wrote in message
news:rlmcc.194050$Cb.1738020@attbi_s51...
Harry Lavo wrote:

And you ignore the fact that the brains auditory processing is not
simple
physical registering, but also pattern matching and the ability to make
sense out of things that in and of themselves, in isolation, may not
make
sense or even "register".

Ignore? Really?

There has to be physical registering before the brain can interpet
something
coming from a sensory mechanism. (in this case, the auditory nerve) It is
astonishing that people think there is something mysterious going on here.
Nobody seems to disagree about this except some 'high-end' audiophiles
that
reject scientific theories that contradict their personal opinions. The
irony is a delicious example of the human condition.

I couldn't agree more that the processing that goes on AFTER the initial
detection is something that is little understood and varies greatly from
person to person. It is wonderfully fascinating in the extreme.

Conflating the two events has not been productive to increasing the
knowledge of the latter. In fact, it inhibits it. Do you really want to
go back when humans contemplated if it was their hand or the fire that
caused pain when one got burned?


We hear small signals below the noise floor. What makes you think that a
certain "pattern" in the audible spectrum may not cause the brain to look
for (direct) the ear to find/fill in missing parts of the pattern that it
might not respond to as a pure two-dimensional signal. You don't know.
Neither do I. But it is certainly not beyond the capability of the brain,
as complex as it clearly is.

So until you can show affirmatively that when used to evaluate components in
open ended listening, blind abx difference testing or blind a-b comparison
testing leaves audio evaluation intact, there are those of us who will
continue to suspect the test. It's that simple.