Now that's interesting - thanks for sharing! Did your doctor tell you what causes this condition?
Lynn mentioned a while ago that there are people incapable of summing localization but I have yet to meet one of them. Maybe that's why Tomlinson Holman advocates 10.2 🙂
Not much difference. The fingers meet when I move slowly, and miss when I move fast.
People with one eye see depth just fine. There are many cues to depth and ordinarily they all agree. Oddly, stereopsis is one that is readily ignored when other cues conflict in experiments (like if you falsely think some object is in front... as an "illusion").
That is quite impossible for mechano-minded to people believe because they can only think of the geometric necessity of stereopsis always being true. Yes, that is true but still it is the cue most readily ignored.
I guess stereo movies are a hoot. But I bet the hoot is hardly worth the fuss of regularly wearing glasses, by this time next year.
That is quite impossible for mechano-minded to people believe because they can only think of the geometric necessity of stereopsis always being true. Yes, that is true but still it is the cue most readily ignored.
I guess stereo movies are a hoot. But I bet the hoot is hardly worth the fuss of regularly wearing glasses, by this time next year.
Even with both eyes open? Maybe you should visit your eye doctor too? Would explain your bad flying skills 🙂
So how fast can you do it without missing even with both eyes?😀
You miss even though you move slowly with one eye?😎
Beleive me, I can see the end of the runway when I need to, and make the right judgement too.
Last edited:
Heh, My daughter had to do that when she was small to train a weak eye. No problems eating.😀Her sight is better than mind\e now. No need for glasses. Seems my theory was correct because both of my children have good eyes.
Last edited:
Very cool, you decided to use a patch all on your own? Pretty damn smart!!
I have a good friend with a 3 year old boy that has a patch for training his weak eye.
All this OT....97 pages in. I wonder if there is a summary for measurements yet.
Answering, When, What, How, Why ??
I'm still wondering about measurement of Modulation Transfer Function. Not much information about this application in audio.
I asked, she didn't know. Apparently it isn't overly rare, just turns up for some people, who often never know about it (like I didn't) since they never saw any differently. Probably not differing eye strength, my eyes used to both check very good -- until I hit 40 then they became really bad!
My dad has always had very limited vision in one eye, light and shadow mostly. He's still allowed to drive so it's not a debilitating problem.
The recommendation for the patch was from a doctor, I decided that reading habits had little to do with whether you have good eyes or not, but rather keeping proper monitor of the health of the body and nutrition balance was the key. Since the results show that my children had among the best eyes in school, seems that I was correct considering the condition of my eyes and my wife's as well.
To keep the thread on topic, I'll hold back on my tooth story.😀
Thank you Doug! I was offline for a couple hours and we've got nothing but stereoscopic vision discussion for a couple pages. So much for staying on topic.
Dan
Dan
There is "depth perception" which ends somewhere between 1 and 2 meters for normal people. Then there is "relative depth" which is inferred distance built from experience knowing the size of things and how many common objects appear a a specific distance.
I have "audiographic" hearing... what that means is the ability to recall exactly what I have heard in every detail. Many times I have blind sorted 10 amplifiers by their sound without error. Hook any one amp up and in 10 seconds I can tell you which one it is. Same for preamps, cartridges, speakers, and so on. Now I am old, diseased and going blind so nothing works like it used to, hey hey. Though my hearing is still pretty good the memory part has faded with the neurological symptoms of the diseases. In the past this lead to a "method" to make good sound many find appealing but there is always room for improvement which is why I learn here. There is a lot of aspects to audio from microphone to the playback speaker. There is a lot to figure out for one person or small group and lots of data in info found here on DIYaudio- a real bargain in the research department!!
As for the importance of any one aspect, experience has shown there might be 20 things everyone listens for in audio reproduction. The list of things many will mostly agree on. The order of importance is much more of a personal preference. So which is the most important? Any audio system you like is a good one!
Thanks all.
=SUM
I have "audiographic" hearing... what that means is the ability to recall exactly what I have heard in every detail. Many times I have blind sorted 10 amplifiers by their sound without error. Hook any one amp up and in 10 seconds I can tell you which one it is. Same for preamps, cartridges, speakers, and so on. Now I am old, diseased and going blind so nothing works like it used to, hey hey. Though my hearing is still pretty good the memory part has faded with the neurological symptoms of the diseases. In the past this lead to a "method" to make good sound many find appealing but there is always room for improvement which is why I learn here. There is a lot of aspects to audio from microphone to the playback speaker. There is a lot to figure out for one person or small group and lots of data in info found here on DIYaudio- a real bargain in the research department!!
As for the importance of any one aspect, experience has shown there might be 20 things everyone listens for in audio reproduction. The list of things many will mostly agree on. The order of importance is much more of a personal preference. So which is the most important? Any audio system you like is a good one!
Thanks all.
=SUM
Because of the more ephemeral nature of hearing stimulus compared to vision and because of hearing's generally more emotive results I'm not sure drawing a parallel between audio and video is necessarily a good idea.
The contents of vision tend to be more accessible to left brain processes, and thus language and analysis.
Those of hearing less so because it seems to be more of a right brain domain which tends to synthesis. This makes it sometimes difficult for scientifically minded folk to give credit to description of sound even though some terms, such as "bright" and "dark", for example, I'm sure have objective audio analogues having to do with energy distribution over audio spectrum.
Schleske managed to correlate violinists' vocabulary describing violin sound with objective measures.
Master Studio for Violinmaking - Martin Schleske Munich, Germany Harmonic Structure
The contents of vision tend to be more accessible to left brain processes, and thus language and analysis.
Those of hearing less so because it seems to be more of a right brain domain which tends to synthesis. This makes it sometimes difficult for scientifically minded folk to give credit to description of sound even though some terms, such as "bright" and "dark", for example, I'm sure have objective audio analogues having to do with energy distribution over audio spectrum.
Schleske managed to correlate violinists' vocabulary describing violin sound with objective measures.
Master Studio for Violinmaking - Martin Schleske Munich, Germany Harmonic Structure
- Status
- Not open for further replies.