[Romanee]

BTW - I may well have missed this, but was it documented the blind subjects in the Dan Kish video were actually blind?

 

[Televator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif So this is really, completely off topic with respect to this thread.

hm, I'm really sorry... but the OP was a title "true golden ears" and two URL's without further info...
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif http://www.metacafe.com/watch/779704...o_of_the_year/ If the first URL doesn't work, try this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpBm4KoWsrY

so how can a post like the one you quoted above, which clearly addresses one specific issue in the "golden ears" debate, be off-topic then? I think the posts by Wayne are very informational and I hope this thread continues in that way (intelligent posts by different ppl who are not afraid to learn from each other... you know, the open mind thing)

but I'd also like to show why for some ppl the post by Wayne you quoted is not only on-topic but very relevant as well:
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... but there has never, to my knowledge, been any assertion that humans were good at any *absolute* form of judgment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do hear, without a doubt, repeatably, differences between one cable and another in the right circumstances. Those who say I cannot, are only limited by their own small minds.

this comes close to an absolute judgment...and pretty confrontationally worded, borderline insulting as well

I think I do understand what you try to say why Wayne's post is off-topic: it discusses the brain as a reliable measuring instrument, while this thread isn't about what is really there and how to measure it, but about the need to train your ears so you can finally perceive what is undoubtfully there (be it a trashcan or the difference in cables).

But as my first post in this thread tried to explain, the whole golden ear-related debates cable/amp/lossy><lossless/boutique parts/... aren't (well, shouldn't be) about what differences there are/aren't but whether we can perceive such differences and if so which one is preferable. Seen in that light I do think the post about the insecurity of our perception and on a broader scale, the whole shades of grey 'side-track' are relevant and informational as they simply show us how easily influenced that one important aspect: "our perception" is...

Indeed no one has stated that the human perception is the perfect measuring device for anything. But you personally have even claimed to be 100% sure of your perception of differences between cables... just like Wayne, I and I guess many others were 100% sure of the fact that the two grey squares were different shades of grey and unless someone had told us to doubt this, we probably still would be convinced of that.

I.e. we were easily fooled by our perception, but by keeping an open mind and further investigating (cutting out the squares and putting them side-by-side) we discovered that it was only a suggestion and this wasn't 'real'. Unfortunately (as I described in my first post) we can not do this for sound... so claims made by believers and non-believers will be very, very hard to prove. The closest we can get is by using scientific measurements and/or blind tests...but we all know how both sides feel about that (one side swears it will prove everything conclusively even things that have been proven that they can not be proven conclusively, while the other side is afraid their self-esteem might suffer I guess), so let's not derail this discussion too far in that direction.

Be aware that so far I have not taken any side in the whole cable-discussion (and I don't intend to for reasons explained in my first post as well), and I have not even doubted that you, Kwkarth, believe you hear differences... I am only trying to show you that both stances are just that: beliefs. One side believes there are differences because they believe they can perceive them, while the other side believes there are no differences and come up with numerous challenges to defy the belief of the first group.

The video indeed only teaches us that the human hearing can be trained somewhat to be able to perceive things we didn't think possible... but this does in no way "strengthen the case" of the cable-believers. The boy in the video "lives" in a constant blind test: he is challenged by the unknown every step he takes (and intentionally as well by the reporter) so we are very much inclined to believe his claims (that he can see with his ears) to be true. You apparently deducted from the video that the ears can be trained, you and other cable believers (think you) hear something that non-believers don't so the conclusion is that you have better trained ears (and a more open mind) than non-believers?

Bold claims...or better: a nice belief. But if you want to be vocal about it (and insult others of worse hearing or less training or a closed mind or whatever) and make others believe you, I would just say: do as the boy and keep proving yourself by passing (or at least accepting) challenges for tests (even if they do have their limits). If you don't want to do that, fine by me ... just realize that you have nothing more than a belief and everyone is free not to believe it.

The non-believers in turn should really learn to quit insulting/whining and nagging... sure their belief differs, but they can prove it no more than the believers. Actually it is even worse: while a limited test might pretty easily convince us there is a difference (see ABX-testing and low><high MP3s) it is very hard to prove there isn't a difference because this leads to the ubiquitous answer that "there was no difference noted because the testing method was wrong" ... so unless actually provoked by blind-faith believers I would really advise all non-believers to shut up and learn to live together

Not to say that civil discussions (like this one) can't be very interesting and perhaps even practically useful in thinking about ignored aspects or even designing new tests etc. or simply for ppl with a truly open mind to try and form an informed stance on the subject rather than blindly following one side or the other.

wow, sorry for the long post again...

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Televator /img/forum/go_quote.gif this comes close to an absolute judgment...and pretty confrontationally worded, borderline insulting as well

Absolute? No, relative. Insulting? To whom? Why?

 

[Televator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Absolute? No, relative. Insulting? To whom? Why?

ok, I interpreted absolute as 'definite', not as opposed to relative... as in: "you are absolutely certain you can hear differences." Then again, as I explained in my first post you cannot compare sound like you can with images (perceive both at the same time next to each other) so there could even be a case made that you are always doing 'absolute' perceptions only compared to (possibly faulty) memories of the previous perception...

But you honestly do not get why calling everyone that questions your ability to hear cable differences 'small minds' could be perceived as (borderline) insulting? [irony]Wow, perhaps anyone who doesn't get that is severely limited by his thick skull.[/irony] <- this was purely an example and I do not want to insult you in any way...but I was just trying to show you that a similar wording comes over as pretty insulting in my book (especially online where it is known that irony and other human cues are not very well translated)

In general, I translated what you said as: "any non-believer and/or anyone who has ever challenged you to do a blind-test has too small a brain to be able to grasp the differences and/or even the fact that you can hear those differences."

 

[mercbuggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's amazing what the brain is capable of doing. My guess is that the areas in his brain that was responsible for vision have adapted to processing sound instead. Extraordinary. If perfect sound reproduction were to be possible and he can really visualise audio cues, it would be possible for him to don a pair of headphones (or listen to speakers) and actually experience a live musical event without actually being there! Normal people might also be able to do the same, but maybe not as effectively.

I thought about this alot in the last day or so and while there may be apparent elements of this in Ben's behaviour I am pretty sure he only gives the impression of cross-modal abilities, i.e he is not Daredevil in the superhero sense. Cross-modal abilities have only been confirmed in Bottlenosed Dolphins and Sea Lions (as far as I know) and understanding this capability could lead to some pretty cool tech, including the possibility of communicating with Dolphins.

Do we all not get a sense of space and acoustics when we listen to a live recording?

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Televator /img/forum/go_quote.gif ok, I interpreted absolute as 'definite', not as opposed to relative... as in: "you are absolutely certain you can hear differences." Then again, as I explained in my first post you cannot compare sound like you can with images (perceive both at the same time next to each other) so there could even be a case made that you are always doing 'absolute' perceptions only compared to (possibly faulty) memories of the previous perception... But you honestly do not get why calling everyone that questions your ability to hear cable differences 'small minds' could be perceived as (borderline) insulting? [irony]Wow, perhaps anyone who doesn't get that is severely limited by his thick skull.[/irony] <- this was purely an example and I do not want to insult you in any way...but I was just trying to show you that a similar wording comes over as pretty insulting in my book (especially online where it is known that irony and other human cues are not very well translated) In general, I translated what you said as: "any non-believer and/or anyone who has ever challenged you to do a blind-test has too small a brain to be able to grasp the differences and/or even the fact that you can hear those differences."

I apologize to you and anyone else that misinterpreted the meaning and intent of my statements. My failure to communicate clearly and completely is sometimes very bad.

My comment about small mindedness was not relative to my abilities or lack thereof, but rather was meant to relate to people accepting the general concept that humans can "hear" things that are generally thought to be impossible. The fact is that many of these abilities people have are quite human and sometimes, not yet well understood. That's why I posted the link to Ben in the first place. It pointed up to me the fact that our mind/ear systems are truly remarkable and that many things can be trained. One does not have to be "born" with some remarkable superhuman ability. We are already born with the capacity we need. We only need an open mind to believe and then we need to apply ourselves to the appropriate training.

It is small minded to think humans are incapable of these feats.

Yes, auditory memory is less than perfect and absolute, but that has already been established and agreed upon. In spite of our limitations, we as humans are capable of doing wondrous things, if we will only give ourselves to those endeavors, and not limit ourselves by approach with a closed mind.

I have never turned away a challenge from anyone. I'm totally open to that and always have been. I am not sure how you got the impression I was otherwise minded. It has never been about me. It is about US as the human race, and fellow head-fiers, and the further enjoyment of our hobby.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercbuggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do we all not get a sense of space and acoustic when we listen to a live recording?

indeed! That is one of the great thrills of this hobby.

 

[mercbuggy]

Surely if a 'reposted' thread continues to be fruitful in terms of considered contribution then I see no issue. This is an extremely fast moving forum and I for one would never have picked this subject up without the 'repost'. I relish any chance to learn, share and hopefully expand my small mind (although I hope not small minded

).

.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercbuggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Surely if a 'reposted' thread continues to be fruitful in terms of considered contribution then I see no issue. This is an extremely fast moving forum and I for one would never have picked this subject up without the 'repost'. I relish any chance to learn, share and hopefully expand my small mind (although I hope not small minded ). .

Well said! I completely agree.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Televator /img/forum/go_quote.gif so how can a post like the one you quoted above, which clearly addresses one specific issue in the "golden ears" debate, be off-topic then? I think the posts by Wayne are very informational and I hope this thread continues in that way (intelligent posts by different ppl who are not afraid to learn from each other... you know, the open mind thing)

I can see how you might have interpreted kwkarth's post in this manner, and I'm glad that he's had a chance to respond to clear things up. I'm fortunate enough to have met Kevin and can readily assure you that he is a most intelligent, open minded, gentle and thoughtful person. I say this not to heap any great praise on him, but simply to communicate that, knowing him, I was able to immediately read between the lines of his post and thus took no offense whatsoever. I think you hit it on the head when he said "especially online where... human cues are not very well translated."

 

[Televator]

I'm glad I was mistaken ... and I apologize for any confrontational/personal remarks by me.

 

[kwkarth]

No problem. Group hug.