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

wrote:
wrote:
Nonsense. Psychoacoustics doesn't "de-emphasize" anything. It rules
things out empirically. One thing it has ruled out empirically is the
notion that detection of small changes in sound can improve when we
extend the time between the changes.

I would say rather that detection of small changes, for a certain set
of changes, when listened to as sound (not as music), and when
discriminated via comparison and the intention to hear differences in
sound, reveals that detection improves with less separation in
time---at least over the time scales that have been investigated.

The paradigm is in the choice of these particular foundational
assumptions--the choice of differences to be investigated, the means of
using awareness, and so on.

We are not "choosing the differences to be investigated." We know what
the differences are between two audio components. You are speculating
that there are differences we don't know about. Such baseless
speculations are what make your arguments a form of pseudoscience.

If you could say, "Here's a difference that your listening tests are
missing," or "Here's another form of listening test that finds
differences mroe subtle than yours," then you'd have some basis for the
argument you are making. But you can't.

That's the important difference
between psychoacoustics researchers and you. They test things
empirically. They do not simply make up "facts" in their own head.

As far as "everything you claim, the paradigm can explain." Well,
exactly. My paradigm can also explain everything you claim.

First of all, you don't have a paradigm. Or, to be more specific, you
don't have a theory. All you have is blind belief.

What makes you think I have blind belief?

Because you have no evidence to support your assertions. None. Zero.
Zilch. Nada.

And there's a whole
host of things you can't explain, like why our perceptions differ
sighted vs. blind and why measurements correlate with audibility tests.

Perceptions differ under all sorts of conditions.

Some measurements correlate with some styles of audibility tests. This
does not mean that we fully understand how measurements do or do not
correlate with, for example, musical beauty.

Our measurements don't correlate with musical beauty at all. But then,
audio reproduction has nothing to do with musical beauty. Beethoven is
not more beautiful because he's played on a high-end audio system
rather than a mini-system.

Now, if you mean "perceptions of musical beauty," then you'd have to
demonstrate that our perceptions of musical beauty can differ when
listening to audio systems that are (by currently accepted scientific
standards) audibly indistinguishable. And you can't do that.

bob