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
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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........ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
"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........" They can speak for themselves but I recall they have only confirmed what psychoacoustics has demonstrated best provides the context by which to do listening alone testing. Many rely on cliks etc. because of the higher potential for them to reveal things that "normal" and expected sounds only obscure. When using music the things revealed by them are not percieved. It is the unatural, not the natural as based on one's experience that gets the brain to ignor the familiar and hear what is not otherwise obvious to it. In any case, listening as long as one wants has always been the standard offer for one wanting to test audio gear for proported difference and tom reports people doing same without any difference in results, nothing. Tom says, as best I can recall, that he had one listener that he allowed to take a long time. But he's never (to the best of my recall) ever outlined that or any other test in enough detail to give a vivid picture of what actually transpired. "One Swallow does not a Summer make". Remember? Nor does one anecdote. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What he "allowed", a loaded choice of terms, or not can be best answered
by him. Ido recall that he always expressed that time was never a constraint if someone thought it would improve results. As I recall in at least one example the old yamaha and new pass labs amp test had no such limits and repeat testing was done on different days, no difference in the owner's system in his hifi store using his music choices. 1 100 even 100000 subjective anecdotal reports doesn't a valid test make, the entire foundation upon which the subjective enterprise rests. "Tom says, as best I can recall, that he had one listener that he allowed to take a long time. But he's never (to the best of my recall) ever outlined that or any other test in enough detail to give a vivid picture of what actually transpired. "One Swallow does not a Summer make". Remember? Nor does one anecdote." |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#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
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: 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. But there is something offensive about you telling us that your hearing is better than ours. Especially when you aren't willing to put it on the line. bob Where did you read that I wasn't willing to put it on the line? Of course I'm willing to listen blind. As an aside, would you please direct me to a report on a blind test that was done under the following conditions: - listeners experienced in listening blind - listeners lived with components for a couple days at least, each listening session Mike |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
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? 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). 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. Mike |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: 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? 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). What I DON'T do is conclude that all feelings about audio components are untrustworthy. And how do you know which are trustworthy and which are not? 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. LOL! We understand this little aspect of the world pretty well. You're the one who thinks there's some big mystery here. We're also the ones who are willing to be proven wrong. You're the one who admits he can't prove ANYTHING. bob |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: wrote: 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. But there is something offensive about you telling us that your hearing is better than ours. Especially when you aren't willing to put it on the line. bob Where did you read that I wasn't willing to put it on the line? Of course I'm willing to listen blind. But apparently not willing to trust what you (don't) hear when you do. As an aside, would you please direct me to a report on a blind test that was done under the following conditions: - listeners experienced in listening blind - listeners lived with components for a couple days at least, each listening session Perhaps one of the oldtimers can fill you in on the details of the Sunshine Trials, which I believe involved a high-end dealer's own system, so he had plenty of time to become familiar with what he was listening to. As for "experience in listening blind," how is listening any different when you don't know what equipment is producing what you're listening to? You are grasping at straws. bob |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: 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? 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). What I DON'T do is conclude that all feelings about audio components are untrustworthy. And how do you know which are trustworthy and which are not? 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. LOL! We understand this little aspect of the world pretty well. 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, 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. A paradigm which proceeds on the assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show that it exists. 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. 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. You're the one who admits he can't prove ANYTHING. I didn't say I can't prove anything. I said that I don't feel a need to prove that audible differences exist among components. It may be possible, however. Mike |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"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." Of course we don't need to do so because one doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, it has long ago been established in research using humans that avoiding knowledge of what difference is being tested is to avoid distorted results. In the issue at hand, to avoid knowing which bit of audio gear is active in listening alone tests to establish if a difference, any difference, for any plausible reason, using whatever audible criteria one chooses, can be shown to rise above the level of chance. The only "limited" being knowledge, all other factors being open ended, this is the benchmark of the state of the art at present, results to the contrary invited. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. IOW, Mike is saying that if you try to look for flying elephants, you will not find them. If you don't look for them, you're more likely to (spontaneously) see them. This is not a fact. Of course, Mike can also argue that a fact is a fact as long as he believes it is a fact . That's about the right level of rigor Mike has displayed so far... A paradigm which proceeds on the assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show that it exists. IOW, Mike is saying that if you don't think that elephants can fly, then you will not be able to see flying elephants, no matter how scientific is your approach to find them. Utterly astonishing coming from someone who claimed to be a Caltech student . But a paradigm that assumed the distinction was irrelevant could. And so far, the only "distinctions" I've seen made by subjectivists have been either fanciful or semantic. Of course, Mike did not realize that a quick switching, short snippet comparison (which he appears to strongly oppose) *never* assumes that there is no difference. In fact, that's what we use to compare mp3 codecs, speaker crossovers, etc. when we need the highest sensitivity to look for differences. 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. Of course, Mike did not realize that the DBT/ABX paradigm is not used with the a priori declaration that there is no difference to be found. Shall we say starwman? Or simply a lack of understanding, despite Mike having been here for months now? 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. 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. IOW, Mike is saying that if you are looking for flying elephants, you need to look at whether using camera, recorders, any optical instruments known to man, etc., is defining 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. You're the one who admits he can't prove ANYTHING. I didn't say I can't prove anything. I said that I don't feel a need to prove that audible differences exist among components. It may be possible, however. I wonder if Mike is saying that (a) audible differences may exist among components but he is expressing some doubt, or (b) it may be possible for Mike to prove that audible differences exist among components but he is expressing some doubt? In any event, he seems to be uncertain about either the existence of audible differences, or one's ability to prove that such differences exist. Utterly astonishing coming from someone who was a student at Caltech! It may indeed be. But, leaving your personal needs aside, the burden of proof still rests on those who think the paradigm is wrong. bob |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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? Mike |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Chung 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. 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. IOW, Mike is saying that if you try to look for flying elephants, you will not find them. If you don't look for them, you're more likely to (spontaneously) see them. Well, you've paraphrased my statement but not accurately. In your paraphrased concept, we definitely run into a problem, that we can't seem to consciously choose to look for flying elephants in any manner. But I didn't state such a thing as a "law", an incontrovertible law of nature. Also, a flying elephant is not a good analogy for subjective experience. A flying elephant exists outside the observer. What I stated is that a person can spontaneously notice something about the sound, such as "brightness." A person can also ask themselves, "Is this sound bright or not?" I stated that these are two different ways of using one's attention, and I see no reason they should observe the same property of the sound. In my experience, when we are talking about subtle aspects of sound, they certainly do not represent the same way of perceiving. A good definition of my term "conceptualized" might be to say that there is no distinction between noticing something and looking for it. For example, we might notice a fire hydrant, and we might look for a fire hydrant. In either case, it is quite clear what we mean. Our "concept" of a fire hydrant is stable and well-defined; hence, it is "conceptualized." It is my assertion that subtle subjective experiences, while real, do not work on the same level. Also, I did not state that one was a more sensitive form of perception. I stated simply that they are different. This is not a fact. Of course, Mike can also argue that a fact is a fact as long as he believes it is a fact . That's about the right level of rigor Mike has displayed so far... A paradigm which proceeds on the assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show that it exists. IOW, Mike is saying that if you don't think that elephants can fly, then you will not be able to see flying elephants, no matter how scientific is your approach to find them. You don't seem to have grasped which distinction I'm referring to. Utterly astonishing coming from someone who claimed to be a Caltech student . But a paradigm that assumed the distinction was irrelevant could. And so far, the only "distinctions" I've seen made by subjectivists have been either fanciful or semantic. Of course, Mike did not realize that a quick switching, short snippet comparison (which he appears to strongly oppose) *never* assumes that there is no difference. In fact, that's what we use to compare mp3 codecs, speaker crossovers, etc. when we need the highest sensitivity to look for differences. The "distinction" I'm referring to is not a "difference" between the two sounds, it's a distinction in the manner of using one's attention. 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. Of course, Mike did not realize that the DBT/ABX paradigm is not used with the a priori declaration that there is no difference to be found. Shall we say starwman? Or simply a lack of understanding, despite Mike having been here for months now? 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. 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. IOW, Mike is saying that if you are looking for flying elephants, you need to look at whether using camera, recorders, any optical instruments known to man, etc., is defining a limited paradigm. Pretty much. Makes sense to me. If you are looking for something, make sure your methods don't interfere with that thing. 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. You're the one who admits he can't prove ANYTHING. I didn't say I can't prove anything. I said that I don't feel a need to prove that audible differences exist among components. It may be possible, however. I wonder if Mike is saying that (a) audible differences may exist among components but he is expressing some doubt, or (b) it may be possible for Mike to prove that audible differences exist among components but he is expressing some doubt? In any event, he seems to be uncertain about either the existence of audible differences, or one's ability to prove that such differences exist. Utterly astonishing coming from someone who was a student at Caltech! Curious statement. I would think that being open to multiple explanations would always be a good thing. I'm not sure what you think I'm "supposed" to believe, but I certainly don't think anything should be uncritically accepted---not even research coming out of Caltech. Mike |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. 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. As far as "everything you claim, the paradigm can explain." Well, exactly. My paradigm can also explain everything you claim. The fact that a theory explains everything does not make it 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. You're the one who admits he can't prove ANYTHING. I didn't say I can't prove anything. I said that I don't feel a need to prove that audible differences exist among components. It may be possible, however. It may indeed be. But, leaving your personal needs aside, the burden of proof still rests on those who think the paradigm is wrong. bob |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: 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. But there is something offensive about you telling us that your hearing is better than ours. Especially when you aren't willing to put it on the line. bob Where did you read that I wasn't willing to put it on the line? Of course I'm willing to listen blind. But apparently not willing to trust what you (don't) hear when you do. What gives you that idea? As an aside, would you please direct me to a report on a blind test that was done under the following conditions: - listeners experienced in listening blind - listeners lived with components for a couple days at least, each listening session Perhaps one of the oldtimers can fill you in on the details of the Sunshine Trials, which I believe involved a high-end dealer's own system, so he had plenty of time to become familiar with what he was listening to. Well, okay, but I really think there ought to be dozens of such experiments if we can claim to have investigated this possibility. Note that such a test would likely take 160 days or more. As for "experience in listening blind," how is listening any different when you don't know what equipment is producing what you're listening to? Well, badly phrased on my part. The distinction I make is not between listening blind and listening sighted, but between all of the following: - listening to determine what you think of something A (could, and should, be done without knowing the identity of A) - listening to compare A and B - listening to categorize X and either A or B I happen to think that these are different ways of using one's attention, and that in particular "listening to categorize" changes perception. If I am to be convinced of the relevance of blind tests, I would like to see a large number of tests that controlled for these variations in the use of the attention. You are grasping at straws. Well, no, actually I'm stating what I believe is true. Mike |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 |
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 |