-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Measurable aspects of sound perception
- Thread starter pozz
- Start date
It's just the opposite. The fact you stated (marked red) clearly demonstrates the all the scientific results about human hearing are true, otherwise it would not be possible to create any lossy codec in the first place. What I don't understand is why people take those scientific results for granted and others not (like the well known fallabilities of human hearing and how to overcome them).
So you can see that your current perception may not be accurate, even as it relates to this conversation
So why insist on it? I'm not trying to prove anything to you, I just hope that you can start to see outside the standard audiophile dogma. Realize that you can question it and come up with your own answers. Don't automatically accept the common arguments and marketing nonsense. This applies equally well to the blind belief in measurements.
So you can see that your current perception may not be accurate, even as it relates to this conversation
Hi pkane,
Did not mean to insist, just interested in your perception (although this one might also not be accurate
I'm not trying to prove anything to you, I just hope that you can start to see outside the standard audiophile dogma. Realize that you can question it and come up with your own answers. Don't automatically accept the common arguments and marketing nonsense. This applies equally well to the blind belief in measurements.
THX for your advice.
Point taken in the blind belief in measurements statement.
Think I made pretty clear I'm not a follower of anything else than my own knowledge, experiences and perceptions and have a lot of answers and even more questions. I cannot comment on "standard audiophile dogma", "common arguments", or "marketing nonsense" as these are just too general definitions for me.
Let's follow the path we like best
Don't think we can conclude that this demonstrates all scientific results about human hearing are true. I think some are just helpful.
At the time we do a blind test, sit on a chair, and only can tell minor differences between the live performance we heard once and the recording played; then I'm convinced we are pretty close in understanding our perception................. others might state we know it already.
You missed one important point and that is "depending on setup". For me this setup is including my current switch and ethernet cabling and this statement might be witchcraft to others.
Looking forward to receive the hearing experiences of other listeners
That is, frankly, nonsense. Please learn what "testable" means in the context of the scientific method. Your claim flat-out denies the existence of any external truth whatsoever, which is completely down the road to solipsism.
By the way, you do realize your first line is an extreme, vile insult to a scientist, don't you?
Last edited:
Your comments are incorrect and extremely insulting to anyone who actually uses the scientific method, so attempting to frame the victim as the aggressor here is just another insult.
No, an externally testable assertion has nothing to do with majority rule, or anything else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
A result that is testable, falsifiable, and repeatable by an external agency (meaning other people) is not "only to be personal perspectives" at all.
Please, look up Karl Popper.
Consider, is it "personal perspectives" that on the surface of the planet earth, if you drop a rock held above your toe, it will fall and hit your toe" (no, not moving your toe, etc). If you consider that to be a personal perspective, then you are rejecting the existence of any knowledge of any sort whatsoever.
Well, that would be the straw man fallacy he just used on you. I'm starting to think he's working his way through the entire pack of cards, here.
Hi Wes,
I do not like the blind thing, might get electrocuted during swapping in my crowded setup
Enjoy longer term experiences and comparisons at home so I can keep my eyes open
The number of fallacies in those two sentences is truly boggling. Swapping inputs in your setup (you do have a selector switch) on your pre-amp shouldn't hurt anything. The fact you do not like blind testing simply rejects tested, established science about auditory perception, and that statement is not merely my "perception" it is an established part of human knowledge, so don't even go there.
A blind test can be as long as you want.
You don't have to actually close your eyes, to take a "blind test", and the literature on this, should you ever have informed yourself, would make you aware of the fact you've claimed 3 nonsensical things, along with your contempt for actual human knowledge.
Indeed, however, I have moved that reply to the thread it belonged in. I'm not sure how it got here.
xr100
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I was enjoying this food thread until some higher level trolling took root .
I will save you all and thread ban @PeterZui .
Nothing personal Mr Zui , your argument just seems thoroughly inane and more a device that serves a kind of insulation against knowledge than anything else. Take the 7 day reply ban as a opportunity to reflect and come back with something more , umm well substantial maybe.
Enough is enough.
Cheers .
I will save you all and thread ban @PeterZui .
Nothing personal Mr Zui , your argument just seems thoroughly inane and more a device that serves a kind of insulation against knowledge than anything else. Take the 7 day reply ban as a opportunity to reflect and come back with something more , umm well substantial maybe.
Enough is enough.
Cheers .
Hi j-j, I seem to disagree as we are all part (and result as I see it) of quantum-mechanics.
There are no absolutely truths but only probabilities.
In case you clearly believe in an external truth whatsoever we could probably agree that we have a different understanding of nature.
Interested in your perception in any case.
Please elaborate on this.
Well, if we have to discuss existential philosophy, then yes, everything is subjective and perception based. In fact, you are, as are all of your opinions and posts. You exist and manifest yourself only in my mind, and I have no way to prove your real, external to me, existence in any way whatsoever. I have a logical proof that I exist, but not anyone else. This seems to be the logical conclusion of this 'most important point' that I missed.
Hi Thomas Savage,
Appreciate the "higher level" wording and appreciate your predictable actions as a moderator on this site
Talking about "substantial" I would like you to read the discussions more as a scientific researcher and reacting on the statements than as a representative of donating members. (just my p.o.v., don't mean to be insulting. Just trying to understand how things work by stating things and receive reactions)
Appreciate the "higher level" wording and appreciate your predictable actions as a moderator on this site
Talking about "substantial" I would like you to read the discussions more as a scientific researcher and reacting on the statements than as a representative of donating members. (just my p.o.v., don't mean to be insulting. Just trying to understand how things work by stating things and receive reactions)
Hi pkane,
I like this general introduction but what is your personal statement/conclusion ?
