The Good Forum

[SoundAndMotion]

I think everyone knows that my interest is firmly in the science behind hearing - auditory processing & perception - I find this perspective missing in most discussions

If it's missing from discussion it's because it's so nebulous. It's difficult to see where you are going with it, other to justify the the things you say you hear.

"the science behind hearing-auditory processing and perception" is nebulous?? Now I understand your previous posts.

 

[March Audio]

"the science behind hearing-auditory processing and perception" is nebulous?? Now I understand your previous posts.

I never said that, so please don't misrepresent. Looking through JKs thread, what he has presented is nebulous. Nothing relates in any specific way to audio equipment performance. I see a lot of nicely coloured quotes from here and there, a bit of "I think" this or that, but where does it lead?

 

[amirm]

"the science behind hearing-auditory processing and perception" is nebulous?? Now I understand your previous posts.

I think he is referring to John's argument, not the science.

May I ask that we all try to get along and focus on having fun and sharing knowledge rather than challenging each other for a bit? I sense certain amount of calm here and like to take advantage of it .

 

[SoundAndMotion]

I think he is referring to John's argument, not the science.

I responded to what I read... but I'll take your word for it that I misunderstood.

May I ask that we all try to get along and focus on having fun and sharing knowledge rather than challenging each other for a bit? I sense certain amount of calm here and like to take advantage of it .

Roger, wilco

 

[John Kenny]

If it's missing from discussion it's because it's so nebulous. It's difficult to see where you are going with it, other to justify the the things you say you hear.

OK, by nebulous do you mean that there are no measurements from the world of audio reproduction to show how it is applied to this hobby or do you mean it is speculative?
In all the papers, I've cited there are measurements (often listening tests) to backup the discussion/analysis of the papers' conclusion - as you would expect any scientific paper to provide. I agree that the research of auditory scene analysis hasn't yet made any inroads into or been applied directly in any substantial way in the field of audio production. The reasons are probably manyfold - research just isn't interested in this area; it's too difficult at the moment to address; the research is focussed on uncovering the principle mechanisms of auditory perception before any thoughts of the applied science of auditory perception. In the ASA thread, I & Frank have tried to relate the ASA research back to some of our own auditory experiences

I also agree that this speculation is not immediately applicable, in a practical way, to audio reproduction but I believe it has some role:
- questioning the premises that underpin some of the measurements
- pointing the way towards more meaningful measurements
- generally advancing the knowledgebase in the area

These roles, I feel, are worthwhile contributions to the body of knowledge.

 

[John Kenny]

I think he is referring to John's argument, not the science.

May I ask that we all try to get along and focus on having fun and sharing knowledge rather than challenging each other for a bit? I sense certain amount of calm here and like to take advantage of it .

Amir, I'm calm & not trying to rock the boat here but I am trying to explain my perspective & where I'm coming from.
I do think that a "good forum" is inclusive of a number of viewpoints & it helps to discuss these viewpoints, particularly if there appears to be some misunderstanding or what I perceive as a misunderstanding.

As regards my "argument" being nebulous - I hope I explained my "devil's advocate" stance above & my answer to nebulous also?

I think what I'm actually being condemned for is sneaking subjectivism in through the back door camouflaged in scientific clothing?

Isn't this the real issue?

Again, Amir, I'm not trying to "not get along" here - the fact of the matter is that there are a number of people who don't get along with me or my ideas. I know it's not & shouldn't be all about me & I wasn't trying to make it that - I was trying to find out what room on this forum there was for the science of auditory perception?

 

[March Audio]

OK, by nebulous do you mean that there are no measurements from the world of audio reproduction to show how it is applied to this hobby or do you mean it is speculative?
In all the papers, I've cited there are measurements (often listening tests) to backup the discussion/analysis of the papers' conclusion - as you would expect any scientific paper to provide. I agree that the research of auditory scene analysis hasn't yet made any inroads into or been applied directly in any substantial way in the field of audio production. The reasons are probably manyfold - research just isn't interested in this area; it's too difficult at the moment to address; the research is focussed on uncovering the principle mechanisms of auditory perception before any thoughts of the applied science of auditory perception. In the ASA thread, I & Frank have tried to relate the ASA research back to some of our own auditory experiences

I also agree that this speculation is not immediately applicable, in a practical way, to audio reproduction but I believe it has some role:
- questioning the premises that underpin some of the measurements
- pointing the way towards more meaningful measurements
- generally advancing the knowledgebase in the area

These roles, I feel, are worthwhile contributions to the body of knowledge.

This.

This is why it is not being discussed in substantive ways. it's not being ignored, it's just that it's not applicable in a tangible way to what all of us are doing day to day listening to our hifis.

That doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be discussed, but you seem to think it should be raising a huge amount of interest. I suspect that until something more substantive is produced people will find it of little relevance.

What would be far more interesting is the use of this field for pinning down some cause and effect relationships that can be directly applied to improving system performance.

 

[John Kenny]

This.

This is why it is not being discussed in substantive ways. it's not being ignored, it's just that it's not applicable in any tangible way to what all of us are doing day to day listening to our hifis.

Sure, I can understand this.

That doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be discussed, but you seem to think it should be raising a huge amount of interest. I suspect that until something more substantive is produced people will find it of little relevance.

No, I don't think it should be "raising a huge amount of interest" - just a fair hearing & not accusations of some other motivation on my part that it is a recently discovered line of argument on my part that I use trying to tear down the world-view of objectivists. I do find it of great interest, myself & do often perceive possible weaknesses of the "objectivist" viewpoint when viewed from the perspective of ASA. Unfortunately, my efforts in pointing this out may be cack-handed & awkward but I don't feel I'm the only one to blame for this as I perceive a lot of the reactions to the contents of my posts to be a defense of a position under threat.

Just because I point out these possible weaknesses doesn't mean I'm attacking anybody, I'm trying to discuss the issues from as many informed perspectives as are available.

What would be far more interesting is the use of this field for pinning down some cause and effect relationships that can be directly applied to improving system performance.

Oh, I agree & I have tried to do this - for instance I asked you in the noise floor modulation thread to tell us how you are introducing NFM into a signal so that I & others could experiment with it.

 

[amirm]

Amir, I'm calm & not trying to rock the boat here but I am trying to explain my perspective & where I'm coming from.
I do think that a "good forum" is inclusive of a number of viewpoints & it helps to discuss these viewpoints, particularly if there appears to be some misunderstanding or what I perceive as a misunderstanding.

John, this forum exists because I woke up one day and decided to do something positive and constructive than continuing to battle on WBF. Decide what you can do to diffuse the situation. That you have control over. The change will be hard but once you are on the other side as I am now, it is very gratifying. You will have a feeling of peace that cannot be bought for any amount of money. Just like a bandaid on hair arm, pull it fast and be done with it . Again, that is what I did.

I know you can contribute to this forum. You and have been on the same side of the battle before. Just make that front and center than anything else.

 

[NorthSky]

Wise spoken words ↑

 

[Thomas savage]

It was made rather clear to me that I was wrong, Tom.

What am I going to do with all these t- shirts I got made saying"Tim, 40 years of being right"

 

[Purité Audio]

Can you change the 'I' to an 'o' then you can wear them!
K

 

[John Kenny]

John, this forum exists because I woke up one day and decided to do something positive and constructive than continuing to battle on WBF. Decide what you can do to diffuse the situation. That you have control over. The change will be hard but once you are on the other side as I am now, it is very gratifying. You will have a feeling of peace that cannot be bought for any amount of money. Just like a bandaid on hair arm, pull it fast and be done with it . Again, that is what I did.

Yes, I understand that & I understand that those who followed you here are mostly of a similar mindset to yours. I can understand how mixing with people of a similar mindset is gratifying & less fractious. I would hope that one could also accommodate other viewpoints which don't match your own?

I know you can contribute to this forum. You and have been on the same side of the battle before. Just make that front and center than anything else.

I'm very ambivalent about this statement, Amir -you seem to be dismissing my 305 posts up to this point as of no contribution to the forum. I don't mean to make the discussion of this forum just about me but I do use my experience here as a way of teasing out what this forum is about & what it is not about - I'm still not sure of this.

In my first post here, on the noise floor modulation thread, I posted this
"So let's state up front that the audibility of noise floor modulation is an hypothesis so let's deal with this hypothesis in a spirit of true scientific investigation wherever it leads. "

And "If we want to make some progress on this thread then we need to discuss what might be the composition of such a noise signal & also be prepared to be wrong."

I echo soundandmotion's o/p post here "We want to find a forum that was "dominated by somewhat-knowledgable, open-minded skeptics. A mixture of subj/obj, but with humility and curiosity and fun being the dominant traits"

So, Amir, can I ask you directly - have you found my input so far has not contributed to the forum? I'm not talking about fun & getting along with one another as I don't believe I'm totally responsible for any friction - some people brought their baggage with them from other forums

 

[Thomas savage]

 

[amirm]

Yes, I understand that & I understand that those who followed you here are mostly of a similar mindset to yours. I can understand how mixing with people of a similar mindset is gratifying & less fractious. I would hope that one could also accommodate other viewpoints which don't match your own?

Little of that is true. People here already have very different views than me. This message again sets you up at one end, the the forum at the other. This waring stance is so much in your DNA that I don't think you realize it no matter how many times I point it out.

I have nothing else to say to you John. Do as you wish.

 

[John Kenny]

Little of that is true. People here already have very different views than me.

I said "mostly"

This message again sets you up at one end, the the forum at the other.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here?

This waring stance is so much in your DNA that I don't think you realize it no matter how many times I point it out.

I don't consider it waring - I'm just stating what I see as natural that people of like minds gravitate towards one another to form a club-like environment, this forum - there's no accusation or waring in this. Hoping that other viewpoints can be accommodated is just a statement that applies to any club. Maybe, you are personalising what I say & taking it as a criticism of this fledgling forum - it's not - it's just my attempt to understand the dynamics in operation here.

I have nothing else to say to you John. Do as you wish.

OK, I see that you are taking what I say, personally.

 

[March Audio]

In my first post here, on the noise floor modulation thread, I posted this
"So let's state up front that the audibility of noise floor modulation is an hypothesis so let's deal with this hypothesis in a spirit of true scientific investigation wherever it leads. "

And yet you didn't want to contribute to the listening test. You wanted the "secret sauce" so you could do your own tests in isolation no doubt IMO to increase the chances of being able to draw your preferred conclusions.

It is wearing.

 

[March Audio]

Sure, I can understand this.
No, I don't think it should be "raising a huge amount of interest" - just a fair hearing & not accusations of some other motivation on my part that it is a recently discovered line of argument on my part that I use trying to tear down the world-view of objectivists. I do find it of great interest, myself & do often perceive possible weaknesses of the "objectivist" viewpoint when viewed from the perspective of ASA. Unfortunately, my efforts in pointing this out may be cack-handed & awkward but I don't feel I'm the only one to blame for this as I perceive a lot of the reactions to the contents of my posts to be a defense of a position under threat.

Just because I point out these possible weaknesses doesn't mean I'm attacking anybody, I'm trying to discuss the issues from as many informed perspectives as are available.
Oh, I agree & I have tried to do this - for instance I asked you in the noise floor modulation thread to tell us how you are introducing NFM into a signal so that I & others could experiment with it.

Well repeatedly saying people are ignoring this subject, or words to that effect, does paint a different picture.

ASA, well we get it. Your brain processes the aural information and may use specific cues and attributes to portray a sound field in you mind. these cues are allegedly very important for hifi to reproduce.

Fine. Brilliant no problem. Now use that info to to define what my hifi needs to do to make a more convincingly realistic reproduction, define what I should be looking for in a bit of equipment that helps to achieve this.

It needs to go beyond a hypothesis to be of continuing interest.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What am I going to do with all these t- shirts I got made saying"Tim, 40 years of being right"

Send them to my ex wives.

 

[John Kenny]

And yet you didn't want to contribute to the listening test. You wanted the "secret sauce" so you could do your own tests in isolation no doubt IMO to increase the chances of being able to draw your preferred conclusions.

It is waring.

I had hoped that the thread was going to be a genuine attempt to work towards discovering how audible noise floor modulation might be
I would suggest that you are naive if you think that creating a couple of files which nobody knows the composition of is going to answer that question. Your objective in creating that thread does not appear to be a genuine intent to asses the issue & because I therefore decide to not take part in such a "test" you call it waring - is disingenuous to me.