Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12th July 2019, 08:52 AM   #24911
Jakob2 is offline Jakob2  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezbleu View Post
This is not just a matter of ill-chosen words, you are positing the existence of a "thing" that knows, which is somehow not you but is "inside" you. This is a very old trope and is simply wrong. You are the thing that knows. What you are calling "auditory perception" is a process, perhaps purely physiological, perhaps not, but a part of your brain function.
As Markw4 wrote there are different models around to describe our "self" .
Usually there is a distinction made between brain and mind; the "you" that've mentioned is the consciuous mind while the brain provides the physiological foundation.
As you've said mmerrill99 is talking about (a) process(es), it is often about the _autonomous_ (in german it is automatisch/automatic) process(es) because we don't control these consciously.

In fact we are able to completely ignore the input of these processes (while concentrating on other things) but noone would argue that they quit working if that happens (during that).

Quote:
It does not know anything, because it is not a thing that exists apart from you. This is a very slippery slope that has led to a lot of bad ideas.
Isn't that more a matter of philosphy?
But anyway, a lot happens on the different levels of our auditory (system) and most of it seems to be autonomous processes, not only at the basis, means the physiological ear mechanism, but also within the auditory cortex.

Deutsch denotes that as the "auditory system" and for some of the reasons outlined above it looks as if it were not part of the "you" but up to now I had the impression that most readers understand it the way it is meant.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2019, 09:23 AM   #24912
tapestryofsound is offline tapestryofsound  Scotland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post
(In response to nezbleu) Let the reader decide if I expressed my meaning or not - I find your analysis to be disingenuous - when talking about a particular function of the brain there is nothing wrong in referring to it as an entity in itself for the purpose of focus, particularly when we aren't consciously aware of the workings of that process (our consciousness is only aware of the results delivered by the process) If you want to talk philosophy then so be it but some here just want technical talk & some want no talk at all
Merrill,

I would like to hear you talk sensibly and coherently about anything that matters to you, but you come across as an angry teenager who wants to stick it to the man in his quest for a universal truth. Somewhat like the plot line for ‘The Karate Kid’ or Kung-Fu Panda’. Only this is diyAudio, not Hollywood, or Disneyland.

Still, in the land of beggar-all, you gotta work with wotcha got. And we’ve got you.

ToS
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2019, 09:30 AM   #24913
mmerrill99 is offline mmerrill99
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by tapestryofsound View Post
Merrill,

I would like to hear you talk sensibly and coherently about anything that matters to you, but you come across as an angry teenager who wants to stick it to the man in his quest for a universal truth. Somewhat like the plot line for ‘The Karate Kid’ or Kung-Fu Panda’. Only this is diyAudio, not Hollywood, or Disneyland.

Still, in the land of beggar-all, you gotta work with wotcha got. And we’ve got you.

ToS
ToS, I get it, you don't like what I have to say or my thoughts about auditory perception (some of which can be wrong), you consider what I post drivel

I, on the other hand, am still curious about this hobby & interested in how this relates to our hobby & audio electronics but the best way to stop discussing this is to 'stop discussing this' & particularly stop firing off barbs about me

Thank you for your thoughts & can I suggest that I have received them & there's no need to repeat them again.

Please stop hunting down every post I make by just commenting on the poster. I'm happy to reply to & discuss content

Last edited by mmerrill99; 12th July 2019 at 09:36 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2019, 09:47 AM   #24914
scottjoplin is offline scottjoplin  Wales
diyAudio Member
 
scottjoplin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Penrhyndeudraeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post
I, on the other hand, am still curious about this hobby & interested in how this relates to our hobby & audio electronics
Me too, only I suspect it relates mostly in the acoustic domain, so I think the questions relate largely to transducers (I don't mean ears and brain, not much to be done about them )
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2019, 09:55 AM   #24915
mmerrill99 is offline mmerrill99
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottjoplin View Post
Me too, only I suspect it relates mostly in the acoustic domain, so I think the questions relate largely to transducers (I don't mean ears and brain, not much to be done about them )
This is where we diverge - I consider it is mostly in the electronics where the magic is to be found, where the sound clicks into place & the realism of the playback unfolds.
I believe that even in the best room with best speakers, electronics that don't have this magic fail to deliver but in an ordinary room with no particular room treatment, replay electronics that have achieved this realism still deliver.

And my quest is to find out why this is - the answer I believe can only be found in understanding the workings of auditory perception & what we are missing in our measurements

Last edited by mmerrill99; 12th July 2019 at 09:57 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2019, 10:05 AM   #24916
scottjoplin is offline scottjoplin  Wales
diyAudio Member
 
scottjoplin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Penrhyndeudraeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post
I consider it is mostly in the electronics where the magic is to be found, where the sound clicks into place & the realism of the playback unfolds.
I know, don't you agree that this is one of those cases where extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2019, 10:30 AM   #24917
mmerrill99 is offline mmerrill99
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottjoplin View Post
I know, don't you agree that this is one of those cases where extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
Consider it just a thought experiment for the moment
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2019, 10:44 AM   #24918
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99
Of course they use tones (sinewaves) but that doesn't mean that a sinewave is the smallest granular level at which auditory processing operates
I'm not sure that "smallest granular level" has any useful meaning here. However, if you are talking about the sound itself, then the smallest granular level is the pressure at an instant (time domain) and it is a pure sinewave (frequency domain).

Quote:
Maybe I'm the one that is wrong in all of this but anyway, I can see there is no point in discussing further - case closed
As this is a public forum you and I do not have the power to close a case. However, I note that you have run out of arguments without actually accepting the truth of what I and others have been trying to teach you.


On MQA my understanding is that it attempts to smuggle in extra data by hiding it where it might not be heard (steganography?). In doing this it muddles up the HF end of the spectrum, but fortunately few people will be able to hear the problems (and probably few will be able to hear the claimed advantage either). See Jim Lesurf for an analysis.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2019, 10:53 AM   #24919
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99
This is where we diverge - I consider it is mostly in the electronics where the magic is to be found, where the sound clicks into place & the realism of the playback unfolds.
I believe that even in the best room with best speakers, electronics that don't have this magic fail to deliver but in an ordinary room with no particular room treatment, replay electronics that have achieved this realism still deliver.

And my quest is to find out why this is - the answer I believe can only be found in understanding the workings of auditory perception & what we are missing in our measurements
If your hypothesis is correct then your method for finding the solution may be correct. However, it is most likely that you are wrong. Your idea is just a slightly more sophisticated version of the old idea that reducing known unimportant distortions somehow increases unknown important distortions. This is the path taken by feedback haters and THD haters, along with many SET fans. Occam's Razor suggests that the true explanation is that some people prefer certain mild distortions and wrongly perceive them as being 'better' than less distortion; there is some experimental evidence to support this.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2019, 11:02 AM   #24920
mmerrill99 is offline mmerrill99
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
I'm not sure that "smallest granular level" has any useful meaning here. However, if you are talking about the sound itself, then the smallest granular level is the pressure at an instant (time domain) and it is a pure sinewave (frequency domain).
A pressure at an instant can't be a sinewave - a point on a sinewave is not a sinewave - what possible frequency can an instant have - frequency requires a repitition over time?


Quote:
As this is a public forum you and I do not have the power to close a case. However, I note that you have run out of arguments without actually accepting the truth of what I and others have been trying to teach you.
I was acceding to what I was sensing was the general consensus on this thread but seeing as you wish to continue the discussion, I've no problem.
So let's get rid of some loaded words like "truth" - I have already said you are nearly correct in your summary of the theories concerning the working of the inner ear - again, I will point out these are models/theories, not "truths". As you well know science uses theories not "truths"

I haven't run out of arguments or anything like it, just the energy to maintain the discussion/debate. I can hear the Hallelujahs again.

Wasn't it Leonard who said "there is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in". I'm examining the possible cracks to let some light in.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part IIIHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:42 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 14.29%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2019 diyAudio
Wiki