Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali (Read 93671 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #200 –
Quote from: stephanV on
Quote from: Lyx on
This is correct, Arnold. The problem however is: This as well applies to every single mechanical instrument on its own. What i take issue with is the statement "human senses are flawed"... flawed compared to WHAT? Mechanical instruments?

If visual stimuli can trick the brain into hearing something that is not heard without them then human senses simply are flawed.


I think you may need to rewrite what you just wrote. There's no way that we can be tricked into hearing something that is not heard. 

If perhaps you mean trick us into hearing a sound that does not exist such as intermodulation in the ear. But that is a limitation, but not necessarily a flaw that is inherent in our ears.

I don't think we say that a reasonble limiation is a flaw. For example, an ordinary passenger car is not flawed if it cannot travel down the road at 700 mph.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #201 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: stephanV on
Quote from: Lyx on
This is correct, Arnold. The problem however is: This as well applies to every single mechanical instrument on its own. What i take issue with is the statement "human senses are flawed"... flawed compared to WHAT? Mechanical instruments?

If visual stimuli can trick the brain into hearing something that is not heard without them then human senses simply are flawed.


I think you may need to rewrite what you just wrote. There's no way that we can be tricked into hearing something that is not heard. 

In the audiophile crowd such occurrences are apparently quite frequent, unless you wish to infer that all such claims are made out of dishonesty.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #202 –
Quote from: stephanV on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: stephanV on
Quote from: Lyx on
This is correct, Arnold. The problem however is: This as well applies to every single mechanical instrument on its own. What i take issue with is the statement "human senses are flawed"... flawed compared to WHAT? Mechanical instruments?

If visual stimuli can trick the brain into hearing something that is not heard without them then human senses simply are flawed.


I think you may need to rewrite what you just wrote. There's no way that we can be tricked into hearing something that is not heard. 

In the audiophile crowd such occurrences are apparently quite frequent, unless you wish to infer that all such claims are made out of dishonesty.



This is turning into semantic wankery.

By 'hearing something that is not heard' is meant: the 'audible difference' that the listener believes to be real, is not real, in the sense of being due to difference in the sounds A and B.  The belief in difference here is due to factors other than the sound.

An extreme example: listeners can be tricked into believing that  the same excerpt played twice in succession, is two different 'versions' produced by two different means.  This is the so-called 'phantom switch' demonstration.




lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #203 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I think you may need to rewrite what you just wrote. There's no way that we can be tricked into hearing something that is not heard.
Not in terms of hear / not hear - but visual cues certainly change the perceived location of auditory events.

Cheers,
David.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #204 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: stephanV on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: stephanV on
Quote from: Lyx on
This is correct, Arnold. The problem however is: This as well applies to every single mechanical instrument on its own. What i take issue with is the statement "human senses are flawed"... flawed compared to WHAT? Mechanical instruments?

If visual stimuli can trick the brain into hearing something that is not heard without them then human senses simply are flawed.


I think you may need to rewrite what you just wrote. There's no way that we can be tricked into hearing something that is not heard. 

In the audiophile crowd such occurrences are apparently quite frequent, unless you wish to infer that all such claims are made out of dishonesty.


This is turning into semantic wankery.


I think "a bad choice of words" is blunt, but clear and more impersonal.

Quote
By 'hearing something that is not heard' is meant: the 'audible difference' that the listener believes to be real, is not real, in the sense of being due to difference in the sounds A and B.  The belief in difference here is due to factors other than the sound.


I guess. But as a reader, I don't like to guess.

The *big* problem is that people often use the word "hear" when they really mean perceive.

For example, if one rewrites "hear something that is not heard" as "perceives something that is inaudible", then the meaning seems to me to be far more clear.

Quote
An extreme example: listeners can be tricked into believing that  the same excerpt played twice in succession, is two different 'versions' produced by two different means.  This is the so-called 'phantom switch' demonstration.


Everybody who has ever had to work hard to do well on an ABX test knows about that one! ;-)

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #205 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
The letter to the JAES was cosigned by George Massenburg, Peter Craven, Vicki Melchior, and Wieslaw Woszczyk and was indeed rejected for publication, though John Vanderkooy did set up the on-line forum mainly as a result of the internal debate at the AES over the content of the letter.
I checked the link and found 9 comments about "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback".  I see none by the authors listed about.
The letter was quoted in a ProSoundWeb thread today:
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php...902/#msg_431067
FYI

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #206 –
That's a very civilised thread!

Like how HA used to be 

Cheers,
David.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #207 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
That's a very civilised thread!


As it sits, it has almost zero responses in it.

Before jumping to conclusions, let's see where it is after 50 posts.

Quote
Like how HA used to be 


No posts to speak of, despite an interesting topic? ;-)

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #208 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
As it sits, it has almost zero responses in it.
I thought the posts from Jon, Krab, and Kees pretty much covered it. You've also made similar point here in the past: the issues they raise apply equally to any situation where you're asked "which is better" - and yet they only seem to "impair listening" when it's a blind test. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

The case against double blind testing, that is.

Whether there's a real audible ABXable difference when these "pros" are tracking 24/192 vs 16/44.1 is a different case - and it may go far beyond whether there's a difference between 24/192 vs 16/44.1 in optimum systems. Now that I understand how tragically little many of these "pros" understand of the equipment they use, there are hundreds of possible reasons to explain real audible differences - for example, it would only need one plug-in which behaves slightly differently at 192k vs 44.1k to cause an audible difference - and I think the chances of such a plug-in existing are probably near 100%!


Cheers,
David.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #209 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Before jumping to conclusions, let's see where it is after 50 posts.
It's a small forum with few off topic posts. Therefore the bandwidth is low and the SNR high. Great or boring ?
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Like how HA used to be 
I second your feelings, but apparently some like it "molto agitato con fuoco e poco moderato"

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #210 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
That's a very civilised thread!

Like how HA used to be 

Cheers,
David.



Be careful what you wish for. ProSoundWeb can get pretty feisty...even about topics like 'hi rez'. 

And in context of the bulk of Hydrogenaudio posting every day, recent  'feistiness' here is rather drop-in-the-bucket.

It's great that guys like Lavry and Putzys have their own forums thre though.  PSW is one of the highest S/N information resources about audio on the web...*IF* you know whose posts to read (and whose to ignore...)