If they presented measurable difference and the difference was large enough, then sure, why not. Not when the difference went from inaudible distortion level to even further inaudible distortion level.
You are free to rely on your own view as a guide. Have you consulted the experts who don't have a dog in the race about the DAC audibility?
From time to time we seems to find the need to backup our fellow audio hobbyist. I have invited Mark several times to my home to just talk and to listen. I have found Mark to be extremely knowledgeable in electronics and from what he tells me about my system, I agree with so i trust his hearing judgment. We are going to get together again and catch up this Saturday.
THx-Richard Marsh
THx-Richard Marsh
Last edited:
I think it should be abortedI see here mostly guys from the US debating fiercely...You could meet each other and share your knowledge in bit more practical way though.You're on the same continent
You first!
Edit:
But you won't, so see below. And that will do it for me.
Mark, it was you yourself who corrected me! On the 2nd of May.
Either I have to call shenanigans, or diagnose you with suffering from short term memory loss, but since I am not medically qualified, it will have to be the former.
Usually in humans numerous bias effects are simultaneous at work, especially when multidimensional effects are under examination, and normally it is most likely a combination of several biases having an impact on our perception and decisions.
When trying to simplify the complex reality of "hearing" i subsumed the various bias effects under the term "distraction" to get a distinction between the physiological response of the "apparatus" (that might be influenced by other confounding variables too) and the - somewhere at the end - resulting perception.
Obviously it is a crude instrument and oversimplification as we know that there exist several feedback mechanism and so even the physiological response is not working independently from the of the system.
But even on this simplified level it fits to the evidence given by experiments where the same sensory difference was presented to the same group of particpants under different test regimes.
The evidence - corrobated whenever such experiments were done/published - is that the specific tasks (presented by each test protocol) give different proportion of correct responses.
Further other confounding variables like differently worded instructions, money bets or rewards led to different results when used in combination with the same test protocol.
When trying to simplify the complex reality of "hearing" i subsumed the various bias effects under the term "distraction" to get a distinction between the physiological response of the "apparatus" (that might be influenced by other confounding variables too) and the - somewhere at the end - resulting perception.
Obviously it is a crude instrument and oversimplification as we know that there exist several feedback mechanism and so even the physiological response is not working independently from the of the system.
But even on this simplified level it fits to the evidence given by experiments where the same sensory difference was presented to the same group of particpants under different test regimes.
The evidence - corrobated whenever such experiments were done/published - is that the specific tasks (presented by each test protocol) give different proportion of correct responses.
Further other confounding variables like differently worded instructions, money bets or rewards led to different results when used in combination with the same test protocol.
This is from Mola Mola page and I am more to this approach then the KIS, make it simple as possible but not simpler (AE)
"You'd almost forget that getting closer to the sound as crafted by the artist really means keeping the replay system from changing it. Turning this simple insight into hardware is probably the toughest way to do audio. All simple circuits change the signal audibly, so one has to get to grips with more complicated ones that don't."
"You'd almost forget that getting closer to the sound as crafted by the artist really means keeping the replay system from changing it. Turning this simple insight into hardware is probably the toughest way to do audio. All simple circuits change the signal audibly, so one has to get to grips with more complicated ones that don't."
Which way would you define "small" when considering the "gorilla in our midst" ?
Jakob is trying to help you in his answers - perception is not an immutable, unchanging, invariant sense. To ignore this fact & try to 'prove' that an informal test which ignores all the understanding cognitive science has accumulated is a 'reliable' way of discovering truth is foolish at best & disingenuous at worst.
Find what works for you is what I believe Jakob is saying - forget about 'proving' to others
It isn't small but it is both transient and unexpected. In the verification through blind testing of audio claims, neither necessarily apply, depending on how you setup your test.
What do you consider transient? AFAIR, the gorilla is in view for maybe 5 secs or more? Are you suggesting that our visual perception window is blind to anything 'unexpected' lasting less than 5 secs?
What it demonstrates is the nature of perception - visual blindness - the equivalent exists in auditory perception.
I keep hearing my phone when it isn't ringing, which is really starting to **** me off, and no, it's not tinnitus, I have that as well.
Edit: Tinnitus is actually very interesting when you look into it, if you do you will start to realise that taking as gospel what people say they hear is a big mistake.
Edit: Tinnitus is actually very interesting when you look into it, if you do you will start to realise that taking as gospel what people say they hear is a big mistake.
Last edited:
*Yawns* Still busy twisting words ? What makes you think I'd suggest anything that stupid ? Considering quite a few people do see the gorilla (about 50%), it is obvious that it doesn't work that way.
Visual (or auditory) blindness is real but can be taken into account into the design of a test. Noone forces you to use naive subjects.
Visual (or auditory) blindness is real but can be taken into account into the design of a test. Noone forces you to use naive subjects.
Because you said the words as is plain to see & it's rather difficult to be blind to them
. What else did you mean by "transient & unexpected" & how do those two factors explain why ~50% of people don't perceive the gorilla?
Ah so you do see the error in your statement - so how do you explain the 'blindness' in ~50% of the people?
If you can state what you believe causes the "blindness" in the test maybe it would be more conducive to discussion - stating "Noone forces you to use naive subjects" has some underlying premises in it that it would be interesting to tease out.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.