Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What is the rationale behind the prohibition of DBT discussion?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the rationale behind the prohibition of DBT discussion? - Page 27

post #391 of 454

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sokolov91 View Post

Firstly, I will commend you for being the first Cable Believer(?) to present in detail any kind of logical fallacy Anti Cable people may have (yes I know these tittles are ridiculous). Good work.

I'm not a cable believer.

 

 

Quote:
Our perceptions are less real than measurements in the sense they are less accurate, subject to personal and cultural biases and many, many other factors.

 

That doesn't make perceptions less real. That makes them harder to explain and describe. It's a jump from that to "less real," a jump that some scientists make, but in my opinion is an epistemological mistake.

 

 

Quote:
Our perceptions are less real than measurements in the sense they are less accurate, subject to personal and cultural biases and many, many other factors. Measurements are not subject to any of this, they simply give you unfiltered information. The interpretation of said data, however, is subject to all the same factors of our perception... because you are perceiving the data. For you to perceive something, it must pass through all the psychological filters you have, machines do not have this process, they simply spit out pure data, instead of pure conjecture like some of humans do sometimes. THE WHOLE DAMNED REASON WE HAVE SUCH MACHINES IS BECAUSE MANY INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUALS REALIZED THAT THE INFORMATION THAT LIFE HOLDS ECLIPSES OUR SENSE IN MORE WAYS THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE. That is why we have machines, to aid our imperfect biological sense. Ultrasonic, infrasonic.. ultraviolet, infrared... do you really understand how little of the picture we work with on a daily basis? Apparently you don't.

 


What you are doing is laying out your epistemological system. All these details are describing your assumptions and why you assume them. I simply think you're on the wrong track, if you are talking about audio reproduction.

 

 

Quote:
You are not a music lover.

 

Wow, that's a bizarre conclusion.
post #392 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1127 View Post

 

I'm not a cable believer.

 

Glad to see I am dealing with a reasonable person(?)

 

That doesn't make perceptions less real. That makes them harder to explain and describe. It's a jump from that to "less real," a jump that some scientists make, but in my opinion is an epistemological mistake.

 

In human terms, it does not make them any "less real" but they are only real in human terms to begin with. For a human, our world is as real as it gets. For a human using a machine, all of a sudden the world becomes a much bigger place, with much more withing in our grasp- yet with much more still escaping it. Less real is not a jump in any way, other than a jump out of the limited human experience we know as life. 


What you are doing is laying out your epistemological system. All these details are describing your assumptions and why you assume them. I simply think you're on the wrong track, if you are talking about audio reproduction.

 

What I am doing is showing you why you intrinsically wrong in many parts of your arguments, nothing more. You cannot have music without feeling. So how can a test be so vehemently opposed for doing just that?

 

 

 

It is not a bizarre conclusion because I was assuming you were in fact a cable believer, and my argument points entirely to that conclusion. So, how you perceived that as odd, or unexpected escapes me.

 

Edited by sokolov91 - 9/1/10 at 8:08pm
post #393 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by sokolov91 View Post


You cannot have music without feeling. So how can a test be so vehemently opposed for doing just that?

 


I don't follow your point here.

 

You can listen to music and not feel it if you are in an analytical mode. Or if you hear a very short snippet so you can't hear complete phrases.

 

 

what are you referring to when you say a test "does just that"? Does just what?

post #394 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1127 View Post




I don't follow your point here.

 

You can listen to music and not feel it if you are in an analytical mode. Or if you hear a very short snippet so you can't hear complete phrases.

 

 

what are you referring to when you say a test "does just that"? Does just what?

You said you feel that quick switch tests do not allow for an accurate portrayal of emotional information from a song. It was not stated in this much detail, but that is how I interpreted it.

 

Now, if this is the case, how can music -a human emotional interaction with vibrating air, be somehow derived of the thing that makes it what it is when you swap cables quickly.

 

How could the emotion or feeling of a song ever escape you, if that is all a song is, human information encoded using vibrating air.

 

Listening to short snippets wouldn't make a difference because you are still listening to music (a human emotional interaction with vibrating air), and because nothing is changing (*yawn* as far as any objective data has ever show in many scientific fields) anyways. 

 

Sure, "getting in the mood" for music, or whatever will increase your enjoyment, but that is a psychological state. The same way substances will temporarily alter your mind, your state is constantly changing all day based on what you are thinking about, what you are perceiving etc etc. It is a dynamic state, that changes reality to the individual but not reality itself.
 

This being the whole premise of the entire "debate". This: People who are unable to accept that they are not chief authority on reality, because they can't even trust themselves at all times for accurate information.

 

Psychology is everything (to a human, not so to a machine). A shift in a psychological state is a shift in your world, but not the real world.


Edited by sokolov91 - 9/1/10 at 8:18pm
post #395 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by sokolov91 View Post

 

Audio does no such thing... audio existed before we did, it has nothing to do with us, other than we have developed sense to perceive it in an imperfect, and limited way.

 

Ha! Said with such authority.  On what basis, my friend, do you make such a bold statement?  It's a complex one indeed.  A lot of ramifications there.

 

Such statements arguably reinforce my argument that it is the work of inflated human egos (on some level) that allows people to think their personal, unique, and flawed perceptions supersede those of objective measurements in any way.

In any way? .... Ah dear.... youthful exuberant pontificating here.  Nothing to do but read in wonder.  Talk about inflated ego?  You don't happen to know anything about that do you?


Our perceptions are less real than measurements in the sense they are less accurate, subject to personal and cultural biases and many, many other factors. Measurements are not subject to any of this, they simply give you unfiltered information.

 

And this forms the basis for making what conclusion?

 

The interpretation of said data, however, is subject to all the same factors of our perception... because you are perceiving the data. For you to perceive something, it must pass through all the psychological filters you have, machines do not have this process, they simply spit out pure data, instead of pure conjecture like some of humans do sometimes. THE WHOLE DAMNED REASON WE HAVE SUCH MACHINES IS BECAUSE MANY INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUALS REALIZED THAT THE INFORMATION THAT LIFE HOLDS ECLIPSES OUR SENSE IN MORE WAYS THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE. That is why we have machines, to aid our imperfect biological sense. Ultrasonic, infrasonic.. ultraviolet, infrared... do you really understand how little of the picture we work with on a daily basis? Apparently you don't.

 

Machines are simple devices.  Far less sophisticated.  Give a human a simple task and he will reliably, within the scope of his senses give a reliable result.  Listening for differences in cables the way that pro-cablers do is not a simple task and no wonder, there are issues amiss.

 

Measurements are more real than our perception because the data, for arguments sake, is flawless.

 

Flawless, but all too often limited.  This is why these measurements turn out to be helpful rather than the source of all information required.

 

Machines are not emotional creatures (which by the way often gets in the way of logic). Our perceptions are more human, not more real. They are more real on human grounds, because we associate human emotions with our stimuli, like we are supposed to. Said stimuli however are not supposed to have an emotional context, they simply are. Does the sun shine on you so you can feel warmth? Does the wind blow so it can cool you down? Do cats exist because you find them cute and cuddly? Does air exist so we can make music?To think so is an extremely ignorant and selfish thought.


IMO, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water here, and big time.  It's a wonder we get along in life.  It's a wonder that we can converse in a meaningful way.   It's a wonder we integrate so well and interpret our scientific experiments and take ourselves to greater heights the way we do.  Afterall, we have such broken and unreliable perception.  If it's the main way we interact with our environment one wonders how we managed to this point?  

 

So we aren't perceptually perfect.  So what? Should we now take on an attitude that totally discredits our perceptual abilities.  Your senses fail you in one way, so you throw out trusting them in any way and in any context?  This cable issue nicely uncovers our perceptual weaknesses.  Fine.  Maybe it's time we discuss ways in which our perception runs rings around our limited measuring devices... cameras vs sight, smell vs sensors, etc.  There needs to be some balance here since we are way too much into what our little measuring devices will pick up that we cannot and not the other way around. 


Music is the emotional response/feeling that a human derives from vibrating air, in and of itself, there is no feeling because it is a human abstraction. So, if you cannot hear feeling in a song, then why do you listen to music in the first place? Feeling is the whole reason why we have music, so the premise music is not musical without expensive cables is the most ridiculous, and self defeating argument there is. If you need cables to enjoy music, you do not enjoy music. End of story. You enjoy a hobby related to cables, that uses audio as its benchmarking system (which it just so happens DOESN'T ACTUALLY WORK). You are not a music lover.

 

You're joking here as usual right?  We take you seriously and you claim you're joking.  I really don't know which one to believe at this point.

post #396 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by sokolov91 View Post


Now, if this is the case, how can music -a human emotional interaction with vibrating air, be somehow derived of the thing that makes it what it is when you swap cables quickly.

 

Listening to short snippets wouldn't make a difference because you are still listening to music


To me this is like saying, "How can the Mona Lisa be anything less than great art when viewing one square inch of it through a toilet paper roll?"

 

Because you can't see the damn thing.

post #397 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1127 View Post


To me this is like saying, "How can the Mona Lisa be anything less than great art when viewing one square inch of it through a toilet paper roll?"

 

Because you can't see the damn thing.

 

Indeed!!!  In a way, your very message here requires a backward step to appreciate, just as the Mona Lisa.  Two much intellectualising and abstraction gets in the way of the overall picture and how different factors interact.  We find a weakness in our wonderful hearing and suddenly it should never be used or trusted when making any formal assessment of music.  This seemingly throws out blatant advantages with hearing and central role with regard to why we're even having this discussion in the first place.
 


Edited by aimlink - 9/1/10 at 8:34pm
post #398 of 454

Aimlink,

 

I am just trying to present my arguments in the strongest fashion possible. Perhaps too strong for the taste of some. Its half-joking, half very serious. A joke because I do not feel there is actually a debate going on so much as there is a group of people failing to see the light of reason, which keeps perpetuating a settled issue as far as we humanly can. Serious because I am dead serious about most of my arguments.

 

Now, because there is only finite time in my life, I cannot identify every single way in which I may be wrong, or back my point up from every manner in which someone will try to counter argue. So, when it seems like I am being pompous and have an "inflated ego" myself, it is simply because I am trying to get some good arguments out of people, but so far have only mustered personal assualts and weak arguments at best from the opposition. Other than that, I am told my arguments do not encompass everything, which they never intended to do as it is humanly impossible as I previously stated.

 

Now, regardless of what I have said about cable believers, that does not mean on a personal level I do no respect you, or kees, or anyone because I do. You were one of the first people to be kind to me on head-fi and I greatly value you opinion, on everything but cables.

 

I will respond to your comment in full later, because now I must play starcraft 2 with my buddies.

 

have a good day!


Edited by sokolov91 - 9/1/10 at 8:38pm
post #399 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1127 View Post




To me this is like saying, "How can the Mona Lisa be anything less than great art when viewing one square inch of it through a toilet paper roll?"

 

Because you can't see the damn thing.


Audio is different from visual stimuli. The auditory memory is at best 4-5 seconds, that is why, scientifically we would need to do the switches quickly. If they are done the other way, people complain they are too strenuous and long...

 

Of course it is not best to do snippets of a song, but a chorus, or a solo, or a specific part in the anatomy of a song would suffice.

 

post #400 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by sokolov91 View Post

Aimlink,

 

I am just trying to present my arguments in the strongest fashion possible. Perhaps too strong for the taste of some. Its half-joking, half very serious. A joke because I do not feel there is actually a debate going on so much as there is a group of people failing to see the light of reason, which keeps perpetuating a settled issue as far as we humanly can. Serious because I am dead serious about most of my arguments.

 

Now, because there is only finite time in my life, I cannot identify every single way in which I may be wrong, or back my point up from every manner in which someone will try to counter argue. So, when it seems like I am being pompous and have an "inflated ego" myself, it is simply because I am trying to get some good arguments out of people, but so far have only mustered personal assualts and weak arguments at best from the opposition. Other than that, I am told my arguments do not encompass everything, which they never intended to do as it is humanly impossible as I previously stated.

 

Now, regardless of what I have said about cable believers, that does not mean on a personal level I do no respect you, or kees, or anyone because I do. You were one of the first people to be kind to me on head-fi and I greatly value you opinion, on everything but cables.

 

I will respond to your comment in full later, because now I must play starcraft 2 with my buddies.

 

have a good day!


So you were serious about the technical content, but not serious with the attitude.  If you say so.

 

Be that as it may, my comments mainly addressed your technical commentary rather than your attitude.....  

 

My wondering if you were joking had more to do with the technical side, but apparently you were not, so my comments stand.

post #401 of 454

Nothing prevents people from doing a 20 day long dbt session with one switch per day.

As for determining the accuracy of a component, an interesting test would be the null test I refered to back in p25 of this tread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1127 View Post





Mainly I think that quick-switch tests make it impossible to hear musical feeling.



 

post #402 of 454

How long to do a blind test?

 

I disagree that the audio memory is as short as 4-5 seconds. If we had such poor audio memory how do we learn language, recognise voices even after a long period of being apart, learn music?

 

I disagree that blind testing should be over long periods of time as our mind adjusts to the sound constantly with mood and getting used to a new sound signature. So that is now 'measuring' the difference in sound in our head and not the cable.

 

I think that the best way to blind test is to have various tracks you are familiar with and have specific parts to listen out for. I can confidently compare audio equipment weeks apart if I have my tester tracks with me. Does the bass distort, is the 'miaow' sound at 42 seconds clear, is the opening muffled, how does the verse kick into the chorus, is the mushy treble rendered clear enough to hear individual cymbal strikes, how much of a stereo effect is there with the percussion?

 

I think that a change in cables should heard and not felt nor adjusted to.

post #403 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by sokolov91 View Post




Audio is different from visual stimuli. The auditory memory is at best 4-5 seconds, that is why, scientifically we would need to do the switches quickly. If they are done the other way, people complain they are too strenuous and long...

 

Of course it is not best to do snippets of a song, but a chorus, or a solo, or a specific part in the anatomy of a song would suffice.

 



Do it that way if you want, but you aren't testing for differences that manifest in musical feeling. I.e., you're missing the most important thing.

 

Trained auditory memory is much longer than 4-5 seconds. Professional musicians can recognize the sound of different brands of instruments, different specific players, concert halls. Some changes in sound can be conceptualized. For example, is the reverberation audible all the way to the next trumpet call? It's a yes or no question.Speaking for me, I can remember "yes or  no" for longer than 4-5 seconds.

 

Beethoven could conjure up accurate representations of instrumental ensembles in his imagination, as can many composers.

 

I frequently find my mind playing, in my imagination, an audio track I listened to several hours earlier. It plays with enough detail that I can hear the same details I was using to evaluate that track. Not too hard to compare to something.

post #404 of 454

Mike you start by talking of musical feeling, but then go on to describe actual physical (for want of a better word, something that is there, rather than felt is there) differences. I would always go for the physical otherwise could the changes not just be in your head and dependent on mood?

post #405 of 454

Well, we are not exactly speaking about the same type of memory are we.

 

When perceiving, we work with our short term memory - our working memory.

 

So senses get filtered then go to our short term, then only if deemed necessary and have enough elaborate though attached to it, do these stimuli make it to the long term memory.

 

 

So, when I say auditory memory is at best 4-5 seconds, I mean literally, the part of the brain that processes audio can only hold that piece of info for 5 seconds. Now, if you are a trained musician, you have developed this part of your brain much more than the average person, and also you have a lot of long term storage to work in conjunction with said 5 seconds.

 

This is why, more often than not, when you ask someone "What?" you all of a sudden understand what they have said before they repeat it. Your mind echoes audible data for about 4-5 seconds then it disappears.

 

This is not my research, this is an accepted international fact, so please do not disagree with me personally.

 

So, when testing for immediate/apparent changes in cabling, you would have to do a quick change, otherwise you are putting the human at a biological disadvantage. A long term test would render it nearly impossible for a human to differentiate a minuscule, and unproven change. Unless you say, had the listener use a cable for a very long period of time (say 6 months in their own system), then swapped the cable without their knowing. Then they should be able to go, "hey, something is up, all of a sudden the bass is less focused and I notice less micro detail and air". The only other way would to do short, intelligently organize audio clips.

 

 

Again, you refer to being able to hear the emotion of a song, yet you speak of a psychological state that enhances your listening enjoyment.

 

The actual music does not change, it is the same, all the time. How you perceive the song in terms of its emotional magnitude is the only thing will differ. The actually sound and song being played is the same.

 

So, say your mother dies (sorry for the upsetting analogy) and "I will remember you" comes on the radio and burst into tears, is it the result of the cabling in your car being vastly superior to your audiophile set up at home? Or is it the result of an emotional/psychological state greatly influencing how you perceive said song?


Edited by sokolov91 - 9/2/10 at 12:24pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What is the rationale behind the prohibition of DBT discussion?