Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote:
wrote: That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts. *Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context. Yes, that would be the context where you sit in a room and let small, rapid changes in air pressure impact your ears. This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely. But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music, afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2) my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change (2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least a start at controlling (2). Note that any kind of listening test which involves a large number of trials in a short time is *presuming* that those trials involve *independent*, unconnected experiences. The most elementary observation suggests otherwise. I'm not saying I've *proven* otherwise; just that it needs to be investigated. Mike |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote in message
... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message ... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message ... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking subjectivists than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance, for all the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time working on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered versions of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing Stew. I would spend my time finding the best *performed* versions of my favorite music before worrying about which were the best mastered. My post already assumes that Stewart has done as much. If no then his vigil against subjectivism has been even more wasteful. And of course this is only an issue with classical. i wouldn't spend much time looking for the best performance of any Beatles recordings. Too bad, you're missing out on a lot of good music in my subjective opinion. Really? you mean you have found better perfomances of the Beatles records by other artists than the Beatles? I guess i am missing out. Do tell. The Rolling Stones' version of "I Wanna Be Your Man", for one. Better than the Beatles version? That is a matter of opinion. Got m both. Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves. Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your concern. You seem confused. You were the one who insisted that Stewart spend his time looking for the best *masters*, then I suggested one should look for the best *performances* first. Oh well. - Gary Rosen |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 9 Oct 2005 21:29:38 GMT, Signal wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" emitted : That's ridiculous. They have years of listening enjoyment by a many many audiophiles. That is the bottom line for subjectivists. Lets face this, the objectivists have no alternative to offer subjectivists that will satisfy subjectivists. telling people their perceptions are wrong is ultimately the most silly thing of all and hat does seem to be the answer objectivists wish to ofer subjectivists. It is true that attempting to educate the religious is doomed to failure. However, that *you* are unwilling to face reality, does not make us give up hope that others will just 'trust their ears', as the subjectivists always *claim* that they want people to do. What you guys often forget is that all the 'hard line objectivists' on this newgroup used to be exactly like you - except that we were willing to accept that we had been wrong for all these years. You and a few others have experienced what could be described as a religious conversion. Certainly, 'the scales fell from my eyes'..... :-) At one time you believed that differences you perceived (and still do - this is a matter of record) were reality based, but participation in double bind tests (esp. ABX) has influenced your thinking to the degree that you now have absolute FAITH in this method of comparing components. I do, but this faith is based on evidence, and hence is not religious faith. We understand that your beliefs about the audibility of small changes is based on the evidence of quick-switching ABX tests. However, what we are suggesting is that you have uncritical faith in such tests as revealing the entire picture. In other words, your faith is not in the conclusion, but in the means of gathering evidence. The fact that such tests may result in a consistent picture of the ear/brain, means nothing about the wider context of all listening. Mike |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Keith Hughes wrote:
wrote: Keith Hughes wrote: snip Let's tug this analogy somewhat closer to reality, shall we? After we've analyzed creature X both biomechanically, and aerodynamically, and determined that it is not flight-capable, we shove it off the cliff. The splat provides corroboration of the bioengineering analysis. That *one* experiment *is* sufficient to *verify* the bioengineering analysis previously performed (you know, the part you conveniently like to omit). I understand your argument here, and I understand that if you truly believe this to be an accurate analogy for what has taken place, then I can see why you have faith in the answers of psychoacoustic science. Yes, I believe it is an accurate analogy. It, like all other aspects of scientific inquiry, relies on the preponderance of evidence, understanding that *everything* will never be fully recognized or delineated. If, OTOH, you believe your analogy to be accurate, you need to do *Much* more to address the obvious implication that *no* prior analyses have been performed. A rather Herculean task it would appear. However, your argument can be answered on multiple levels: Really? Let's see... (1) A single experiment is not sufficient to verify a theory developed completely on analytical grounds. Complete nonsense. "One" test typically incorporates multiple challenges, or iterations, and is wholly sufficient to verify, *sans contravening data*, that the theory is acceptable. Note the caveat please. Tell me which one observation verified general relativity. (2) Science doesn't work this way, anyhow. Theory and observation are intermingled. No, they are not "intermingled". Theories are generated to explain observations, period. The converse is not true, although you seem not to understand that simple principle. Observations are carried out using equipment designed by principles proposed by earlier theories. Just for one example. When the "bioengineering analysis" itself it based on other observations I.e., observations of flight-capable creatures, the population of interest, clearly, so...? ---and ALL those observations were made in the context of creature X falling off a cliff You are clearly befuddled as to the relationship of cause and effect. *None* of the observations are made "in the context of creature X falling off a cliff". Certainly not in your analogy, but in the actual observation of human hearing, only one context has been employed. Mike |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
On 18 Oct 2005 02:07:49 GMT, "Gary Rosen"
wrote: wrote in message ... Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves. Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your concern. You seem confused. You were the one who insisted that Stewart spend his time looking for the best *masters*, then I suggested one should look for the best *performances* first. Oh well. You are of course correct, the performance is more important than the mastering. Porky George of course just likes to argue for its own sake, and he he has absolutely no basis for his claim that I don't know whether I have the best masters of the music I enjoy. In many cases, I have at one time owned *all* the available versions, so I certainly do know which I prefer. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Keith Hughes wrote:
wrote: Keith Hughes wrote: snip For this whole analogy to have any relevance, you would have to be asserting that the *act* of listening changes, not perception, but the physical construction or configuration of the sound waves hitting your eardrum. Is this your assertion? As an objectivist is wont to do, you are narrowing the focus too much and not seeing the big picture. You look merely at the "observer observing the sound." In the bigger picture, an audio test is an "observer A observing the observer B observing the sound." I merely comment on the fallaciousness of your analogy, to which another fractured rung has just been added. An audio test is *not* "observer A observing the observer B observing the sound". "A" is the proctor (having no evaluative role *in the observation*), "B" is the observer. Your persistance at narrowing the context is remarkable. The word "observation" doesn't imply direct subjective involvement. Webster's definition includes: "an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments" Noting the subject's response, whether done blind, double-blind, or upside-down, is an observation. Just as the slit experiment involves *measuring* a photon's position. An unsupported assertion. Removing "A" (and other confounding variables) from the equation is what test design is all about. What did you think the "double" in double blind testing was *for*? This analogy to quantum mechanics is not an assertion that there is some equivalent "audio uncertainty principle" that somehow prevents us from learning what we need to learn (i.e., Pinkerton's interpretation as "mysterious force"). It is an analogy I make in order to show that the influence of the context of listening has been wholesale ignored by the objectivists---and the so-called "lack of troublesome observations" means nothing. The analogy *makes no point* if it is neither relevant, nor illustrative. The "uncertainty" principle is the entire basis for your analogy, yet you now claim that there is no audio corollary. That's amusing. *You* are the one who dragged in the uncertainty principle. I originally made reference to duality as the analogy. (Somehow I imagine you are going to say they are the same thing, or that one is necessary to explain the other.. that may be for *light* but not necessarily for *consciousness*) To show how absurd this argument is, let's rephrase it with cooking. Ah, and here you're going to make my point exactly. As... I point out that you have only ever cooked dishes that include beef. I claim there are other kinds of dishes. Another inapt analogy, but let's explore it anyway... You say, "Okay then, *exactly* how many kinds of dishes are there? You can't answer this question? You're obviously a pseudoscientist who claims we know nothing." To which you reply *what*? Here, let me provide your answer, in terms of *YOUR* analogy: "There are an infinite number of dishes, each either greatly or subtly different from all others". Remarkable--I've never before seen someone not only use a strawman argument, but literally *define* the meaning of a strawman argument in doing so ("let me provide your answer"). The result, in both cases, reduces to the same thing, "Nothing can ever be proven", as you are forever free to hypothesize the existence of yet another, and another, and another 'type of listening'. My cooking analogy was very simple and you apparently don't get the basic point. Anyone reading my reply ("there are other kinds of dishes") would say, "Yes, this opens up new avenues of investigation." Anyone reading your bizarre reply would think, "What?? How does a simple call for more investigation turn into an argument that 'nothing can be proven'?" I don't think I'm the one engaging in mental gymnastics here... If you want to know the whole story, read all my past posts. I've stated in plenty of times, and I'm not going to repeat it all merely because you haven't read it. We could *start* with the idea that attention can be either free-floating or directed. That would provide two "kinds" of listening, and no one has ever been able to point me to a test which could separate or control for which type the subject employed. Mike |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote:
wrote: wrote: That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts. *Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context. Yes, that would be the context where you sit in a room and let small, rapid changes in air pressure impact your ears. This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely. What evidence am I ignoring? But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music, afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2) my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change (2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least a start at controlling (2). And have you found components that sound the same to you when you haven't recently listened to live music, but sound different from each other when you have recently listened to live music? You want to make the claim that there is some "context" or "condition" in which the standard ear/brain model fails to predict audible discrimination accurately. This would at least offer some glimmer of evidence to support your position. But of course you haven't got any evidence, do you? Note that any kind of listening test which involves a large number of trials in a short time is *presuming* that those trials involve *independent*, unconnected experiences. The most elementary observation suggests otherwise. I'm not saying I've *proven* otherwise; just that it needs to be investigated. I would suggest that your observations are far too elementary to be relevant to the question at hand. You are playing a very typical pseudoscientific game with your "contexts" and "conditions." You have so far suggested absolutely nothing that's worthy of investigation, because you cannot offer a single observation regarding audibility that cannot be explained by current science. Even the Intelligent Design theorists can do better than that. bob |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote in message
... We understand that your beliefs about the audibility of small changes is based on the evidence of quick-switching ABX tests. However, what we are suggesting is that you have uncritical faith in such tests as revealing the entire picture. In other words, your faith is not in the conclusion, but in the means of gathering evidence. But you don't seem to have anything of substance to offer to prove that something is being missed, other than your faith. The fact that such tests may result in a consistent picture of the ear/brain, means nothing about the wider context of all listening. And you still don't offer anything other than faith that there is something being missed in equipment comparisons that account for the claims made by the subjectivist side. One thing that is certain about the objectivist side is we rely on relaible, repeatable evidence, and when new evidence is shown to contradict something that we have held as true, we are perfectly willing to revise our viewpoint and incorporate the new evidence into our beliefs. It doesn't seem to be the same for the other side, as they've been indenial for a very long time IMO. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message ... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message ... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message ... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking subjectivists than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance, for all the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time working on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered versions of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing Stew. I would spend my time finding the best *performed* versions of my favorite music before worrying about which were the best mastered. My post already assumes that Stewart has done as much. If no then his vigil against subjectivism has been even more wasteful. And of course this is only an issue with classical. i wouldn't spend much time looking for the best performance of any Beatles recordings. Too bad, you're missing out on a lot of good music in my subjective opinion. Really? you mean you have found better perfomances of the Beatles records by other artists than the Beatles? I guess i am missing out. Do tell. The Rolling Stones' version of "I Wanna Be Your Man", for one. Better than the Beatles version? That is a matter of opinion. Got m both. Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves. Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your concern. You seem confused. You were the one who insisted that Stewart spend his time looking for the best *masters*, then I suggested one should look for the best *performances* first. Oh well. Perhaps you are confused since Stewart has claimed to have already done so and my post was made with that understanding. You might as well suggest that one first get a stereo system. Scott |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts. *Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context. Yes, that would be the context where you sit in a room and let small, rapid changes in air pressure impact your ears. This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely. What evidence am I ignoring? But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music, afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2) my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change (2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least a start at controlling (2). And have you found components that sound the same to you when you haven't recently listened to live music, but sound different from each other when you have recently listened to live music? This is completely missing the point. The point is that this very simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience, suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed from (1) and (2). The double-blind quick-switching listening tests which purport to show us what is audible and what is not, have, as their premise, that any audio snippet A produces the same conscious response *regardless of context*. Tests designed under this premise are the one and only kind of test used to measure discriminatory ability. It follows that they can only measure the component of consciousness which arises from (1). (2) is not controlled. It is the *premise* but by no means the proven result of these experiments that (2) is irrelevant. Mike |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts. *Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context. Yes, that would be the context where you sit in a room and let small, rapid changes in air pressure impact your ears. This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely. What evidence am I ignoring? But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music, afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2) my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change (2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least a start at controlling (2). And have you found components that sound the same to you when you haven't recently listened to live music, but sound different from each other when you have recently listened to live music? I thought of a simpler way to explain this. It's not that context affects how A and B sound different, it's that context affects how A sounds and how B sounds. If you wish to determine if A and B stimulate different conscious experiences, you must take this into consideration. Mike |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
On 19 Oct 2005 02:27:27 GMT, wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote: wrote: Keith Hughes wrote: snip Let's tug this analogy somewhat closer to reality, shall we? After we've analyzed creature X both biomechanically, and aerodynamically, and determined that it is not flight-capable, we shove it off the cliff. The splat provides corroboration of the bioengineering analysis. That *one* experiment *is* sufficient to *verify* the bioengineering analysis previously performed (you know, the part you conveniently like to omit). I understand your argument here, and I understand that if you truly believe this to be an accurate analogy for what has taken place, then I can see why you have faith in the answers of psychoacoustic science. Yes, I believe it is an accurate analogy. It, like all other aspects of scientific inquiry, relies on the preponderance of evidence, understanding that *everything* will never be fully recognized or delineated. If, OTOH, you believe your analogy to be accurate, you need to do *Much* more to address the obvious implication that *no* prior analyses have been performed. A rather Herculean task it would appear. However, your argument can be answered on multiple levels: Really? Let's see... (1) A single experiment is not sufficient to verify a theory developed completely on analytical grounds. Complete nonsense. "One" test typically incorporates multiple challenges, or iterations, and is wholly sufficient to verify, *sans contravening data*, that the theory is acceptable. Note the caveat please. Tell me which one observation verified general relativity. That would be light bending around the Sun. Tell me which one observation verifies *your* theory - whatever it is. (2) Science doesn't work this way, anyhow. Theory and observation are intermingled. No, they are not "intermingled". Theories are generated to explain observations, period. The converse is not true, although you seem not to understand that simple principle. Observations are carried out using equipment designed by principles proposed by earlier theories. Just for one example. What, you mean like eyeballs? Or indeed ears.... When the "bioengineering analysis" itself it based on other observations I.e., observations of flight-capable creatures, the population of interest, clearly, so...? ---and ALL those observations were made in the context of creature X falling off a cliff You are clearly befuddled as to the relationship of cause and effect. *None* of the observations are made "in the context of creature X falling off a cliff". Certainly not in your analogy, but in the actual observation of human hearing, only one context has been employed. Untrue - peopole have made all kinds of claims for all kinds of listening experiences. However, those who have made real observations have invariably disovered that level-matched quick-switched blind comparisons are the most sensitive. If you wish to argue against this, you must cease your handwaving and provide some *evidence*. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 Oct 2005 02:07:49 GMT, "Gary Rosen" wrote: wrote in message ... Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves. Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your concern. You seem confused. You were the one who insisted that Stewart spend his time looking for the best *masters*, then I suggested one should look for the best *performances* first. Oh well. You are of course correct, he is? You need to spend time looking for better performances first? I thought you said you alreay have all the music you wanted? Did you not say that? the performance is more important than the mastering. That's a silly statement. They are mutually exclusive and not an either/or proposition. Porky George of course just likes to argue for its own sake, Really? Never bought expensive equipment just to argue that it is a bad value. and he he has absolutely no basis for his claim that I don't know whether I have the best masters of the music I enjoy. Wrong as usual. I based it on your claim that it is an easy task. It simply isn't an easy task to seek out and evaluate the best masterings of popular titles. That leads me to believe you really haven't done the job. If you don't want to that is fine. I suspect that it shouldn't bea problem for you given the fact that you have your speakers set up backwards and against the walls anyway. But for those of us with highend equipment that is actually set up the way it was designed to be set up there is great poential for vast improvements in the quality of the listening exprience through seeking out different, better masterings of one's favorite music. It isn't easy because it involves getting the different versions to start with, listening to them individually to get the best levels and other relevaaant settings and then doing careful side by side comparisons, blind and sighted. it's a lot to do. How anyone can consider this an easy task with so many recordings simply suggests they really don't know what they are talking about. In many cases, I have at one time owned *all* the available versions, How do you know? Examples please? so I certainly do know which I prefer. How do you know it wasn't your biases telling you which one you prefer? Scott |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:27:27 GMT, wrote: Keith Hughes wrote: wrote: Keith Hughes wrote: snip Let's tug this analogy somewhat closer to reality, shall we? After we've analyzed creature X both biomechanically, and aerodynamically, and determined that it is not flight-capable, we shove it off the cliff. The splat provides corroboration of the bioengineering analysis. That *one* experiment *is* sufficient to *verify* the bioengineering analysis previously performed (you know, the part you conveniently like to omit). I understand your argument here, and I understand that if you truly believe this to be an accurate analogy for what has taken place, then I can see why you have faith in the answers of psychoacoustic science. Yes, I believe it is an accurate analogy. It, like all other aspects of scientific inquiry, relies on the preponderance of evidence, understanding that *everything* will never be fully recognized or delineated. If, OTOH, you believe your analogy to be accurate, you need to do *Much* more to address the obvious implication that *no* prior analyses have been performed. A rather Herculean task it would appear. However, your argument can be answered on multiple levels: Really? Let's see... (1) A single experiment is not sufficient to verify a theory developed completely on analytical grounds. Complete nonsense. "One" test typically incorporates multiple challenges, or iterations, and is wholly sufficient to verify, *sans contravening data*, that the theory is acceptable. Note the caveat please. Tell me which one observation verified general relativity. That would be light bending around the Sun. Well, you should get on the phone to LIGO right away and tell them to cancel the gravity-wave experiment--- no need to waste our time on that now, because we've already verified the whole of general relativity! We already *know* what the result would be, so there's no need to do the experiment. Kind of like objectivists already the *know* the result of a living-with-the-component blind test, even though they can't provide a single reference to one that has ever taken place. Mike |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts. *Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context. Yes, that would be the context where you sit in a room and let small, rapid changes in air pressure impact your ears. This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely. What evidence am I ignoring? But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music, afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2) my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change (2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least a start at controlling (2). And have you found components that sound the same to you when you haven't recently listened to live music, but sound different from each other when you have recently listened to live music? This is completely missing the point. The point is that this very simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience, suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed from (1) and (2). And so is the experience of auditory bias effects. So, how do you reliably distinguish an objective difference from one that is *entirely* subjective? Simply responding to a sound does not mean that what you believe about the sound is *accurate*. Responding to two sounds with the feeling that one is 'better' is not *by itself* sufficient proof that the two sounds were objectively different. This is simple, demonstrable scientific fact. Your 'response' can be COMPLETELY INACCURATE as a gauge of objective difference. This is also the irreducible flaw in your apparently endless chain of shaky inference. -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote:
wrote: wrote: This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely. What evidence am I ignoring? Lack of reply noted. Thank you for admitting that I am not ignoring any evidence. But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music, afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2) my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change (2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least a start at controlling (2). And have you found components that sound the same to you when you haven't recently listened to live music, but sound different from each other when you have recently listened to live music? This is completely missing the point. It is precisely the point. You argue that having heard live music affects your perception of recorded music. But you now admit that it does not affect your ability to differentiate between components. So you still have yet to provide us with a single "context" in which our standard ear/brain model of perception is wrong. The point is that this very simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience, suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed from (1) and (2). The double-blind quick-switching listening tests which purport to show us what is audible and what is not, have, as their premise, that any audio snippet A produces the same conscious response *regardless of context*. No, it does not. It simply assumes (for sound, empirical reasons) that "context"--whatever you may mean or think you mean by that--is irrelevant to the question of whether two things are audibly distinguishable. It does not assume that your conscious response would be the same in all contexts. It only assumes that your conscious response will be the same for two similar components, assuming you hold context constant. Tests designed under this premise are the one and only kind of test used to measure discriminatory ability. It follows that they can only measure the component of consciousness which arises from (1). (2) is not controlled. It is the *premise* but by no means the proven result of these experiments that (2) is irrelevant. 2, per you above, is "[your] response to the sound." Of course we don't control that. That's what we're testing! Sheesh. bob |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote:
wrote: The double-blind quick-switching listening tests which purport to show us what is audible and what is not, have, as their premise, that any audio snippet A produces the same conscious response *regardless of context*. No, it does not. It simply assumes (for sound, empirical reasons) that "context"--whatever you may mean or think you mean by that--is irrelevant to the question of whether two things are audibly distinguishable. It does not assume that your conscious response would be the same in all contexts. It only assumes that your conscious response will be the same for two similar components, assuming you hold context constant. "Holding context constant" is exactly what you don't do. My example of listening to live music, then noting a changed perception of recorded music, demonstrates that listening to A can affect how one hears B. In, say, an ABX test, first you hear A, then B, then A again (let's say)... the first time you've heard A, there was nothing before.. the second time, you heard A and B before. Composers use the very principle that a musical segment isn't "on its own" but exists in a context, in order to manipulate our experience of music. The validity of the test absolutely requires that A create the same experience each time you hear it.. if that's not true, then the test isn't valid. Tests designed under this premise are the one and only kind of test used to measure discriminatory ability. It follows that they can only measure the component of consciousness which arises from (1). (2) is not controlled. It is the *premise* but by no means the proven result of these experiments that (2) is irrelevant. 2, per you above, is "[your] response to the sound." Of course we don't control that. That's what we're testing! Sheesh. (2) is made up of all responses to the sound including an aesthetic response. An ABX test either eliminates the aesthetic response, and/or fails to control other aspects of (2) such that they will be different at different times during the test. Mike |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote: "Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message ... To bring it back to audio, what we know about the ear, the brain, and sound reproduction technology seems to cover pretty much everything that's likely to apply when you're listening to music. Short of completely overturning current theory (which seems very unlikely), any alternate conditions leading to new theory simply aren't going to change the existing knowledge about ordinary listening situations very much. Tell us, what role does emotional reaction have in current audio theory. And what part of conventional audio testing takes it into account? Why don't you tell me what role you think it should have? Since you're so fired up that there isn't one. Why don't you tell me why emotional reaction isn't a separable issue from audio reproduction? The gear cares not for your emotions, because it cannot 'care' at all. It's always doing the same thing. So are your outer ear, inner ear, cochlea, and the brain structures immediately connected to the cochlea; all of these are very mechanical in operation, and they're pretty much what determines whether there's a real sensory difference available to the murkier cognitive and emotional parts of the brain. So far as I'm aware, there's no evidence to support the notion that standard blind tests are inadequate to determine the sensitivity of these very mechanical and unemotional parts of the brain. -- Tim |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
In article ,
wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: "Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message ... In article , wrote: Einstein's theory was motivated in part by observations that no one could explain with conventional physics. I get that. However, the behavior of the universe in part relates to how one investigates. Light is a wave when investigated as a wave, and a particle when investigated as a particle. Investigating light as a wave will not uncover any troublesome observations suggesting it is a particle. That makes absolutely no sense. Say light behaves like a wave in Situation A, which is where you've done all your experimentation and observation so far. Now you wish to investigate Situation B, where it will actually behave like a particle. But you don't know that yet! Even if you go into B with the assumption that light will still behave like a wave, you'll still come out with observations which contradict the assumption. Reply to Tim: Point 1, it makes exactly as much sense as quantum mechanics does. What makes exactly as much sense as quantum mechanics? The object of this claim is not clear. (Your introduction of quantum mechanics is not a good sign. In my experience, people who try to use QM to prove a point about the everyday world seldom have anything insightful to say about either QM or the human experience.) And Point 2, the objectivists have never done Experiment B. The objectivists would like to know what Situation (*not* Experiment, the two are different) B is, or (at least) what evidence suggests that there might _be_ a Situation B. When scientists investigated light as a particle, they found evidence that it was a wave. Your claim that audio research is flawed because they haven't explicitly looked for your handwavey Situation B is wrong. If there was a Situation B one would expect hints of it to show up during the ordinary course of things. If nothing else, eventually some researcher would perform tests under Situation B (or a distant relative thereof) by accident, and come up with odd results... Furthermore they seem to think it is the responsibility of those with no research money or resources to do so. This objectivist thinks it is the responsibility of those making absurd claims to do at least the minimum possible to support them. It does not require research money or substantial resources to perform blind tests of your audio beliefs. You have only investigated the ear/brain under one set of conditions. Of course you don't have anything you can't explain! One thing which you don't appear to understand is that (just like relativity vs. Newtonian mechanics) even if some different domain exists, it isn't likely to be all that different from the known domain, unless conditions are really extraordinary. Point 1, this is merely your opinion and you have no way to prove that the universe *always* behaves like this. Get back to me when physics changes in a substantial way from one day to the next, or is observed to be different in one place than another, OK? It's one thing to say "but this, that, and the other thing COULD be true, HONEST!". It's another thing entirely to establish such woulda-couldas as ideas which reasonable people ought to pay any attention to. Point 2, Einstein and Newton predict very different things about the limits and possibilities in the universe. Your point does not bear on mine. Mine is simply that relativity very closely matches the results from Newtonian physics under everyday conditions. If you assume low relative velocities and then apply standard mathematical approximation tricks to Einstein's equations (removing terms which should approach zero, etc.), you get Newton's equations out. (Or so I have been informed...) You wish to appeal to some undefined special listening condition which conventional science has not investigated. Fine, but realize that what science has investigated is pretty much what you're doing when you listen to your stereo, so what good are these supposed other listening states going to do for your cause? Point 3, I'm not making any extraordinary claims about the ear; just that it might behave differently than we expect in a situation that has never before been investigated. So get off the pot: what is this situation you insist needs investigation, and how is it relevant to audio reproduction technology? We already know plenty about what goes on when you sit in front of your audio system in a room and listen to music. For example, you can do a pretty decent job of simulating the orbital dynamics of the Solar System using Newton's laws. GR does a better job, but as far as I know many space missions are planned using plain old Newton. Wrong. GR is integral to converting between time frames. But it's not necessary to use GR to put a satellite into orbit... or man on the moon. (To the best of my knowledge, Apollo missions were planned using Newtonian physics to simulate orbits.) Objects in the Solar System simply don't move fast enough relative to one another to deviate a great deal from Newton. The sun is a big enough mass though, and actually when you measure time on the order of nanoseconds things do move fast enough to notice. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? First, measuring time with nanosecond precision does not magically cause objects to move faster than when you measure time in seconds, or minutes, or hours. Either objects are moving fast enough relative to one another to introduce significant deviations from Newtonian predictions, or they're not. Second, Newtonian simulations of the Solar System diverge from observed reality when you allow them to run for LONG periods of (simulated) time. A few nanoseconds isn't enough time for any significant error to accumulate. Days/weeks/months aren't enough, in most cases... -- Tim |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
... In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message ... To bring it back to audio, what we know about the ear, the brain, and sound reproduction technology seems to cover pretty much everything that's likely to apply when you're listening to music. Short of completely overturning current theory (which seems very unlikely), any alternate conditions leading to new theory simply aren't going to change the existing knowledge about ordinary listening situations very much. Tell us, what role does emotional reaction have in current audio theory. And what part of conventional audio testing takes it into account? Why don't you tell me what role you think it should have? Since you're so fired up that there isn't one. Why don't you tell me why emotional reaction isn't a separable issue from audio reproduction? The gear cares not for your emotions, because it cannot 'care' at all. It's always doing the same thing. So are your outer ear, inner ear, cochlea, and the brain structures immediately connected to the cochlea; all of these are very mechanical in operation, and they're pretty much what determines whether there's a real sensory difference available to the murkier cognitive and emotional parts of the brain. So far as I'm aware, there's no evidence to support the notion that standard blind tests are inadequate to determine the sensitivity of these very mechanical and unemotional parts of the brain. We are talking about listening to/reacting to music as reproduced...not sound per se. If you don't think that involves a response that includes emotional response (sometimes from a very primitive part of the brain) then you are wrong, and that is your misfortune.. Science knows better. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some components reproduce music in such a way that whatever emotional response the music generates live is present, and others components seem to "mask" this effect. Current industry standards involve a test that ignores this aspect at best, and actively works against it at worst. At the very least, one can say it has not been validated to make sure it can replicate ordinary listening when it comes to allowing this aspect to develop. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message ... To bring it back to audio, what we know about the ear, the brain, and sound reproduction technology seems to cover pretty much everything that's likely to apply when you're listening to music. Short of completely overturning current theory (which seems very unlikely), any alternate conditions leading to new theory simply aren't going to change the existing knowledge about ordinary listening situations very much. Tell us, what role does emotional reaction have in current audio theory. And what part of conventional audio testing takes it into account? Why don't you tell me what role you think it should have? Since you're so fired up that there isn't one. Emotion has no role in current, or past, 'audio theory'. It has a role in theories of perception. There's no controversy whatsoever over the fact that one's emotions can affect one's perceptions of the *exact same* stimulus at different times. Which of course means that relying on a report from 'emotions' to determine whether a *stimulus* has changed, is pointless. If Harry et al are worried that their emotions aren't sufficiently engaged during an ABX test, that isn't an intrinsic problem with ABX tests. An ABX test *will* tell them whether the differences they hear during the A/B part of that particular ABX test, are likely to be real. If they are concerned that the test only took a snapshot of their perceptual prowess during one emotional state, they are free to repeat it. They are also FREE to listen as long as they like, to each A and each B, sighted, until they feel, emotionally, that there is a rock-solid difference betweem the two. Then all they have to do is identify A and B under blind conditions. If an ABX test was so antithetical to 'emotions' that reveal *real* difference, then how is is that anyone ever claims to hear differences during the A/B part of the test? -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
In article , wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: "Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message ... In article , wrote: Einstein's theory was motivated in part by observations that no one could explain with conventional physics. I get that. However, the behavior of the universe in part relates to how one investigates. Light is a wave when investigated as a wave, and a particle when investigated as a particle. Investigating light as a wave will not uncover any troublesome observations suggesting it is a particle. That makes absolutely no sense. Say light behaves like a wave in Situation A, which is where you've done all your experimentation and observation so far. Now you wish to investigate Situation B, where it will actually behave like a particle. But you don't know that yet! Even if you go into B with the assumption that light will still behave like a wave, you'll still come out with observations which contradict the assumption. Reply to Tim: Point 1, it makes exactly as much sense as quantum mechanics does. What makes exactly as much sense as quantum mechanics? The object of this claim is not clear. (Your introduction of quantum mechanics is not a good sign. In my experience, people who try to use QM to prove a point about the everyday world seldom have anything insightful to say about either QM or the human experience.) Some scientist once said: when someone cites quantum mechanics to support an argument that isn't about subatomic physics, I reach for my gun. Or if no scientist ever said it, I just have. (Deepak Chopra, I'm aiming at *you*.) -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
In article , wrote: Objects in the Solar System simply don't move fast enough relative to one another to deviate a great deal from Newton. The sun is a big enough mass though, and actually when you measure time on the order of nanoseconds things do move fast enough to notice. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Before you condescend to someone, you might want to find out if they know much more about the topic than you do. Suppose you send a signal to a spacecraft in deep space at time t1. It receives the signal at time t2_a and retransmits after a given delay, at time t2_b. And you receive the signal at Earth at time t3. A clock on the spacecraft ticks at a different rate than a clock on Earth due to its different position in the Sun's gravity field as well as its motion. t2_b - t2_a is not the same measured at Earth as measured at the spacecraft. A necessary fact for accurate navigation. The relevance to audio? You are attempting to shrug off the problems with audio testing by claiming that, even if we have two models A and B that both have some predictive power, it is some universal law that A and B predict practically the same thing in "ordinary circumstances." It has now been pointed out to you this is not true for Newton/Einstein, and even if it were, that would say nothing about this universal law you wish to invoke. Furthermore... You wish to appeal to some undefined special listening condition which conventional science has not investigated. Fine, but realize that what science has investigated is pretty much what you're doing when you listen to your stereo, so what good are these supposed other listening states going to do for your cause? "What you're doing when you listen to your stereo" is precisely what science has not investigated. When you are listening to your stereo you are not quick-switching, comparing the sound to anything else, or conceptualizing the sound. Mike |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Keith Hughes wrote:
wrote: Keith Hughes wrote: I merely comment on the fallaciousness of your analogy, to which another fractured rung has just been added. An audio test is *not* "observer A observing the observer B observing the sound". "A" is the proctor (having no evaluative role *in the observation*), "B" is the observer. Your persistance at narrowing the context is remarkable. Dwarfed by your ability to misconstrue and misdirect however. The word "observation" doesn't imply direct subjective involvement. Webster's definition includes: "an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments" And praytell, what part of "recognizing and noting a fact or occurence" is free of subjective involvement? Recording whether the subject selected X=A or X=B. Noting the subject's response, whether done blind, double-blind, or upside-down, is an observation. The proctor of an audio test is not subjectively evaluating the subjective response of the audio observer. That's the point you don't seem to understand. What you don't seem to understand is that I never made that point. The "proctor" sets up the protocol, chooses the music or sounds, sets up the choice of responses, and gives instructions to the subject. Like the other objectivists here, you want to pretend that none of that influences the conscious experience of the subject. that may be for *light* No, it *is* that way for light, unless you don't believe in quantum physics. but not necessarily for *consciousness*) In which case your whole analogy fails to be *analogous* to the subject. You seem to be operating under the assumption that for any two theories A and B: A and B are either perfectly analogous, or else the whole of A fails to be analogous to the whole of B. That was my point after all. To be in any way analogous, you would have to be suggesting that there is some 'uncertainty' in consciousness equivalent to 'quantum' uncertainty (the predicate for the 'duality' at the heart of your argument). You believe this to be true? Certainly true to the extent that the context which is set up for examining consciousness influences consciousness. Particularly when the protocol is forced-choice. snip To which you reply *what*? Here, let me provide your answer, in terms of *YOUR* analogy: "There are an infinite number of dishes, each either greatly or subtly different from all others". Remarkable--I've never before seen someone not only use a strawman argument, but literally *define* the meaning of a strawman argument in doing so ("let me provide your answer") And you of course ignore the qualifier "in terms of *YOUR* analogy". When you posit an analogy, the reader is free to examine it logically, and using the predicates provided by the positer (i.e. the very structure of the analogy), to extrapolate internally consistent continuations. The reader is also free to desconstruct the individual sentences of my post, taking them out of context, but that's rather pointless. Further, please explain how "There are an infinite number of dishes, each either greatly or subtly different from all others" is *qualitatively* different from "there are other kinds of dishes", especially given that your number of dishes cannot be defined (it is instructive here to refer to the "dish's" analog in the real discussion - i.e. your "types of listening" which you adamantly refuse to define). The result, in both cases, reduces to the same thing, "Nothing can ever be proven", as you are forever free to hypothesize the existence of yet another, and another, and another 'type of listening'. My cooking analogy was very simple and you apparently don't get the basic point. Anyone reading my reply ("there are other kinds of dishes") would say, "Yes, this opens up new avenues of investigation." No, not when you compare the analogy, contextually, with the base argument. In the base argument, you're stating that a theory based on ABX testing *is deficient* because it does not incorporate "other types of listening". The only logical continuation of that argument is that the other "types of listening" must be investigated to determine validity. But, given the rigor of your definition, you are free to posit an infinite number of "types of listening" are you not? You certainly wish to believe that's what I would do since it would allow you to dismiss my argument. My experience as a musician and composer gives me some idea how context influences conscious experience. That is, after all, the JOB of musicians. If you enjoy music, you are enjoying the fruits of a careful examination of how sound turns into experience. It seems you have never investigated from a first-person perspective how your senses turn into a conscious experience, so what I'm saying is a big mystery to you. Of course you wish to turn it into a suggestion that there are an "infinite number of types of listening". Nevertheless, if you enjoy music, and I presume you do since you are on this newsgroup, you are enjoying the fruits of the musician's understanding of such matters as conscious focus, and "directed" versus "broad" focus. Just as, in your simple analogy, you are free to define/discover/develop/posit an endless number of dishes that would have to be "tested" in order to validate a theory about *cooking* (note "cooking" is the relevant analog, not "beef dish", which may be where you are confused). Listening=cooking, ABX=Beef dish, "types of listening"="other dishes". Anyone reading your bizarre reply would think, "What?? How does a simple call for more investigation turn into an argument that 'nothing can be proven'?" I don't think I'm the one engaging in mental gymnastics here... Clearly you cannot grasp the very simple concept that one cannot test an infinite number of parameters. Clearly you haven't figured out yet that's your strawman. And clearly, when *your* criteria for acceptance of an audio theory are that *all* possible hypothetical parameters and environmental conditions be fully tested, you are *defining* the proof to be impossible. Please name *ONE* theory that has been tested under all possible conditions, varying all possible parameters. Hint: such theory does not, and cannot exist. Using the phrase "all posible conditions/parameters" several times in one paragraph shows just how strongly you've latched onto this strawman. Probably because you don't know how to answer the argument I'm actually making. Using nebulous, undefined terminology such as "types of listening" simply allows for an infinite number of hypotheticals as to why any extant test results are, and must remain, insufficient. If you want to know the whole story, read all my past posts. I've read most of what's been written here in the last 8 or 9 years. Did you post something profound, and relevant to the current thread, prior to that time? I've stated in plenty of times, and I'm not going to repeat it all merely because you haven't read it. A foolish assumption, IMO, in the context of a news group... We could *start* with the idea that attention can be either free-floating or directed. That would provide two "kinds" of listening, And tell me Mike, you've really found universal acceptance of this assertion here haven't you? You assert this as fact even though this having been discussed here, at some length, you've garnered little agreement. You have failed, IIRC, to provide any evidence that these are, in fact, different types of perception that would/could provide different perceptual results. But just suppose we were to stipulate that *these two* are in fact different "kinds" of listening. Wherein have you placed *ANY* constraint, whatsoever, on how many other types there can be? The experimentation could be started without resolving the larger question. This is a basic ploy of the objectivists---to try to prevent the investigation necessary to precisely define and empiricize this model, on the grounds that it hasn't yet been precisely defined and empiricized! Or of what magnitude a change must be to justify being a 'different type', or how many parameters there are that can vary by some magnitude to engender a 'different type'? The answer, clearly, is that you have not. That is why this whole approach is patently anti-science. When you remove, or disallow all constraints, and decouple theory from predicate observations, Science cannot function. and no one has ever been able to point me to a test which could separate or control for which type the subject employed. You use this statement as vindication that insufficient testing has been done, when in fact, there is no data to suggest your purported perceptual dichotomy exists. Are you saying you've never noticed this: that what you notice in the world is influenced by what you are paying attention to? There was a writeup of an experiment in Skeptic magazine not so long ago which demonstrated this--the "gorilla in the basketball court experiment." http://www.boingboing.net/2004/05/06..._gorilla_.html Researchers seldom control (intentionally) for imaginary variables. Objectivists do, however, deny they exist for the sake of convenience. Mike |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: This is completely missing the point. The point is that this very simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience, suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed from (1) and (2). And so is the experience of auditory bias effects. So, how do you reliably distinguish an objective difference from one that is *entirely* subjective? There are any number of methods other than quick-switching ABX. A blind living-with-the-component test, or a blind monadic test with listening intervals chosen carefully. The objectivists have never replied to me with any reference to such tests. Simply responding to a sound does not mean that what you believe about the sound is *accurate*. Responding to two sounds with the feeling that one is 'better' is not *by itself* sufficient proof that the two sounds were objectively different. This is simple, demonstrable scientific fact. Your 'response' can be COMPLETELY INACCURATE as a gauge of objective difference. This is also the irreducible flaw in your apparently endless chain of shaky inference. No matter how many times I say that I don't object to the "blindness" of blind testing, the objectivists keep bringing up this strawman. Mike |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 02:56:38 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 18 Oct 2005 02:07:49 GMT, "Gary Rosen" wrote: wrote in message ... Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves. Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your concern. You seem confused. You were the one who insisted that Stewart spend his time looking for the best *masters*, then I suggested one should look for the best *performances* first. Oh well. You are of course correct, he is? You need to spend time looking for better performances first? I thought you said you alreay have all the music you wanted? Did you not say that? I did, because I have already searched out preferred performances of classic works, e.g. Andy Previews's Planets. Then contrary to what you said, he wasn't correct and my informed premise was quite a safe one. the performance is more important than the mastering. That's a silly statement. They are mutually exclusive and not an either/or proposition. Nope, a poorly mastered recording of a great performance will *always* outrank an impeccably mastered mediocrity. Again you are wrong. Mastering and performace are mutually exclusive. You set up an either/or choice that simply does not exist in the real world. One is not forced to concede an inferior mastering in order to choose a prefered performance unless there is only one mastering available of a given title and it is bad. This is simply not the reality in the case of thousands upon thousands of commercial recordings. If you choose to ignore this reality amoung such a vast array of commercial recordings that is your choice but it is not reality. Porky George of course just likes to argue for its own sake, Really? Never bought expensive equipment just to argue that it is a bad value. No, never. I consider my expensive equipment to be very good value, weird. More money and inferior or equal perfomance makes for good value? Very weird. Just my opinion. and some of my cheap stuff - such as my Pioneer DV-575 - to be superb value. I suppose if you slide the scales in such a way that expensive equipment that offers inferior sound is cosidered good value this does make sense in a twisted way. and he he has absolutely no basis for his claim that I don't know whether I have the best masters of the music I enjoy. Wrong as usual. I based it on your claim that it is an easy task. It simply isn't an easy task to seek out and evaluate the best masterings of popular titles. Sure it is, that's what the InterNet is *for*. Oh I see, you take other peoples' word for it. I don't. That leads me to believe you really haven't done the job. If you don't want to that is fine. I suspect that it shouldn't bea problem for you given the fact that you have your speakers set up backwards and against the walls anyway. Typical of you to be unable to understand basic acoustics, even when it's been explained to you. Maybe you should have explained it to the designer of your speakers while he was alive since he explicitly claimed that such a set up was extremely wrong even with the speakers on the right side. fact is it is a comprimised set up at best. It is not the way the speakers were designed to be set up. But for those of us with highend equipment that is actually set up the way it was designed to be set up there is great poential for vast improvements in the quality of the listening exprience through seeking out different, better masterings of one's favorite music. It isn't easy because it involves getting the different versions to start with, listening to them individually to get the best levels and other relevaaant settings and then doing careful side by side comparisons, blind and sighted. it's a lot to do. How anyone can consider this an easy task with so many recordings simply suggests they really don't know what they are talking about. No, I've simply been an audiophile for a *looooong* time! :-) So what blind comparisons have you actually made of various masterings of commercial titles? I still think you really haven't done it. But then you did say you took the short cut an took other poeples word for it on the subject. i consider that to be a starting point at best not an ending point. In many cases, I have at one time owned *all* the available versions, How do you know? Examples please? DSOTM. The many masterings are well enough known. You own them all? I highly doubt that. so I certainly do know which I prefer. How do you know it wasn't your biases telling you which one you prefer? When it comes to *preference*, bias is not a problem. Wrong. I suggest you read up on psychoacoustics some time. it is a major factor in preferences. I thought every objectiist knew this and were up on the literature. Oh well. Scott |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: This is completely missing the point. The point is that this very simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience, suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed from (1) and (2). And so is the experience of auditory bias effects. So, how do you reliably distinguish an objective difference from one that is *entirely* subjective? There are any number of methods other than quick-switching ABX. A blind living-with-the-component test, or a blind monadic test with listening intervals chosen carefully. The objectivists have never replied to me with any reference to such tests. Simply responding to a sound does not mean that what you believe about the sound is *accurate*. Responding to two sounds with the feeling that one is 'better' is not *by itself* sufficient proof that the two sounds were objectively different. This is simple, demonstrable scientific fact. Your 'response' can be COMPLETELY INACCURATE as a gauge of objective difference. This is also the irreducible flaw in your apparently endless chain of shaky inference. No matter how many times I say that I don't object to the "blindness" of blind testing, the objectivists keep bringing up this strawman. I have come to the conclusion that they do this because it avoids the issues raised and having to directly answer them....which they never do. Essentially to do so means acknowledging some uncertainty in their "faith". Accordingly, it exposes their beliefs *as* faith rather than "science". |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
On 23 Oct 2005 06:03:34 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
wrote in message ... Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: This is completely missing the point. The point is that this very simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience, suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed from (1) and (2). And so is the experience of auditory bias effects. So, how do you reliably distinguish an objective difference from one that is *entirely* subjective? There are any number of methods other than quick-switching ABX. A blind living-with-the-component test, or a blind monadic test with listening intervals chosen carefully. The objectivists have never replied to me with any reference to such tests. Simply responding to a sound does not mean that what you believe about the sound is *accurate*. Responding to two sounds with the feeling that one is 'better' is not *by itself* sufficient proof that the two sounds were objectively different. This is simple, demonstrable scientific fact. Your 'response' can be COMPLETELY INACCURATE as a gauge of objective difference. This is also the irreducible flaw in your apparently endless chain of shaky inference. No matter how many times I say that I don't object to the "blindness" of blind testing, the objectivists keep bringing up this strawman. I have come to the conclusion that they do this because it avoids the issues raised and having to directly answer them....which they never do. Essentially to do so means acknowledging some uncertainty in their "faith". Accordingly, it exposes their beliefs *as* faith rather than "science". Actually no, we're just patiently waitng for you, Michael et al to come up with some actual *evidence* from these claimed superior test methods. As time goes on, it becomes clearer that they are simply excuses for you disliking ABX because it doesn't back up your sighted prejudices. The reality is that you *dare* not conduct any other kind of blind test, monadic or otherwise, because you're perfectly well aware that it would produce the same result. That's what's really behind Michael's ever-spiralling sophistry - fear of the very simple truth. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:01 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 02:56:38 GMT, wrote: I consider my expensive equipment to be very good value, weird. More money and inferior or equal perfomance makes for good value? Very weird. Just my opinion. Sjow me where I can purchase for less than a grand, an an=mplifier which will deliver 2x400 watts continuously into a one-ohm load. Show me speakers which will outperform my Apogee Duetta Signatures at pretty much any price, let alone the 4 grand that I paid for them. and some of my cheap stuff - such as my Pioneer DV-575 - to be superb value. I suppose if you slide the scales in such a way that expensive equipment that offers inferior sound is cosidered good value this does make sense in a twisted way. It makes perfect sense in every way, but as noted, you just like to argue for its own sake. and he he has absolutely no basis for his claim that I don't know whether I have the best masters of the music I enjoy. Wrong as usual. I based it on your claim that it is an easy task. It simply isn't an easy task to seek out and evaluate the best masterings of popular titles. Sure it is, that's what the InterNet is *for*. Oh I see, you take other peoples' word for it. I don't. Another deliberate misunderstanding? The Net is perfect for *searches*, and for tracking down obscure albums. That leads me to believe you really haven't done the job. If you don't want to that is fine. I suspect that it shouldn't bea problem for you given the fact that you have your speakers set up backwards and against the walls anyway. Typical of you to be unable to understand basic acoustics, even when it's been explained to you. Maybe you should have explained it to the designer of your speakers while he was alive since he explicitly claimed that such a set up was extremely wrong even with the speakers on the right side. He did no such thing. In fact is it is a comprimised set up at best. It is not the way the speakers were designed to be set up. So what? It's a perfectly good use of their characteristics, and more to the point, it works. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
... wrote: Keith Hughes wrote: snip The experimentation could be started without resolving the larger question. This is a basic ploy of the objectivists---to try to prevent the investigation necessary to precisely define and empiricize this model, on the grounds that it hasn't yet been precisely defined and empiricized! Oh come now, this is utterly ludicrous! Experimentation starts when there's a *reason* to start - i.e. an observation that is repeatable, and contravenes existing theory. You don't have any such data do you? Also, it is *your* contention that there are these *types of listening* that have a huge affect on audio perception, and you now pretend that you can construct a valid audio test without even knowing what the term means. And, as has been pointed out to you, ad nauseum, you are free to experiment any time you like, and post any repeatable observations you obtain. So have at it... The evidence in this case, Keith, is in the social psychology. Many audiophiles simply, intuitively feel that short-snippet, quick-switch testing destroys the context in which they normally listen to music and makes judgments, especially the comparative test known as ABX. If you want hard evidence, just count up the number of posters who have voiced this opinion on UseNet over the last 25 years. You may think it can be explained away as sighted bias, and perhaps it can be. But not by insisting on using the same test as is raising the objections in the first place, because that test simply doesn't deal with the variable raised....which is an approximation of a normal listening environment/state (relaxed, evaluative rather than focused, comparative). |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
there's not any alternative of neve 1089 or Focusrite Red 1 | Pro Audio | |||
PS2 as a DVD alternative? | Car Audio | |||
JL 10w1 help (alternative / replace) | Car Audio | |||
Monster Capacitor Alternative | Car Audio | |||
Any alternative for Windows XP user who cant use ProTools | Pro Audio |