Jakob2 was trying to understand the behavior of some specific people, some of whom have since been banned. With respect to some of those zealots, I am inclined to think Jakob2 was likely onto something. The general syndrome is likely to be much milder in other people. However, we still have people here who seem to believe in such a global conspiracy, the conspiracy of the snake oil salesmen, and the magazine reviewers who have been paid off to lie. Not saying there are not real snake oil salesmen, nor saying there are not corrupt reviewers, but doubtful there is much in the way of an organized conspiracy.
Last edited:
of course a theory can accuratly describe a narrow sect of zealots, but it hardly represents the vast majority of objectivist and therfore misrepresents the argument. If you hear something and I don't, why not just stop there? I don't have to believe you and you don't have to try and persuade me.
We are talking about converts to objectivism, not original objectivists. How and what accounts for the conversion, when conversion does take place? What is the resulting fallout if any in terms of subsequent dysrationality?
In part its about how and why its done. Are the experimenters competent perceptual scientists? What is the scientific question being asked? What is the experimental design to answer the research question? Is the experimental design and or analysis ever changed after the experiment starts?
How is the testing conducted? Is any training given to the test subject? What about practice with the test apparatus? How is the test apparatus validated for its intended purpose?
Or, is the whole affair totally amateur hour garbage pseudoscience?
If the purpose is to confront someone to convince them they can't hear anything reliably, then then it would seem the purpose is not scientific at all. Its to fool a person into believing they can't reliably hear anything. What a dastardly dirty trick that would be.
How is the testing conducted? Is any training given to the test subject? What about practice with the test apparatus? How is the test apparatus validated for its intended purpose?
Or, is the whole affair totally amateur hour garbage pseudoscience?
If the purpose is to confront someone to convince them they can't hear anything reliably, then then it would seem the purpose is not scientific at all. Its to fool a person into believing they can't reliably hear anything. What a dastardly dirty trick that would be.
Sure, it can be done badly.
But when implemented right, then why wouldn’t it have value?
In any case, there’s what instruments can measure, there’s what happens in one’s head, there’s what people tell themselves the instruments indicate and there’s what people tell themselves they perceive.
No matter what the truth is, there’ll never be a shortage of buyers and sellers for every combination possible.
At the end of the day, it’s a matter of personal hygiene to decide what it’s worth to each of us.
Believe crystals improve the clarity of your system, spend money on crystals.
Can’t hear any difference between a $5,000 DAC and a $500 DAC? Sweet, you just saved enough for a vacation in Hawaii.
Etc. Etc.
But when implemented right, then why wouldn’t it have value?
In any case, there’s what instruments can measure, there’s what happens in one’s head, there’s what people tell themselves the instruments indicate and there’s what people tell themselves they perceive.
No matter what the truth is, there’ll never be a shortage of buyers and sellers for every combination possible.
At the end of the day, it’s a matter of personal hygiene to decide what it’s worth to each of us.
Believe crystals improve the clarity of your system, spend money on crystals.
Can’t hear any difference between a $5,000 DAC and a $500 DAC? Sweet, you just saved enough for a vacation in Hawaii.
Etc. Etc.
Nothing but it requires strict protocols, very transparent switchgear, and a very high n to gain significance.
And it is only capable of telling you if 2 DUT sound different.
If you hear no differences that only counts for the particualr listeners in that particualr listening session.
So only usedful for showing DUT are different. The subjectivists that convert to objectivists after being handed an ABX, not hearing any difference and then becoming zealots ignoring that the listeng test told them nothing.
dave
Last edited:
Usually you just have to ignore a couple notifications. On the old forum you would unsubscribe, i don’t know if tha is doable here (@AllenB)
dave
Click here - https://www.diyaudio.com/community/watched/threads
Select the thread and down the bottom you can unsubscribe.
With regard to dismisive attitude toward peers, I would like to say that I know of no person having been involved in audio as a hobby, who has not started as a subjectivist.
George
Yes, and for all other events of daily life. Also while reading threads. As an example: What do you and I really know about your/ours motivation to post/exchange in this thread? We hopefully may be concious of some aspects of it only.
This might be an example meant to illustrate adverse conditioning, an example of the so called nocebo effect. Let me comment on the work "should". You also might have chosen "might" instead of "should". Because not all persons will be specifically responsive to this kind of experimental setup. And even ... certainly there are some people around for which adding Hitler on theirs boxes will improve the listening experience. Conditional stimuli may induce completely different results. In this logic, your "should" is an expectation of yours, or in other words a reference to your individual reality.
This might be an example for a favorable conditioning or a placebo effect. Positively induced by the NASA label and a Golden Sound promise (how does a sound sounds when it sounds golden, by the way ...). Opposed to your intention of your Hilter example.
This said, I can't discriminate whether your post is meant seriously by you. Or if it is meant as a joke, like the one with Raquel Welch on the box. If the effect of these cones is real for you, then I will not contest you perception. For me, these cones would certainly not work for audio use. I do not beleive in weird material theories, nor in the ambigous use of terms like "energy". For me, a ceramic cone might have first line an optical and at best maybe a decorative pleasing effect. Opposed to any portrait of any despote which mankind ever produced.
Last edited by a moderator:
so - what would you write on the paper to get the most optimal sounding system - perfect soundstage, perfect transparency, etc?
Maybe that's why they call it subconcious? It's what goes on in your brain 24/7 without you beinmg aware, whether you are awake or not.
Jan
Last edited:
There's a possible interesting link to subconcious processing.
The inputs to your perception systems can be, according to some studies, 1MB/sec.
Yet, the concious, the things you are aware of at any given moment, number from 100 bits/s to 800 bits/s, depending on who you read.
Take sound stage depth. Your brain gets a flurry of info fom your ears, your eyes, your previous experience, your expectations etc.
Each of these factors can concist of many different pieces of information.
That is all funneled down to the concious perception 'this is a wide sound stage'.
So, it's no wonder that we often disagree on the perception, it's more of a wonder that often we do agree!
Jan
The inputs to your perception systems can be, according to some studies, 1MB/sec.
Yet, the concious, the things you are aware of at any given moment, number from 100 bits/s to 800 bits/s, depending on who you read.
Take sound stage depth. Your brain gets a flurry of info fom your ears, your eyes, your previous experience, your expectations etc.
Each of these factors can concist of many different pieces of information.
That is all funneled down to the concious perception 'this is a wide sound stage'.
So, it's no wonder that we often disagree on the perception, it's more of a wonder that often we do agree!
Jan
Not to forget, we don't actually have an agreed definition of what "consciousness" means. It's a state we all recognise, but struggle to define, for example to say if another creature has consciousness like ours. That's all still rather.... subjective...
It's exactly the opposite.
Sound localization is neither an illusion nor an opinion, sound localization is a sensory processing by the brain that emerges from dynamic interactions between cortical and subcortical mechanisms in the context of neural coding.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00221-022-06456-x
The above applies to both humans and animals and is one of the main defense mechanisms because if you don't understand where the sound (of a passing train i.e.) is coming from, you could cross the road to the train with disastrous consequences for your life.
Sound localization is well studied, although there is still much to discover, and even with only one functioning ear the brain is able to compensate and some are able to localize sound even with only one functioning ear (someone had talked about it above).
https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2022_AJA-22-00006
So agreeing on where the sound comes from is absolutely an expected event.
The perception of the stereo effect is no exception because the recording of the musical event through two or more appropriately positioned microphones takes into consideration the time delay and the different intensity of the sound (and other factors that it would be useless to describe here) that reaches the two ears on both sides of the head in full respect of biological mechanisms of sound localization by hearing and brain.
I would frankly also leave the subconscious aside because it relates in some way to mental health which, as I have already said, is one of the necessary factors for critical and shared listening.
It is obvious that if you listen to the same system and the same recording and are clouded by anxiety for any personal reason you will not have a reliable perception, not compared to another person, but even compared to yourself when you're calm without that anxiety.
P. S.: In quoted text the bold is mine.
geoffkait said:
so - what would you write on the paper to get the most optimal sounding system - perfect soundstage, perfect transparency, etc.
There are a number of things I would and do write to get an optimal sounding system, including but not limited to,
SOUND HAS PRIORITY
’x 26 ‘x
’x = PRESENT TIME
THIS SPEAKER PROVIDES GREAT SOUND > O.K.
(The FASTEN SEAT BELTS sign just came on)
so - what would you write on the paper to get the most optimal sounding system - perfect soundstage, perfect transparency, etc.
There are a number of things I would and do write to get an optimal sounding system, including but not limited to,
SOUND HAS PRIORITY
’x 26 ‘x
’x = PRESENT TIME
THIS SPEAKER PROVIDES GREAT SOUND > O.K.
(The FASTEN SEAT BELTS sign just came on)
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.