Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Buster Mudd
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:

...the fact that a spontaneous observation of a property of sound
A involves a different perceptual mechanism than asking oneself, yes or
no, if A is present in the sound. A paradigm which proceeds on the
assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show
that it exists.



You contend that it is a "fact" that such a distinction exists. I on
the other hand contend that discriminations of sonic properties are, by
virtue of their being discriminations of sonic properties, involve the
same perceptual mechanism. The "asking oneself" either before or after
the discrimination may appear to frame the perception differently, but
it is the discrimination itself, not the framing, which determines the
perceptual mechanism.


You might be right.

But does your contention imply any model of perception and
consciousness?

Let's say the brain contains lower-level perceptual mechanisms, and
also filters that bring those perceptions to consciousness.

My contention is that the state of consciousness affects what
information reaches it. Spontaneously noticing things is one state of
consciousness, I contend, while looking for specific things is another.
It may be possible that the lower-level mechanism is the same in each
case.

Does your contention imply anything about consciousness? Such as an
ability to focus on details at will, or a comprehensive mechanism that
brings all relevant information into consciousness regardless of what
one is looking for?



It just implies that you have to make a conscious discrimination in
order to parse the thought "this sounds brighter than that", and that
once that conscious discrimination has been made, it is now moot to
argue about whether the discrimination was arrived at via Purposeful
Hunting or Spontaneous Noticing, because your consciousness no longer
has access to that "information".

Even if Purposeful Hunting did exist as a neural activity that was
physically different from that of Spontaneous Noticing, that neural
activity has been overwritten by your conscious discrimination, and is
no longer available.

  #44   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"So long as one thinks that *all* questions about perception are directly
translatable into questions about comparison or discrimination (or
categorization), one is apt to miss his point entirely."

You have it backwards, perception artifacts not in the signal is offered
as an explanation. One need not have any such model when making the
simple observation that placing a cloth over connections causes previously
easy to discriminate differences to fall into the level of random guess.
It too is interesting that clear differences are stated when switching is
said to have occured when in fact only one bit of gear was used. These
two small facts are such stubborn things and do drive anyone wanting to
have a fuller understanding to consider perception artifacts as an
explanation..

  #45   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm.

Sure we are. But we'd need evidence that this is the case.
Specifically, we'd need phenomena that we cannot explain. So far, we
haven't seen any.


Do you mean we'd need evidence in order to have reason to look at
whether the paradigm is limited, or we'd need evidence in order to
decide that it is in fact limited?


The former, and it is up to you to supply that evidence, if you think
the theory is incorrect.

If the former, that sure looks
circular. Isn't Mike's point that the reason why we haven't seen
countervailing evidence is that it hasn't sufficiently been probed for?


In other words, we cling to the theory that elephants can't fly because
we haven't expended the effort to find elephants that can fly.

But we have many reasons to believe that elephants can't fly, beyond
the lack of immediate examples. And, as has been pointed out to you ad
nauseum, we have many reasons to believe that certain sonic differences
are inaudible.

Are you prepared to argue that zoologists ought to expend time
searching for flying elephants, simply because a few ill-informed
people believe that elephants might be able to fly? And if not, why do
you make the identical demand of psychoacousticians?

That's why the burden of proof rests with the elephant-flight partisans
and their golden-eared equivalents to come up with some evidence. (And
it is not circular reasoning to demand this as a first step.) But
you'll notice that the partisans are not expending a whit of effort to
come up with that evidence. Instead, you wave your arms and make
pseudoscientific arguments like the one above.

bob



  #46   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
"So long as one thinks that *all* questions about perception are directly
translatable into questions about comparison or discrimination (or
categorization), one is apt to miss his point entirely."

You have it backwards, perception artifacts not in the signal is offered
as an explanation. One need not have any such model when making the
simple observation that placing a cloth over connections causes previously
easy to discriminate differences to fall into the level of random guess.


We see the statement a lot that "the differences disappear when a cloth
goes over the equipment." But in most blind tests, it isn't just the
"blindness" that has been changed. Especially in tests designed to show
objectively that a difference based in sound was perceived, the
listener is required to discriminate under a certain set of conditions,
and to make the discrimination a large number of times in a fairly
brief period of time. So more has changed than "putting a cloth over
the components."

It too is interesting that clear differences are stated when switching is
said to have occured when in fact only one bit of gear was used. These
two small facts are such stubborn things and do drive anyone wanting to
have a fuller understanding to consider perception artifacts as an
explanation..


It's very simple: people's experience of music is a combined result of
the sound, and how one responds to the sound (call it the "subtle
internal dance"). If either one changes, then the experience changes. I
find that the internal response to the sound is something that can be
modelled and understood, and explains a great many experiences, as well
as casts light on the shortcomings of the common blind test.

Mike

  #47   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

I know that you have a body of data which is consistent, but it would
appear that most or all of the blind tests supporting your position
were not designed in acknowledgement of basic subjective phemonena,

What is a subjective phenomenon? I'm only familiar with the objective
kind.

Something that happens in the realm of personal experience.



You mean like stubbing your toe?

"Subjective phenomenon" is an oxymoron.


Stubbing your toe involves two components: the objective one (the one
that outside observers can see; the physical collision of toe with
object, as well as any physical noises/body language made by the
collidee); and the subjective one (your experience of stubbing your
toe).


"You're just playing at semantics here."

Actually, Mike's right. A standard use of the word "phenomenon" is to
mean an appearance, and the way something appears to a person is subjective.


Thanks, Mark. Whatever the language we use, I find that internal
experience is something that can be modelled and understood.


What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm.

Sure we are. But we'd need evidence that this is the case.
Specifically, we'd need phenomena that we cannot explain. So far, we
haven't seen any.


Do you mean we'd need evidence in order to have reason to look at
whether the paradigm is limited, or we'd need evidence in order to
decide that it is in fact limited? If the former, that sure looks
circular. Isn't Mike's point that the reason why we haven't seen
countervailing evidence is that it hasn't sufficiently been probed for?


Yeah, that's my point. For example, I would like to see the dozens of
blind tests that controlled for whether the subjects were listening to
sound as sound, or sound as music.

Mike

  #48   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:

...the fact that a spontaneous observation of a property of sound
A involves a different perceptual mechanism than asking oneself, yes or
no, if A is present in the sound. A paradigm which proceeds on the
assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show
that it exists.



You contend that it is a "fact" that such a distinction exists. I on
the other hand contend that discriminations of sonic properties are, by
virtue of their being discriminations of sonic properties, involve the
same perceptual mechanism. The "asking oneself" either before or after
the discrimination may appear to frame the perception differently, but
it is the discrimination itself, not the framing, which determines the
perceptual mechanism.


You might be right.

But does your contention imply any model of perception and
consciousness?

Let's say the brain contains lower-level perceptual mechanisms, and
also filters that bring those perceptions to consciousness.

My contention is that the state of consciousness affects what
information reaches it. Spontaneously noticing things is one state of
consciousness, I contend, while looking for specific things is another.
It may be possible that the lower-level mechanism is the same in each
case.

Does your contention imply anything about consciousness? Such as an
ability to focus on details at will, or a comprehensive mechanism that
brings all relevant information into consciousness regardless of what
one is looking for?



It just implies that you have to make a conscious discrimination in
order to parse the thought "this sounds brighter than that", and that
once that conscious discrimination has been made, it is now moot to
argue about whether the discrimination was arrived at via Purposeful
Hunting or Spontaneous Noticing, because your consciousness no longer
has access to that "information".

Even if Purposeful Hunting did exist as a neural activity that was
physically different from that of Spontaneous Noticing, that neural
activity has been overwritten by your conscious discrimination, and is
no longer available.


I don't follow you.

First of all, it is obvious to me that purposeful hunting exists as an
activity separate from spontaneous noticing (good terminology!). If you
went into a forest saying you will write down everything that captures
your attention but not predefining that, your list would be different
than if you went into the forest saying you will write down a list of
all trees you encounter.

Secondly, I have no problem with an awareness of which activity I'm
engaged in, and making an observation does not overwrite this
awareness.

Mike

  #49   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I know that you have a body of data which is consistent, but it would
appear that most or all of the blind tests supporting your position
were not designed in acknowledgement of basic subjective phemonena,

What is a subjective phenomenon? I'm only familiar with the objective
kind.


Something that happens in the realm of personal experience.


You mean like stubbing your toe?

"Subjective phenomenon" is an oxymoron. What you are talking about (and
doing) is misinterpretation of an objective phenomenon (which is, of
course, redundant). The objective phenomenon we are talking about is
this: You listened to something twice, and it sounded different to you
the second time. That is objectively true. The problem comes when you
try to explain that difference.


That I said the words out loud "I hear a difference" is objective. What
exactly I heard, or what experience I constructed out of those sounds,
is subjective.




such as the fact that a spontaneous observation of a property of sound
A involves a different perceptual mechanism than asking oneself, yes or
no, if A is present in the sound.

This is not a fact.

A paradigm which proceeds on the
assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show
that it exists.

But a paradigm that assumed the distinction was irrelevant could.


Hmm, I don't follow you here. For example, suppose we design an
experiment to measure the speed of light. The nature of light, whether
particle or wave, is not relevant to the experiment. How then, would
the experiment show that light is either particle or wave? I.e., it
would turn out the same either way.


The speed of light is not a paradigm.


Assumptions about its nature, or the decision a priori that its nature
is not relevant, are/is a paradigm.


And
so far, the only "distinctions" I've seen made by subjectivists have
been either fanciful or semantic.

You're
the one who thinks there's some big mystery here.

Precisely. My statement was that the objectivist prefers to choose a
paradigm in which the more mysterious observations are declared a
priori to be not worthy of investigation, probably because he doesn't
like having untidy dark corners in the universe.

One doesn't "choose" a paradigm. This is a scientific paradigm, and
there are no dark corners in the little bit of the universe involving
differentiation of audio components. Everything you claim, the paradigm
can explain. That's why it's the paradigm.


Well, in my experience, one can choose what's important and what's not;
what is worthy of investigation and what not. It appears to me that
psycho-acoustics, as you describe it, has implicitly chosen to
deemphasize variation in one's use of attention, and has implicitly
deemphasized distinctions in experience when they can only be verbally
reported and not measured.


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


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

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

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

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


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


What makes you think I have blind belief?

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


Perceptions differ under all sorts of conditions.

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

Mike





The fact
that a theory explains everything does not make it right.


Explaining things is the ONLY thing that makes a theory right.

We're also the ones
who are willing to be proven wrong.

What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm.

Sure we are. But we'd need evidence that this is the case.
Specifically, we'd need phenomena that we cannot explain. So far, we
haven't seen any.


Right. And I haven't seen anything I can't explain, either.


Why do blind and sighted perceptions differ? Why do audibility tests
correlate with measurements? Why does our ability to notice small
differences decline (sharply) with time?

Actually, you can't *explain* anything. You haven't got a theory.

bob


  #50   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Sep 2005 05:30:38 GMT, wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:


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?

I would conclude what I already know: that under some conditions people
can perceive a difference when there is, to the best of our knowledge,
no difference (although it is important to note that we cannot
establish with certainty there was no difference).


Which part of "A was replaced with A again" was unclear to you?


I happen to think that not everything in the world can be perfectly
controlled.



What I DON'T do is conclude that all feelings about audio components
are untrustworthy. I'm willing to look at at *how* these feelings arise
and under what conditions. I'm willing to accept that subtle subjective
phenomena get interfered with when one tries to look directly at
them--unlike the objectivist, who is unwilling to consider, or actually
afraid, of this possibility: since it makes the world less easy to
understand.


Actually, it is the objectivists who *do* acknowledge that subtle
subjective phenomena get interfered with - that's why we favour blind
testing. We are also well aware of Heisenberg's work, and I am more
than aware that measuring something frequently alters it. However,
there seems no evidence that this applies to audio comparisons, where
all the usual 'stress' and 'gestalt' objections are trivially easy to
overcome.


Well, as you say, knowledge of the component under test does influence
perception. But so does being asked to make a conceptualized
discrimination a large number of times in a relatively short stretch of
time.

My objection is not "the usual stress or gestalt" type -- it is that
one's use of their awareness affects what one notices, and that
differences in audio components are not the sort that can be
conceptualized. I would like to see one, or hopefully many, tests that
control for these factors.


Aside from its proven lack of sensitivity, there's absolutely no
objection to long-term, as relaxed as you like, comparisons - so long
as they remain blind. Not exactly rocket science to do this with
cables, after all.


But how many "long-term, as relaxed as you like" comparisons have taken
place? Can you document, say, a dozen of them, along with the specific
conditions (length of time, directions to the test subjects)?

Mike



  #51   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
wrote:
"So long as one thinks that *all* questions about perception are directly
translatable into questions about comparison or discrimination (or
categorization), one is apt to miss his point entirely."

You have it backwards, perception artifacts not in the signal is offered
as an explanation. One need not have any such model when making the
simple observation that placing a cloth over connections causes previously
easy to discriminate differences to fall into the level of random guess.


We see the statement a lot that "the differences disappear when a cloth
goes over the equipment." But in most blind tests, it isn't just the
"blindness" that has been changed. Especially in tests designed to show
objectively that a difference based in sound was perceived, the
listener is required to discriminate under a certain set of conditions,
and to make the discrimination a large number of times in a fairly
brief period of time. So more has changed than "putting a cloth over
the components."


We can put a cloth over the component, and you can decide
whether you were listening to A or B. Your answer has a 50/50
chance of being 'right' simply by guessing.

Do you see why multiple attempts are *required* for there to be any
point at all such an endeavor?


It too is interesting that clear differences are stated when switching is
said to have occured when in fact only one bit of gear was used. These
two small facts are such stubborn things and do drive anyone wanting to
have a fuller understanding to consider perception artifacts as an
explanation..


It's very simple: people's experience of music is a combined result of
the sound, and how one responds to the sound (call it the "subtle
internal dance"). If either one changes, then the experience changes. I
find that the internal response to the sound is something that can be
modelled and understood, and explains a great many experiences, as well
as casts light on the shortcomings of the common blind test.


Such experience does not necessarily reflect any *real difference* in the
sound or the sound-producing device -- so why talk like it does?



--

-S

  #52   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm.

Sure we are. But we'd need evidence that this is the case.
Specifically, we'd need phenomena that we cannot explain. So far, we
haven't seen any.


Do you mean we'd need evidence in order to have reason to look at
whether the paradigm is limited, or we'd need evidence in order to
decide that it is in fact limited?


The former, and it is up to you to supply that evidence, if you think
the theory is incorrect.


What you seem to mean by that statement is that you personally won't
change your mind until someone else supplies you with some new
evidence, and that you aren't interested in criticisms of your methods.
Mark and I are perfectly free to discuss the limitations in your
methods from a more introspective or philosophic point of view, whether
or not we happen to be independently wealthy people who have the
resources to conduct large-scale experiments.


If the former, that sure looks
circular. Isn't Mike's point that the reason why we haven't seen
countervailing evidence is that it hasn't sufficiently been probed for?


In other words, we cling to the theory that elephants can't fly because
we haven't expended the effort to find elephants that can fly.


It is more like you have decided there is one way to find out if
elephants can fly. Say, push them off a cliff. When they all go splat,
you decide they can't fly. When it would be more correct to say they
can't fly under those conditions.


But we have many reasons to believe that elephants can't fly, beyond
the lack of immediate examples. And, as has been pointed out to you ad
nauseum, we have many reasons to believe that certain sonic differences
are inaudible.


Well correct me if I am wrong, but the main reason to believe that
certain differences are not audible is that we have a model of the ear
and brain. But how was this model validated?



Are you prepared to argue that zoologists ought to expend time
searching for flying elephants, simply because a few ill-informed
people believe that elephants might be able to fly? And if not, why do
you make the identical demand of psychoacousticians?


No one is demanding anything of psychoacousticians or anyone else. We
are pointing out weaknesses in your methods. You are free to respond or
not respond.



That's why the burden of proof rests with the elephant-flight partisans
and their golden-eared equivalents to come up with some evidence. (And
it is not circular reasoning to demand this as a first step.)


I don't think it is a matter of "burden of proof." What you are saying
is that, in your mind, the "other side" has the burden of proof. From
my perspective, I'm just trying to determine what's true, and I'll take
evidence from either "side".

But
you'll notice that the partisans are not expending a whit of effort to
come up with that evidence.


What makes you think that?

Instead, you wave your arms and make
pseudoscientific arguments like the one above.


What exactly does this phrase "arm-waving" mean? What is
pseudoscientific about these statements?

Mike

  #54   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Sep 2005 05:30:38 GMT,
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:


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?

I would conclude what I already know: that under some conditions people
can perceive a difference when there is, to the best of our knowledge,
no difference (although it is important to note that we cannot
establish with certainty there was no difference).


Which part of "A was replaced with A again" was unclear to you?


I happen to think that not everything in the world can be perfectly
controlled.


'A replaced by A' can be extremely well controlled. It can be
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that nothing about 'A' changed
that would affect the audio output.

Of course, if one one to start expressing *unreasonable* doubts,
well, that's audiophiles for ya.

But how many "long-term, as relaxed as you like" comparisons have taken
place? Can you document, say, a dozen of them, along with the specific
conditions (length of time, directions to the test subjects)?


Isn't it fascinating how some audiophiles demand multiple rigorous
experiments when the indications are 'no difference', yet remain so endlessly
'open minded' about sighted results?




--

-S

  #56   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Well, as you say, knowledge of the component under test does influence
perception. But so does being asked to make a conceptualized
discrimination

The first above has been demonstrated when humans are being tested in all
fields. The second has not been confirmed. When one of the hifi mags do
an "audition" and make reference to comparing this bit of gear to another
does this mean their perception has changed and their perceptions suspect?

"But how many "long-term, as relaxed as you like" comparisons have taken
place? Can you document, say, a dozen of them, along with the specific
conditions (length of time, directions to the test subjects)?"

Irrelevant, it is up to those advocating such a protocol to do so. Have
you
done subjective "tests" with your left hand embedded up to the wrist in
cheese doodles? If not how can you claim your "tests" legitimate?

In
science little time is given to considering that which experience in all
human testing has found consistent over and over again, knowing what is
being tested changes the outcomes. The alternative of the hifi mag
approach is almost completely useless in the extreme, except as a bit of
entertaining literary fluff.

  #57   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
wrote:
"So long as one thinks that *all* questions about perception are directly
translatable into questions about comparison or discrimination (or
categorization), one is apt to miss his point entirely."

You have it backwards, perception artifacts not in the signal is offered
as an explanation. One need not have any such model when making the
simple observation that placing a cloth over connections causes previously
easy to discriminate differences to fall into the level of random guess.


We see the statement a lot that "the differences disappear when a cloth
goes over the equipment." But in most blind tests, it isn't just the
"blindness" that has been changed. Especially in tests designed to show
objectively that a difference based in sound was perceived, the
listener is required to discriminate under a certain set of conditions,
and to make the discrimination a large number of times in a fairly
brief period of time. So more has changed than "putting a cloth over
the components."


But nothing is changed that would hinder the listener, despite what you
want to believe. In fact, DBTs are generally conducted in ways that
should improve the subject's sensitivity, relative to the way most
sighted comparisons are carried out. The most obvious example of this
is quick switching.

We could try to do DBTs in ways more analogous to the practices of
ill-informed audiophiles, but why would we want to? The tests wouldn't
work as well, because we'd get too many null results, even in cases
where we know that differences are audible.

bob

  #58   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


What makes you think I have blind belief?


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

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


Perceptions differ under all sorts of conditions.

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


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

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

bob

  #59   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
"So long as one thinks that *all* questions about perception are directly
translatable into questions about comparison or discrimination (or
categorization), one is apt to miss his point entirely."

You have it backwards, perception artifacts not in the signal is offered
as an explanation. One need not have any such model when making the
simple observation that placing a cloth over connections causes previously
easy to discriminate differences to fall into the level of random guess.


We see the statement a lot that "the differences disappear when a cloth
goes over the equipment." But in most blind tests, it isn't just the
"blindness" that has been changed. Especially in tests designed to show
objectively that a difference based in sound was perceived, the
listener is required to discriminate under a certain set of conditions,
and to make the discrimination a large number of times in a fairly
brief period of time. So more has changed than "putting a cloth over
the components."


We can put a cloth over the component, and you can decide
whether you were listening to A or B. Your answer has a 50/50
chance of being 'right' simply by guessing.

Do you see why multiple attempts are *required* for there to be any
point at all such an endeavor?


It too is interesting that clear differences are stated when switching is
said to have occured when in fact only one bit of gear was used. These
two small facts are such stubborn things and do drive anyone wanting to
have a fuller understanding to consider perception artifacts as an
explanation..


It's very simple: people's experience of music is a combined result of
the sound, and how one responds to the sound (call it the "subtle
internal dance"). If either one changes, then the experience changes. I
find that the internal response to the sound is something that can be
modelled and understood, and explains a great many experiences, as well
as casts light on the shortcomings of the common blind test.


Such experience does not necessarily reflect any *real difference* in the
sound or the sound-producing device -- so why talk like it does?


I've developed my model from experiences in which there are obvious
differences in the sound-- such as listening to a live performance, and
then listening to a recording of it.

Mike

  #60   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:

First of all, it is obvious to me that purposeful hunting exists as an
activity separate from spontaneous noticing (good terminology!).


Right...*when* it is obvious to you that you are conciously doing one
or the other activity, then it seems easy to confidently state which
one you are doing. But that doesn't mean you are acurately reporting
your concious state, only that you are reporting your perception of
your concious state to the best of your abilities. IOW, you might
*think* you are in Spontaneous Noticing mode, but you may be deluding
yourself.



Secondly, I have no problem with an awareness of which activity I'm
engaged in, and making an observation does not overwrite this
awareness.


That's what you think. However, there is a substantial body of
literature in the fields of cognitive science and neuropsychology that
suggest A) that what we think is going on in our brain is not the same
as what is going on in our brain; and B) that concious discriminations
do indeed overwrite the perceptions which prompted these
discriminations; the determination "I have perceived this" takes
precedence over whatever stimuli you were (temporarily)
perceiving...and often they are not the same!


All this is to say we don't know exactly what we were doing, and I
agree. That makes it even harder to control for these factors in a
blind test. I think that what you are doing with your awareness affects
what you hear, so this factor should be controlled, but no one has ever
described a test to me in which it is.

Mike



  #61   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:


Do you mean we'd need evidence in order to have reason to look at
whether the paradigm is limited, or we'd need evidence in order to
decide that it is in fact limited?


The former, and it is up to you to supply that evidence, if you think
the theory is incorrect.


What you seem to mean by that statement is that you personally won't
change your mind until someone else supplies you with some new
evidence, and that you aren't interested in criticisms of your methods.
Mark and I are perfectly free to discuss the limitations in your
methods from a more introspective or philosophic point of view, whether
or not we happen to be independently wealthy people who have the
resources to conduct large-scale experiments.


You're perfectly free to say anything you please. And I'm perfectly
free to point out its pseudoscientific character. Discussing the
"limitation in your methods," while offering no evidence that such
limitations exist, is pseudoscience. Offering evidence of those
limitations would be science, but that's not what you're doing.

If the former, that sure looks
circular. Isn't Mike's point that the reason why we haven't seen
countervailing evidence is that it hasn't sufficiently been probed for?


In other words, we cling to the theory that elephants can't fly because
we haven't expended the effort to find elephants that can fly.


It is more like you have decided there is one way to find out if
elephants can fly. Say, push them off a cliff. When they all go splat,
you decide they can't fly. When it would be more correct to say they
can't fly under those conditions.


Do try to read ahead before you hit the "Reply" button. I've already
rebutted that point inthe following paragraph.

But we have many reasons to believe that elephants can't fly, beyond
the lack of immediate examples. And, as has been pointed out to you ad
nauseum, we have many reasons to believe that certain sonic differences
are inaudible.


Well correct me if I am wrong, but the main reason to believe that
certain differences are not audible is that we have a model of the ear
and brain. But how was this model validated?


In a variety of ways, actually. That's why we're reasonably confident
that the model is correct. Our ability to make predictions that stand
up to testing is at the heart of this.

snip

That's why the burden of proof rests with the elephant-flight partisans
and their golden-eared equivalents to come up with some evidence. (And
it is not circular reasoning to demand this as a first step.)


I don't think it is a matter of "burden of proof." What you are saying
is that, in your mind, the "other side" has the burden of proof. From
my perspective, I'm just trying to determine what's true, and I'll take
evidence from either "side".


So will I, but only one side seems to be supplying any.

But
you'll notice that the partisans are not expending a whit of effort to
come up with that evidence.


What makes you think that?


I'm not blind.

Instead, you wave your arms and make
pseudoscientific arguments like the one above.


What exactly does this phrase "arm-waving" mean? What is
pseudoscientific about these statements?


Evidence-free challenges to scientific theory are pseudoscience. I
would compare you to the Intelligent Design folks, but that would sell
them short. At least they make an effort to identify questions that
evolution cannot yet explain. You are making so such effort.

bob

  #63   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


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

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


We are not "choosing the differences to be investigated."


Most of Moore is devoted to explaining the results of playing test
signals to subjects. The test signals are chosen, and the differences
between them (such as amplitude or pitch) are chosen.

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


I'm not "speculating" there are differences we don't know about-- I'm
pointing out that we haven't done any well-designed experiments to
determine if different components produce different subjective
impressions.



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

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

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

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


What makes you think I have blind belief?


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


For me to have "blind belief," first I would have to have some fixed
beliefs. I don't. I have working hypotheses, and I have unanswered
questions.

I think that investigating perception should be informed both by
introspection and experiments. You don't count introspection as
"evidence." I do.

And finally, you haven't shown me any evidence that isn't based on a
fixed model of how subjective impressions are formed.


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


Perceptions differ under all sorts of conditions.

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


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

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


The "currently accepted scientific standards" would not be able to
determine if A & B are audibly indistinguishable, if the distinction
between them was a matter of musical beauty.

Mike

  #64   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
"So long as one thinks that *all* questions about perception are directly
translatable into questions about comparison or discrimination (or
categorization), one is apt to miss his point entirely."

You have it backwards, perception artifacts not in the signal is offered
as an explanation. One need not have any such model when making the
simple observation that placing a cloth over connections causes previously
easy to discriminate differences to fall into the level of random guess.


We see the statement a lot that "the differences disappear when a cloth
goes over the equipment." But in most blind tests, it isn't just the
"blindness" that has been changed. Especially in tests designed to show
objectively that a difference based in sound was perceived, the
listener is required to discriminate under a certain set of conditions,
and to make the discrimination a large number of times in a fairly
brief period of time. So more has changed than "putting a cloth over
the components."


But nothing is changed that would hinder the listener, despite what you
want to believe.


Certainly many things that affect how a listener forms their subjective
impressions have changed.

In fact, DBTs are generally conducted in ways that
should improve the subject's sensitivity, relative to the way most
sighted comparisons are carried out. The most obvious example of this
is quick switching.


Quick switching will hinder perception of time-diffuse properties of
the sound.


We could try to do DBTs in ways more analogous to the practices of
ill-informed audiophiles, but why would we want to?


Just to be clear, I don't advocate tests that correspond to the
"practicies of audiophiles." I advocate the investigation of
perception under a variety of conditions. Monadic testing would be an
interesting possibility.

Mike

  #65   Report Post  
Buster Mudd
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:

First of all, it is obvious to me that purposeful hunting exists as an
activity separate from spontaneous noticing (good terminology!).


Right...*when* it is obvious to you that you are conciously doing one
or the other activity, then it seems easy to confidently state which
one you are doing. But that doesn't mean you are acurately reporting
your concious state, only that you are reporting your perception of
your concious state to the best of your abilities. IOW, you might
*think* you are in Spontaneous Noticing mode, but you may be deluding
yourself.



Secondly, I have no problem with an awareness of which activity I'm
engaged in, and making an observation does not overwrite this
awareness.


That's what you think. However, there is a substantial body of
literature in the fields of cognitive science and neuropsychology that
suggest A) that what we think is going on in our brain is not the same
as what is going on in our brain; and B) that concious discriminations
do indeed overwrite the perceptions which prompted these
discriminations; the determination "I have perceived this" takes
precedence over whatever stimuli you were (temporarily)
perceiving...and often they are not the same!


All this is to say we don't know exactly what we were doing, and I
agree. That makes it even harder to control for these factors in a
blind test. I think that what you are doing with your awareness affects
what you hear


Which gets right back to my earlier points: 1) It doesn't matter what
we are "doing with our awareness" because once we have made a conscious
discrimination about what we have become aware of, we are doing
something different from whatever we might have been doing before,
something which overwrites our ability to make use of that previous
awareness. And 2) that making conscious discriminations about sonic
qualities is the same cognitive process regardless of what we were
"doing with our awareness" prior to making the discrimination.



  #66   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
It's very simple: people's experience of music is a combined result of
the sound, and how one responds to the sound (call it the "subtle
internal dance"). If either one changes, then the experience changes. I
find that the internal response to the sound is something that can be
modelled and understood, and explains a great many experiences, as well
as casts light on the shortcomings of the common blind test.

Such experience does not necessarily reflect any *real difference* in the
sound or the sound-producing device -- so why talk like it does?


I've developed my model from experiences in which there are obvious
differences in the sound-- such as listening to a live performance, and
then listening to a recording of it.


But those two sounds are quite easily demonstrated to be different
by independent, objective means. You cannot conclude from *that* that all
*perceived* differences are likely to be real.


That's not what I conclude.

My working hypothesis consists of these assertions:

(1) that the experience of music depends on time-diffuse properties

(2) that the experience of music depends on what one is paying
attention to

(3) that the experience of music is a function of both the sound and
the
internal response (the "subtle internal dance" to give one
example)

(4) that subtle qualities of music cannot be conceptualized and the
perception
of them depends on context

(5) that certain factors affect how one constructs one's response to
the
sound (such as the number of times one has listened to the same
piece,
and other aspects of context)

No comparisons between different sounds are required to observe these
things. They don't depend on perceiving that cables are different, or
cd players are different.

Mike

  #67   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Okay, so I understand that your opinion is that my assertions are not
science and are "evidence-free". You have an extremely low opinion of
my thought process, and you attempt to insult me by claiming I'm even
lower than the Intelligent Design folks.

Regarding intelligent design folks and identifying holes in the theory:
I'm not aware of anything you think you can't explain. That's part of
my objection: once you model subjective perception (musical "feeling")
as an arbitrary function which a priori is not explainable, then by
circular reasoning you end up with nothing unexplainable.

I happen to think that experiments about perception should be informed
by observations on the "inside". I do not claim one is above the other:
but when observations from the "inside" suggest a certain model, then
experiments to confirm or rule out that model should happen. If
invoking "insider" knowledge is not science, then so be it.

OTOH, I think that you have a very specific notion of what "science"
should be, and that's just your opinion, and not a universal truth
about how one should investigate the world. You remind me of the
behaviorists in biology.

And furthermore, basing your entire model on a small set of
experimental methods is in my opinion not scientifically sound, even if
you end up with nothing you can't explain.

Mike

  #69   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"We see the statement a lot that "the differences disappear when a cloth
goes over the equipment." But in most blind tests, it isn't just the
"blindness" that has been changed. Especially in tests designed to show
objectively that a difference based in sound was perceived, the listener
is
required to discriminate under a certain set of conditions, and to make
the
discrimination a large number of times in a fairly brief period of time.
So
more has changed than "putting a cloth over the components.""

Indeed so, which is why I keep drawing the focus back to the cloth as the
most minimal blinding approach, it avoids all the usual suspects the
subjective folk present. Just a cloth, nothing but the cloth, so help me
God. This has been done and reported upon here and is not a "what if"
dodge.

"It's very simple: people's experience of music is a combined result of
the sound, and how one responds to the sound (call it the "subtle internal
dance"). If either one changes, then the experience changes. I find that
the internal response to the sound is something that can be modelled and
understood, and explains a great many experiences, as well as casts light
on the shortcomings of the common blind test."

Huh, with the right meter, pun intended, it could be poetry. Again to the
point, when switching is said to be happening and it is not, responses and
reported perceptions switch accordingly. This tells us the difference is
not in the signal but is an artifact of the perception process.

  #70   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:

First of all, it is obvious to me that purposeful hunting exists as an
activity separate from spontaneous noticing (good terminology!).

Right...*when* it is obvious to you that you are conciously doing one
or the other activity, then it seems easy to confidently state which
one you are doing. But that doesn't mean you are acurately reporting
your concious state, only that you are reporting your perception of
your concious state to the best of your abilities. IOW, you might
*think* you are in Spontaneous Noticing mode, but you may be deluding
yourself.



Secondly, I have no problem with an awareness of which activity I'm
engaged in, and making an observation does not overwrite this
awareness.


That's what you think. However, there is a substantial body of
literature in the fields of cognitive science and neuropsychology that
suggest A) that what we think is going on in our brain is not the same
as what is going on in our brain; and B) that concious discriminations
do indeed overwrite the perceptions which prompted these
discriminations; the determination "I have perceived this" takes
precedence over whatever stimuli you were (temporarily)
perceiving...and often they are not the same!


All this is to say we don't know exactly what we were doing, and I
agree. That makes it even harder to control for these factors in a
blind test. I think that what you are doing with your awareness affects
what you hear


Which gets right back to my earlier points: 1) It doesn't matter what
we are "doing with our awareness" because once we have made a conscious
discrimination about what we have become aware of, we are doing
something different from whatever we might have been doing before,
something which overwrites our ability to make use of that previous
awareness.


I don't follow this. Say that a conscious impression impression
overwrites the previous mental process--that doesn't in itself mean the
previous mental process doesn't matter.

Secondly, I don't think that this "overwriting" function necessarily
destroys all previous awareness. I would agree that it is hard to be
aware of a subtle internal process without influencing it; but this is
something that can practiced. Zen meditators do.

And 2) that making conscious discriminations about sonic
qualities is the same cognitive process regardless of what we were
"doing with our awareness" prior to making the discrimination.


I didn't use the word "discrimination." "Impression" is more like it.
However, I still don't see how this follows from the presumption that
we aren't aware of what we do. We can still be doing different things
while being unaware.

I also don't see how any of this contradicts the simple observation
that you tend to notice what you're paying attention to, and that you
can choose what to pay attention to, and that sometimes things you
aren't paying attention to come to your awareness. Your assertion that
awareness itself "destroys" the prior awareness seems to reinforce the
idea that one will be aware of different things depending on what one
is paying attention to.

Mike



  #71   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
It's very simple: people's experience of music is a combined result of
the sound, and how one responds to the sound (call it the "subtle
internal dance"). If either one changes, then the experience changes. I
find that the internal response to the sound is something that can be
modelled and understood, and explains a great many experiences, as well
as casts light on the shortcomings of the common blind test.

Such experience does not necessarily reflect any *real difference* in the
sound or the sound-producing device -- so why talk like it does?


I've developed my model from experiences in which there are obvious
differences in the sound-- such as listening to a live performance, and
then listening to a recording of it.


But those two sounds are quite easily demonstrated to be different
by independent, objective means. You cannot conclude from *that* that all
*perceived* differences are likely to be real.


That's not what I conclude.


My working hypothesis consists of these assertions:


(1) that the experience of music depends on time-diffuse properties



(2) that the experience of music depends on what one is paying
attention to


(3) that the experience of music is a function of both the sound and
the
internal response (the "subtle internal dance" to give one
example)


(4) that subtle qualities of music cannot be conceptualized and the
perception
of them depends on context


(5) that certain factors affect how one constructs one's response to
the
sound (such as the number of times one has listened to the same
piece,
and other aspects of context)


No comparisons between different sounds are required to observe these
things. They don't depend on perceiving that cables are different, or
cd players are different.


Just curious, does this rickety house of sheer
speculation still stand when an audio system
is playing, say, spoken-word CDs rather than *music*?

Btw, you left out step 6: God did it. It's no more or less
well supported than your other five steps, and it explains so much.




--

-S

  #72   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Okay, so I understand that your opinion is that my assertions are not
science and are "evidence-free". You have an extremely low opinion of
my thought process, and you attempt to insult me by claiming I'm even
lower than the Intelligent Design folks.


Guilty as charged.

Regarding intelligent design folks and identifying holes in the theory:
I'm not aware of anything you think you can't explain. That's part of
my objection: once you model subjective perception (musical "feeling")
as an arbitrary function which a priori is not explainable, then by
circular reasoning you end up with nothing unexplainable.


There are zillions of things I can't explain. I can't explain why you
think one performance of Beethoven's Fifth is more appealing than
another. I might be able to explain why you prefer one speaker to
another. I can certainly explain why you can't tell two cables apart,
and why your aesthetic judgments of a piece of music won't be affected
by which cable you use--assuming you don't know which cable you are
using.

I happen to think that experiments about perception should be informed
by observations on the "inside". I do not claim one is above the other:
but when observations from the "inside" suggest a certain model, then
experiments to confirm or rule out that model should happen. If
invoking "insider" knowledge is not science, then so be it.


I admit to having no idea what you are talking about here.

OTOH, I think that you have a very specific notion of what "science"
should be, and that's just your opinion, and not a universal truth


Universally accepted within the scientific community.

about how one should investigate the world. You remind me of the
behaviorists in biology.


Who?

And furthermore, basing your entire model on a small set of
experimental methods is in my opinion not scientifically sound, even if
you end up with nothing you can't explain.


We needn't concern ourselves with your--or anyone's--*opinion* of
science. The requirements of scientific inquiry are not mere opinions.

bob

  #73   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
wrote:

Most of Moore is devoted to explaining the results of playing test
signals to subjects. The test signals are chosen, and the differences
between them (such as amplitude or pitch) are chosen.


Well, of course, because Moore is building on prior work which shows,
among other things, that this is the most effective way to investigate
such questions. Just because you don't know the science, doesn't mean
the science doesn't exist.

snip

I think that investigating perception should be informed both by
introspection and experiments. You don't count introspection as
"evidence." I do.


And is it any wonder that I label your arguments pseudoscience?

And finally, you haven't shown me any evidence that isn't based on a
fixed model of how subjective impressions are formed.


So? The model works. And you haven't got any alternative model that
works.

snip

The "currently accepted scientific standards" would not be able to
determine if A & B are audibly indistinguishable, if the distinction
between them was a matter of musical beauty.


You miss the point. The current model holds that any difference in what
you should be calling "perception of musical beauty" can only be the
result of differences that are audible in standard DBTs. It does not
matter that current experimental standards can't detect something that
can't happen.


Actually, *you* miss the point. A test which cannot detect musical
beauty would not be able to validate your claim.

Mike

  #74   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm.

Sure we are. But we'd need evidence that this is the case.
Specifically, we'd need phenomena that we cannot explain. So far, we
haven't seen any.


Do you mean we'd need evidence in order to have reason to look at
whether the paradigm is limited, or we'd need evidence in order to
decide that it is in fact limited?


The former, and it is up to you to supply that evidence, if you think
the theory is incorrect.


It's part of good scientific methodology to know its own limitations.
As I understand it, Mike is saying that it would be desirable to look
at a wider class of data than the current paradigm delivers. If you're
saying that the current data give us no reason to think that that would
be desirable, that's just begging the question.


If the former, that sure looks
circular. Isn't Mike's point that the reason why we haven't seen
countervailing evidence is that it hasn't sufficiently been probed for?


In other words, we cling to the theory that elephants can't fly because
we haven't expended the effort to find elephants that can fly.

But we have many reasons to believe that elephants can't fly, beyond
the lack of immediate examples. And, as has been pointed out to you ad
nauseum, we have many reasons to believe that certain sonic differences
are inaudible.


We have certain *criteria* for audibility/inaudibility that we take to
be giving us such reasons, and (at least some of) those are what's in
question.


Are you prepared to argue that zoologists ought to expend time
searching for flying elephants, simply because a few ill-informed
people believe that elephants might be able to fly? And if not, why do
you make the identical demand of psychoacousticians?

That's why the burden of proof rests with the elephant-flight partisans
and their golden-eared equivalents to come up with some evidence. (And
it is not circular reasoning to demand this as a first step.)


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? What could be the intellectual virtue of insisting,
we don't have to look until it's absolutely obligatory?) And earlier I
did give such an argument, to the effect that there's no reason to
assume that differences in the perception of temporally extended wholes
will always be reflected in discrimination (where credit should be
given here to earlier remarks by Harry Lavo).

But
you'll notice that the partisans are not expending a whit of effort to
come up with that evidence.


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.

Instead, you wave your arms and make
pseudoscientific arguments like the one above.


A misnomer, because pseudoscience is, typically, something that
pretends to be science, but lacks that trait of science which is to
continually subject its own assumptions to careful inquiry.

Mark

  #75   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
It's very simple: people's experience of music is a combined result
of
the sound, and how one responds to the sound (call it the "subtle
internal dance"). If either one changes, then the experience changes.
I
find that the internal response to the sound is something that can be
modelled and understood, and explains a great many experiences, as
well
as casts light on the shortcomings of the common blind test.

Such experience does not necessarily reflect any *real difference* in
the
sound or the sound-producing device -- so why talk like it does?


I've developed my model from experiences in which there are obvious
differences in the sound-- such as listening to a live performance, and
then listening to a recording of it.


But those two sounds are quite easily demonstrated to be different
by independent, objective means. You cannot conclude from *that* that all
*perceived* differences are likely to be real.


That's not what I conclude.

My working hypothesis consists of these assertions:

(1) that the experience of music depends on time-diffuse properties

(2) that the experience of music depends on what one is paying
attention to

(3) that the experience of music is a function of both the sound and
the
internal response (the "subtle internal dance" to give one
example)

(4) that subtle qualities of music cannot be conceptualized and the
perception
of them depends on context

(5) that certain factors affect how one constructs one's response to
the
sound (such as the number of times one has listened to the same
piece,
and other aspects of context)

No comparisons between different sounds are required to observe these
things. They don't depend on perceiving that cables are different, or
cd players are different.

Mike


I heard today that the upcoming Tanglewood 2 Symposium in Boston will
include some very important research on the nature of hearing music. It
should be very interesting.



  #76   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 1 Oct 2005 23:40:59 GMT, wrote:

Okay, so I understand that your opinion is that my assertions are not
science and are "evidence-free". You have an extremely low opinion of
my thought process, and you attempt to insult me by claiming I'm even
lower than the Intelligent Design folks.


That was not an insult, it was an observation, backed up by comparing
the difference between them and you, which is that they are attempting
to gather evidence to support their thesis, while you merely speculate
that all of science is somehow wrong.

Regarding intelligent design folks and identifying holes in the theory:
I'm not aware of anything you think you can't explain. That's part of
my objection: once you model subjective perception (musical "feeling")
as an arbitrary function which a priori is not explainable, then by
circular reasoning you end up with nothing unexplainable.


Who cares, so long as we have no *evidence* that experience A differs
from experience B?

I happen to think that experiments about perception should be informed
by observations on the "inside". I do not claim one is above the other:
but when observations from the "inside" suggest a certain model, then
experiments to confirm or rule out that model should happen. If
invoking "insider" knowledge is not science, then so be it.


The 'inside' of what, exactly?

OTOH, I think that you have a very specific notion of what "science"
should be, and that's just your opinion, and not a universal truth
about how one should investigate the world. You remind me of the
behaviorists in biology.


Actually, there's an accumulated body of knowledge extending back
several hundred years that tells us what Science is, and how it works.
What you are doing is definitely not Science, by any reasonable
definition.

And furthermore, basing your entire model on a small set of
experimental methods is in my opinion not scientifically sound, even if
you end up with nothing you can't explain.


So long as your opinion does not include any attempt at verification
of your assertions, it will be accorded appropriate weight.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #77   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm.

Sure we are. But we'd need evidence that this is the case.
Specifically, we'd need phenomena that we cannot explain. So far, we
haven't seen any.


Do you mean we'd need evidence in order to have reason to look at
whether the paradigm is limited, or we'd need evidence in order to
decide that it is in fact limited?


The former, and it is up to you to supply that evidence, if you think
the theory is incorrect.

If the former, that sure looks
circular. Isn't Mike's point that the reason why we haven't seen
countervailing evidence is that it hasn't sufficiently been probed for?


In other words, we cling to the theory that elephants can't fly because
we haven't expended the effort to find elephants that can fly.

But we have many reasons to believe that elephants can't fly, beyond
the lack of immediate examples. And, as has been pointed out to you ad
nauseum, we have many reasons to believe that certain sonic differences
are inaudible.

Are you prepared to argue that zoologists ought to expend time
searching for flying elephants, simply because a few ill-informed
people believe that elephants might be able to fly? And if not, why do
you make the identical demand of psychoacousticians?


p.s. If I understand him right, Mike is saying that perceptual set or
attitude can make a difference. It seems to me the logical response to
this is to ask, why should we think that that's true, and why would
that point to a limitation in the current approach? In other words, to
argue and discuss. It does seem to me that to ratchet things up too
quickly to the demand for "evidence" puts things at a later stage than
the conversation naturally takes, or should take. This is a discussion
group, not a data reporting group (we don't necessarily have the
framework yet for collecting what would be relevant data). I would
rather see people explain here *why* the methodology works, or why it
is or is not immune to Mike's objections, or what problems they see
with the objections. (Which to some extent they have done. "Sighted
testing has such-and-such problems" is, so far as it goes, a helpful
and constructive response; "Science is on our side" less so in my
opinion.) I would rather see more actual substantive argument and
discussion than continual sniping over where the burden of proof lies;
how (as Mike asks) does the latter get at truth?

About flying elephants. We in fact have excellent reason to think
there are no flying elephants. If, however, all our observations are
of birds in cages then it might not even occur to us to ask how fast
they can fly!

Mark

  #78   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2 Oct 2005 17:11:09 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

wrote:


Instead, you wave your arms and make
pseudoscientific arguments like the one above.


A misnomer, because pseudoscience is, typically, something that
pretends to be science, but lacks that trait of science which is to
continually subject its own assumptions to careful inquiry.


Actually no, because you are insisting that we investigate the
possibility that the Moon really is made of green cheese, contrary to
all previous scientific evidence. That is pseudoscience, because you
offer no *reason* to suppose that this might be the case.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #79   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2 Oct 2005 17:18:41 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

About flying elephants. We in fact have excellent reason to think
there are no flying elephants. If, however, all our observations are
of birds in cages then it might not even occur to us to ask how fast
they can fly!


Would that be a loaded or unloaded African swallow?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #80   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
wrote:

You miss the point. The current model holds that any difference in what
you should be calling "perception of musical beauty" can only be the
result of differences that are audible in standard DBTs. It does not
matter that current experimental standards can't detect something that
can't happen.


Actually, *you* miss the point. A test which cannot detect musical
beauty would not be able to validate your claim.


First, for the THIRD time, you are not talking about "musical beauty."
You are talking about *perceptions of musical beauty.* That perception
is no different from any subjective impression of what one
hears--preference, harshness, smoothness, etc. [insert desired
subjectivist buzzword here]. The question is, are there unknown audible
differences between, say, cables, that cannot be detected in
traditional DBTs but can differently affect our subjective impressions
of what we hear? And the answer is no, there are no such unknown
audible differences, and therefore there cannot be any unknown audible
differences that can affect subjective impressions. That's the theory,
as it stands today.

To crack this, you have to tell us what that mystery difference is, or
you have to demonstrate through some sort of listening test that such a
difference exists. To argue, as you do, that our tests are not adequate
to detect something that we have no evidence for the existence of is to
engage is a pseudoscientific parlor game.

bob

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Not In Love With Tivoli Audio? Maybe Here is Why-FAQ and Exegesis [email protected] Audio Opinions 5 April 25th 05 01:35 AM
NPR reports on new brain research music Harry Lavo High End Audio 21 March 25th 05 06:02 AM
Installing stand-by switch Sugarite Vacuum Tubes 3 February 26th 04 05:04 PM
More cable questions! [email protected] Tech 317 January 20th 04 04:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"