1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Advice (as in blunt truths) for confused (ex?)-"audiophile"

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by oedipus rex, Jul 4, 2009.
First
 
Back
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
13
Next
 
Last
  1. PhilS Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Can we agree that it is possible for others to be "fooled", and that they will not be able to distinguish the times they are being fooled from the times they are not?




    I suppose that can happen on some occasions with respect to some experiences or some people. I don't think it's particularly meaningful, however. There's no doubt that observations can be flawed or unreliable. There's no doubt that DBT's are not perfect either. I don't think that makes either type of evidence completely invalid on the issue of audible differences.

    Would you say it's not reasonable to put people in jail based on eyewitness testimony when we know it can be unreliable? We accept and rely upon imperfect evidence all the time, both in the courtroom and in our daily lives.
     
  2. upstateguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Maybe that should lead you to believe, as some others have suggested on other threads, that sight helps us identify (for some reason) audible differences between components that actually exist. [​IMG]



    Let's agree that the "knowledge" of which component we are auditioning helps us identify audible differences.

    USG
     
  3. Real Man of Genius
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Would you say it's not reasonable to put people in jail based on eyewitness testimony when we know it can be unreliable? We accept and rely upon imperfect evidence all the time, both in the courtroom and in our daily lives.



    Good point. I suppose it is pedantic to ask everyone to prove that they were not hallucinating. Interesting.
     
  4. upstateguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I suppose that can happen on some occasions with respect to some experiences or some people. I don't think it's particularly meaningful, however. There's no doubt that observations can be flawed or unreliable. There's no doubt that DBT's are not perfect either. I don't think that makes either type of evidence completely invalid on the issue of audible differences.

    Would you say it's not reasonable to put people in jail based on eyewitness testimony when we know it can be unreliable? We accept and rely upon imperfect evidence all the time, both in the courtroom and in our daily lives.




    I understand what you're saying but for the sake of our discussions, can we agree that it is possible for others to be "fooled", and that they will not be able to distinguish the times they are being fooled from the times they are not.

    And each time we are in the process of being "fooled" we can't be cergtain how many times it actually occured because when you're "fooled", you don't realize it.
     
  5. PhilS Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I understand what you're saying but for the sake of our discussions, can we agree that it is possible for others to be "fooled", and that they will not be able to distinguish the times they are being fooled from the times they are not?



    Didn't I answer that already? [​IMG]

    As I said, I suppose that can happen on some occasions with respect to some experiences or some people.
     
  6. upstateguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    ...We accept and rely upon imperfect evidence all the time, both in the courtroom and in our daily lives.




    I think we have to be careful about accepting or relying heavily upon imperfect evidence in our discussions here.

    If we choose to accept imperfect evidence, the DBT tests and all the rest of the scientific measurements made here and elsewhere over the past 30 years, (which are currently under extreme scrutiny), would have to be accepted. No?
     
  7. upstateguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Didn't I answer that already? [​IMG]

    As I said, I suppose that can happen on some occasions with respect to some experiences or some people.




    Would you be able to at least agree that when it happens they will not be able to distinguish the times they are being fooled from the times they are not, and for that reason they couldn't be certain how many times it actually occurred?
     
  8. PhilS Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I think we have to be careful about accepting or relying heavily upon imperfect evidence in our discussions here.

    If we choose to accept imperfect evidence, the DBT tests and all the rest of the scientific measurements made here and elsewhere over the past 30 years, (which are currently under extreme scrutiny), would have to be accepted. No?




    I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "accept" or "rely[] heavily upon." I think I would say that we should seriously consider observations, even though they may be flawed, and they should be deemed to be reasonable evidence on the existence of audible differences, and we should seriously consider DBT's and scientific measurements, even though they may be flawed or may fail to reveal certain things, and they should be deemed to be reasonable evidence on the lack of existence of audible differences.

    I've never said DBT's should not be considered at all. While I have some criticisms regarding DBT's, I've never said they are of no value. I disagree with that position. And I disagree with the position that observations have no value, even thought they may have flaws.

    I think I may be repeating myself, but I'm not sure what you want me to concede. I'm not the one with the closed mind on this (and I'm not saying you are closed minded.) I guess I would say that a believer who totally discounts DBT's has a closed mind on the issue, and a sketpic who totally discounts observations does also.
     
  9. PhilS Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Would you be able to at least agree that when it happens they will not be able to distinguish the times they are being fooled from the times they are not, and for that reason they couldn't be certain how many times it actually occurred?



    This is too general to really answer, and I don't think pursuing this line of discussion will get us anywhere.

    Sometimes certain people can be fooled repeatedly by a certain experience, and be totally clueless about when they are being fooled.

    Other people can be fooled once by a certain experience, and never again.

    A general conclusion that is meaningful for present purposes cannot be drawn, IMO, without a lot more specifics.

    If it helps, and to use a little hyperbole, I don't think the fact that some people can be repeatedly fooled by certain phenomena or experiences in and of itself tells us that we must entirely discount observations by 5,000 different individuals that A sounds different from B.
     
  10. upstateguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by upstateguy

    Would you be able to at least agree that when it happens they will not be able to distinguish the times they are being fooled from the times they are not, and for that reason they couldn't be certain how many times it actually occurred?





    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    This is too general to really answer, and I don't think pursuing this line of discussion will get us anywhere.

    Sometimes certain people can be fooled repeatedly by a certain experience, and be totally clueless about when they are being fooled.

    Other people can be fooled once by a certain experience, and never again.

    A general conclusion that is meaningful for present purposes cannot be drawn, IMO, without a lot more specifics.

    If it helps, and to use a little hyperbole, I don't think the fact that some people can be repeatedly fooled by certain phenomena or experiences in and of itself tells us that we must entirely discount observations by 5,000 different individuals that A sounds different from B.




    The first part is not too general to agree to and is really quite specific. It is also central to our discussion about "reasonable evidence" for the subjective view.

    First we need to establish that practically anybody can be "fooled" at one time or another and that while it's going on they don't realize it's happening.

    Once we can establish this we can then say that since they can't tell when it occurs, they also don't know how often it happens.

    Can we agree to this? If not, why?

    This does nothing to hurt the body of subjective evidence and in fact is part of it.

    Now, regarding DTB and all the other scientific tests:

    Even though they have been brought up, they have virtually no bearing on our discussion.

    What we are discussing is "reasonable evidence" for the subjective view.

    So let's continue.

    USG
     
  11. PhilS Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    The first part is not too general to agree to and is really quite specific.



    Oh, I'm sorry. I hear and I shall obey, my master. [​IMG]

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    First we need to establish that practically anybody can be "fooled" at one time or another . . . .



    Agreed. This applies to audio and lots of other things. But it's a pretty trivial conclusion.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    . . . and that while it's going on they don't realize it's happening.



    At the precise moment they are fooled, they presumably do not realize it. The may realize it a split second later, however, in which case they are not fooled for very long. Alternatively, they may realize it some time later (minutes, hours, or days), as they review the experience, evaluate other evidence relating to the experience, etc. This may enable them to avoid being fooled by the same stimuli in the future.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Once we can establish this we can then say that since they can't tell when it occurs, they also don't know how often it happens.



    I don't know what you mean when you say that "they can't tell when it occurs." If someone later finds out that they were fooled by a certain stimulus, I guess I would agree that means they were fooled at the time. But they may realize they were fooled later, and why, and may be able to prepare themselves to avoid it in the future. In addition, while one may be fooled at any given time, a review of past experiences may reveal to a person, with respect to a certain stimuli, that they think they get it right, say, 95% of the time. So, in hindsight, they may know how often it occurs, and they may conclude, depending on the stimulus, that they are not wrong too often.

    In addition, the fact that a person has been fooled in the past, doesn't mean that one can never say with any confidence that they are not being fooled at the precise moment a stimulus is being evaluated. I think the temperature in my office right now is below 75 ' F based on what I am feeling. I have been wrong about the temperature before. Does this mean that I have no confidence now, based on the current information I am processing (which may be entirely different than the information I processed when I was wrong about the temperature before) about whether I am being fooled again? That my prediction has no basis at all? Not at all. That would not be a logical conclusion. Each experience is a separate event.

    I also don't know what you mean when you say "we don't know how often it happens," or at least I'm not sure why this is meaningful. Maybe I need a real-world example. Again, the fact that someone has been fooled on one occasion by a certain stimulus does not establish that he will necessarily be fooled by the same stimulus or a similar type of stimulus again. A lot of variables are at play. That's why some of your propositions are too general -- and you saying they are not doesn't make it so. [​IMG]
     
  12. upstateguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Oh, I'm sorry. I hear and I shall obey, my master. [​IMG]

    Agreed. This applies to audio and lots of other things. But it's a pretty trivial conclusion.

    At the precise moment they are fooled, they presumably do not realize it. The may realize it a split second later, however, in which case they are not fooled for very long. Alternatively, they may realize it some time later (minutes, hours, or days), as they review the experience, evaluate other evidence relating to the experience, etc. This may enable them to avoid being fooled by the same stimuli in the future.

    I don't know what you mean when you say that "they can't tell when it occurs." If someone later finds out that they were fooled by a certain stimulus, I guess I would agree that means they were fooled at the time. But they may realize they were fooled later, and why, and may be able to prepare themselves to avoid it in the future. In addition, while one may be fooled at any given time, a review of past experiences may reveal to a person, with respect to a certain stimuli, that they think they get it right, say, 95% of the time. So, in hindsight, they may know how often it occurs, and they may conclude, depending on the stimulus, that they are not wrong too often.

    In addition, the fact that a person has been fooled in the past, doesn't mean that one can never say with any confidence that they are not being fooled at the precise moment a stimulus is being evaluated. I think the temperature in my office right now is below 75 ' F based on what I am feeling. I have been wrong about the temperature before. Does this mean that I have no confidence now, based on the current information I am processing (which may be entirely different than the information I processed when I was wrong about the temperature before) about whether I am being fooled again? That my prediction has no basis at all? Not at all. That would not be a logical conclusion. Each experience is a separate event.

    I also don't know what you mean when you say "we don't know how often it happens," or at least I'm not sure why this is meaningful. Maybe I need a real-world example. Again, the fact that someone has been fooled on one occasion by a certain stimulus does not establish that he will necessarily be fooled by the same stimulus or a similar type of stimulus again. A lot of variables are at play. That's why some of your propositions are too general -- and you saying they are not doesn't make it so. [​IMG]




    It's hard to believe that you just don't understand, but I'll try again. [​IMG]

    From now on let's try to keep all our examples confined to audio, since this is an audio forum.

    I'll make up a fictitious example of a very common and well documented occurrence.

    A Forum Member is comparing two amplifiers. He connects and reconnects the leads from his DAC to each amp in turn but in the time lag between changing leads he hasn't volume balanced carefully enough and the the slightly louder amp sounds fuller, richer, better. He draws a conclusion and reports that amp A sounds better than amp B. He repeats this many times over many days but his initial impression remains (as mine did, call it "imprinting" if you will). Then to weeks later he goes to a meet and listens to amp C and reports that in his opinion, amp C is better than A or B.

    He has been fooled. He didn't know that he was being fooled at the time. He has no way of realizing that he has been fooled, and he has no idea how many times he has been fooled in a similar manner because he was completely unaware that it happened.

    I know that this is not the greatest example, but it will have to do on short notice.... oh well....<shrug>

    If we don't have a way of separating the wheat from the chaff, we will not be able to find valid forms of "reasonable evidence" for the subjective view.

    USG
     
  13. PhilS Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    A Forum Member is comparing two amplifiers. He connects and reconnects the leads from his DAC to each amp in turn but in the time lag between changing leads he hasn't volume balanced carefully enough and the the slightly louder amp sounds fuller, richer, better. He draws a conclusion and reports that amp A sounds better than amp B. He repeats this many times over many days but his initial impression remains (as mine did, call it "imprinting" if you will). Then to weeks later he goes to a meet and listens to amp C and reports that in his opinion, amp C is better than A or B.

    He has been fooled. He didn't know that he was being fooled at the time. He has no way of realizing that he has been fooled, and he has no idea how many times he has been fooled in a similar manner because he was completely unaware that it happened.




    In your example, in what way has he been fooled, and how do we know he has been fooled?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    If we don't have a way of separating the wheat from the chaff, we will not be able to find valid forms of "reasonable evidence" for the subjective view.




    I'm not sure what the "wheat" and the "chaff"is, but I don't agree that this is a reasonable conclusion at all. In any event, I suspect what you're saying applies to the same extent for the objective view (assuming arguendo it has any validity).
     
  14. CodeToad
    I believe that the sense of hearing, all senses in fact, is based on chemical processes that are constantly in flux. The brain is like the center of one of those plasma globes and you just can't predict where the little fingers of lightning will pop up next.

    If you take a mind altering substance your hearing will change. Do the mechanics of your ear work differently? No. Everything behind it does. It all boils down to chemistry and the flow of charges.

    I wonder what the frequency and amplitude of hearing changes are on a minute to minute, day to day basis are? Would be good to measure.
     
  15. Barry
    To me, this all begs the question of what is real. Is what is produced from the sound source the reality or is my hearing, including any associated perceptions real? Or are they both real? I think that they are, but what makes me the happiest are the things that I hear, including any perceptions - whatever they are. I would much rather focus on the things in real time during a life event (as opposed to an experiment) that I hear than on the things that I measure. But that is just me.

    This may be another version of "when a tree falls in the woods, and there is nobody or no machine to hear, does the tree make a sound?"
     
First
 
Back
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
13
Next
 
Last

Share This Page