Just as the trained eye sees the hidden image.....in this case a little tutorial on how to see it and then I saw it. I tried before instruction and as hard as I tried could not see anything but maybe a string of doves and a string of a one eyed man? And that was questionable, there was no doubt to what was there after my ‘training’.
We tend to listen to music much like we see the stereogram......hearing what’s obvious.
Breaking it down further to compare (albeit subjectively) repeatable differences or subtle changes of whichever aspect you’re interested in.....live reinforcement, recording/mastering, playback etc.
I’m not dismissing science....just saying there might be more to it than just measuring.
Picture a world where subjectivists and objectivists live in harmony and understanding
Last edited:
Thanks, gotcha, it certainly makes sense to use your ears as measuring tools in those situations
Well yes but what I keep going on about is the ability to hear/identify the changes in consideration with measurements and then take into account both the measurement and the sound when making changes until it’s kindly ‘right’ like a sound man.
Have you taken a look at wesayso's thread? There is an amazing amount of information there on measurement and how to interpret it.
Sounds like a good read......
This reminds me of interdenominational discussions.....there is no middle ground!
Sounds like a good read......
This reminds me of interdenominational discussions.....there is no middle ground!
His sig line is "Use Science to design your speakers and they will sound like a piece of Art..."
Not sure what you mean? You will find lots of middle ground there
Sorry - must have missed that. Good idea though. I wonder if I can find a drum only track and a female solo voice that match musically, to build it. A challenge!
His sig line is "Use Science to design your speakers and they will sound like a piece of Art..."
This whole discussion and taking ‘sides’ reminds me of some religious discussions I’ve had!
The only thread by wesayso is his speaker build.....is that it?
With all due respect, I haven't seen over the years a single scientific research result regarding blind testing, etc... other than quoting literature that either very few have access to, or are controversial in the experts community. All I've seen is theoretical lip service, critic about other people (granted, sometimes naive) attempts, ad-hoc interpretations that nobody has the time and patience to debunk on a DIY forum, and all kind of extra BS intended to obfuscate the matter.
I'll change my mind when I will see a clear "no peeking" test plan, designed to your satisfaction, for a test case of your choice, something that anybody could independently reproduce and verify. Just repeating ad nauseam "ABX bad" is not helping your cause.
His cause being audio business, it is helping to some degree. That degree being not as high as he wants, he is here trying to do more.
Sure Syn08, perceptual research is all " BS intended to obfuscate the matter" - have you ever read any of the links or informed yourself in any other way about auditory perception in the perceptual research literature
Show a link to the research papers that "either very few have access to, or are controversial in the experts community"
I really don't know what you are talking about but I see you are back in rant mode & expect Chris179 along any minute now
What business is it that Merrill is in.....if you can’t post it for the rules of ‘spam’ or whatnot please somebody pm me so I know what’s continually being referenced?
@ PMA,
OAE and SOAE are happening in every healthy "ear" (in fact they indicate that the OHCs are in good working shape) - so to state that tinnitus is caused by these isn´t afaik corrobated by experimental studies.
Instead there is evidence that (S)OAEs are less prevalent for certain types of tinnitus.
OAE and SOAE are happening in every healthy "ear" (in fact they indicate that the OHCs are in good working shape) - so to state that tinnitus is caused by these isn´t afaik corrobated by experimental studies.
Instead there is evidence that (S)OAEs are less prevalent for certain types of tinnitus.
Which is an interesting modification of your previous argument as it is now more about the controversiality and even more surprising the "that either very few have access to" line of reasoning.
I have offered quite regularly to send out copies if members have difficulties to get access to the publications I´ve cited or quoted.
But we both know that you´ve never asked, don´t we?
Beside that, an experienced (according to the selfdescription) engineer/scientist who is unable to contact a university library and further doesn´t know some people to ask for this kind of information is hard to grasp; could it simply be a lack of effort?
Let´s take it serious for a moment, as I told and recommended a lot of these thinks back in 2009, before you were taking a break.
Be honest, for all these years, you´ve never conducted some controlled listening tests with other people, you haven´t tried any of my suggestions and you haven´t read any of the publications i´ve cited, correct?
And now just try to link to this fascinating thread over at Hydrogenaudio Forums - Index so that people can decide if it did only happen in your imagination or indeed in this reality.
Wrt "audio business issues" , you can´t have it both ways. You´ve recommended reading Peter Aczel´s opinion paper (despite the factual flaws in some paragraphs) although he was in the audio business (and afair forgot to disclose that he was (co?)owner of the manufacturer which produces the loudspeaker he raves about in a review).
And don´t get me wrong, although i didn´t like his religious-like attitude, he nevertheless was sometimes right with his critic of the audio (or high end) business.
Last edited:
This is the alleged business Merrill Audio Advanced Technology Labs, LLC. "Audio Purity" TBH I find it hard to believe that someone apparently into sighted listening tests would be responsible for such cheesy looking equipment
- Status
- Not open for further replies.