Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Sep 2005 21:16:25 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Sep 2005 02:04:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree.

You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more
real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a
simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the
listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener."
mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are
right.

But I think this is the crux of it. What is the status of the claim:
"If a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources
*must* sound the same to the listener"? How do you know that's true?
Is it an empirical claim? A tautology? What does "must" mean here?

If you are not a legendary creature of Norse origin, the status of the
claim is obvious. Things which do not sound different must therefore
sound the same. It's not a difficult concept, now is it?

I hadn't thought so, but for a counterexample to your claim please see
my post of Aug. 24, 8:09 pm.

No. If you have something to say, then *quote* it. However, you appear
to have expended several thousand lines saying nothing up to this
point, so perhaps this is a lost cause.

Only if you think that saying something *other* than "sighted testing
is unreliable," which surely you and others have repeated considerably
more often than anything I have said, is saying nothing.

Would you agree that, for most if not all cases in which a person hears
a sound, there is a certain degree of loudness that, on that occasion,
the listener perceives the sound as having? Suppose then that a
listener hears sound A, followed by a certain amount of time and/or
noise, then sound B. Suppose he is unable to judge which, if either,
was louder. There is a degree of loudness the listener heard A, on
that occasion, as having; call it x. There is a degree of loudness the
listener heard B, on that occasion, as having; call it y. (I've
changed the notation slightly from what was in my earlier post.)

Would you say now, given the information so far, and given everything
we know about hearing, that it *must* be the case that x = y? Or is it
possible, given this information and everything we know about hearing,
that x and y might be different?

Mark