|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
140.80.199.91
In Reply to: RE: That video posted by Dave_K on March 27, 2015 at 08:21:26
"But I fail to see what relevance this has to blind testing of audio components. In the McGurk video and Poppy's Zeppelin clip, the visual cues are directly correlated with and related to the audio. The brain is "tricked" because it is presented with simultaneous inputs that are correlated but conflicting, and has to choose. There is nothing remotely like that in our music systems, which remain visually static when playing music. And Poppy's "legislatures" clip is about masking, there is no visual component to it."The relevance is that sight changes what you hear whether you staring at lips moving or looking at your components. The fact that one sees a component already sends an expectation in one's mind and has a direct bearing of how we process the sound.
"You and 3db are implying that because we utilize non-auditory cues as part of speech recognition, that we must also use non-auditory cues when comparing audio components. But the kind of visual cues used in your examples are not present in sighted listening comparisons of audio components, so there is no logical basis for using these examples to make your point about blind testing."The keyword is sighted... and sighted is a visual clue whether it is lips moving or seeing the components being tested. Visual clue isn't relegated only to movement.
Edits: 03/27/15Follow Ups:
Your example demonstrated that when the brain is presented correlated but conflicting auditory and visual information for one syllable of human speech, that in this case, the brain chooses to trust the visual. You haven't demonstrated that the same is true for other syllables and speech patterns, and you haven't demonstrated that our brain's approach to speech recognition has any relevance to sighted audio component comparisons. The McGurk effect is simply not present in those comparisons. There is no way for the brain to be "fooled" by conflicting audio and visual cues when the visual is static and not correlated to the music. Your conclusion is just a non sequitur.By the way, I do think that our listening impressions are biased in some way by knowing what we're listening to in combination with preconceptions, prejudices, and other baggage we bring into the listening session. It's just that it is has nothing to do with our reliance on a combination of visual & auditory cues in speech recognition. If we're predisposed to like something before hearing it, we're more likely to like it when we do hear it. And vice versa. If you put a sheet in front of the equipment rack when I'm comparing components, but you tell me what's playing, I suspect I would form the same opinions as I would if I could see the equipment.
Edits: 03/27/15
http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/AudioScience.pdf
Nt
Wow. Really?? Your acknowledging that biases exist and yet you can't accept that influences what one hears? Really?????
> Your acknowledging that biases exist and yet you can't accept that influences what one hears <
It (can) influence... it doesn't dictate.
Read
http://seanolive.blogspot.ca/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
Other syllables? Really? How much in denial can someone be in? Honestly man. Get a life.
"There is no way for the brain to be "fooled" by conflicting audio and visual cues when the visual is static and not correlated to the music"
And you can back this statement up with objective test results, not inconsequential subjective results?
You were claiming that A implies B without establishing any logical connection between them. It was kind of an "underpants gnomes" argument, which is why I picked on it.
I do not dispute that audio component evaluations are influenced by the knowledge of what component you are listening to and what preconceptions you came in with. But that has NOTHING to do with the McGurk effect or the Poppy Crum stuff that Tom posted.
you can't follow logic and that is evident in your replies. All I see is BS rationalization by the subjective camp stating how there is no logical sequence.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: