Some bands are getting so good with the virtual sounds (synth etc...) it’s enough to fool ya.
I had to find a video of the ‘flaming lips’ playing live the other day to verify what was what for that reason.
I had to find a video of the ‘flaming lips’ playing live the other day to verify what was what for that reason.
Yes, this "ears only" phrase demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what auditory perception entails & as such is disingenuous.
Taken completely out of context maybe, but you seem to make a habit of that. It was totally clear to me what SY meant by 'ears only' and whilst I understand Jackobs pedantry on it I think it works as well as 'no peeking' to describe the intent.
Given the negative connotation of the term "pedantry" I've to reject the label. 😉
While I don't agree to mmerrill99's interpretation (wrt lack of understanding) as I think, SY knows about the foundations indeed quite well, but was deliberately trying (and still is on another forum) to establish a new term which is intentionally grossly misleading.
There already exist well known terms (i.e. 'blind' and 'double blind') for a certain property of sensory tests and using something like 'no peeking' in addition could help to avoid some confusion.
Last edited:
Not taken out of context at all
Sure the intent is "no peeking" but fact of the matter is that something can be simplified so much in a soundbite that to the casual reader (who is less informed about what auditory perception entails) this is misleading/disingenuous.
It results in the typical misunderstanding that Jakob & I & others have tried to correct - that forum run ABX tests represent the true sound that is being heard.
Both of these misconceptions (lies) are often seen together, hand in glove "ears only" & "ABX test" as the two pronged over-simplification of an underlying denial about how auditory perception works.
We are very adaptable that's for sure. Planet 10 recently tried his best to undermine my hearing acuity by quoting my comments about my tinnitus. I suggested he find out about how relevant it actually is, I don't know whether he has, he went silent on the subject.
Overall I've emphasized quite often that our hearing sense needs training especially if it comes to perceptual evaluation of a lossy reproduction of something real.
I'm not sure if it is possible on physiogical level to enhance the function of our 'ear' (means everything between the ear channel and the auditory cortex) it is known that training alters the brain structure and it might be so that via the feedback mechanism the function of the 'ear" is enhanced too.
Basically it is twofold, to learn what to listen for and learning not to block the input of the automatic processes.
Yes when it come to fine perceptual details ears are completely superfluous.
That seems like a contradiction in terms "fine perceptual details" already implies we can perceive them via auditory perception.
What you may have meant to say was "fine differences in measurements" although I'm not sure what was meant?
I would agree with this but then what is the point in showing measurement differences which it is assumed have no perceptual effect? It seems to me a complete waste of time unless a) the accepted audibility thresholds are not correct when we are dealing with music signals b) the measurements are showing a trace of some other underlying factor which is perceptible if only we could find a way of revealing it in new measurements?
I'm still focused on what is perceptible & how our measurements might uncover these perceptible differences
Last edited:
My wife has tinnitus and i came across some therapies that involve a certain amount of time exposed to a certain db level 40hz test tone (this is from memory so don’t hold me to anything ). I tried it on her....she couldn’t do it.
Yah, what does that even mean?
That our brains/mind fill in the details with processing?
Too loud? TBH I ignore the therapies, tried some, none worked. The only suggestion that has worked to a degree for me has more of a psychological focus, that is, to not perceive it as a threat, which is what we are inclined to do, this can help from the point of view of being frustrated by it.
I think it was uncomfortable and it said you need to push through it for effectiveness......the wife doesn’t push through, she’s a curl up and duck out kinda person.
Edit......I don’t recall exactly but it wasn’t very loud
Edit......I don’t recall exactly but it wasn’t very loud
Last edited:
I was thinking about a couple of different things when I wrote that. Have you ever "heard" sounds in your dreams, voices or music or other sounds? No input from ears but you hear, sometimes in great detail.
Now let's get back to your earlier statement, something to the effect if you hear something wrongly it can only be because you let it happen or something like that. Absolutely true, and the stereo hifi experience is an illusion, one that we prize, and we not only suspend our disbelief (that there is someone performing music in our living room), we actually actively engage in "listening" and imagining the positions of the instruments in the imaginary, or should I say"synthetic", "sound stage". A big part of the audio illusion is focus on details, "micro-" this and that which would not be audible if listening to real music in a real venue.
For many audiophiles this deeply involved, so called "critical listening" can lead them to detect fine details which are unrelated to the signals reaching their ears. I am not calling this a fault or a delusion, but I think it is a common side-effect of the process.
I’ve had external sounds shape a dream but can’t recall internal sound effects of any substance.
That second part is said as if there is no way to differentiate between critical listening and listening......I agree there are some things that cannot be unheard after recognition but I have no problem doing either at will.
That second part is said as if there is no way to differentiate between critical listening and listening......I agree there are some things that cannot be unheard after recognition but I have no problem doing either at will.
But critical listening is really only for evaluation of a new device - it should be retired when listening for enjoyment. Then we let the illusion happen (or not) without trying to "focus on details" - often the sonic character of the device reveals itself over time without any strained listening.
Yes, in our normal listening we often flip between this 'holistic listening' (for want of a better phrase & focused listening. Our focus is mostly a conscious act - when something strikes us as particularly realistic or interesting or our focus can be unconsciously drawn to a sound or anomaly in the playback sound & we find ourselves focusing on this particular aspect.
I think what you are saying is that in focused listening we can be mistaken in our perception? Yes, agreed & it works both ways - we can perceive we hear something which isn't in the soundfield but we can also NOT perceive something which is in the soundfield. Although this is a bad example, focus is like a narrow searchlight - we only illuminate what's in the beam - what's outside the beam which is happening at the same time goes unnoticed. This is well known in the perceptual field as "perceptual blindness" or "inattention blindness" & it exists both in vision & hearing. The "gorilla in the midst" is a prime example of this in both vision & hearing (video & soundtrack)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.