[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

We're all crazies on this bus.
 

 
I thought we were all Bozos on this bus.
 

 
se

 

[bigshot]

I was going to say that but Bozos are more fun.

 

[dallan]

Quote:

I can't decide which argument is more amusing.... The tl/dr discussions of thick scientific theory without any mention of audibility, or the zen argument that double blind tests are invalid because all perception is illusion, or the SHOCKING! Shocking lack of interest in abstract concepts!
 

Actually perception is based on your opinion or the viewpoint that you focus on.  In a communications class i took at UCLA years ago there was an example based on the old tv show "all in the family".  It gave the perception of Edith, Archie and Michael(meathead) when a guy pulled out a knife to help them open a package.  Archie saw a huge bowie knife, Edith saw a regular pocket knife and Michael saw a tiny pen knife all of them due to their viewpoint of the person pulling it out-African American.  It showed how skewed perceptions can be.  As far as audio goes it's back to-to each his own.  As far as DBX, i have always found those who suggest it are just grasping for ways to devaluate or dismiss other peoples opinions.  But whatever, just feels like i can go to any thread in this forum over the years and see the same arguments that draw on for months after the original poster has disappeared and lost interest.  

 

[bigshot]

But what about how to make a stereo sound better?

 

[Clarkmc2]

I am all for a separate psychoacoustics forum. Not that I would spend any time there, but it would cut down the chaff here by 90% or so.
 
That would limit Sound Science to frequency response, noise, distortion and time based errors. All demonstrable and all actually about sound. The human element is really a very separate issue, despite the marathon attempts here to bond it to sound reproduction.

 

[dallan]

Good enough, i am all about what i am hearing not about actually measuring it so carry on.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Quote:

Good enough, i am all about what i am hearing not about actually measuring it so carry on.

Me too, but while the psychoacoustic landscape is ever shifting and an amalgam of nearly endless fluid elements, the sound coming out of my stereo is scientifically controllable in a predictable manner stable over useful time frames.
 
As a practical matter there seems to be an almost zero chance here of a discussion of the latter without being overwhelmed by the noise of the former. Human perception has zero effect on the sound that actually emanates from my rig. TOTALLY separate fields of inquiry.

 

[Tilpo]

Me too, but while the psychoacoustic landscape is ever shifting and an amalgam of nearly endless fluid elements, the sound coming out of my stereo is scientifically controllable in a predictable manner stable over useful time frames.

As a practical matter there seems to be an almost zero chance here of a discussion of the latter without being overwhelmed by the noise of the former. Human perception has zero effect on the sound that actually emanates from my rig. TOTALLY separate fields of inquiry.

Not totally separate.

It is a very meaningful question to ask how the measurements correlate to human perception. It offers us the ability to make some judgement of the relevance and importance of measurements, which is very meaningful.

 

[mike1127]

I know I'm a bit crazy, but I'm still waiting to find one crazy sound scientist to directly address my points. My wait continues...

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Not totally separate.
It is a very meaningful question to ask how the measurements correlate to human perception. It offers us the ability to make some judgement of the relevance and importance of measurements, which is very meaningful.

Yes, for example it is meaningful to ask what effect speakers and microphones have on the music that one perceives.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Good grief. Yes, but not in the same conversation. A discussion of WHAT the frequency response of audio gear is and how to correct it to a standard of realism has nothing to do with HOW we might establish that standard. One is electronics and acoustics. One is physiology, sociology, psychology and a whole lot more I suppose.
 
Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to establish scientifically and inquire about what is actually coming out of an amplifier and be subjected to endless discussions of perception? Not mention that almost all "I know I heard a difference" situations where there is a difference in the actual sound can be demonstrated to be due to comb filtering?
 
This "noise" gets old really fast. That is why splitting the Forum would relieve both new forums from this endless off topic babble.
 
 
Quote:

Yes, for example it is meaningful to ask what effect speakers and microphones have on the music that one perceives.

Mike, that sentence says it all. The effects speakers and microphones have on sound are acoustic, electronic and measurable. Perceiving music is about perception (root word) and has no link to equipment. None whatsoever. If you want to design equipment to suit your perception, that is fine. Introduce any distortion you want to. In other words, audio equipment has zero link to perception. Linking those two is the source of all your confusion. Ethan stated your lack of knowledge of how audio works based on your insistence on your apples and oranges linking of the two. Believe me, please, that this is not a position you can develop. There is no link. It does not exist. Your reasoning about this is flawed on a fundamental level.

 

[JadeEast]

 

[Tilpo]

Good grief. Yes, but not in the same conversation. A discussion of WHAT the frequency response of audio gear is and how to correct it to a standard of realism has nothing to do with HOW we might establish that standard. One is electronics and acoustics. One is physiology, sociology, psychology and a whole lot more I suppose.

Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to establish scientifically and inquire about what is actually coming out of an amplifier and be subjected to endless discussions of perception? Not mention that almost all "I know I heard a difference" situations where there is a difference in the actual sound can be demonstrated to be due to comb filtering?

This "noise" gets old really fast. That is why splitting the Forum would relieve both new forums from this endless off topic babble.

 

Fair enough.

In that case we would need an "Electronics and acoustics" forum and an "Auditory perception" forum.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

 
Mike, that sentence says it all. The effects speakers and microphones have on sound are acoustic, electronic and measurable. Perceiving music is about perception (root word) and has no link to equipment. None whatsoever. If you want to design equipment to suit your perception, that is fine. Introduce any distortion you want to. In other words, audio equipment has zero link to perception. Linking those two is the source of all your confusion. Ethan stated your lack of knowledge of how audio works based on your insistence on your apples and oranges linking of the two. Believe me, please, that this is not a position you can develop. There is no link. It does not exist. Your reasoning about this is flawed on a fundamental level.

Your sentence says it all, too. You have a strong paradigm. It's an assumption. You assume or belief -- you essentially choose first -- to use a paradigm which draws a line between perception and equipment behavior. Then what you believe about audio follows from that paradigm.
 
What you don't realize is that you have no way to show that your paradigm is ultimately more true than any other paradigm. You assume it. You like it. It fits your gut feeling.
 
I have a different paradigm. I think yours is a surefire way to lead to bad recordings and playback, and this is demonstrated in numerous recordings made by engineers who follow this paradigm and numerous books giving advice about assembling playback systems.
 
Mike

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Mike, that sentence says it all. The effects speakers and microphones have on sound are acoustic, electronic and measurable. Perceiving music is about perception (root word) and has no link to equipment. None whatsoever. If you want to design equipment to suit your perception, that is fine. Introduce any distortion you want to. In other words, audio equipment has zero link to perception. Linking those two is the source of all your confusion. Ethan stated your lack of knowledge of how audio works based on your insistence on your apples and oranges linking of the two. Believe me, please, that this is not a position you can develop. There is no link. It does not exist. Your reasoning about this is flawed on a fundamental level.

By the way your understanding of what musicians do when they develop their perception is flawed on a fundamental level, and when I pointed this out you silently dropped the topic. Still waiting for an answer...