Agreed, thank you. But how does anyone know for a fact that this is what is happening in the numerous reports that difference is heard. How does anyone know that it must be only in the minds of the listener.
I notice that you deliberately avoided answering the three questions! Did you actually watch the video or did you avoid that too, in case it questions your unquestionable belief? Are you asking how anyone knows for a fact that there was no "Fa" despite the "numerous reports"? If so, there's three ways: 1. We can measure the input and playback, no difference, 2. Those who created the video only used "Ba", there is no "Fa", so no audio difference, 3. When you closed or moved your eyes, IE. Removed your brain's visual bias from your perception, the "Fa" disappeared, no difference.
All we really need is one of those three ways, #1 ... and this is true of any audio recording, not just of this particular video. If there is no measured difference then there is no difference and there is ONLY ONE place where a difference can exist, your perception/brain!
Quote:
Like gregorio you gotta get personal, which usually means you have shaken faith in your argument.
It either means a shaken faith in an argument or it means utter frustration at someone unable or unwilling to admit the simple, obvious, proven truth!
Quote:
[1] Not everything in audio is understood or quantified. It is an impossibility. ... Not everything that is observed can be explained. It does not have to lie as a fault on the observer.
[2] My analogy was on point but you are so busy supporting your faith that you choose not to see it.
1. There is no way of explaining this without being personal because you are demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of science and of what audio recording/reproduction is. Here are some fundamental basics which no sane, rational or moderately educated person can dispute: Audio recording/reproduction is not something which is "observed" in nature and then science came along and tried to explain it. It is a technology, a scientific creation/invention, NOT the scientific discovery of a hypothesis/theory. 140 years ago Edison invented a way to measure/convert the frequency and amplitude of acoustic sound waves into another form of data (mechanical data), to store that data and convert it back to acoustic sound waves. We call this invention audio recording/reproduction. In the ensuing 140 years, audio recording/reproduction has not fundamentally changed at all! It is still the measuring/converting of the frequency and amplitude of acoustic sound waves. The only difference between now and 140 years ago is that we have developed far more accurate and reliable ways of measuring, converting and storing that frequency and amplitude data. Your statement is therefore irrelevant nonsense because even if you are correct and there is something else to audio (besides this already perfectly understood/quantifiable amplitude and frequency data), it doesn't matter because the only thing we can actually record and reproduce is that amplitude and frequency data!
2. Faith is irrelevant. We are not talking about a belief in one theory of how the universe works vs a different theory. If we had created/invented the universe, there would be no need of a scientific theory to explain how it works because we would obviously already know how it works because we were the ones who made it work! With audio recording we are talking about an invented technology, not a natural phenomena we're trying to explain. There is no faith, perspective, belief or opinion involved (!), there is either a correct understanding of how that technology works or an incorrect understanding!
Quote:
My speculation as to why there is a perceived difference is just that, supposition. I've got other theories as to why it might occur but, sadly, I just don't think many are open to the exploration of anything not already proven.
You can make any supposition you want regarding perception, although of course you are open to be challenged, especially with no supporting evidence beyond anecdotes. However, you cannot make the statement that there's a difference in the audio itself because that is NOT a valid opinion. As explained above, there is no valid "opinion", only an accurate understanding (or ignorance) of how the technology works.
Quote:
I guess we have two different perspectives on science. For me, science is about finding answer for experiences which cannot be explained at some point.
You guess incorrectly and why are you even guessing in the first place, didn't you learn what science is at school? You are demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of what science is, because science is effectively the search for knowledge divorced from "perspectives" and opinion, this is what separates science from myth and superstition! Applied science is the use of that knowledge to invent and make things. Recording technology is applied science, if the science is wrong there couldn't be any recording technology! You may argue, as bilboda is, that science doesn't know everything about audio and therefore that recording technology doesn't contain everything but you obviously can't argue that what current recording technology does contain is not understood/known by science!
Quote:
For you, science seems to be about dismissing everything which doesn´t fit a closed system view point.
Recording technology IS a "closed system". It's a closed system which is defined, designed and invented by science! So anything not defined by science and not part of that closed system is by definition NOT science and NOT part of recording/playback technology. If, whatever else you're referring to, does actually exist, then it exists outside of recording/playback technology, IE. In your brain.
Why is this so hard to understand? We're talking about grade school logic here. Do you really have no idea what science and technology are or are you just so blinkered by your erroneous beliefs that you're willing to dismiss all logic and science?
G