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.

If it's purely an engineering challenge why bother designing yet another DAC?
If it's purely an engineering challenge why bother designing yet another DAC?
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 Yesterday, 07:59 PM   #1201
rdf is offline rdf  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
rdf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: big smoke
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundbloke View Post
It is not private language and you are welcome to provide your own nomenclature if it will aid understanding....No because one's entire perception is an illusion.
Just not one that conforms to common English but fine, the point comes through. To be fair I misused delusion to find adjacent space to this use.

Quote:
I apologise if I have not made it clear: This does not concern hearing acuity, rather it concerns the certainty with which one assumes a perception is based on a real event or whether it arises as a delusion - and specifically in this thread, in the absence of any objective measure to confer certainty (or otherwise).
That makes no sense to me. An 'illusion' filtered through hearing damage must impact certainty of accuracy. Acuity, sobriety, anything interfering with perception does. Also be aware differentiating 'with certainty' between what you frame as valid illusion vs deluded illusion is by no means trivial when all experiences are received via illusion, including the evidence to determine if an illusion is deluded. But this is drifting too far afield.
It still appears to me that your conceptual framework is founded on a notion of audio reproduction that must replicate some almost Platonic ideal of an event otherwise it's wrong and, since this is considered nearly impossible, accuracy of reproduction is nonsensical in principle. Audio reproduction that successfully and fully recreates the total auditory experience of being at the original concert event in all respects except for one seat left, right, fore or aft of the microphone is therefore inaccurate and entirely a matter of taste. Hearing Mahler's 4th as Slipknot becomes as 'accurate' as hearing it one row too far back. That appears a value judgement that raises interesting ramifications on what it means for audience members scattered across the hall experiencing one idealized event.

Quote:
That would be remarkable.
Or lucid dreaming. People can be aware their perceptions are false.
__________________
Ears aren't microphones.
  Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:45 PM   #1202
soundbloke is offline soundbloke  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
soundbloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdf View Post
Also be aware differentiating 'with certainty' between what you frame as valid illusion vs deluded illusion is by no means trivial when all experiences are received via illusion
The non-trivial nature of ascribing certainty in making that distinction is the basic premise of what many of my posts in this thread have concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdf View Post
An 'illusion' filtered through hearing damage must impact certainty of accuracy. Acuity, sobriety, anything interfering with perception does.
Indeed, but accuracy is not the issue. The issue is the certainty given to a perception that is the result of delusion and for which, without objective validation, any such validity is unwarranted. What exactly that delusion is of is not the concern: It might be the nature of fingering of a bass string, a just-audible conversation in a control room caught on a studio microphone or mistaking a trumpet for a Hammond organ that would be obvious to people of normal hearing. All of us are capable of delusion in our perceptions at any level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdf View Post
It still appears to me that your conceptual framework is founded on a notion of audio reproduction that must replicate some almost Platonic ideal of an event otherwise it's wrong and, since this is considered nearly impossible, accuracy of reproduction is nonsensical in principle.
The notion that audio reproduction is a precise replication of a recorded event is non-sensical, but that is not the issue. Even in a reproduction system offering perfect wavefront reproduction, we would still be capable of errantly perceiving information because we would have no reference to know otherwise. The issues of certainty therefore remain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdf View Post
Audio reproduction that successfully and fully recreates the total auditory experience of being at the original concert event in all respects except for one seat left, right, fore or aft of the microphone is therefore inaccurate and entirely a matter of taste.
No audio reproduction can be that successful and what is produced is indeed a matter of taste. My previous posts allude to the skill of engineers in often producing a more pleasurable listening experience at home than at the recording event. As mentioned previously in this thread, accuracy is a misnomer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdf View Post
That appears a value judgement that raises interesting ramifications on what it means for audience members scattered across the hall experiencing one idealized event.
Indeed, and concert seats range in price accordingly. Modern hall design also often attempts to create many areas with small hall-like acoustics to maximise the number of good (expensive) seats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdf View Post
Or lucid dreaming. People can be aware their perceptions are false.
I should have made that exception, my apologies. Outside of that particular contentious state, I still maintain awareness of oneself in a dream is post-rationalisation.

And in spite of my not agreeing with much of your contribution, I thank you very much for your well-considered response and I look forward to your reply. Long may the enquiry continue!
  Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:16 PM   #1203
gerhard is offline gerhard  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Wendel / Saar, SouthWest Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markw4 View Post
On what basis do you assume humans are linear?
The large dynamic range range we can perceive strongly suggests
that humans are logarithmic. And that with all side effects that come with it.

Gerhard
__________________
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" "We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!"
  Reply With Quote

Reply


If it's purely an engineering challenge why bother designing yet another DAC?Hide 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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Class D with Apt-X, purely digital MichaelStumpf Class D 3 7th July 2017 09:48 AM
Purely acoustic crossover? maggiesnmacs Multi-Way 15 17th August 2015 06:33 PM
Purely subjective test. Which do you prefer. Mooly Everything Else 33 28th January 2014 09:52 AM
Won't bother .... omissis Solid State 0 20th November 2006 08:50 AM
purely resistive crossovers? googler Multi-Way 38 25th March 2005 07:04 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2020 diyAudio
Wiki