Lots of science about people are really not fully integrally understood. We hear about different studies which may or may not become valuable, and we each believe in what we choose to believe, even the meaning and value of different research, a choice of which is not much different from listening perception.[emoji6]
Anyway end of rant TLR. These experiments are fundamentally flawed.
I'm confused about what you are trying to say. Does the fact that professional musicians perform "poorly" in these tests make them flawed? Does the possibility that the the concert master from a top symphony orchestra might be indifferent between a $3M Strad or a very good modern instrument undermine any belief system?
At no stage have I denied that influences other than what our ears detect can affect what we hear. This is a straw man construct from another poster. In the quote above I clearly acknowledge that many other factors, real and imaginary can influence the outcome.
in the gorilla on the basketball court video analogy I freely admitted that the act of counting ball bounces had distracted my attention to the extent that I failed to see a huge gorilla walk through mid frame. What I saw had clearly been influenced by an internal mental process. However, it was still MY reality at the time, no matter how flawed.
Last edited:
OK: the author raises some very good points. He is correct that hearing memory is very poor. He is correct that most professional musicians are no better than "Joe Average" at hearing and remembering differences between instruments. I would extend that to luthiers. In fact I think he is right about most things. Unfortunately he did not explain why he thinks experiments which confirm his beliefs are crap.
Thank you
I wonder whether his comments would extend equally to those fortunates with perfect pitch?
Last edited:
Exactly, and that is exactly what the experiments confirm.
Now please provide the experiments which indicate a different outcome.
I'm a bit confused about audio memory.
For home theatre, I'm using some old dc Tannoy studio monitors, which to my ears, sound more realistic than others in my price range.
Yet I am never fooled into thinking the voices are "real", as has happened occasionally with horn or planar experiments in my living room.
In light of a short audio memory, what am I comparing the vocal reproduction to, to instantly know I'm hearing a reproduction, and not the real thing?
The subjects are smart enough to know that a change of somekind is to be expected, Duh.
That each subject uses the same descriptors is the correlation.
Dan.
This is where these discussions often go: Either I cannot distinguish any sounds, or if I can distinguish some sounds then I can distinguish all sounds.
I would say that vis a vis your example of human voices, your referent is "the sound of spoken human voices in this room". Even a very well recorded voice, recorded in a different acoustic space, and reproduced via monkey-coffin speakers, is not going to sound like a person speaking in that room. A dipole or omni speaker might get closer, because they are better at letting the room be part of the sound.
I would say that vis a vis your example of human voices, your referent is "the sound of spoken human voices in this room". Even a very well recorded voice, recorded in a different acoustic space, and reproduced via monkey-coffin speakers, is not going to sound like a person speaking in that room. A dipole or omni speaker might get closer, because they are better at letting the room be part of the sound.
The descriptions correlations are 100%.
The system changes here are aparrent enough that passing DBLT's is not an issue.
Dan.
So not even single blind.
Meaningless in this context since not even single blind.
I don't even know what to make of that statement. Can you describe more clearly what that even means?
That seems to mean that you don't want to do any testing. That's fine, but then you have to realize that your results are meaningless to others.
Back when this came out a lot of people, including headline writers, jumped to that conclusion. It is not borne out by the facts or the comments of the people in the test.
Don't confuse preference for difference.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.