|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
87.115.142.30
In Reply to: RE: Beware bringing music in to work! posted by Jaundiced Ear on August 24, 2014 at 22:30:46
. . . you speculate that human hearing is more acute and discerning than modern test equipment
Falsely posed - the two are different. Even when my 'scope was working, it couldn't hear a thing.
It is fatuous to equate perception with "modern test equipment", esp so when the equipment is not described.
. . . and that the human ear can hear things test equipment will miss.
If that weren't so, electrical engineers wouldn't know what to measure. As it is, when new audio-related phenomena are detected, engineers use their considerable skills to describe the perceived differences in electrical terms. See e.g. the data on audible differences between capacitor types and the history of how those differences were first detected then later measured and explained.
Identical waveforms will sound the same.
Er, by definition. Whether small but perhaps critical-in-audio-terms differences between waveforms are readily detected visually, let alone measured, is of course a different matter.
Follow Ups:
"Falsely posed - the two are different. Even when my 'scope was working, it couldn't hear a thing."
With all due respect, I think you're just squabbling over semantics here.
When you get right down to it, by itself an ear can't hear a thing either. It's got to be hooked up to a brain. On the other hand, without an ear neither can the brain hear anything. The ear is a tool that allows the brain to perceive things it otherwise could not. Similarly, test equipment are tools that also allow the brain to perceive what it otherwise could not. What difference does it make if one is organic and the others are not? I'll agree that telescopes and microscopes by themselves cannot see, but it would be silly to argue that they do not help humans see better than they otherwise could and reveal things our unassisted vision could not possibly see. When people were working on those capacitor issues, did they rely solely on their ears, or did they also use test equipment? I'm betting on the latter, because it increased what their brains could perceive.
"Er, by definition."
Thank you kind sir! You're the first person on this board besides me who has admitted that a=a!
"Whether small but perhaps critical-in-audio-terms differences between waveforms are readily detected visually, let alone measured, is of course a different matter."
Which brings us to the Audio Diffmaker. People on this board are continually affronted by the skepticism I voice when inmates make trivial changes to their systems and then claim that the result is tantamount to the re-mixing of their entire audio libraries. They are outraged when I ask to see a measurement to support their claims. Even here, after bravely conceding that a=a you're trying to find wiggle room to allow for a change in sound without a corresponding, measurable change to the waveform. My position is that huge changes to the sound must be a result of huge changes to the waveform, while subtle changes to the waveform will only result in subtle changes to the sound, or indeed no meaningful change to the sound at all.
Why not check out the Audio Diffmaker and try the listener challenge yourself? All it does is present two fifteen second snippets of music, that sound pretty much the same, yet which have a substantial difference between them. It even allows you to extract the difference between the snippets so you can hear it by itself. This isn't a quiz, there's no pressure, I'm not asking you to report back with your answers. I'm just proffering this as an example of why I am so skeptical of claims that "unmeasurable" changes to a waveform can result in huge audible differences.
All the Best!
JE
People on this board are continually affronted by the skepticism I voice
You flatter yourself. They are in fact aggravated by the cocksure way in which you repeatedly advance banal arguments (in this case, a risible attempt at psychology) and imply that you have insights and understanding that others cannot even aspire to.
My mistake was to try to debate with you.
You directed a post to me. I answered it. You are upset by this. Am I not allowed to reply to posts you make to me? If my replies bother you so much, why send posts to me in the first place?
If my argument is banal and risible, why not demolish it? I've learned a lot by debating points with people who hold opinions opposed to my own. You should try it.
"When you get right down to it, by itself an ear can't hear a thing either. It's got to be hooked up to a brain.".
That brain can't do anything either unless it is under the control of a functioning mind.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sorry about that! I've no idea what I've done to you. Is asking people to listen to the Audio Diffmaker Listener's Challenge really so insulting?
JE
I suggest improving your ability to detect hidden smily's. :-)
More seriously, people who sport "brain" as well as "ears" while going no further fail to demonstrate a complete understanding of what hears. The mind hears, not the brain or ears. The problem with people who sport a scientistic attitude is that they omit the most important component, which isn't surprising since this is the one where Science has the least amount of knowledge.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"I suggest improving your ability to detect hidden smily's. :-)"
I guess my ability to detect hidden smileys is on par with my ability to detect inaudible sounds. ;-)
"The mind hears, not the brain or ears."
Fair enough. But that doesn't really rebut the point I was making to Ryelands. Let's just substitute "mind" for brain. The ear-brain combination is a tool the mind uses to perceive what it otherwise cannot.
Happy now? :-)
I don't see how in anyway this rebuts my core point that identical waveforms will sound the same, and indeed, even different waveforms will sound the same so long as the differences are so small as to be inaudible. Unless of course you are arguing that the perception of differences between identical waveforms occurs solely in the mind of the listener, that is, in the listener's imagination. I guess I could buy off on that.
All the Best!
JE
"I don't see how in anyway this rebuts my core point that identical waveforms will sound the same, and indeed, even different waveforms will sound the same so long as the differences are so small as to be inaudible"
Identical waveforms will not sound the same each time they are heard. First, there is no such thing as an identical waveform. (Analog signals always come with noise, acoustic signals have thermal motion of air molecules, etc..) But more to the point when it comes to "objective listening tests" the mind has memory. One will not hear the same sound when essentially the same waveform is heard the second time. The second listening will arise at a mind in a different state, a mind that has the memory of the earlier playback and a mind that may be concentrating on different aspects of the sound that it hears. In addition there are unconscious differences that may occur in the mind having to do with mood, level of fatigue, etc..
One may be able to get a clear definition of "obviously audible" but when it comes to subtle differences the concept is extremely difficult to define, leaving room for a lot of argument over what is audible and what is not. To get to the bottom of the situation one must past through the realm of psychology into the realm of philosophy (epistemology).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Identical waveforms will not sound the same each time they are heard. First, there is no such thing as an identical waveform. (Analog signals always come with noise, acoustic signals have thermal motion of air molecules, etc..)"
Are you seriously arguing that the "night and day" differences reported by some inmates are due to thermal noise? To air currents and eddies in their rooms? Surely you aren't saying these claims are just a lot of hot air? ;-)
"But more to the point when it comes to "objective listening tests" the mind has memory. One will not hear the same sound when essentially the same waveform is heard the second time. The second listening will arise at a mind in a different state, a mind that has the memory of the earlier playback and a mind that may be concentrating on different aspects of the sound that it hears. In addition there are unconscious differences that may occur in the mind having to do with mood, level of fatigue, etc.."
So what you are saying is that these huge changes inmates claim are because their minds are in a different state? They occur in their minds? I'll agree with that.
"One may be able to get a clear definition of "obviously audible" but when it comes to subtle differences the concept is extremely difficult to define, leaving room for a lot of argument over what is audible and what is not. To get to the bottom of the situation one must past through the realm of psychology into the realm of philosophy (epistemology)."
Why bother with all this fruitless speculation when your proposition above, that the audibility of subtle differences occurs within the minds of the listeners, seems to provide a satisfactory description of what is going on?
"Are you seriously arguing that the "night and day" differences reported by some inmates are due to thermal noise? To air currents and eddies in their rooms? Surely you aren't saying these claims are just a lot of hot air? ;-)"
No. I have no problem detecting hyperbole when I hear it. I also aware that some inmates are more careful in their comments then others and give these people's listening reports more credence than others.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Which kinda makes sense, because it surely is not Computer Audio.
"Is asking people to listen to the Audio Diffmaker Listener's Challenge really so insulting?"
Are you getting paid per click? lol
Perfect waste of money.
"That brain can't do anything either unless it is under the control of a functioning mind."
:)
"Whether small but perhaps critical-in-audio-terms differences between waveforms are readily detected visually, let alone measured, is of course a different matter."
I find it largely a one-way street Dave. Usually if I can hear a difference I can also measure one that probably accounts for it. But going the other way I can't reliably predict what will be audible unless it's pretty gross...
As for scopes, spectrum analyzers and meters they each give you a little different slant on things as does looking both in and out of band. Generally stuff that audiophiles regard as unmeasurable tends to show up best with a scope from my experience which I suspect has to do with how our ears work.
Regards, Rick
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: