[castleofargh]

We need pattern recognition to learn stuff, be functional, and probably just to think. But our memory is a fluid mess of inaccuracy. So we need something to explain how we can still function with both a flawed memory and the need to identify stuff even when they're somehow different to the original, or to what we remember of the original(which is clearly needed for survival).
In some ironic evolutionary move, our "make do" system turned out to be a great tool. Our heuristic approach is allowing us to identify things rapidly and react just as fast instead of making an exhaustive checklist before validating anything(so of course we're going to mess up more often than we want or think). Whatever alternative options we had, it makes complete sense to me that this one would prosper.

The process hypothesized in the paper allows to get around memory flaws(up to a point) and even to actually one up the heuristic. Identify some cues we consider enough to recognize some event, and actively dismiss the extra stuff related to that specific type of event pattern. Because once we have enough we should probably use the blob CPU for something else instead of working on cues considered confusing or just plain superfluous. Being able to close the door around some already identified stuff is a really effective method for that. Lucky us.
Of course as that system is organized mostly from habit(because that's how we get to find our useful patterns), our experience and expectations end up having even more impact on our way of perceiving the world. and that has always been obvious from a behavioral point of view.

The same talent that lets us see animals in the clouds, allows easy communication, allows to recognize someone with a new haircut, to the point of maybe not noticing the haircut at all . It makes us pass the "I'm not a robot" question online so easily. And the entire thing could just be a consequence of the brain deciding that it won't do anything beyond the bare minimum. I love the idea and implications.

Now in term of better getting to know how we work, I again don't see a big revelation from the paper in term of behavior. Just consider our ability to focus on something, and you have all the elements and implications you need. If we couldn't make abstraction, if we couldn't use patterns as a sort of pre-filter both to identify and to dismiss stuff. How could we decide to only focus on one thing and actually do it? how could we attenuate the perceived reverb in a room after being in it for a while?
I'm listening to music right now, but when I was typing, it was like my brain had turned down the gain. one second before I stopped and the music "came back", I couldn't have told you what track was playing. so ignoring stuff because we want to, yes we can!

The joyful short song that I was sadly missing a part of while typing:

 

[Redcarmoose]

But the key issue with Jung was interpretation of stimulus being filtered through the subconscious. Thus the reason was not only for efficiency, but the information is/was correlated with the “collective subconscious”. Such a device is the DNA passed down information passed down from humans that lived before. Thus not being fully dependent on self judgment, there was/is a kind of ancestral inspired thought process which took 1/2 the energy to study.

Key concepts
The major concepts of analytical psychology as developed by Jung include:[97]

Archetype – a concept "borrowed" from anthropology to denote supposedly universal and recurring mental images or themes. Jung's definitions of archetypes varied over time and have been the subject of debate as to their usefulness.

Archetypal images – universal symbols that can mediate opposites in the psyche, often found in religious art, mythology and fairy tales across cultures

Complex – the repressed organisation of images and experiences that governs perception and behaviour

Extraversion and introversion – personality traits of degrees of openness or reserve contributing to psychological type.[98]

Persona - element of the personality that arises "for reasons of adaptation or personal convenience" - the "masks" one puts on in various situations.[99]

Shadow – the repressed, therefore unknown, aspects of the personality including those often considered to be negative

Ego - the center of the field of consciousness, the part of the psyche where our conscious sense of identity and existence resides.[99]

Collective unconscious – aspects of unconsciousness experienced by all people in different cultures

Anima – the contrasexual aspect of a man's psyche, his inner personal feminine conceived both as a complex and an archetypal image

Animus – the contrasexual aspect of a woman's psyche, her inner personal masculine conceived both as a complex and an archetypal image

Self – the central overarching concept governing the individuation process, as symbolised by mandalas, the union of male and female, totality, unity. Jung viewed it as the psyche's central archetype

Individuation – the process of fulfilment of each individual "which negates neither the conscious or unconscious position but does justice to them both".[100]

Synchronicity – an acausal principle as a basis for the apparently random simultaneous occurrence of phenomena.[101]

 

[bigshot]

wow. heavy dude.

 

[cel4145]

I completely agree that the soundstage will affect the perception of frequency intensity yet not shown on graph form.

This has been a big thing. Also if you look you will note people who have made multiple frequency graphs for IEMs with alternate tips.

The wide tips can in situations can move the entire frequency to the right on a graph. Also we know by subjective experiments that narrow bore tips enhance bass and wide bore tips enhance soundstage and treble.

Due to tips, and tips changes, this in a small way invalidates all IEM frequency response graphs. Typically too the 8K resonance is an artifact of the coupler device.

The other wild thing is attempting to truly understand tone balance. Meaning a forward midrange while not way forward will be more noticed when the upper treble is missing, or even if bass frequencies are reduced. Trying to understand balance seems to be very difficult in reading graphs, to the point of being deceptively so. IMO

Of course the ultimate illusion comes from somehow hearing validation to what the graph describes when in reality the graph may be inaccurate. This has happened in groups. The group sees the graph then hears a validation of the graph, only to learn later the test was off to a criminal degree.

Thus we hear what we assume to hear, and frequency graphs give us even more to assume.

Yet still even stranger is how the mind at times becomes fooled and at other times learns not to be fooled. Also it seems various people seem to always get fooled and others not? There is a very subjective process of hearing these illusions. There may be a whole history which then substantiates and auditory reality. Even the tests about different cultures having alternative hearing tone ability has come out inconsistent and not a conclusive test?

I definitely agree about tonal response. I can certainly rule out certain headphones based on their measured bass frequency response. But it's hard sometimes to predict which variations in tonality I might enjoy.

For instance, I currently have the Philips X3, and I really enjoy them. Their frequency response graph wouldn't have made me think so. And when I first put them on after having used other headphones, they sound blah. I need several songs for my brain to adjust for them. I wonder if this is somehow related to the same mechanism as the predictive coding?

 

[bigshot]

Headphones and IEMs can't produce soundstage. They have "headstage". Soundstage is an aural image spread out *in front of you*. Headphones and IEMs place sound along a straight line through the middle of the head. Headphones can be open or closed, but that isn't soundstage. That is just extending the line through the head further to the left and right. Speakers do that too with dispersion patterns.

 

[castleofargh]

But the key issue with Jung was interpretation of stimulus being filtered through the subconscious. Thus the reason was not only for efficiency, but the information is/was correlated with the “collective subconscious”. Such a device is the DNA passed down information passed down from humans that lived before. Thus not being fully dependent on self judgment, there was/is a kind of ancestral inspired thought process which took 1/2 the energy to study.

Key concepts
The major concepts of analytical psychology as developed by Jung include:[97]

Archetype – a concept "borrowed" from anthropology to denote supposedly universal and recurring mental images or themes. Jung's definitions of archetypes varied over time and have been the subject of debate as to their usefulness.

Archetypal images – universal symbols that can mediate opposites in the psyche, often found in religious art, mythology and fairy tales across cultures

Complex – the repressed organisation of images and experiences that governs perception and behaviour

Extraversion and introversion – personality traits of degrees of openness or reserve contributing to psychological type.[98]

Persona - element of the personality that arises "for reasons of adaptation or personal convenience" - the "masks" one puts on in various situations.[99]

Shadow – the repressed, therefore unknown, aspects of the personality including those often considered to be negative

Ego - the center of the field of consciousness, the part of the psyche where our conscious sense of identity and existence resides.[99]

Collective unconscious – aspects of unconsciousness experienced by all people in different cultures

Anima – the contrasexual aspect of a man's psyche, his inner personal feminine conceived both as a complex and an archetypal image

Animus – the contrasexual aspect of a woman's psyche, her inner personal masculine conceived both as a complex and an archetypal image

Self – the central overarching concept governing the individuation process, as symbolised by mandalas, the union of male and female, totality, unity. Jung viewed it as the psyche's central archetype

Individuation – the process of fulfilment of each individual "which negates neither the conscious or unconscious position but does justice to them both".[100]

Synchronicity – an acausal principle as a basis for the apparently random simultaneous occurrence of phenomena.[101]

You won't be too surprised to learn that I'm not that big on Jung and stuff like Synchronicity. I like statistical significance, and falsifiable stuff. To go find meaning in randomness is IMO, simply our pattern recognition system being a little too eager to find some. I see that as just one more cognitive bias. A very usual one.

 

[redrol]

Headphones and IEMs can't produce soundstage. They have "headstage". Soundstage is an aural image spread out *in front of you*. Headphones and IEMs place sound along a straight line through the middle of the head. Headphones can be open or closed, but that isn't soundstage. That is just extending the line through the head further to the left and right. Speakers do that too with dispersion patterns.

I think maaaybe you are off on this one. The bestest iems I've tried really do have an out of the head experience. To the point that it sounds like speakers in a room or even maybe a 5.1 system. Its so awesome that I've decided I prioritize it over other metrics.

Obviously binaural stuff recorded with a dummy head is optimal here but even then, plenty of recordings have a nice 'soundstage' that can be extracted and enjoyed on iems.

 

[bigshot]

A 5.1 system in a room has several things that IEMs can't reproduce... Discrete front and rear channels with head tracking, deep sub bass down below 15Hz with a kinesthetic "thump", primary distance cues that convey the distance between the listening position and the sound sources, real HRTF and room reflections that add depth and dimension. "Outside the head" isn't the same as soundstage. Soundstage requires actual physical space to reproduce properly. IEMs and headphones can only reproduce secondary depth cues, not primary ones. The envelope around the sound is extremely important. That is what conveys sound positioning in space and added realism, since the envelope created by the room is the same as if you were speaking or playing musical instruments in the room. Recording studios mix and master using speakers in a standard triangular configuration. That adds an intended quality to the sound that IEMs and headphones don't provide.

A lot of people here on Head-Fi don't understand what the term soundstage means. They attribute subjective impressions to it and use it as a descriptive term, with degrees of strength. But soundstage is a calibration, not an impression. There's no "bigger" or "smaller" soundstage, there's just soundstage that works and soundstage that doesn't.

 

[redrol]

For sure in an absolute sense, no you cant get that definition of soundstage out of anything strapped to your head (without computers and such). I was just attempting to say you can get a nice 'approximation' of sound in a room with certain IEMs. Lets just call it that. For subbass down below 15hz.. yeah not much of anything can reproduce that. Still you can get some damn fine subbass/subwoofer type impressions from IEMs. At least down to about 20hz.
Im sure you are excluding binaural recordings from this because they do in fact have the room soundstage encoded in the 2 channel recording.

I am a studio musician and I do mixing, so I know what I do. I encode 3D space queues in the mixes I do. Whatever..

Point is that a lot of IEMs don't have any 'sound stage' to speak of. They sound like sounds produced left to right and generally inside the head. Then there are other ones that do something magic and make it seem like you are not listening to drivers in your ears, rather something out in the room. We can debate the meaning of the word, but I think maybe when people talk about this, that is what they mean and functionally, thats really what matters.

 

[bigshot]

Secondary depth cues are determined by Mike placement and reverb. A good mix includes that and IEMs and headphones can reproduce it. They can’t reproduce primary depth cues- the sound of a sonic stage ten feet or more in front of you. That is a big part of why speakers are used for mixing, and not headphones. They want to hear how the sound works in space.

 

[peskypesky]

I think of some of your posts every time in the KZ or Blon threads someones like, "just try it with a copper cable to bring out the nice timbre of the mids" or "just use the silver cable as it will bring the vocals to the front".....

How do that meany people on this site operate outside of reality or with beliefs completely unfounded by any evidence? Or simply fail to understand how unreliable human senses...especially your ears are.

Drives me crazy.

The exact same thing happens on guitar forums.

There's just a lot of people in this world who don't understand basic science.

 

[peskypesky]

Your first idea is that these are triangles. Then upon closer inspection you realize that you were wrong that it’s sticks. That’s basically what’s happening all the time. The complex part is the function of the top down, bottom up feedback system. Still what’s fascinating is that there is both visual and auditory illusions. The fact that our brains process visual ideas much the same as auditory ideas.

That blew my mind.

 

[peskypesky]

A father and son get in a car crash and are rushed to the hospital. The father dies. The boy is taken to the operating room and the surgeon says, “I can’t operate on this boy, because he’s my son.”

How is this possible?



This is one of my favorite riddles that is related to "predictive coding" in a social context.

 

[peskypesky]

HOW PREDICTIVE CODING IS CHANGING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BRAIN

https://mind-foundation.org/predictive-coding/

 

[Redcarmoose]

That blew my mind.

The father was not the father of the son in the car?

Maurits Cornelis Escher is kind of the legendary artist for that style and I pulled that from the Escher Facebook page. It seems the man was a genius who in his life was very much a first and revealing a number of illusions which have been carried on. Dali is my favorite artist and while he is known as the most profitable artist (for himself) of the 20th century, I can’t help but also see him as a marketing genius. The part of marketing in art is the last place most art enthusiasts want to dwell, yet it is maybe a place where truth sits? But Dali was more I think about dealing with dreams and how in dreams we experience the metamorphosis of objects into new objects unexpectedly. So Dali deals with how we recognize then have re-inspection after cognitions, resulting in a very simple old fashioned form of entertainment.

To me it’s charming that these old fashioned simple mind tricks can still entertain next to what computers are able to do.