 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
131.107.0.75
In Reply to: Re: Etc... posted by thetubeguy1954 on June 2, 2006 at 13:35:57:
How to explain... Hmmm.Ok, the amount of information available at the loudness memory stage is a swimming pool full.
The feature extraction pulls some semi-conciously, semi-unconciously selected bits out of the swimming pool, analyzes it, and gives you a quart jar full of information.
The auditory object phase analyzes the quart of water, and comes up with a few drops of water that describes what you heard.
Now, the point is that at both steps, both concious (listen to the oboe) and unconcious (wtf was that click, or purely random choice) processes guide where you look in the swimming pool, and what parts of the quart you pay attention to.
As to how you guide, I'm reporting the phenominon as observed. I can't tell you how you do it, and I don't think anybody else can at this point.
As to the question about probability, if you're guided by somebody's perceptions to listen for a particular thing, you'r elikely to hear it.
No matter your intent. Humans are frighteningly good at incorporating all information into what seems like any sensory modality.
Follow Ups:
Real JJ, I have no problems admitting when I don't understand something so I appreciate your "dumbing down" the response so I could understand it better.I certainly don't want to remain ignorant on this topic, nor do I wish to have to obtain a degree to understand it, either!
When you say" "Ok, the amount of information available at the loudness memory stage is a swimming pool full.
The feature extraction pulls some semi-conciously, semi-unconciously selected bits out of the swimming pool, analyzes it, and gives you a quart jar full of information.
The auditory object phase analyzes the quart of water, and comes up with a few drops of water that describes what you heard.
What I (Thetubeguy1954) hear is, we have a swimming pool of data, the feature extraction gives one a quart jar full of information and the auditory object phase analyzes THAT quart and comes up with a few drops of water that describes what was heard.
I'm sorry Real JJ, I don't wish to incur your wrath, especially after you've taken so much time to try and explain your point-of-view, but I just cannot believe, that four unique individuals would be doing the exact same things in regards to overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc, so that they all would end up with the same few drops of water (out of a swimming pool full) that describes what was heard. That seems extremely improbabile to me!
At this point I'll post less and read more, but doubt I'll be changing my mind anytime soon.
Thanks, Thetubeguy1954
Some suggestion that you might notice 'x'. You MAY (notice, not "will" but may, I've met more than one "audiophile" who reacted contrarian as well) focus on what the other person said.The one thing that seems to be constant is that nobody seems to be able to completely ignore what people suggest. Some may go counter, some with, but "ignore" seems to be (*&*( hard for the human being.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
