[FFBookman]

   
 
Can you cite your source for the highlighted quote?  I see know reason for the differentiation.

Not currently, no, I have no links for you.  Keep searching and you will find.  Focus on the differences between the visual cortex and the auditory cortex. There are plenty of differences. You might find that the earbrain is far more sensitive to resolution and degradation and has a wider dynamic range than anything visual.
 
But believe me I didn't make this up. I read and watch lots of lectures on this topic, mostly anything involving the human senses, sound in particular. 
 
Here's one of my favorite quotes on this topic:

 The human ear has an extraordinarily large sensitivity range of a trillion to one, allowing us to hear a rocket launch or the footfalls of a cat on a carpet.  According to Werner Gitt, the ear is our highest-precision sense organ, capable of responding over twelve orders of magnitude without switching (The Wonder of Man, p.21).  Some of this sensitivity is amplified by the eardrum and middle ear ossicles, but the paper reported above shows even more fine-tuning inside the cochlea.  Gitt’s book is highly recommended for generating a profound feeling of awe over the design of our senses.  Proverbs said, “The seeing eye, and the hearing ear, the Lord has made them both” (Prov. 20:12)

 

[bfreedma]

  
 
Can you cite your source for the highlighted quote?  I see know reason for the differentiation.

Not currently, no, I have no links for you.  Keep searching and you will find.  Focus on the differences between the visual cortex and the auditory cortex. There are plenty of differences. You might find that the earbrain is far more sensitive to resolution and degradation and has a wider dynamic range than anything visual.
 
But believe me I didn't make this up. I read and watch lots of lectures on this topic, mostly anything involving the human senses, sound in particular. 
 
Here's one of my favorite quotes on this topic:

 The human ear has an extraordinarily large sensitivity range of a trillion to one, allowing us to hear a rocket launch or the footfalls of a cat on a carpet.  According to Werner Gitt, the ear is our highest-precision sense organ, capable of responding over twelve orders of magnitude without switching (The Wonder of Man, p.21).  Some of this sensitivity is amplified by the eardrum and middle ear ossicles, but the paper reported above shows even more fine-tuning inside the cochlea.  Gitt’s book is highly recommended for generating a profound feeling of awe over the design of our senses.  Proverbs said, “The seeing eye, and the hearing ear, the Lord has made them both” (Prov. 20:12)

You made the claim and then direct me to support it for you? I've long suspected you are making this up as you go - this exchange adds to that presumption.

 

[FFBookman]

You made the claim and then direct me to support it for you? I've long suspected you are making this up as you go - this exchange adds to that presumption.

I'm learning as I go. I'm a scientist and a thinker. Some of you decided long ago you already understood everything.
 
Did you know most of the important studies about the human body's nuanced reaction to vibration and sound have been done in the last 10 years?  No possible way telephone engineers from the 1940's could have determined how best to enjoy digitally recorded music.
 
Established science is just starting to understand the capabilities of our senses. Just scratching the surface in the last 10 years. We are currently writing the book, or rewriting it based on finding so many false truths in past literature.
 
Take the nose for example. A recent study has pegged the figure at 1 trillion which is almost a hundred million times over the general consensus on the ability of detecting odors by humans.  Hey what's this -- a link!   
 
If the nose is indeed a hundred million times more accurate than they used to believe, who do you believe now?   Were our ancestors that scientifically stupid, or are our detection and measuring systems improving?  Perhaps our testing method changed.
 
Edit- also note that studying our senses falls right between science and medicine, and neither of these disciplines care 1 decibel about consumer music tastes. 

 

[bfreedma]

You made the claim and then direct me to support it for you? I've long suspected you are making this up as you go - this exchange adds to that presumption.

I'm learning as I go. I'm a scientist and a thinker. Some of you decided long ago you already understood everything.
 
Did you know most of the important studies about the human body's nuanced reaction to vibration and sound have been done in the last 10 years?  No possible way telephone engineers from the 1940's could have determined how best to enjoy digitally recorded music.
 
Established science is just starting to understand the capabilities of our senses. Just scratching the surface in the last 10 years. We are currently writing the book, or rewriting it based on finding so many false truths in past literature.
 
Take the nose for example. A recent study has pegged the figure at 1 trillion which is almost a hundred million times over the general consensus on the ability of detecting odors by humans.  Hey what's this -- a link!   
 
If the nose is indeed a hundred million times more accurate than they used to believe, who do you believe now?   Were our ancestors that scientifically stupid, or are our detection and measuring systems improving?  Perhaps our testing method changed.
 
Edit- also note that studying our senses falls right between science and medicine, and neither of these disciplines care 1 decibel about consumer music tastes. 

Comically, that link also states a relatively low auditory capability.

You state that many of us "decided long ago" what the capabilities of the auditory system is. When you have actual vetted studies to contradict current knowledge, I'd be happy to consider them. Your ramblings, obfuscations, and unproven theories don't get anywhere near that.

When you win your Nobel, feel free to come back and gloat. Until then, your empty claims and willful abandonment of known human auditory capabilities aren't nearing the threshold required to change my opinion on the topic.

 

[icebear]

 
I'm learning as I go. I'm a scientist and a thinker. Some of you decided long ago you already understood everything.
 
....  
Take the nose for example. A recent study has pegged the figure at 1 trillion which is almost a hundred million times over the general consensus on the ability of detecting odors by humans.  Hey what's this -- a link!   
 
If the nose is indeed a hundred million times more accurate than they used to believe, who do you believe now?   ...

quote from link : [Participants were told to identify the odd one out. Each subject was made to go through hundreds of these tests and the assumption was made that subjects’ performances would be similar in recognizing all possible smells able to be made in the lab. The researchers inferred that an average human nose can distinguish over 1 trillion odors. ]
 
As scientist you should better be able to judge the quality of the information you read.
Even in so called peer reviewed publications there are numerous errors and stuff needs to be retracted but this mis-information is clearly lacking credibility.
 
If the eye is able to differentiate a limited amount of colors that does not mean that we can only perceive a limited of visual impressions. There is no number you can put to the objects we are able to see.
 
If the ears are only able to differentiate a certain number of tones, that does not limit the amount of acoustic impressions we can perceive. There again is no number you can put to music and noises that we can hear and perceive as different.
 
Making up some incredible numbers to get "web attention" for smell in the way described in this whatever, I wouldn't even call it study.
Using classic triangle testing - or ABX, to determine people can differentiate exactly what ?
Quote: [to detect different odors]. LOL that isn't exactly what I would call scientifically precise.
How different?
Different intensity, different chemical materials, single materials, essential oils, flavor or fragrance compositions? What?
 
Making up a number of theoretical possible combinations of existing smelling chemicals and claiming quote :
[and the assumption was made that subjects’ performances would be similar in recognizing all possible smells able to be made in the lab.]
 
Serious science, huh ? Very entertaining though

ROFL

 

 

[arnyk]

I'm learning as I go. I'm a scientist and a thinker. Some of you decided long ago you already understood everything.
 
Did you know most of the important studies about the human body's nuanced reaction to vibration and sound have been done in the last 10 years?  No possible way telephone engineers from the 1940's could have determined how best to enjoy digitally recorded music.
 
Established science is just starting to understand the capabilities of our senses. Just scratching the surface in the last 10 years. We are currently writing the book, or rewriting it based on finding so many false truths in past literature.
 
Take the nose for example. A recent study has pegged the figure at 1 trillion which is almost a hundred million times over the general consensus on the ability of detecting odors by humans.  Hey what's this -- a link!  

 
The link provided fails to link the actual scientific paper involved which is:
 
http://vosshall.rockefeller.edu/assets/file/BushdidScience2014.pdf
 
The explanation for the historic error in the estimate number of different odors that a human can perceive is given in the paper:
 
"The lay and scientific literature typically claims that humans can discriminate 10,000 odors, but this number has never been empirically validated. We determined the resolution of the human sense of smell by testing the capacity of humans to discriminate odor mixtures with varying numbers of shared components. On the basis of the results of psychophysical testing, we calculated that humans can discriminate at least 1 trillion olfactory stimuli."
 
The paper is linked in its entirety, and is short and a fairly easy read. The situation is further clarified there.
 
The point is that there have been empirical studies related to hearing going back to no later than Helmholtz (ca. 1850) so there is no logical comparison between the literature of the sensation of sound and the literature of the sensation of odors, once the actual scientific details are known.
 
The growth in number of papers about the perception of sound that have been published in the past 10 years is easily explainable by the general growth in scientific knowledge that has been going on for decades.
 
Furthermore much of the growth in knowledge about the perception of sound has related to the study of masking, which explains why certain sounds have not been heard. Therefore presuming that the growth  in understanding in this area has necessary resulted in scientific proof that we hear more than once thought, is false.
,

 

[Ruben123]

Maybe my explanation was funny to you but it's very obvious to me, not funny at all.

If an image is on a screen I can quickly search for lines, shading, and anti-aliasing to determine the granularity of the image. I can take an educated guess based on known resolutions before the switch is even made.

Then if you switch the resolutions I can stare at the exact same spot or find a similar visual pattern and look at jaggies again. If there is about the same as before, resolution stayed the same. More jaggies, less resolution. Very simple, we all do this everyday.

Visually we can keep a ghost/memory of the detail and compare it intimately with a new image. Sound cannot be stored and recalled in the same way, and it cannot be ghosted/or freeze-framed in our mind.

Sorry I don't have the psychosomatic wherewithal to explain further. Laugh your way to further reading.

Lol so you're saying you can't compare two pieces of music because your ears are not designed to do that. But hey you CAN compare when you know what you're listening to. Thanks for all fun.

 

[FFBookman]

@arnyk  10 + 10 = 20

 

[FFBookman]

Lol so you're saying you can't compare two pieces of music because your ears are not designed to do that. But hey you CAN compare when you know what you're listening to. Thanks for all fun.

You can't compare two pieces of mixed music reliably by quick switching between them, correct.
 
You have to listen for well over 30 seconds, closer to 1:00-3:00 to focus on the sound in the room, both your room and the "room" in the mix. You have to listen to how those two interact.
 
You also have to listen to content that is expressing dynamics and particular timbre or detail that you know intimately.
 
You can't do this playing someone else's music selection or switching back and forth quickly.

 

[FFBookman]

btw - glad the rest of this board isn't full of the snarky butt holeishness of this board.  i waded in b/c i thought the overall tone was immature and dismissive so i'm now part of it.  the fact that a majority of you are so wrong while sounding so right, i just couldn't let go of my past internet battle senses.
 
this sound science board is really a gem.  thx for the memories. i don't know that i've ever been dismissed and called stupid or crazy as much as here, you all hold a special place in my heart.  
 
and with that, i'm going to levitate and send ESP to my wife with lunch suggestions.

 

[Ruben123]

You can't compare two pieces of mixed music reliably by quick switching between them, correct.

You have to listen for well over 30 seconds, closer to 1:00-3:00 to focus on the sound in the room, both your room and the "room" in the mix. You have to listen to how those two interact.

You also have to listen to content that is expressing dynamics and particular timbre or detail that you know intimately.

You can't do this playing someone else's music selection or switching back and forth quickly.

You can abx it that way, you can choose the track length you want if you take the test yourself

 

[arnyk]

 
You can't compare two pieces of mixed music reliably by quick switching between them, correct.
 
You have to listen for well over 30 seconds, closer to 1:00-3:00 to focus on the sound in the room, both your room and the "room" in the mix. You have to listen to how those two interact.
 
You also have to listen to content that is expressing dynamics and particular timbre or detail that you know intimately.
 
You can't do this playing someone else's music selection or switching back and forth quickly.

 
 
For someone who calls themselves "a learner" I see a great deal of presumption of superior personal authority.
 
You wrote this, right?
 

I'm learning as I go. I'm a scientist and a thinker. Some of you decided long ago you already understood everything.

 

 
By what authority do you say: "You can't compare two pieces of mixed music reliably by quick switching between them, correct."

 

[FFBookman]

   
 
For someone who calls themselves "a learner" I see a great deal of presumption of superior personal authority.
 
You wrote this, right?
 
 
By what authority do you say: "You can't compare two pieces of mixed music reliably by quick switching between them, correct."

By the authority of where our brain processes sound verses where our brain processes the recollection of sound. They aren't even in the same regions of the brain. 
 
Most are unable to shift the perspective suitably and fairly compare sound quality against memory of sound quality when using a fully mixed signal.   Too much complexity in the signal.
 
Test tones? Yes. Single instruments or samples? Yes. We can store enough short-term memory of these simple sounds to make a logical decision as to which is better.
 
A fully mixed signal as complex as a piece of professionally recorded music? There is too much data to quickly store it in memory, intake another mix or version of the same mix of the same music, and compare the two accurately.  We just don't have the brains to do that kind of recording and accurate playback of sound from memory, and we can't compare sounds in parallel because of their effect on each other. 
 
This is the opposite from checking video resolution or image resolution. Watching pixelation and detail of movement is easy to A/B/X test and see the resolution increase and decrease.
 
 
Some of us can do these mix-recollection gymnastics after much training but it's not a natural way to listen to music. I do it in a similar method to visual testing -- look for the pixels and basically count how many there are in a small area -- more pixels means lower resolution. I listen for the high-hats, crash cymbals, and layers of guitar distortion trying to find the 'tells' to focus on during the test.  
 
If I can't hear any loss (pixels) I go about figuring out if it's 16/44 or higher, which gets as much qualitative as quantitative for me. How much signal is there, how much are the speakers moving, how active is the air, how big is the soundstage. Then I basically pick which one sounds deeper and wider to me. But at that point, you are tricking yourself, you are forgetting what you heard, you are completely out of line with normal listening.
 
Which is why you can't find more than 50% of people that can pass any tests constructed with the problems I outline above, such as ABX.  It's the test, it's not our ears, it's not 16/44, and it's not snake oil. It's the test itself that is full of fatal flaws.
 
I continue to lay these out with as much descriptiveness as I can spare.

 

[sonitus mirus]

You can always ABX 30 minutes of your most intimately familiar music over a week or longer if you want.  ABX is not only about fast switching of very short sound samples.  Science shows that this is the most reliable way to identify differences, but nobody is preventing you from testing 2 enormous files and listening to each of them for days at a time before deciding which file is 24/96 and 16/48.

 

[arnyk]

 
By the authority of where our brain processes sound verses where our brain processes the recollection of sound. They aren't even in the same regions of the brain. 
 

That would appear to be the authority of your personal beliefs and nothing else. OK, you have some bizarre personal theories. You also don't seem to know how to spell the word versus. Why should I suspend disbelief to become one of your disciples?