AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - A model of the brain, & quick-switch

wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:
Let's consider quick-switch testing based on small fragments of sound
which repeat over and over. My own experience with this (e.g., Arny's
PCABX site), is that I'm no longer hearing the sound as music.

That sounds like a problem with your perception, or your
interpretation, or your neural processing... IOW, in the admittedly
somewhat confrontational vernacular, that's YOUR problem. But that is
NOT a short-coming of quick-switch testing per se, as other listener's
do not share your inability to continue perceiving the sound as music.

This seems to be a matter of what we mean by "perceiving the sound as
music." I mean that the sound "works" as music, by which I mean that it
generates expressive shapes that are musically coherent according to my
understanding of classical music, that this music maintains a fresh,
alive sense, a sense of living "in the moment," and that the
relationship of the details to the overall form is audible and
coherent.

I suspect that what you mean by "hearing the sound as music" is
something like "you can tell that musical instruments are playing."

No, that's not what anybody means. This is not only a straw man, but a
rather pathetic one.

Notice that in my definition of "hearing the sound as music," it would
truly be an extraordinary claim to suggest that *anyone* could maintain
this in repeated short clips. And yet, it is in these experiences that
the difference between components are evident.

So there are differences between the camps. To an objectivist, there's
no need to reflect on the nature of aesthetics, or the nature of
musical experience. Experiences are very simple. If you can still hear
an instrument, then it is still music. It just IS. There is no
reflection, no sensitivity to how context changes musical experience.

More and more I get the feeling that you, and Stewart, and Chung simply
*can't* hear the differences between components.

And this is the usual "my ears are better than your ears" trope. It's
obnoxious every time it's brought up.

While I'm sure they
enjoy music very much, it would seem that their listening lacks layers
and depth--lacks the sorts of experiences that stimulate one to reflect
on the nature of the act of listening.

And this is truly insulting. Haven't you got anything constructive to
contribute?

Or possibly they do hear the differences, but simply don't trust their
own experience. "Science" as practiced by psycho-acousticians has
replaced trusting one's own perception.

My perception tells me that the Sun revolves around the Earth. So much
for trusting one's own perception.

bob