| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A model of the brain, & quick-switch
I've been thinking about the question, is quick-switch blind testing
relevant? I'm not a psychologist, but here's how I model the ear, brain, and consciousness. I welcome any additional information or corrections: (please note: you must view this in a fixed-width font to see it properly) sound pressure waves | | V ear ^ | | V processed representation of ----------------------------- sound ^ | | | ^ | | | | | V V V V | emotions body movement analytical personal [A] processing stories | ^ ^ ^ ^ | | | | | | [b] [C] [D] [E] | | | | | V V V V V C O N S C I O U S N E S S This diagram is saying: - sound pressure waves strike the eardrum - there is a level we will roughly call the "ear" which turns the sound into impulses travelling the auditory nerve - There are the lower levels of the brain which do initial processing of sound, identifying pitches, rhythms, and basic recognition of patterns. I call that "processed representation of sound." - At the bottom of this diagram is consciousness. Consciousness itself is not really well understood, certainly not by me (and I welcome additional information) but here, I have modelled it as a level of neural activity which is influenced by lower level activities. - But before I continue about consciousness, note that I have represented other brain systems: emotions, body movement, analytical processing, and "personal stories." These are all levels on which I, personally, experience music. Others may draw this diagram differently. What this diagram is saying, is that while the "sound" of music comes to consciousness, at the same time the "sound" influences other brain systems, which have their own way of processing the sound. The sound triggers emotions; it compels body movement; it stimulates analytical processing; and it resonates with personal stories. I represent, in this diagram, these things as distinct from consciousness--because in my own experience, they are subconscious (that is, they come to my awareness as activity I didn't *will* to happen). NOTE I have draw each arrow as BI-DIRECTIONAL. In my understanding of neurology, although I'm not an expert, higher-level systems don't just build their patterns on lower-level systems, but in turn influence the lower-level activity. This is evident from observing myself: WHAT I choose to focus on CHANGES my experience of that thing. That, of course, accounts for the arrows from consciousness back. But I have continued those back arrows further, all the way back to the ear itself. This is based on my reading of Moore which explains that the auditory cortext innervates the muscles of the cochlea and can change its behavior. NOTE ALSO these back arrows are not at all critical to my final point here, so use them or ignore them at your whim. 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. So the diagram now looks like: sound pressure waves | | V ear ^ | | V processed representation of sound ^ | | [A] | | V C O N S C I O U S N E S S In the original diagram, information came to consciousness through channels A, B, C, D & E. In the second diagram, only through A. The critical question: have I changed the information reaching consciousness? Does it matter whether the information reaches consciousness through all the channels, or channel A alone? If it does matter, then is quick-switch testing an accurate test of the brain's normal operation? There is no reason to presume that all information is available in channel A. There's no benefit to the human organism for that to be true, so there's no evolutionary pressure to evolve that capability. To me, this is a very good reason to be skeptical about quick-switch blind testing. I'm even more skeptical when I consider a critical fact I have heretofore glossed over: Consciousness is not a complete representation of the available information. Consciousness picks and chooses a very small subset of the available information. So the fact that channel A leads from a "representation of the sound" directly to consciouness, does not imply that consciousness can in any way fully access that representation. It is best to think of all the channels above as transmitting ONLY A VERY SMALL PART of the available information-- and not a fixed part either, but one that can morph between a multitude of variable forms depending on the conscious intentions and focus of the listener. So in the orginal diagram, information reaches consciousness through five channels-- each of them very limited, each of them representing unique features of the sound, and each of them influenced (in their own unique way) by the focus of consciousness. In the second diagram, most of the subsystems are removed, the channel is restricted to A--and any back-influences from systems B through E are also removed. That seems like a radical change. So that's why I'm skeptical of quick-switch blind testing. I welcome thoughts and any additional information about modeling the brain. Of course, I know what is going to happen: some of you will post that the model is wrong or irrelevant to any scientific understanding. I suspect that in that case, we aren't disagreeing about facts, but about our *experiences*-- in other words, you may feel the model has nothing to do with your personal experience of music. That may well be true. In which case, quick-switch blind testing is probably a good way for you to go. Mike |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
I recall from a few weeks ago Stewart saying that he was just as moved
by a performance of the Elgar cello concerto on a car radio as on his big system (I'm explaining from memory of reading it). Also, in a recent post Bob said he didn't think the sound qualities of a system (within normal ranges) influenced the experience of music. In the thread "analog vs. digital--not" Stewart and "bear" said something to the effect that a table radio can convey a musical performance as well as anything else ("bear" was writing about what a conductor is interested in). Since I don't have the exact posts to follow up, please take these comments of mine as provisional until Stewart, Bob, and "bear" confirm them. I just want to respond to the model implied by this perspective (I'm sure SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE holds this perspective). My experience is quite different, of course. In my experience, the details of sound matter to the experience of music, to the experience of a performance and what emotions it evokes, and so on. I thought I might capture this disagreement in a revised model: The model I believe Bob and Stewart and "bear" are using (and they may confirm this or explain otherwise, of course): sound pressure waves | | V ear ^ | | V representation of sound ------ abstracted "peformance" in the brain (a la midi) | | | | [A] [b] | | | | | | | | V V CONSCIOUSNESS OF SOUND CONSCIOUSNESS OF MUSIC O V E R A L L C O N S C I O U S N E S S Considering this "abstracted performance", let me first describe MIDI. MIDI is a digital protocal for representing musical performances at the level of notes, timing, rhythms, "timbre" (patch selection), dynamics, and to some extent, dynamic shapes within a note. It doesn't represent sound itself, but rather something like a "score" that must be turned into music by a synthesizer or a program like CSound. Likewise, a composer creates a score, which is an abstracted representation of sound. It must be turned into actual sound by a musician, who supplies the many additional details not mentioned in the score. Manfred Clynes has written much about this; in his estimation there is one thousand times more information in the actual sound than in the score. What I understand Stewart, Bob, and "bear" as saying, is that their experience of the music is constructed from a highly abstracted representation of the music, concerned mainly with pitches, durations, rhythms, and so on. This is the way I'm trying to understand what they write; I welcome their clarifications. In other words, the consciousness of music is developed through channel B, which throws away a lot of details. You will notice on my original diagram that there is no similar filter in my model--the brain systems that construct an experience of music (body movement, emotions, etc.) can, potentially, respond to any feature of the sound. All this "modeling" can get a bit theoretical, but I'm using it to describe a simple, concrete fact, which is that my impression of a musical performance--my understanding of what WORKS about it--changes as the playback changes. My model describes my experience quite well. And the other model, I see no reason to doubt, describes Stewart's/Bob's/bear's experience. In their model, note that channel A is a much richer source of information than B, and degradations of the sound have little effect on channel B. So of course they feel that audio comparisons are mainly about the sound, not the music. (They also probably believe that consciousness has complete, and completely conscious, completely subject to will and awareness, access through channel A.) What is curious to me is that each of us has arrived at a model representing our own experience.. and these models have very different implications about how comparisons (of any type, sighted or blind) should be done. Mike |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 15:13:08 GMT, wrote: The model I believe Bob and Stewart and "bear" are using (and they may confirm this or explain otherwise, of course): We are not in sufficient disagreement for any such modelling to be valid, IMO. So looking at my first model which shows the relationship of sound, initial processing, musical reactions, and consciousness, do you find agreement with that model? Or how would you describe your own mind? Mike |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." 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. 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. 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. Mike |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
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. Unless you would like to live in a fantasy world where all people are equally sensitive, there is nothing offensive whatsoever about suggesting that some people are more sensitive than others. It's a simple fact of nature. If you are so offended at the suggestion your ears aren't as sensitive as mine, then it would seem you are not able to consider the truthhood or falsehood of this suggestion objectively. Mike |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7 Sep 2005 01:28:17 GMT, wrote:
wrote: wrote: 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. Unless you would like to live in a fantasy world where all people are equally sensitive, there is nothing offensive whatsoever about suggesting that some people are more sensitive than others. It's a simple fact of nature. Had that been what you did, that would be true. However, what you did was claim that your *opponents* have inferior hearing. That's an entirely different matter, and more risible than offensive AFAIAC. If you are so offended at the suggestion your ears aren't as sensitive as mine, then it would seem you are not able to consider the truthhood or falsehood of this suggestion objectively. On the available evidence, it seems more likely that you are the one with defective hearing, but since you refuse to put it the test, I guess we'll never know.................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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." All this is fine, first establish that a difference, any difference can be heard in listening alone tests. If not, all above is moot. "More and more I get the feeling that you, and Stewart, and Chung simply *can't* hear the differences between components. 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." See above. "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." It is because psycho-acousticians and others experienced in testing humans well know that we can not trust our perceptions, thus insist on testing where the item under test is not identified. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." 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. 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. 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. You do realize of course that, in the same way that you so confidently & cavalierly dismiss Stewart, Chueng, & my hearing abilities, your post sets you up (and all too easily, I might add) to have your "understanding of classical music" and your music interpretation skills [sic] brought in to question. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Sep 2005 21:08:10 GMT, 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. Yeah yewah - but you still can't hear differences any better under those conditions - in fact, experience tells us that you are *less* sensitive when listening in a 'relaxed and extended manner'. I suspect that what you mean by "hearing the sound as music" is something like "you can tell that musical instruments are playing." 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. Sure there is - but not when deciding if one component sounds different from another. The real bottom line is that castanets and pink noise are significantly more senitive signals than music, if you *really* want to nail the finest nuances of audible difference. 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. 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. Pathetic. Isn't it funny how, when backed into a corner, the frantic hand-waving and sophistry of the subjectivist suddenly collapses to 'you must be deaf'. 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. Aaah, but that's the difference - we *do* trust our experience. It seems to be the 'subjectivists' who have to *know* what's connected before they can express their admiration of the musicality........ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Sep 2005 21:08:10 GMT, wrote: 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. Aaah, but that's the difference - we *do* trust our experience. It seems to be the 'subjectivists' who have to *know* what's connected before they can express their admiration of the musicality........ Your statement about subjectivists does not represent my position at all. I feel no need whatsoever to know what's connected. I would be perfectly happy to audition black boxes. I would be perfectly happy to live with box A for a week, and then at some point in time unknown to me, have box A switched with box B which is identical in appearance. I would not know the identity of either box nor the time of the switch. At the end of 1-2 weeks of auditioning each one, with switch time not known, I would use my experiences to decide which one to buy. What I think is useless to me, is rapidly switching between sources, or being asked to identify the source in a context where my "mental procedure" for doing so must be followed like a recipe. Clearly, you feel that your own ears function well enough in these quick-switch conditions. I take it you have never noticed any loss of sensitivity in these conditions. The most likely explanation is that you do all your listening in a conceptual fashion.. so you don't feel quick-switching changes the conditions at all. Certainly, my experience is that listening in a conceptual fashion will blind one to subtle differences. As you also seem unaware of the existence of these differences, this is further evidence to me that you do all your listening in a conceptual fashion and simply don't perceive subtle differences. If you want to respond that all ears and brains are created equal and get used by their owners in the same fashion, go ahead, but I think that's a fantasyland. Mike |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Sep 2005 21:08:10 GMT, wrote: 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. Aaah, but that's the difference - we *do* trust our experience. It seems to be the 'subjectivists' who have to *know* what's connected before they can express their admiration of the musicality........ Your statement about subjectivists does not represent my position at all. I feel no need whatsoever to know what's connected. I would be perfectly happy to audition black boxes. I would be perfectly happy to live with box A for a week, and then at some point in time unknown to me, have box A switched with box B which is identical in appearance. I would not know the identity of either box nor the time of the switch. At the end of 1-2 weeks of auditioning each one, with switch time not known, I would use my experiences to decide which one to buy. But you've never actually done this, have you? So this is just bluster. What I think is useless to me, is rapidly switching between sources, or being asked to identify the source in a context where my "mental procedure" for doing so must be followed like a recipe. Clearly, you feel that your own ears function well enough in these quick-switch conditions. Clearly, we have good evidence that everyone's ears function optimally in these quick-switch conditions, for the specific task of identifying subtle audible differences. If you can provide countervailing evidence, it'll be a first. I take it you have never noticed any loss of sensitivity in these conditions. The most likely explanation is that you do all your listening in a conceptual fashion.. so you don't feel quick-switching changes the conditions at all. Certainly, my experience is that listening in a conceptual fashion will blind one to subtle differences. As you also seem unaware of the existence of these differences, this is further evidence to me that you do all your listening in a conceptual fashion and simply don't perceive subtle differences. If you want to respond that all ears and brains are created equal and get used by their owners in the same fashion, go ahead, but I think that's a fantasyland. All ears are not equal, but all ears work the same way. That is what you seem to be resolutely trying to ignore. bob |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Sep 2005 21:08:10 GMT, wrote: 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. Aaah, but that's the difference - we *do* trust our experience. It seems to be the 'subjectivists' who have to *know* what's connected before they can express their admiration of the musicality........ Your statement about subjectivists does not represent my position at all. I feel no need whatsoever to know what's connected. I would be perfectly happy to audition black boxes. I would be perfectly happy to live with box A for a week, and then at some point in time unknown to me, have box A switched with box B which is identical in appearance. I would not know the identity of either box nor the time of the switch. At the end of 1-2 weeks of auditioning each one, with switch time not known, I would use my experiences to decide which one to buy. What I think is useless to me, is rapidly switching between sources, or being asked to identify the source in a context where my "mental procedure" for doing so must be followed like a recipe. There is no 'requirement' that listening interval be short. It is *recommended* because the extant psychoacoustic data indicate that short-interval listening is *better* for discerning difference, due to the limitations of audio memory. Here's a thing: suppose you participated in the comaprison you described, where A and B are switched. There are two possibilities: A and B sound different, or they don't. And they can 'sound' different for two reasons: because they really do sound different, or due to psychological bias effects -- the humans tendancy to 'hear' difference when presented with two things they *think* are different EVEN IF THE THINGS ARE IN FACT THE SAME. In your comparison above. suppose when A and B were 'switched', what in fact was done, was that A was replaced with A again. There is a high likelihood that you would perceive the two presentations as sounding 'different'. You might confidently decide that you preferred 'B' to 'A' at the end of your 4-week trial. When, in fact, there had been NO DIFFERENCE. What would you conclude if that happened? -- -S |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7 Sep 2005 01:29:09 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Sep 2005 21:08:10 GMT, wrote: 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. Aaah, but that's the difference - we *do* trust our experience. It seems to be the 'subjectivists' who have to *know* what's connected before they can express their admiration of the musicality........ Your statement about subjectivists does not represent my position at all. I feel no need whatsoever to know what's connected. I would be perfectly happy to audition black boxes. I would be perfectly happy to live with box A for a week, and then at some point in time unknown to me, have box A switched with box B which is identical in appearance. I would not know the identity of either box nor the time of the switch. At the end of 1-2 weeks of auditioning each one, with switch time not known, I would use my experiences to decide which one to buy. What I think is useless to me, is rapidly switching between sources, or being asked to identify the source in a context where my "mental procedure" for doing so must be followed like a recipe. You may think that, but it's the standard in the audio industry. Clearly, you feel that your own ears function well enough in these quick-switch conditions. I take it you have never noticed any loss of sensitivity in these conditions. The most likely explanation is that you do all your listening in a conceptual fashion.. so you don't feel quick-switching changes the conditions at all. Certainly, my experience is that listening in a conceptual fashion will blind one to subtle differences. As you also seem unaware of the existence of these differences, this is further evidence to me that you do all your listening in a conceptual fashion and simply don't perceive subtle differences. How would you know? When have *you* ever found a long-term *blind* test to be more sensitive than a short quick-switched one? If you want to respond that all ears and brains are created equal and get used by their owners in the same fashion, go ahead, but I think that's a fantasyland. What is a fantasyland, is that the subjectivists think that *their* ears are better than those of the objectivists. Interesting that it's the *subjectivists* who always cry off when challenged to *trust* their ears - but *only* their ears. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Sep 2005 21:08:10 GMT, 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. Yeah yewah - but you still can't hear differences any better under those conditions - in fact, experience tells us that you are *less* sensitive when listening in a 'relaxed and extended manner'. I suspect that what you mean by "hearing the sound as music" is something like "you can tell that musical instruments are playing." 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. Sure there is - but not when deciding if one component sounds different from another. The real bottom line is that castanets and pink noise are significantly more senitive signals than music, if you *really* want to nail the finest nuances of audible difference. 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. 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. Pathetic. Isn't it funny how, when backed into a corner, the frantic hand-waving and sophistry of the subjectivist suddenly collapses to 'you must be deaf'. Your defensiveness, and obvious lack of objectivity, in response to the simple assertion that some people are more sensitive than others, is noted. Mike |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7 Sep 2005 02:59:29 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Sep 2005 21:08:10 GMT, wrote: More and more I get the feeling that you, and Stewart, and Chung simply *can't* hear the differences between components. 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. Pathetic. Isn't it funny how, when backed into a corner, the frantic hand-waving and sophistry of the subjectivist suddenly collapses to 'you must be deaf'. Your defensiveness, and obvious lack of objectivity, in response to the simple assertion that some people are more sensitive than others, is noted. Lack of objectivity? What was objective about your claim that Chung, Mudd and I must have inferior hearing if we don't agree with *you*? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... I've been thinking about the question, is quick-switch blind testing relevant? I'm not a psychologist, but here's how I model the ear, brain, and consciousness. I welcome any additional information or corrections: (please note: you must view this in a fixed-width font to see it properly) sound pressure waves | | V ear ^ | | V processed representation of ----------------------------- sound ^ | | | ^ | | | | | V V V V | emotions body movement analytical personal [A] processing stories | ^ ^ ^ ^ | | | | | | [b] [C] [D] [E] | | | | | V V V V V C O N S C I O U S N E S S This diagram is saying: - sound pressure waves strike the eardrum - there is a level we will roughly call the "ear" which turns the sound into impulses travelling the auditory nerve - There are the lower levels of the brain which do initial processing of sound, identifying pitches, rhythms, and basic recognition of patterns. I call that "processed representation of sound." - At the bottom of this diagram is consciousness. Consciousness itself is not really well understood, certainly not by me (and I welcome additional information) but here, I have modelled it as a level of neural activity which is influenced by lower level activities. - But before I continue about consciousness, note that I have represented other brain systems: emotions, body movement, analytical processing, and "personal stories." These are all levels on which I, personally, experience music. Others may draw this diagram differently. What this diagram is saying, is that while the "sound" of music comes to consciousness, at the same time the "sound" influences other brain systems, which have their own way of processing the sound. The sound triggers emotions; it compels body movement; it stimulates analytical processing; and it resonates with personal stories. I represent, in this diagram, these things as distinct from consciousness--because in my own experience, they are subconscious (that is, they come to my awareness as activity I didn't *will* to happen). NOTE I have draw each arrow as BI-DIRECTIONAL. In my understanding of neurology, although I'm not an expert, higher-level systems don't just build their patterns on lower-level systems, but in turn influence the lower-level activity. This is evident from observing myself: WHAT I choose to focus on CHANGES my experience of that thing. That, of course, accounts for the arrows from consciousness back. But I have continued those back arrows further, all the way back to the ear itself. This is based on my reading of Moore which explains that the auditory cortext innervates the muscles of the cochlea and can change its behavior. NOTE ALSO these back arrows are not at all critical to my final point here, so use them or ignore them at your whim. 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. So the diagram now looks like: sound pressure waves | | V ear ^ | | V processed representation of sound ^ | | [A] | | V C O N S C I O U S N E S S In the original diagram, information came to consciousness through channels A, B, C, D & E. In the second diagram, only through A. The critical question: have I changed the information reaching consciousness? Does it matter whether the information reaches consciousness through all the channels, or channel A alone? If it does matter, then is quick-switch testing an accurate test of the brain's normal operation? There is no reason to presume that all information is available in channel A. There's no benefit to the human organism for that to be true, so there's no evolutionary pressure to evolve that capability. To me, this is a very good reason to be skeptical about quick-switch blind testing. I'm even more skeptical when I consider a critical fact I have heretofore glossed over: Consciousness is not a complete representation of the available information. Consciousness picks and chooses a very small subset of the available information. So the fact that channel A leads from a "representation of the sound" directly to consciouness, does not imply that consciousness can in any way fully access that representation. It is best to think of all the channels above as transmitting ONLY A VERY SMALL PART of the available information-- and not a fixed part either, but one that can morph between a multitude of variable forms depending on the conscious intentions and focus of the listener. So in the orginal diagram, information reaches consciousness through five channels-- each of them very limited, each of them representing unique features of the sound, and each of them influenced (in their own unique way) by the focus of consciousness. In the second diagram, most of the subsystems are removed, the channel is restricted to A--and any back-influences from systems B through E are also removed. That seems like a radical change. So that's why I'm skeptical of quick-switch blind testing. I welcome thoughts and any additional information about modeling the brain. Of course, I know what is going to happen: some of you will post that the model is wrong or irrelevant to any scientific understanding. I suspect that in that case, we aren't disagreeing about facts, but about our *experiences*-- in other words, you may feel the model has nothing to do with your personal experience of music. That may well be true. In which case, quick-switch blind testing is probably a good way for you to go. Mike My congraulations on your thinking through of this issue and your attempts to convey it clearly. I tend to agree with you, which is probably pretty obvious from my ongoing posts here. I would only emphasize the "feedback" function may be more important even than you sketch. The brain physically changes the sensitivity of the ear in response to what it is hearing....the ear is "directed" to emphasize certain things when listening to music, to other things when listening to jungle sounds, etc. Like you say, this is done at the most primitive level. So, in the case of "A only", not only is the brain raising into consciousness "only A", it may be hearing "A" differently in and of itself because it's feedback "direction" to the ear may be quite different. To imagine why, let's take an exaggerated example; the subterranean rumble of the organ in Saint-Seans' "Organ Symphony". Heard in a musical context, it is heard one way. If one takes just a few notes of the organ itself, with no other context and no other instruments playing, it is possible that the brain might not even recognize it as music, much less an organ. It might be viewed as the initial rumblings of an earthquake. Or the faint rumblings of a herd of charging rhinoceroses (told you it was a stretch). Yet in less stretched form, this is what IMO happens when a few castanet rattles, or drum rolls, or electronic bass notes are substituted for a musical passage that has time to establish itself as music. In turn, if I am right, this may explain why Arny, Tom Nousaine, etc.who favor the use of predigested, short-snippets of musical sound bites, are even more inclined to find "no difference" in equipment that audiophiles generally think sound different when reproducing music. And the substitutability of white noise, well........ |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
The standard required here is not that of evidence that there are which it's science's business to get, following proper procedures), but rather that of a plausible argument that there *could be*, differences that don't get captured with the prevailing methodology. (Why isn't that enough to justify inquiry into the possible limitations of the approach? Because it is merely the idle speculation of people who apparently haven't made the least effort to understand the state of the science as it exists today. The only reason anyone is engaging in such speculations is because they are misinterpreting the significance of their own observations, based on a misunderstanding of the basic science. You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. snip Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm, and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a psychoacoustician. Everyone who can do that usefully knows an awful lot more about psychoacoustics than you (or me, for that matter). All science builds on what came before. Even Einstein built on existing foundations. And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Marcus wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote: The standard required here is not that of evidence that there are which it's science's business to get, following proper procedures), but rather that of a plausible argument that there *could be*, differences that don't get captured with the prevailing methodology. (Why isn't that enough to justify inquiry into the possible limitations of the approach? Because it is merely the idle speculation of people who apparently haven't made the least effort to understand the state of the science as it exists today. The only reason anyone is engaging in such speculations is because they are misinterpreting the significance of their own observations, based on a misunderstanding of the basic science. Even if you're right about that, the truth or falsity of what is speculated is independent of the causes of the person's speculating. So if the claim is independently interesting (as it is to me), why not evaluate it on its own merits? And yes, many of us are amateurs, but by putting our ideas down and inviting feedback we are, in a way and at least sometimes, making an effort to understand the science, through discussion with like-minded others. You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. It depends what you're talking about. Some suggestions are more plausible or well motivated than others. With regard to Mike's suggestion that the focus of attention or perceptual set makes a difference, that strikes me as an interesting idea and I very much doubt that it has been sufficiently explored in a fine-grained way. And it's not really a question of what I expect scientists to do, but of how much what scientists have learned so far tells us. snip Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm, and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a psychoacoustician. Everyone who can do that usefully knows an awful lot more about psychoacoustics than you (or me, for that matter). All science builds on what came before. Even Einstein built on existing foundations. And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here. Yeh, for that you have to go to rec.einstein, but I guess I'm more optimistic than you seem to be that an amateur can come to see the basic structure of a scientific approach and inquire usefully into method and evidence. Anyway, we find ourselves parties to this discussion, and though we're not Einsteins -- nobody's perfect -- we still have to carry on somehow, don't we? Mark |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Oct 2005 04:18:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:
Bob Marcus wrote: You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. It depends what you're talking about. Some suggestions are more plausible or well motivated than others. Exactly! End of story............ snip Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm, and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a psychoacoustician. More to the point, you have *not* 'remarked on its limitations', you have merely *claimed* that such limitations exist, without showing a shred of evidence or indeed reasoning to support such a claim. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 3 Oct 2005 04:18:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote: Bob Marcus wrote: You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. It depends what you're talking about. Some suggestions are more plausible or well motivated than others. Exactly! End of story............ snip Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm, and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a psychoacoustician. More to the point, you have *not* 'remarked on its limitations', you have merely *claimed* that such limitations exist, without showing a shred of evidence or indeed reasoning to support such a claim. The limitation is, Stewart, that about 90% of audiophiles reject the test based on its complete inconsistency with what years of listening have taught them. That seems to me *enough evidence* to suggest that perhaps the underlying premises of the test be examined. And that is exactly what Mark and Michael have been trying to do. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
The limitation is, Stewart, that about 90% of audiophiles reject the test based on its complete inconsistency with what years of listening have taught them. And yet it's not inconsistent at all. The model explains what they profess to hear. The only real problem is that they do not like the explanation. That seems to me *enough evidence* to suggest that perhaps the underlying premises of the test be examined. And that is exactly what Mark and Michael have been trying to do. If you don't understand the difference between the limits of a model and the limits of your understanding of the model, you are in no position to examine anything. bob |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Oct 2005 03:42:55 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 3 Oct 2005 04:18:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote: Bob Marcus wrote: You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. It depends what you're talking about. Some suggestions are more plausible or well motivated than others. Exactly! End of story............ snip Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm, and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a psychoacoustician. More to the point, you have *not* 'remarked on its limitations', you have merely *claimed* that such limitations exist, without showing a shred of evidence or indeed reasoning to support such a claim. The limitation is, Stewart, that about 90% of audiophiles reject the test based on its complete inconsistency with what years of listening have taught them. 90%? From whence did you drag that specious number, Harry? Did you know that 87.2% of statitistics are made up? Audiophiles are typically not scientifically trained, and are easily bamboozled. That's how Ivor Tiefenbrun got the cash for his several yachts................. Now, experienced audiophiles who understand basic psychology don't have this problem, because they *know* that sighted comparisons are worthless. That seems to me *enough evidence* to suggest that perhaps the underlying premises of the test be examined. That's not evidence, that's mere speculation. And that is exactly what Mark and Michael have been trying to do. No, they have just been flapping their arms in the same way that you do, without offering either reasoned argument or evidence in support of their wild speculations. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
... Bob Marcus wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: The standard required here is not that of evidence that there are which it's science's business to get, following proper procedures), but rather that of a plausible argument that there *could be*, differences that don't get captured with the prevailing methodology. (Why isn't that enough to justify inquiry into the possible limitations of the approach? Because it is merely the idle speculation of people who apparently haven't made the least effort to understand the state of the science as it exists today. The only reason anyone is engaging in such speculations is because they are misinterpreting the significance of their own observations, based on a misunderstanding of the basic science. Even if you're right about that, the truth or falsity of what is speculated is independent of the causes of the person's speculating. So if the claim is independently interesting (as it is to me), why not evaluate it on its own merits? And yes, many of us are amateurs, but by putting our ideas down and inviting feedback we are, in a way and at least sometimes, making an effort to understand the science, through discussion with like-minded others. You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the insight that generated the theory of relativity. You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. And he received much the same response initially. It depends what you're talking about. Some suggestions are more plausible or well motivated than others. With regard to Mike's suggestion that the focus of attention or perceptual set makes a difference, that strikes me as an interesting idea and I very much doubt that it has been sufficiently explored in a fine-grained way. And it's not really a question of what I expect scientists to do, but of how much what scientists have learned so far tells us. snip Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm, and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a psychoacoustician. Everyone who can do that usefully knows an awful lot more about psychoacoustics than you (or me, for that matter). All science builds on what came before. Even Einstein built on existing foundations. Yep, they have all learned the currently acceptable paradigms to a fair-thee-well. But sometimes it is hard for someone in such a position to step outside the box and look at the bigger picture. Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........? And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here. I'm not sure you would know one if you ran into one. That's my point. Yeh, for that you have to go to rec.einstein, but I guess I'm more optimistic than you seem to be that an amateur can come to see the basic structure of a scientific approach and inquire usefully into method and evidence. Anyway, we find ourselves parties to this discussion, and though we're not Einsteins -- nobody's perfect -- we still have to carry on somehow, don't we? Not if you already know all the answers already. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Oct 2005 02:19:43 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the insight that generated the theory of relativity. So what? Unlike yours, his theory held water. Calls to authority don't work, Harry, we need to see *evidence*. You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. And he received much the same response initially. Quite right, too. OTOH, his theory predicted things that were observed to be true. Mark and you are mere speculators, offering neither reasoned argument nor evidence. Yep, they have all learned the currently acceptable paradigms to a fair-thee-well. But sometimes it is hard for someone in such a position to step outside the box and look at the bigger picture. Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........? That was Doppler............ Yeh, for that you have to go to rec.einstein, but I guess I'm more optimistic than you seem to be that an amateur can come to see the basic structure of a scientific approach and inquire usefully into method and evidence. Anyway, we find ourselves parties to this discussion, and though we're not Einsteins -- nobody's perfect -- we still have to carry on somehow, don't we? Not if you already know all the answers already. Nobody claims to know all the answers. What we *do* claim is that, if you wish to claim that all available scientific knowledge is wrong about audible differnces, then you are required to provide very strong evidence in support of your position. So far, we have seen *zero* evidence, and not even any reasonable theories. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 4 Oct 2005 02:19:43 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the insight that generated the theory of relativity. So what? Unlike yours, his theory held water. Calls to authority don't work, Harry, we need to see *evidence*. My what? I don't recall postulating a theory here...but Mark and Michel have. And who is calling to authority? I simply pointed out an example that calls into question the dismissivness of some of the replies to Mark and Michael. You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. And he received much the same response initially. Quite right, too. OTOH, his theory predicted things that were observed to be true. Mark and you are mere speculators, offering neither reasoned argument nor evidence. Years later until it could be "proved". The proof or "evidence" as you would have it did not come before the fact. Yep, they have all learned the currently acceptable paradigms to a fair-thee-well. But sometimes it is hard for someone in such a position to step outside the box and look at the bigger picture. Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........? That was Doppler............ Right you are. But, Einsteins theory of relativity was also generated musing about the passing of trains (he was a station telegraph operator, after all). Yeh, for that you have to go to rec.einstein, but I guess I'm more optimistic than you seem to be that an amateur can come to see the basic structure of a scientific approach and inquire usefully into method and evidence. Anyway, we find ourselves parties to this discussion, and though we're not Einsteins -- nobody's perfect -- we still have to carry on somehow, don't we? Not if you already know all the answers already. Nobody claims to know all the answers. What we *do* claim is that, if you wish to claim that all available scientific knowledge is wrong about audible differnces, then you are required to provide very strong evidence in support of your position. So far, we have seen *zero* evidence, and not even any reasonable theories. Theories about what is wrong, and possibly why, first. Once you have a theory, it can be tested. That's what Mark and Michael have provided. Then come the tests. You simply reject the possible theory, because it threatens the tests you believe in. That is called faith, not science. On the other hand, those of you who have swiped abx testing from audiometric research have never validated it for your intended use of it...and such validation is essential because of the questions Mark and Michael raise (and I and others before them). Moreover, the Oohashi test provided a glimmer of evidence that results are different between monadic testing of musical segments with after the fact reporting, and short-snippet, quick-switch testing without adequate time for emotional reaction to register nor musical context to be established. There is no reason an open scientific mind couldn't accept the possibility that Mark and Michael are correct, and work to help test the hypothesis by beginning to think/talk about ways to confirm or deny the theory/hypothesis. That unfortunately has not been the reaction here. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message ... Bob Marcus wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: The standard required here is not that of evidence that there are which it's science's business to get, following proper procedures), but rather that of a plausible argument that there *could be*, differences that don't get captured with the prevailing methodology. (Why isn't that enough to justify inquiry into the possible limitations of the approach? Because it is merely the idle speculation of people who apparently haven't made the least effort to understand the state of the science as it exists today. The only reason anyone is engaging in such speculations is because they are misinterpreting the significance of their own observations, based on a misunderstanding of the basic science. Even if you're right about that, the truth or falsity of what is speculated is independent of the causes of the person's speculating. So if the claim is independently interesting (as it is to me), why not evaluate it on its own merits? And yes, many of us are amateurs, but by putting our ideas down and inviting feedback we are, in a way and at least sometimes, making an effort to understand the science, through discussion with like-minded others. You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the insight that generated the theory of relativity. You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. And he received much the same response initially. No. He got his theory published. We're still waiting for you to do the same. bob |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the insight that generated the theory of relativity. No, he was not. Harry, you REALLY need to read your history. Einstein, at the time was a university-trained and degreed physicist with a 3.3 equivalent grade average who worked as an examiner in the Swiss Patent Office. You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. And he received much the same response initially. Not from the professional physics community, he didn't. The professional physics community rather well embraced relativity. Please check your history. There was, in some quarters, widespread derision, but it should be noted that even at the time, this was primarily from the physics illiterate and the fringe community. You might also bone up on his complete reluctance to embrace quantum mechanics, despire being one of the founding fathers (e.g., for explaining the photoelectric effect, for which he won his only Nobel proze) and in spite of overwhelming physical evidence. Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........? Uh, that was Doppler, thank you. And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here. I'm not sure you would know one if you ran into one. That's my point. And if you were standing around the railroad in the late 1800's or early 1900's, neither would you. However, if you had been hanging around the Physics Department of the Zurich Federal Institute of Technology, you would have had a far better chance of running into the Man. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the insight that generated the theory of relativity. No, he was not. Harry, you REALLY need to read your history. Einstein, at the time was a university-trained and degreed physicist with a 3.3 equivalent grade average who worked as an examiner in the Swiss Patent Office. History was never my strong suite...I stand corrected. I must have mixed him up with somebody else....you sure he didn't work as a telegraph operator *before* he became degreed, or while he was seeking the degree? You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. And he received much the same response initially. Not from the professional physics community, he didn't. The professional physics community rather well embraced relativity. Please check your history. My understanding is that even in that community there were more deriders than acceptors until after the famous "bending-light" verification. There was, in some quarters, widespread derision, but it should be noted that even at the time, this was primarily from the physics illiterate and the fringe community. My understanding is that outside of a few close associates he was routinely and widely derided. You might also bone up on his complete reluctance to embrace quantum mechanics, despire being one of the founding fathers (e.g., for explaining the photoelectric effect, for which he won his only Nobel proze) and in spite of overwhelming physical evidence. I do know of his reluctance to aceept quantum mechanics....never said he didn't have his weaknesses. But it goes to show what happens when science as faith replaces science as science. Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........? Uh, that was Doppler, thank you. Yep, as already pointed out. Again, apparently a memory mix up on my part. And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here. I'm not sure you would know one if you ran into one. That's my point. And if you were standing around the railroad in the late 1800's or early 1900's, neither would you. No, but if I was one of those physicists my guess is I would have been on his side. However, if you had been hanging around the Physics Department of the Zurich Federal Institute of Technology, you would have had a far better chance of running into the Man. I might even have been his lunch-buddy. :-) |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
... Mark DeBellis wrote: The standard required here is not that of evidence that there are which it's science's business to get, following proper procedures), but rather that of a plausible argument that there *could be*, differences that don't get captured with the prevailing methodology. (Why isn't that enough to justify inquiry into the possible limitations of the approach? Because it is merely the idle speculation of people who apparently haven't made the least effort to understand the state of the science as it exists today. The only reason anyone is engaging in such speculations is because they are misinterpreting the significance of their own observations, based on a misunderstanding of the basic science. You can't expect scientists to bother investigating anything so specious. snip Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm, and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a psychoacoustician. Everyone who can do that usefully knows an awful lot more about psychoacoustics than you (or me, for that matter). All science builds on what came before. Even Einstein built on existing foundations. And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here. And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would be to Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy, just look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer speculation! Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a mathematician...horrors.) |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Oct 2005 02:18:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would be to Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy, just look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer speculation! Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a mathematician...horrors.) Actually no. You listen to what he said, and cry "nonsense, where's your *evidence*?" Then you examine his evidence, look at what his theory predicts, and observe that the prediction holds true. That's the difference, Harry - your claims have no *evidence* to back them. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Oct 2005 02:18:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would be to Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy, just look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer speculation! Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a mathematician...horrors.) Actually no. You listen to what he said, and cry "nonsense, where's your *evidence*?" Then you examine his evidence, look at what his theory predicts, and observe that the prediction holds true. That's the difference, Harry - your claims have no *evidence* to back them. And of course, Einstein's theories were his attempt to resolve *real* problems and paradoxes in the then-current theories -- problems acknowledged by other scientists. Hearing stuff 'sighted' that isn't supported by DBT results, is by no means that sort of 'problem'. Science *has* a good working explanation for that. That 'audiophiles' consider it a problem says more about them and their anti-rationalist culture, than anything else. -- -S |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Oct 2005 02:18:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would be to Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy, just look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer speculation! Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a mathematician...horrors.) Actually no. You listen to what he said, and cry "nonsense, where's your *evidence*?" Then you examine his evidence, look at what his theory predicts, and observe that the prediction holds true. That's the difference, Harry - your claims have no *evidence* to back them. Stewart, I'm kind of curious what you think Harry's claims are. For that matter, I wonder what you think my and Mark's claims are. It would be an interesting exercise to see if you could repeat them accurately. Mike |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Not In Love With Tivoli Audio? Maybe Here is Why-FAQ and Exegesis | Audio Opinions | |||
| NPR reports on new brain research music | High End Audio | |||
| Installing stand-by switch | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| More cable questions! | Tech | |||
Hybrid Mode
