millwood said:
This would be expanding your knowledge about Frank only. I don't see a reason why would it be important to anybody, except Frank?
And he already knows😉
millwood said:
From a purely scientific point of view, yes, I agree with you.
However, from the point of view of enjoying music with better
sound quality, I don't see it is necessary to wait for proof. If
there are many people reporting similar experiences with
something then, perhaps, it is worth trying. The problem is to
know which things might be plausible enough to be worth
investing some time and money in to try out. To this end, I
find it interesting to try putting some pressure on the "golden
ears" to see if I can get some feeling for how plausible their
claims might be. How have they come to their conclusions?
Did they do AB tests, or rely on their memory etc. etc.
Beisdes, even from a scientific point of view I can sometimes
find it interesting to have hypothetical discussions: assuming
there is an audible difference, what could the possible reason
be? Such an exercise might, perhaps, lead to an increased
understanding of certain phenomena so that what seemed
very hard to believe in the first place, is no longer quite that
implausible.
Peter Daniel said:
Sorry, "Frank" in my post simply meant a person, any person. Not the same Frank you were referring to. My mistake.
Christer said:
I would agree with you 100% on this.
Christer said:
That is indeed an intersting issue. How one can hear things and how one can explain it to satisfy others? Probably explaining it is more difficult than actual process of hearing.
Now, if you could tell me, how come some people can do complicated calculations in their heads, while others have to use computers to get the answer? What makes the difference?
Why some people have to wear glasses, while others don't? How come you can speak a different language, that I can't understand?
Why a blind person can walk the street, while if I would be blinded, I couldn't? I don't find it even slightly interesting to know the explanation to all that.
Coming back to your original question, although I don't consider myself a so called "golden ear", here's how I come to conclusions in my listening sessions: I just listen and recognize the differences. I can decide when I like the sound and when not and I usually know why. I guess, it is like having a pattern of most idealistic sound reproduction set in your mind and comparing it to what you hear in a given moment. Of course this pattern is not set permanently but is changing with time, experience and listening knowledge. It should also theoratically, constantly improve. I'm not doing A/B comparisons, because each time I compare it automatically to the image set in my mind, so it's probably more memory based. I was doing A/B comparisons when I got my first tape deck and didn't have a pattern (or image) developed yet.
I know this explanation is not satisfactory to most and might be even wrong, but this is how I feel about today.
My God!!
What an incredible waste of energy this entire thread...if anyone was actually converted to the other camp, I'll eat my keyboard.
Let it go...
What an incredible waste of energy this entire thread...if anyone was actually converted to the other camp, I'll eat my keyboard.
Let it go...
Peter Daniel said:
another name for it is "voodoo".
Not that voodoo science is wrong (not everything unscientific is wrong), but had we not moved on from it, we would still be living in the caves. 🙂
VOODOO DOLLS AND PINS...
Hi,
No, it isn't.
It just about having a pretty good idea about what live music sounds like.
Having a mental picture of what you want from your system, how it sounded before and how it sounds after the change and making a judgement from there onwards.
Obviously you don't have a clue what voodoo is about and have never been to the Caribbean either...Not that it matters one bit.
Scientific it may not be in the academic sense of the word but who cares?
Voodoo is not a science last time I looked but it's all about the power of suggestion, isn't it?
So is music.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
No, it isn't.
It just about having a pretty good idea about what live music sounds like.
Having a mental picture of what you want from your system, how it sounded before and how it sounds after the change and making a judgement from there onwards.
Obviously you don't have a clue what voodoo is about and have never been to the Caribbean either...Not that it matters one bit.
Scientific it may not be in the academic sense of the word but who cares?
Voodoo is not a science last time I looked but it's all about the power of suggestion, isn't it?
So is music.
Cheers,😉
Re: VOODOO DOLLS AND PINS...
But what happens when your mental picture is so wrong?
Comparing audio to video, you will see how much more progress people have made in video, relying on science not "mental pictures".
when I thought you are getting promising, you insist on being wrong again, 🙂
Check out any decent dictionary on "oxymoron", 🙂
fdegrove said:
But what happens when your mental picture is so wrong?
Comparing audio to video, you will see how much more progress people have made in video, relying on science not "mental pictures".
fdegrove said:
when I thought you are getting promising, you insist on being wrong again, 🙂
fdegrove said:
Check out any decent dictionary on "oxymoron", 🙂
Hi,
How do you know and what do you know?
Nothing?
Really?
Who's comparing audio to video?
Not that it would hurt to take a peak at the video section occasionally...
And no, you don't have a clue and no, you don't have a clue about voodoo either..
Not that anybody cares one way or the other.
Drop the "oxy" and check that one out. Now look into the mirror...
Cheers,😉
P.S. It would be so nice if were to be a little more tolerant...
How do you know and what do you know?
Nothing?
Really?
Who's comparing audio to video?
Not that it would hurt to take a peak at the video section occasionally...
And no, you don't have a clue and no, you don't have a clue about voodoo either..
Not that anybody cares one way or the other.
Drop the "oxy" and check that one out. Now look into the mirror...
Cheers,😉
P.S. It would be so nice if were to be a little more tolerant...
Peter Daniel said:
Quite true. Many sensory experiences cannot be adequately
verbalized. For instance, even though we can learn to agree
on how to name various colours, we cannot know if we
experience them in the same way. Perhaps what we agree
to call red looks to you like green looks to me, we cannot really
know. However, such things are far beyond what I meant.
What I am after is just to try getting a feeling for how much
credibility I personally am willing to assign to a certain persons
claim that something makes an audible difference. Unless some
kind of reasonable proof is provided I cannot know whether to
believe the person, but depending on how they describe their
experiences and depending on their general attitude I may
consider their claims more or less plausible, and be more or
lessing willing to try it out for myself. I should add that one
of my oldest and best friends also claims to hear certain
things I find hard to belive, and I remain sceptic towards many
of his claims despite him being and old and very dear friend.
Except for the example with the glasses, which compensate
for a physiccal defect in the eyes, all the other examples has
to do with the brain, not the physical sensory system. This is
an important disctintion. First, brains do differ between
individual, which can explain some difference between individuals.
Howver, to a very large extent the brain can be trained to
improve it skills at certain tasks, listening is one such thing,
no doubt. I have no problem whatsoever with some people
having trained their brains to make the most out of their
physical sensory system to detect audible differences. However,
the important question is whether the audible differences
are there in the first place and if so, whether it is within the
capability of the physical sensory system to detect them.
Let me give you an analogy about visual perception. There is
a system for naming colours systematically called the NCS
system which is based on psychometric studies. The system
itself can distinguish around 5 million different colours, while
it is considered that the maximum possible resolution of the
human eye is somewhere arounid 1 million colours. An ordinary
untrained person can distinguish somewhere around a few
thousand different colours. After one week training iin using
the NCS system, almost all individuals are able to name an
arbitrary colour with a presions of +/- 10%. One of the experts
of the NCS system is reported to have an accuracy of +/- 2%.
Do note, however, that this is most certainly only about
training the brain to interpret the signals from the eyes. The
eyes themselves can most likely not be trained and set the
limit for what we can perceive. It is no doubt impressive, though,
that it is possible to squeeze that much colour information out
of a sensor that can only detect three wavelengths out of
the whole so-called visible spectrum. (This is very impoverished
compared to some spiders and squids/octopussies that can
detect some 15 to 20 different wavelengths.)
Which is fine with me, since you actually seem to admit that
you do not after all rely 100% on what you hear and admit it.
Besides, you have never been rude towards people who
question you findings, like some other people. You usually
have a quite humble attitude in these matters.
The example with colors might have some analogy to the sound. I remember when I started my interests in audio, I didn't even know what to listen for (to make proper assesment). I was mostly interested with technical parameters and features on stereo equipment itself. Even after some years, my audiophile education didn't improve much. I was reading magazines, but could never imagine I could experience such small nuances in sound perception as it was described there.
It's only during last two years, when I've been constantly involved with audio (I mean 10 hours or more a day, every day), I noticed big improvement.
It's hard to say that all this is subjective and that I started to imagine things. Although it's possible, the overall pattern and repeatibility of observations are too consistant to blame everything on subconscious factors.
I treat it the same way as other skills (as I believe it was developed through constant practice) .
As much as brain can be trained to to interpret the signals from the eyes, it could be trained the same way to distinct sounds and interpret them with better efficiency.
It's only during last two years, when I've been constantly involved with audio (I mean 10 hours or more a day, every day), I noticed big improvement.
It's hard to say that all this is subjective and that I started to imagine things. Although it's possible, the overall pattern and repeatibility of observations are too consistant to blame everything on subconscious factors.
I treat it the same way as other skills (as I believe it was developed through constant practice) .
As much as brain can be trained to to interpret the signals from the eyes, it could be trained the same way to distinct sounds and interpret them with better efficiency.
Peter Daniel said:
But by the same token, it could also be that dramatically more intense involvement could also be causing more intense subjective biases.
Why would you assume that subconscious factors would necessarily be inconsistent? The evidence seems to indicate that subconscious factors are quite consistent under sighted conditions.
Certainly trained listeners can have a greater acuity than untrained listeners. But under sighted conditions, you don't always know what the source of that difference you perceive is.
But all this speculation has been hashed out many times before and doesn't get us any closer to the real answers. The real answers will only come when differences can be demonstrated when biases have been accounted for.
se
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
But by the same token, it could also be that dramatically more intense involvement could also be causing more intense subjective biases.
Dramatically more experimental trials build a dramatically larger mental database and from this recognition of system defects and vitues and consequent preferences are established.
Why would you assume that subconscious factors would necessarily be inconsistent? The evidence seems to indicate that subconscious factors are quite consistent under sighted conditions.
With experience you learn to recognise and eliminate 'subconcious factors'.
Certainly trained listeners can have a greater acuity than untrained listeners. But under sighted conditions, you don't always know what the source of that difference you perceive is.
How about you define a perfect blind testing procedure and then we will listen to you - we all understand that normal blind tests are hopelessly flawed.
But all this speculation has been hashed out many times before and doesn't get us any closer to the real answers. The real answers will only come when differences can be demonstrated when biases have been accounted for.
Proper blind testing would be the first start.
Until then descriptions by experienced ears are to be listened to, and not automatically disregarded or automatically challenged as is you habit Steve.
Eric.
But by the same token, it could also be that dramatically more intense involvement could also be causing more intense subjective biases.
Dramatically more experimental trials build a dramatically larger mental database and from this recognition of system defects and vitues and consequent preferences are established.
Why would you assume that subconscious factors would necessarily be inconsistent? The evidence seems to indicate that subconscious factors are quite consistent under sighted conditions.
With experience you learn to recognise and eliminate 'subconcious factors'.
Certainly trained listeners can have a greater acuity than untrained listeners. But under sighted conditions, you don't always know what the source of that difference you perceive is.
How about you define a perfect blind testing procedure and then we will listen to you - we all understand that normal blind tests are hopelessly flawed.
But all this speculation has been hashed out many times before and doesn't get us any closer to the real answers. The real answers will only come when differences can be demonstrated when biases have been accounted for.
Proper blind testing would be the first start.
Until then descriptions by experienced ears are to be listened to, and not automatically disregarded or automatically challenged as is you habit Steve.
Eric.
Peter,
Sorry for repeating myself, but please note the difference
I pointed out between training the brain and what the physical
ears can detect. The brain is highly trainiable in many skills.
The ears are not, or at least only to some degree and in a
way that is probably not very relevant for our discussion.
The interesting question regarding claimed/perceived/...
audible effects is about the latter, whether it is physically
possible for the ear to detect anything that can give a
stimulus to the brain, and, of course, also if there is anything
for the ear itself to detect.
Actually, I think not making this disctinction clear is at the
root of many heated discussions on the forum. "Those who
hear things" usually argue that they have trained their listening
skills, which obvioulsy refers to the brain interpreting the
stimuli from the ears, while those who question what these
people hear usually refers to what the ear can detect and if
there is anything to detect.
Sorry for repeating myself, but please note the difference
I pointed out between training the brain and what the physical
ears can detect. The brain is highly trainiable in many skills.
The ears are not, or at least only to some degree and in a
way that is probably not very relevant for our discussion.
The interesting question regarding claimed/perceived/...
audible effects is about the latter, whether it is physically
possible for the ear to detect anything that can give a
stimulus to the brain, and, of course, also if there is anything
for the ear itself to detect.
Actually, I think not making this disctinction clear is at the
root of many heated discussions on the forum. "Those who
hear things" usually argue that they have trained their listening
skills, which obvioulsy refers to the brain interpreting the
stimuli from the ears, while those who question what these
people hear usually refers to what the ear can detect and if
there is anything to detect.
Now you and millwood have common ground, Frank. Because you don't have a clue about Springbok and you've never been to South Africa...
se:
Indeed. Or when us insolent "morons" cease "amassing in this forum like crickets" or stop asking legitimately for tangible evidence of the improbable. That's the solution eh, Frank?
mrfeedback:
Experienced ears? We've all had plenty of experience since birth. Seriously though, Steve's "habit" is the natural consequence of an intelligent, inquiring mind challenging scientifically probable and often blatantly ludicrous statements and concepts. Lucky for us so many great men in history suffered this particular habit. Can you name any who achieved or proved anything of consequence by blindly swallowing whatever dogma was dished up for them. I can't.
fdegrove said:
it is because of the forum moderators' tolerance of your above behavior (personal attacks) that made the forum what it is now.
This was an otherwise useful discussion until you started to make comments like the above.
It is OK that you missed the apparent 'oxymoron' in "voodoo science" but it is NOT OK that you launched another round of personal attacks on a forum member.
I will leave this up to the moderators.
Hi,
I agree and I apologise.
Is it really necessary to compare someone's aural experiences to vodoo in the first place?
Why is it so hard for some people to just accept it could well be possible that some things are audible to some and maybe not to others?
Cheers,😉
I agree and I apologise.
Is it really necessary to compare someone's aural experiences to vodoo in the first place?
Why is it so hard for some people to just accept it could well be possible that some things are audible to some and maybe not to others?
Cheers,😉
fdegrove:
Because barring deafness, stroke, schizophrenia and a host of otherwise generally uncommon aural and neurological maladies Frank, God endowed us with EXACTLY the same ears and interpretive cortex. What a come-down that must be for the Golden Ear Brigade... No proof AND no golden ears...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.