Growing up in a multi faceted musical background, by this I mean access to the artists,live sound reinforcement,recording, and broadcasting......having had these experiences I believe helps me to keep delusion at bay.
So you believe. And when we are talking of very small audible differences, the certainty we ascribe to individual subjective perceptions is more likely to be misappropriated - particularly if we believe otherwise, which is unfortunately our default assumption.
It does seem to be the majority of people who post on this site, I couldn't say about the wider world but see no reason the same isn't true.
See that’s where my approach comes in handy.....it’s all about the sound, no pre determined
ideas. Results are surprising sometimes, but never biased.
ideas. Results are surprising sometimes, but never biased.
Subjective results are ALWAYS biased according to your prior acquired (predetermined) knowledge.
Apparently, actual listening skills are something you haven't seen for yourself yet. In that case your skepticism is understandable. Maybe you will meet someone eventually who will surprise you. Doesn't sound like you have had an interest in learning skilled listening for yourself.
Acquired and innate, for both System 2 and System 1 (referring to the two system model of cognition).
I’m not gonna get into the psychobabble but after one accumulates enough experience in a field of interest it becomes second nature or intuitive might be a good word......putting objective definition behind the subjective results is what I’m after.
That is your errant perception. I have been conducting listening tests for decades in the course of my professional career: I am not a sceptic, I just understand the limitations of both subjective testing and objective analysis. I have met a handful of people (a couple of whom are/were highly renowned in this industry) whose hearing acuity has left me amazed, but I have yet to find any subjective finding for which objective evidence could not be found.
There is no psychobable from me. According to modern research on cognition what you refer to above could be framed in terms of arising from System 1 processes (the much more powerful of the two mental processing systems, and also the one the operations of which cannot be directly observed from within Conscious Awareness - aka System 2).
For the intuitions of System 1 to be very reliable, much training of System 1 must take place. What results may be termed Expert Intuition, which is limited to a particular field of study.
Last edited:
So your handful are the only ones capable in this vast world?
Mark, That comment was meant for soundbloke! But I think the above is what I’ve been trying to express.
Mark, That comment was meant for soundbloke! But I think the above is what I’ve been trying to express.
Last edited:
What you refer to is the audio equivalent of "blindsight" - an essentially reflexive process in the early part of our brains. The capacity to learn to hear audible artefacts is entirely within the perceptual apparatus that renders our consciousness, however. Indeed it is not possible to learn anything without it first becoming a conscious event.
Not at all and I have never stated that what you or anybody else think you hear is not real. I merely state that you have no evidence to support your assertion other than a perception that is no less likely to be the product of delusion.
...and btw, in case anybody missed it in the more technical argument I gave earlier, I am not of the belief that blind testing is a definitive "answer". I would suggest that those who resort to an objective argument to state otherwise have failed to understand properly the nature of the non-linear analysis that is required. So I re-iterate again, we have a spectacular capability to learn to discern very small audible artefacts (that might not always be detectable in double blind test arrangements), but it is essential to understand that we likewise possess a spectacular capacity for delusion in our perceptions too.
No Matt, the sound as it should be.
One thing I don’t understand is how short auditory memory (?) is supposed to be,
I find I can remember distinct differences in sound for yrs if not decades......phonographic memory maybe?😀
Soundbloke, to be delusional one must contradict reality......if one has a firm grasp on the reality of a subject then how could that be delusional?
I mean there are regulars and then there are specialists......a specialist is just someone who pays more attention to a particular subject, I see myself as a specialist of music. Self taught that is... no degrees of course.
One thing I don’t understand is how short auditory memory (?) is supposed to be,
I find I can remember distinct differences in sound for yrs if not decades......phonographic memory maybe?😀
Soundbloke, to be delusional one must contradict reality......if one has a firm grasp on the reality of a subject then how could that be delusional?
I mean there are regulars and then there are specialists......a specialist is just someone who pays more attention to a particular subject, I see myself as a specialist of music. Self taught that is... no degrees of course.
I can too, Dyna Mark III's from 50yr. ago, the colored sound was very distinctive.
barrows,
I don`t give a damn about measurements. Measurements are only good for convincing (fooling) hesitant buyers. I don´t need numbers to prove I like or dislike something. Intuitive performance estimation bearing relation to (subjective) reality can be made on the basis of theoretical knowledge and experience.
Sorry for hurting your sentiments.
¤
The nonsensical expression "current output" implies small signal amplitudes while the even more nonsensical expression "I-V conversion" implies the amplification of such signal amplitudes. ("I-V curves" represent linear relationships between static operating points and have nothing to do with signal handling as believed).
The amplification of weak signals is particularly problematic. Amplifying devices have a poor ability to handle weak signals and impedance matching becomes critical to prevent heavy signal losses.
The development of industry standard techniques is not guided by performance quality but by performance efficiency and convenience in mass production. I am looking forward to the next level of industry standard conversion technique with horror.