Measurable aspects of sound perception

[xr100]

I've learned in Asia it is a great ice breaker on customer visits to go right for the eyes on the fish heads and know the correct order of filling the seats in a cab.

Better watch out...

 

[PeterZui]

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Note, it is possible to know a great deal without knowing everything.

Agree, as stated, it's just a personal perception caused by ignorance, unawareness, incompetence etc. which are also all personal perceptions defined by each individual.

 

[PeterZui]

1. you posted on a public internet site - send him a pm if you want to avoid replies
2. if you are ineducable please just state that so we can put you on ignore

Did not mean to get you agitated but you can put me on ignore if you like

 

[PeterZui]

It was a joke, and I'm sorry if you found it offensive.

It could be crudely viewed as the old "Aristotle vs. Plato" war... ;-)

Hi XR100,
No offense here as I was joking too in referring to the name of this site

 

[j_j]

Agree, as stated, it's just a personal perception caused by ignorance, unawareness, incompetence etc. which are also all personal perceptions defined by each individual.

Except some of us refer, repeatedly, to testable results.

 

[PeterZui]

Except some of us refer, repeatedly, to testable results.

Hi j_j,

Let's not fool ourselves;
That "some of us" believe they must refer to testable results is also no less and no more then a personal perception.


Think we all want testable results.
I trust my (repeatable) hearing system results more than all electronic measurement results;
That probably is the different perception with the (as you called them) "some of us".

 

[pkane]

Hi j_j,

Let's not fool ourselves;
That "some of us" believe they must refer to testable results is also no less and no more then a personal perception.


Think we all want testable results.
I trust my (repeatable) hearing system results more than all electronic measurement results;
That probably is the different perception with the (as you called them) "some of us".

If you can repeat your "(repeatable) hearing results" in a properly controlled test, then you've accomplished something. Until then, you are much more likely fooling yourself and others when you declare that your perception is in any way valid.

 

[xr100]

That "some of us" believe they must refer to testable results is also no less and no more then a personal perception.

If that were the case, then MP3 and other perceptually-based lossy coding (compression) systems wouldn't work as well as they do...

 

[BDWoody]

It's just a personal perception caused by ignorance, unawareness, incompetence etc. which are also all personal perceptions defined by each individual.

Keep telling yourself that...

Along with the whole not being condescending thing...

 

[PeterZui]

If you can repeat your "(repeatable) hearing results" in a properly controlled test, then you've accomplished something. Until then, you are much more likely fooling yourself and others when you declare that your perception is in any way valid.

Think I'm not fooling myself and of course you can think otherwise but I think you do it yourself too.

 

[PeterZui]

Keep telling yourself that...

Along with the whole not being condescending thing...

Hi BDWoody,
Please get out of this role as the victim and the insulted one.

Nothing personal here.
Just stating my thoughts and as true as all others (from my perspective)

 

[PeterZui]

If that were the case, then MP3 and other perceptually-based lossy coding (compression) systems wouldn't work as well as they do...

Still also this maintains only to be personal perspectives with an outcome that is shared by a majority. So it "works"

 

[xr100]

Still also this maintains only to be personal perspectives with an outcome that is shared by a majority. So it "works"

Can you see "light" far outside the "visual" part of the spectrum? Do you have visual acuity that is substantially better than 20/20?

Even at 320kbps, if you look at the error spectrum of MP3, it's as if a truck has been driven over the signal. Yet (with a good encoder) no listener is going to say it's not close to the source. Many would struggle in an ABX test to even identify the lossy coded version.

It doesn't only work for, say, 70% of people. Without underlying commonality in the auditory system, this would not be the case.

Personally, I don't even like MP3/AAC/similar perceptual coding systems... they are/were of very high utility when the bandwidth/storage is/was not available. But these days, it usually is. (At least until e.g. more channels are squeezed in by coding to the minimum possible "acceptable" bit-rate, etc.)

And, before anyone asks, I have done ABX tests of 320kbps AAC vs. LPCM and I am able to distinguish between them. But ABX tests at that level can be hard work.

 

[Wes]

Except some of us refer, repeatedly, to testable results.

Dood!! Don't Harsh my Mellow with facts.

 

[pkane]

Think I'm not fooling myself and of course you can think otherwise but I think you do it yourself too.

No, I actually recognize my own fallibility and therefore work hard to find ways around it. Burying my head in the sand and chanting "I believe, I believe!" is not the way I find acceptable to achieving knowledge and understanding.

 

[PeterZui]

No, I actually recognize my own fallibility and therefore work hard to find ways around it. Burying my head in the sand and chanting "I believe, I believe!" is not the way I find acceptable to achieving knowledge and understanding.

Hi pkane,
"is not the way I find acceptable to achieving knowledge and understanding" is a perfect way to state your truth and perception and appreciate this.

For me just reading electronic measurement results is not the way I find acceptable to achieving knowledge and understanding.

What do I hear ?............, what are the measuring results?............, why is there no/minor correlation between the two?........... These are for me the main questions to achieve knowledge and understanding.

Here we clearly have a different truth.
I accept my own fallibility (my hearing system) and have no urge to work around it.

From my perspective you are only stating "I believe, I believe in electronic measurement systems".
What questions would you like to raise to achieve knowledge and understanding ?

 

[solderdude]

So we can have multiple truths or do we prefer to accept something as a truth when that suits us best ?

You can be totally happy with 'your truth' and perhaps let others be happy with 'their truth'.
Why the need to convince us that your truth is the one and only truth ?
To save our mortal souls for wondering in the measured darkness when we can also enjoy audio better in the enlightened church of Feng Zui ?

 

[pkane]

From my perspective you are only stating "I believe, I believe in electronic measurement systems".
What questions would you like to raise to achieve knowledge and understanding ?

Seems to me that you are either not hearing or not understanding what's being said. Did I mention measurements or state my blind belief in them?

 

[PeterZui]

Can you see "light" far outside the "visual" part of the spectrum? Do you have visual acuity that is substantially better than 20/20?

Even at 320kbps, if you look at the error spectrum of MP3, it's as if a truck has been driven over the signal. Yet (with a good encoder) no listener is going to say it's not close to the source. Many would struggle in an ABX test to even identify the lossy coded version.

It doesn't only work for, say, 70% of people. Without underlying commonality in the auditory system, this would not be the case.

Personally, I don't even like MP3/AAC/similar perceptual coding systems... they are/were of very high utility when the bandwidth/storage is/was not available. But these days, it usually is. (At least until e.g. more channels are squeezed in by coding to the minimum possible "acceptable" bit-rate, etc.)

And, before anyone asks, I have done ABX tests of 320kbps AAC vs. LPCM and I am able to distinguish between them. But ABX tests at that level can be hard work.

Hi xr100,
Fully agree,

I prefer the lossless PCM or DSD but the lossy coded streams can also create a good 3D natural image of the sound depending on the setup.
It might approve a statement we are far from understanding our perception.

 

[PeterZui]

Seems to me that you are either not hearing or not understanding what's being said. Did I mention measurements or state my blind belief in them?

No, you did not mention measurements and a statement in blind belief in them.
I was just stating my current perception.

What questions would you like to raise to achieve knowledge and understanding ?