- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Posts
- 2,050
- Likes
- 312
Quote:
Watch this: McGurk Effect
In my top five of favorite perceptual illusions. Has nothing to do whatsoever with the rest of what you said.
Watch this: McGurk Effect
Stuff in people's heads is real.
The only way you can know if it succeeds at being transparent is to listen to it.
How you perceive it is the ONLY way to judge whether what comes out is equal to what went in.
This is a completely bizarre statement. It's an extremely difficult problem to measure the degree of emotion in someone's voice, but trivial to record it and trivial for anyone to experience it.
You're probably going to say something about how audio systems don't make art, etc.-- but they have the job of reproducing it, and they influence it and change it, so in point of fact they do make art. At the high-end level, measurements have not proven to be very useful at predicting how a device will influence and change the art you put through it.
The concept of art and of judgements of beauty and quality are a solely human invention and exist purely in our brains, not in reality and certainly not in sound waves.
You are Joking I hope? The McGurk Effect is proof that what is in your head and what you think you hear is NOT real
In other words, you play a recording of you voice and can tell it's male or female. You ask a computer to plot the frequencies played by that recording and graph them. Judging by the frequencies, you can tell that it's male or female, if you know enough about the measurements to do so.
You are missing the point. You claim that "we can measure everything" as though that were an obvious statement. You probably think that 24 bit/96 KHz equipment can measure more than 16 bit/44.1 KHz equipment. I'm showing why that is false with a fairly easy-to-grasp example, but it only gets more difficult from there when you start listing all the things we can easily perceive which we don't have measurements for.
So in your example, what couldn't we measure?
Anyway, I don't care about this perception / reality nonsense, it sounds like your using an argument markedly similar to the one that the high end cable crowd uses to defend their case when high end cables are proven to make 0 difference in sound quality. The purpose of a good test for a piece of hi fi audio gear is to see how close it comes to the sound the producer originally intended. Nobody ever implied that measurements will tell you how realistic violins sound on a given piece of equipment, just that those measurements will tell you how close the equipment stays to the sound that the engineer wanted you to hear.
Quote:
your using an argument markedly similar to the one that the high end cable crowd uses to defend their case when high end cables are proven to make 0 difference in sound quality.
Nobody ever implied that measurements will tell you how realistic violins sound on a given piece of equipment, just that those measurements will tell you how close the equipment stays to the sound that the engineer wanted you to hear.
Personally, I don't think we have measures for how well equipment reproduces musical feeling-- that real stuff that musicians study and work together to produce. But another point which even you should agree with is that it is ridiculous to say "we can measure everything" as though that were a trivial statement. You didn't provide any algorithm for telling the approximate age of a speaker, you just assumed it can be done. And that's just one of many things we easily perceive. To back up the claim "we can measure everything" you need to provide an algorithm for literally everything that humans can perceive.
No, what I'm saying applies just as much to devices with non-controversial amounts of distortion. How do you tell which of two headphones , A and B, sounds more transparent? The ultimate judge, the reference against which all measurements must be evaluated tentatively, is listening.
The ultimate judge of that is listening. As soon as you say "the sound the engineer wanted you to hear", what you mean is the perception the engineer wanted you to perceive. If you think there is any reality to the idea of "sound he wanted you to hear," any reality to measurements of that divorced from the context of perception, you are really being silly.
"Musical feeling" is in the music itself. It's a combination of the tempo, the notes played, volume, effects like echoes, and everything else that is captured on the recording. All of that is measurable.
If "musicality" is all you can muster, you're not going to make much of an impression here.
Unless you have access to the monitors the engineer used to mix, you cant know how he intended for it to sound, and you need to be able to compensate for all of the tiny differences in head acoustics.
What you are probably saying is that if we have two waveforms, A and B, and we all agree they have different feeling, and then we measure A and B, we will easily discover they are different waveforms. But that is not the same as measuring perceptual qualities of the waveform.
What you will discover if you study musical interpretation is that musical feeling is in the relationships between the durations of notes, the volume of notes, the change of timbre over time, etc. What you have not done is provide an algorithm to evaluate the relevant relationships. Measuring a waveform and listing each sample taken does nothing.
Then I would say you are ignoring reality. I don't know why you don't want to follow your implications all the way through, but you aren't.
Alright, it's obvious to me now you don't actually read arguments against you. I won't waste my time making any more, then. Thanks for ruining a good thread
Alright, it's obvious to me now you don't actually read arguments against you. I won't waste my time making any more, then. Thanks for ruining a good thread