It's a pity you stopped listening a long while ago so your negative opinions about those that recognize the factors leading to more realistic, better sound are really anachronistic 😎
By those who use it as an example of how we can't hear a whole other song down -50dB from the foreground audio, it's a croc showing that they have no idea of the mechanisms behind auditory processing & instead go for such simplistic & wrong examples. The same use is made of the McGurk effect - "oh, look how sighted listening biases our hearing" - it's idiotically simplistic
Why use the word "idiotically"? Do you want to start another argument? You haven't finished the first one yet.
Because the McGurk effect is so obvious that any thinking about it would show that it's use as I said above is idiotic or agenda-driven (which is idiotic too) - so it's doubly idiotic 😀
Last edited:
Yes, I understand & we are in agreement as is Joe,wavebourn, Max & I'm sure others. Unfortunately, the usual chasm is in evidence - the measurements guys have no interest in investigating anything we say & call it opinion rather than experience. But such is the nature of the beast (& the ad-homs will now begin about this list of people I just named)
So the actual test is fine, you just have a problem with people who point out that mixing a marching band at a level above say, the vinyl noise floor on sparse choral music is a pretty good test for how good ears really are?
Ah so you believe in peeking. Cool, I can ignore everything you write from now on and save myself time.
What test - what are you talking about?
It's damn stupidity - what does it show?
Now that you have brought it up - this is above the vinyl noise floor so do we not hear the vinyl noise? Doh!!
Which is a the exact example I gave - you use the McGurk effect in a general & simplistic way to talk about peeking during listening.
Off you go to tilt at other windmills where simplistic ideas might fool some people
Last edited:
But no one is adding anything that you want to hear, only repetition from the likes of Dave, the onus is on you and Dave to show something meaningful. All we are saying on this side is that everything in a signal can be measured.
The ear-brain-function is a funny thing. The other day I was standing on an open deck, at a ferry that was sailing on open sea. I could still clearly hear a woman unpack her food from a thin plastic film about 15m away. A normal measurement would not be able to separate this specific sound from all the other noises. So I believe, when we hear anything, it has a lot to do with, what we want to hear - both conscious and unconscious. It then boils down to experience, training and hearing ability - which is very personal and not in any way something as repeatable like a measurement. Some of the best audio systemt I have heard - actually started out with what we can hear and mostly like - then designed the speakers from that point of view.
This is called auditory streaming where the mixture of waves hitting the eardrums & generating nerve impulses are analysed by our auditory processing function into what sounds belong to what auditory streams & doing this on an ongoing basis.
I'm not sure of any measurement process that can do this - even the best speech recognition systems fail in the presence of noise
How about people who point out that some people can hear if whoever made the CD version of the above test forgot to dither it?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.