What I'm positing is that part of my brain, your brain, everybody's brain has accumulated & stored experience of how audio behaves in the world - it's this reference that auditory processing uses for analysis & categorizing - we are not consciously aware of how it does this, we are just aware of the end result.
Of course I am the physiological being that has this part of the brain functioning in this way.
I'm not really sure how you can misinterpret my words?
BTW, DF96 was nearly correct - the modern theory of how the inner ear does it's 'thing' (there's that thing again) is below 1KHz it's not the place on the BM that encodes the sound it's the firing of the firing of a volley of neurons at a rate that mimics the frequency of the sound & above 5KHz it's the placement of the hair cells along the BM that fires neurons. Between 1KHz & 5KHz a combination of both of these is used.
I did not misinterpret your words, I reacted to the words you wrote. If your words did not accurately reflect what you meant to say, I don't know how you can construe that as a problem with my "interpretation". The meaning of the words you wrote, and wrote several times, was clear and unambiguous and not open to interpretation.
This is not the first time that you have claimed that people misunderstood what you wrote. Maybe you should consider that the problem is not with the other people, but with the way you express yourself. When you say things like "How does audio perception know..." you are either not thinking clearly, or you are not expressing yourself clearly.
So some have argued. There are also good arguments that what you think of as 'you' is your conscious awareness.
Regarding homunculi in particular, in the book, Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman made an argument for the use of language describing System 1 and System 2 processes in a way that many psychologists believe is technically incorrect, but Kahneman proceeded to do it anyway because he felt it was an intuitive and useful way to think about the processes.
ADPCM is (by itself) absolutely lossy. I used some Oki (IIRC it was a Japanese company, dunno what happened to it) ADPCM encoding and decoding chips back in the 1980s. These converted 8-bit telephone quality signals into 4-bit compressed for transmission/storage/switching, then back to 8 bit for playback. I even wrote code to do the encoding/decoding on a PC so I could generate and edit encoded files.
I was surprised a decade later to read a Usenet comment that DVD encoding used ADPCM, as I had read elsewhere that DVD audio was lossless. Further reading on the DVD format confirmed that ADPCM is used, but it also includes "error bits" for each sample that allow the decoder to perfectly reconstruct the original PCM samples. I never knew how these error bits were determined or used.
I think some modern codecs like AptX use ADPCM along with other techniques like SBC, but they are lossy. I'm not too sure about DVDs stereo PCM layer, I only remember that it's 48 kHz usually. Most movies came in AC3 or DTS.
I'm not intimately familiar with these codecs, but if I had to guess, it's only used over more advanced techniques because it's easy to decode (CPU time / power since it's designed for Bluetooth) and not patent encumbered.
I'm not intimately familiar with these codecs, but if I had to guess, it's only used over more advanced techniques because it's easy to decode (CPU time / power since it's designed for Bluetooth) and not patent encumbered.
Last edited:
The exact process is supposedly secret? But isn't it possible to compare files and work out the encoding?
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
Last edited:
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).
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.
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:
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
)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:
I know, don't you agree that this is one of those cases where extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
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).mmerrill99 said:
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.
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.mmerrill99 said:
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?
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.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.