
Do you think its sufficient merely to invite criticism?
No, you are obfuscating the fact that I answered your question, because that would mean you having to admit I wasn't denying anything - unless you can enlighten me of your other motivation?
No, and that is not just what I have done. I have tried to answer all the questions that I have been asked. And I continue to do so. Do you have any criticism of what i have presented in this thread that I can answer for you?
How about you enlighten me of the relevance to the topic of my motivation first?
I have not questioned your motivation or stated whether it was relevant or not. If you think it is important then please tell us.
I don't know how they work, I've never even seen one in person. What or actually who I do know is someone like the two extraordinary listeners you described earlier. On the specific topic of Bybees, he said they can have a small effect, usually to make a good system sound worse, and to make a bad system sound better. Since I trust the listener based on his very exceptional past performance, I allow that Bybees may indeed have a sound under some conditions. The listener I refer to is one who Nelson Pass once described as "still having one of the best pairs of ears in the business" and who John Curl said was the only person he would trust to listen in his stead. In my view Bybees can have a sound until proven otherwise using sufficiently skilled blind listening. I hold that view just as strongly as you hold the view they are nonsense. Can I change my mind, sure, just like you can.
As a result, so long as you continue to insist Bybees are nonsense, I will opine you are no more objective that I am.
Perhaps I misunderstood - you'd said :
' - unless you can enlighten me of your motivation?'
You raised motivation as a topic, I would like to know why its relevant here? Why even introduce the word ?
Did I misunderstand the part of your post I quoted?
' - unless you can enlighten me of your motivation?'
You raised motivation as a topic, I would like to know why its relevant here? Why even introduce the word ?
Did I misunderstand the part of your post I quoted?
And as you or anyone else cannot supply any evidence of them working or any credible explanation of how they could work (and even after being shown in a photograph this forum that shows they have nothing that could make them work), I will maintain my perception that anyone who says they have a physical effect is deluded. That is my objectively, well-considered opinion. I care not if anyone disagrees.
Yes, and yours of you I concluded from the evidence available to me at this time.
You stated I had obfuscated something. I stated I had not and that you were instead obfuscating your error by stating I was doing the obfuscating. That statement was my presumption and I asked you, that if I was wrong in that presumption, that you tell me why else you would behave in such a manner. You didn't answer that question. I no longer care.
Do you have a question concerning the technical content I have posted? Or do you have anything constructive to add?