 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Re: It's better to travel in hope .... posted by Steve Eddy on July 18, 2003 at 22:05:26:
Hi,Let's try an example...take soundstage. That's a term I like
because it is purely subjective. You can't measure a soundstage.
Suppose I improve the S/N ratio of the power supply in an amp by
adding better filtering. Now I listen to it and I declare that
I've improved the soundstage of my amp. Didn't I just:A) State that it sounds better than it did before
B) Since it sounds better than before it must
have made an audible change or I wouldn't have
stated A)The only alternative is that its all in my head, which doesn't
jive with my experience.BTW, I don't ascribe to the any change is better. I've listened
to my system with several different power conditioners and haven't
liked any of them. This was again counter to what the "crowd" was
saying.
Follow Ups:
Let's try an example...take soundstage. That's a term I like
because it is purely subjective. You can't measure a soundstage.
Suppose I improve the S/N ratio of the power supply in an amp by
adding better filtering. Now I listen to it and I declare that
I've improved the soundstage of my amp. Didn't I just:A) State that it sounds better than it did before
B) Since it sounds better than before it must
have made an audible change or I wouldn't have
stated A)B doesn't necessarily follow because a perceived change can be brought about even in the absence of any change at all. Simply knowing that you'd made a change in the amp is sufficient to bring about a change of perception.
The only alternative is that its all in my head, which doesn't
jive with my experience.But all that we can possibly experience IS all in our heads.
The problem is that perceived changes due to psychological factors seem every bit as real to us as perceived changes due to actual audible stimulus. It's like being in the middle of a vivid dream. While you're having the dream, everything seems just as real as if you were actually experiencing it and we don't realize it was only a dream until we awaken.
However when we're experiencing an audio system, we're already awake and conscious and there's no third "hyper conscious" state we can shift into such that we can distinguish the perceived differences from the actual audible differences.
I know that the notion that what we perceive may not always be due to any actual physical stimulus is something our egos tend not to want to acknowledge (hence certain peoples' reaction of indignance and hyperbole such as "crazy" or "hallucinating") but it's a phenomenon of human behavior that has been very well established for many decades now.
And I've always found it rather curious why so many people involved in high end audio feel so threatened by the reality of our normal human limitations.
For example, most people, when you show them something like this:
And ask them whether B or C is the opposite end of line A, they answer B. When you explain that B is incorrect and that C is in fact the opposite end of line A, that our brain is merely playing tricks on us and interprets the image different than the reality, they don't become all indignant, insist that B is indeed the opposite end of line A and that they're not crazy or hallucinating. Instad, they usually start getting a grin on their faces and go "Ah... Interesting."
Why is it some have no problem acknowledging the limitations of our visual perception and even get a bit of a thrill out of things such as optical illusions which demonstrate these limitations, but when it comes to the limitations of our aural perceptions so many are in such complete denial?
The only thing that makes any sense to me is basic insecurity.
se
Steve will never agree, because he has never had the same experiences you've had. Steve wrote, "there's no third "hyper conscious" state we can shift into such that we can distinguish the perceived differences from the actual audible differences".This is actually false. There is in fact a multiplicity of waking conscious states. As established by brainwave studies beginning in the early '50s, there are four classified states of consciousness possible during the waking phase. These are called beta, alpha, delta, and theta, and are classified by the frequency of the brainwaves based on EEG measurements. What is considered "normal" to western European cultures (such as ours) is the beta state. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that this is the worst state for learning, retention, perception, athletic performance, et cetera, et cetera. On the other hand, these same things are optimized in the alpha state. You may be familiar with the alpha state from other names such as the "zone" sports books that were popular in the '80s (Tennis in the Zone, Golf in the Zone, et cetera).
There are several ways to enter the alpha state, including (to name just a few) sports, meditation, drawing, painting, observing wildlife, and (surprise!) listening to or playing music! On the other hand, one good way to make sure you stay in the beta state is to participate in a double-blind test (unless you happen to be trained in maintaining states of concsiousness).
A guy like Steve obviously never spends any time in alpha. Trying to tell him about *real* audible differences in audio equipment is literally like trying to describe colors to a blind man. I wouldn't bother wasting my time.
Best regards,
Charles Hansen
mfc is drawing out SE's position, which many of us find uncomfortable, but which no one, to my knowledge, has been able to successfully counter in this forum.I don't think anyone who posts here would argue that it is impossible, or even difficult, to fool people into agreeing that different treatments cause changes in sound when in fact the treatments are the same. Likewise, listening for differences as a gauge of engineering changes to circuits becomes problematical when the differences are real but very small in magnitude.
What I find disquieting about SE's approach, however, is his leap of logic to make the claim that one should somehow prove that audible differences are real (but without listening!) before reporting the results of changes.
This suggests a logical fallacy called Argument from Ignorance (see link). Just because we cannot prove something to be true does not necessarily make it false, and just because we cannot prove something to be false does not necessarily make it true.
It is unlikely that anyone who routinely depends on bench measurements can prove that the meters they use were not tampered with the night before. We can easily imagine a prankster more clever than the security measures present in the laboratory. By SE's logic, then, we should not pay attention to their results, since they might be false and misleading.
What I find disquieting about SE's approach, however, is his leap of logic to make the claim that one should somehow prove that audible differences are real (but without listening!) before reporting the results of changes.And what I find disqueting is the fact that this is not my approach at all.
What on earth are you reading?
se
Steve will never agree, because he has never had the same experiences you've had.Hmmmm.
Above you ripped Dan for telling you what output devices you're using in your equipment.
And previously you asked me if I thought I was the Queen of England for suggesting you read someone else's posts on the feedback issue.
Yet here you are claiming to know what my experiences have been.
So I think it's well within reason to ask you just who the hell do you think YOU are? Beside a pompous hyporcite.
Steve wrote, "there's no third "hyper conscious" state we can shift into such that we can distinguish the perceived differences from the actual audible differences".
This is actually false. There is in fact a multiplicity of waking conscious states. As established by brainwave studies beginning in the early '50s, there are four classified states of consciousness possible during the waking phase. These are called beta, alpha, delta, and theta, and are classified by the frequency of the brainwaves based on EEG measurements.
If Beta, Alpha, Theta and Delta are all waking states of consciousness, then what are the sleeping states? Delta activity denotes the deepest stages of sleep (and Theta the onset of sleep) so how can Delta also be a waking state?
What is considered "normal" to western European cultures (such as ours) is the beta state. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that this is the worst state for learning, retention, perception, athletic performance, et cetera, et cetera. On the other hand, these same things are optimized in the alpha state.
Actually learning and perception (at least of our physical surroundings) are at their best in Beta. Why do you think students who are chronically sleep deprived do so poorly? The sleep depravation causes them to go through the day in an Alpha state where they have a hard time concentrating and paying attention which manifests itself once test time comes around.
The Beta state is the most externalized state in which we are most cognizant of our physical surroundings. As we move from Beta to Alpha, we become more internalized and more detached from our physical surroundings.
You may be familiar with the alpha state from other names such as the "zone" sports books that were popular in the '80s (Tennis in the Zone, Golf in the Zone, et cetera).
Yes, and I utilize that phenomenon quite frequently.
But this doesn't really work well in this context.
In sports or other activities that involve repetetive acts, once you've performed those acts thousands of times, you eventually develop an internal, intuitive sense for what is the "right" way to perform the act.
When you're in full-blown Beta, our most externalized state, our intuitive sense becomes more overshadowed and performance is more "mechanical."
"The Zone" is that delicate balance between Beta and Alpha where you're just enough into Alpha that the intuitive sense is able to make it to the surface but no so far out of Beta that you're just standing there like an idiot while your opponent bounces balls off your head.
Had a fourth grade teacher who used to prey on kids who fell too far into Alpha by bouncing chalk erasers off their heads.
There are several ways to enter the alpha state, including (to name just a few) sports, meditation, drawing, painting, observing wildlife, and (surprise!) listening to or playing music!
Yes. By the way, I play guitar.
But the Alpha state being more internalized, we're actually paying less attention to the finer details the more deeply into the Alpha state we get. The Alpha state rather applies a soft focus lens to physical reality.
This might explain why if you look at the audio systems of even the most talented and accomplished musicians, you find that they're typically very modest by audiophile standards, often being little more than your typical mass market fare.
I think this is because musicians operate more in the Alpha state and don't listen to music in the Beta state that most audiophiles tend to listen to music. Instead of being obsessed with the microscopic details of the music, it's the broader, more intuitive or spiritual side of music that they connect with.
On the other hand, one good way to make sure you stay in the beta state is to participate in a double-blind test (unless you happen to be trained in maintaining states of concsiousness).
When it comes to detecting fine differences, the Beta state would be the state to be in.
A guy like Steve obviously never spends any time in alpha.
And you obviously haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
I listen pretty much exclusively in the Alpha state. Which is why you never see me talking about how something sounds. I simply go by my intuitive response, or gestalt if you will. What some might call the "goosebump factor" or the "toe-tapping factor." I couldn't enjoy listening in the Beta state, analytical fashion that most audiophiles seem to listen.
Trying to tell him about *real* audible differences in audio equipment is literally like trying to describe colors to a blind man.
And how exactly are you able to distinguish subjective perception due to real audible differences and subjective perception due to other influences? Are you claiming that you're fully conscious of your subconscious mind and all of its influences on your conscious mind?
I wouldn't bother wasting my time.
But you don't mind wasting other peoples' time with bullshit posts like this, dictating to others what their experiences have been, how they listen, etc.
se
it looks like you know just about as much regarding states of consciousness as you do about elementary transistor circuits. That is to say, just enough to be dangerous (by fooling yourself, and unfortunately a few other naive readers), but with no true understanding.Again, I'm not going to do a point-by-point exposition of all your errors. Do some homework first. I'll give you a clue -- I ain't talking about sleeping.
Charles Hansen
Again, I'm not going to do a point-by-point exposition of all your errors.Of course you're not. Because you're just a pompous blow-hard who can only support his claims with bluff and bluster. Any clown can say "You're wrong. I won't waste my time explaining why you're wrong. Go read a book." And you're a perfect example. Charles the Cowardly Clown.
se
Steve's all-powerful alliteration!I give up. It's like my Dad told me -- never argue with an idiot; he'll just drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. You win, Steve.
Best regards,
Charles Hansen
It's like my Dad told me -- never argue with an idiotWhen have you enaged in anything resembling an actual argument? I don't recall seeing such an instance. You make claims, the claims are questioned, you tell the person questioning them that they're wrong (along with a healthy dose of insults) and that they should go read a book.
That's not argument. It's just a pomous ass expecting everything he says to be accepted unquestioningly as fact.
se
Hi Steve,Ok I get it now. I'd say that the phenomena
that you are talking about happens. I'd say
it happens to me a % of the time however.I can be led astray. I've done it. What usually snaps
me back is my sound memory (for lack of a better term).
If I fatigue that sound memory, it is easier for me
to hear something that doesn't exist.This happens if I'm working too hard at discerning
a change. When I'm being analytical I can fatigue
my sound memory. Later when I relax, the sound memory
gets restored or refreshed. Then I realize what has
happened.As long as I keep myself relaxed and non-analytical,
I think the chance of fooling myself are very small.
As long as I keep myself relaxed and non-analytical,
I think the chance of fooling myself are very small.Yet in that state (the Alpha state), you're ultimately more detached from the physical reality and that much closer to the subconscious mind which can influence subjective perception.
So I don't quite see how it would follow that being in such a state translates into being less susceptible to influences other than the physical reality.
And I still don't understand how, given that a subjectively perceived difference is perceived just the same whether it's due to physics or psychology, that one is able to tell the two apart.
se
Hi,I'm not so sure this is the alpha state. This sounds like we
enter some sort of dream state. I don't think this captures it.The state I'm thinking about more closely resembles a hunter
in the woods listening for the sound of footsteps of approaching
game. Is this the alpha state??? I would think it is this state
that an audiophile seeks to listen in, and this state is closer
and more in tune with physical reality then internal.Also brought up was why music teachers have such mediocre systems.
I think in this case, they are listening more to the internal world
than the physical. I have 3 music teachers I know that this
phenomena (why they tolerate mediocre systems) has always fascinated
me. I think their ears are better trained to perceive phrasing, and
the different voices in the music than mine. These needs are
satisfied by mediocre systems.Audiophiles on the other hand are listening to decay of notes into
the background, image sizes, size of soundstage, layering, etc...
An audiophile ear has additional ques that are being sought from the
sound. These are not satisfied with mediocre systems.And it definitely requires a physical reality to perceive these.
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 ]
