Idk about mistaken perception, sounds more like he’s saying we hear details that aren’t there.....as if we’re in a dream state.
“To be able to detect fine details which are unrelated to the signals reaching their ears”.
I suppose that would be a reason for something being unmeasurable!😀
“To be able to detect fine details which are unrelated to the signals reaching their ears”.
I suppose that would be a reason for something being unmeasurable!😀
Last edited:
Sounds more like unmasking..... I can focus on an instrument that is otherwise masked.
Something I didn’t have knowledge of but experienced many times.....once educated on the subject it became much easier to find hidden details.
Something I didn’t have knowledge of but experienced many times.....once educated on the subject it became much easier to find hidden details.
Exactly why training is a necessary part of most blind listening tests.
But remember, just because we can't consciously identify & name something doesn't mean it isn't affecting our auditory perception of the sound - it might be that we find the sound to be "meh" or "flat & uninteresting" or fatiguing or .....
I don’t know much technically but I can tell when something sounds right.....and I’ve taught myself much by trying to label or explain these things.
I’m still working on ‘it’ in fact I’m getting some interesting results from the physical aspects of comb filtering. (Two tweeters per channel on the same fr)
I’m still working on ‘it’ in fact I’m getting some interesting results from the physical aspects of comb filtering. (Two tweeters per channel on the same fr)
Notice the poster quoted below wasn't claiming about perceiving difference.
"That is why I reject the claim that $200 or $500 dacs that measure pretty well sound as good as any dac can ever sound, they don't."
"For instance, there are now some dacs that measure quite well, Gustard offering one example. However, their great measuring dac is quickly earning a reputation for sounding worse than some other dacs in the same price range that do not measure as well."
Not sure what you are getting at, EH but I suspect I'm going to be sorry for asking you to clarify it 😎
I think this is one of the areas where we possibly understand each other but may not be able to reach agreement as I don't find it grossly misleading especially within the confines of a forum where there is ample opportunity for an understanding to be reached and we are not going to get a chance to re-write the audio lexicon in a way everyone is on the same page!
Isn't the opportunity for an unerstanding to reach exactly an argument for staying with the established term?
Why don't you think it is grossly misleading? Considering that already with the terms 'blind/double-blind' people often think it must be then 'ears only' although it can't be, it surely will be much easier for this false expectation if it is named so.
Nice try to give yourself a free pass on deflection and even hijacking each thread/topic, but it doesn't work. 😉
As stated before, it is just a deflection and I don't want to follow. 🙂
I think there are a number of things at play here. The first is that, despite all attempts people seem to immediately 'flame on' with the mention of 'double blind' As they assume this means ABX so we get a couple of days of re-arguing the same old points from the trenches.
The second is that I understand a lot of people, after waging the same losing battle for decades will resort to shorthand to avoid having to type quite so much. In this case and given seach functions this is adequate. There are a lot of people of a certain generation who expect to be spoon fed online. I have great admiration for those who can remain calm through decades of the same old.
The third is that here, in the lounge, in the putrid swamp of this thread that just keeps chasing its tail there is an argument for relaxing the rules a bit and not trying to review it like an AES peer review. Nothing here really matters much in the big picture.
But I understand and appreciate your view point.
It is amazing how much dispute there can be around the question if you can hear something, or not. I would argue that if you can't hear it with your ears, it isn't there.
And if you can't see it with your eyes, it isn't there, although sometimes:
"Eyes only" does obviously not work so easily and "ears only" doesn't either. 😉
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
The human body has between 17 and 21 senses depending on which debate on the subject you back. I am not sure I could hazard a guess on how many are used in the direct pickup of sound and how many have a direct influence on the perception.
You made the suggestion, how about you back it up with some facts so that all can learn.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.