janneman said:
So, please enlighten me, what does this quote from you mean?
janneman said:
Yes understand your arguments, and it all seems logical. But observe: GE's can, so they say, reliably differentiate between, say, two cap brands. These are differences that cannot reliably be measured. So we conclude that GE's can reliably hear below the measurement threshold.
Then, if we have something that is such a gross difference that it can be very, very eaily be heard as the difference between two tracks, all those GE's start to tapdance and weasel out.
We therefore must conclude that those GE claims of extremely acute hearing are just that, claims. Because they themselves are not able to reliably demonstrate it to anyone except themselves, and also refuse to take any tests that *could* reliably demonstrate the effect.
But if you try hard enough, there is always a way out, of course. For example, one could always claim that the very subtle differences between two types of caps are much easier to detect than something as gross as a complete sousa band.
Jan Didden
Jan, you are missing a lot of points. E.g., you absolutely do not take into account HF EMI interference. This is closely related to cables used, grounding, case design, wiring inside case etc. The influence is different and unique to any piece of audio gear. Then you suggest to use a soundcard to tell the difference, this is really ridiculous.
I can see a lack of serious experience of many 'scientifical fighters' here.
I can see a lack of serious experience of many 'scientifical fighters' here.
PMA said:
Yes I may miss a lot of points.
For instance, assuming that your point is that EMI and cable, grounding, case design issues would prevent someone hearing a sousa band in a track, I don't understand how that would still allow me to hear the difference between, say, two brands of caps.
I also missed the point of the sound card. Which sound card?
As to the 'scientific fighters', I'm not sure what your point is here.
I believe that I give a clear reasoning for my opinion. If you feel that my reasoning is wrong, I would appreciate the courtesy to be told where I am wrong.
Jan Didden
an HCA-3500?
Also, I have shown here the influence of some 15cm of load ground return. Such measurement can be easily done wrong. I have been several times asked how do I get such clean background in my FFT analysis. I was suggested to have 'clean' mains voltage. Not at all! I just only know how to arrange a 'clean' measurement setup. Many cannot do the same, as I can see from numerous measurements shown, and blame it on noisy environment. Not that, just incompetence. No wonder then that no differences are heard. I can imagine poor audio chain, bad room acoustics and wrong plancement of speakers. Then everything sounds same, I agree cordially. Maybe some cheap Behringer active Xover?
PMA said:
OK, all good points. All issues that can prevent someone to hear low-level subtle differences. Would you agree then, that these limitations apply equally well to hearing a sousa band in a track as well as hearing subtle differences between caps?
One can then conclude that if you can hear differences between cap brands, you most probably must have a very clean system. In that case, hearing an embedded sousa band would also be no problem.
Jan Didden
stinius said:
So, why don't you just do it, instead of talk about it?
janneman said:
I doubt it's due to the level of English for either one of us.
If you don't see it – you don't see.
May be the key sentence of yours is: "We therefore must conclude that those GE claims of extremely acute hearing are just that, claims." It looks like what you meant here is that those claims are not real experience. Is this what you meant, or do I understand you incorrectly?
Thanks John C, not really the depth I was looking for but I will try to get as many old holcos as I can find for the project.
And for the sake of trying to add something to this discussion which is usually quite over my head, I will listen to the recordings (when I have a few moments ) and report my findings honestly. I consider myself an audiofile with very untrained worn out old ears and what I consider a decent hi fi system.
And for the sake of trying to add something to this discussion which is usually quite over my head, I will listen to the recordings (when I have a few moments ) and report my findings honestly. I consider myself an audiofile with very untrained worn out old ears and what I consider a decent hi fi system.
Joshua_G said:
Ahh, I see. No, what I meant is this. On the one hand, these claims are personal experiences, and on the other hand, everytime an opportunity is suggested to substantiate them with a repeatable, statistically valid test, there are always arguments brought forward not to do it. So all that remains are the, unsubstantiated, claims. Note that logically it doesn't mean that the claims are false, only that they are only claims, not more.
Let me give you an example in an attempt to clarify my reasoning. Suppose I tell you I can multiply two 26 digit integers in my head and give you the correct answer in 5 seconds. This is my claim. But I refuse to demonstrate that I can do it in front of a panel with calculators and stopwatches to verify my claim. So, it still is my claim, it still is possible that I really can, but I surely lost a lot of my credibilty by refusing an impartial valid test.
I know, it is not the same exactly, so no need to waste bandwidth to point that out to me, I just gave the example to clarify my reasoning...
BTW Is it just me or am I trying to explain logic instead of audio....?
Edit: So I agree that those claims are based on personal experience....
Jan Didden
janneman said:
True factual personal experiences, or imagined ones, or undefined ones?
By true factual personal experience I mean that those differences I hear actually exist, they are there and I hear what's actually there.
Your take can possibly be one of the following:
1. Differences are there and are heard;
2. Unless proved otherwise, the reported audible differences are imagined, or there are no actual differences there, only an experience of assumed, non-existing, differences;
3. I have no idea whether those reported audible differences are of real, actual, differences – or non-real differences.
So, to which of the 3 possibilities did you refer?
Joshua_G said:
Well, if someone says that he experienced something, I assume that that is the case. Whether that experience is based on an actual real phenomenon, I can't say.
Sometimes it IS clear. For example, many people report that they go through a bright tunnel as part of a near-dead experience. In this particular case it is pretty clear that they didn't actually go through that tunnel. Yet, the personal experience is very real, so real that it often leads to a different look on life. So, YMMV.
Jan Didden
Joshua_G said:
Joshua, you are missing the point. We cannot state whether they the differences exist or not, espcecially since they are what you have reported from your listening position and we were not there.
We can state that we accept that YOU had an experience wherin you perceived whatever differences it is you report. That is ALL.
We are NOT denying "your experience", but we can all probably come to a mature agreement on what "an experience" is.
In this case it is something that you appear to have had on your own with no other witnesses, no recording of it and no other measurement taking place.
Therefore it is purely YOUR experience, and therefore something that you have perceived within yourself. We could not reasonably deny that since we are not privy to your internal thoughts.
That means that any or all of your oprions are possible since none of us have any evidence to support any one, including yourself, since as you say they are "experiences of hearing" and that by definition includes the whole process from airwave hitting airdrum to brain interpretation.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.