[raddle]

  I think the example that people would throw around is maybe say a bass player being more likely to notice higher bass distortion levels because of paying more attention to lower frequencies or some such. (plausible but maybe needs testing)
 
 
I don't much like rhythm examples for audio reproduction because you've largely got to **** something up real bad to get the rhythm to be perceptibly different. Well, I guess it's more possible on speaker systems.

 
This is another misunderstanding among objectivists, that an audio system can't affect the perception of rhythm.
 
First let's get clear that we are talking about rhythmic QUALITY, not just rhythm. A musician would know what I'm talking about, but in case you don't, imaging someone dancing a waltz. Imagine that they vary the angle of their leg, the height of their foot, the trajectory of their foot from step to step. That's rhythmic quality.
 
In music, rhythmic quality emerges from timing and ARTICULATION (as well as accents, dynamics, staccato/legato, etc.)  
 
Some of you may have seen one of those waterfall plots of a speaker's impulse response... it takes an event (an impulse) and slices it into time steps, analyzing the distribution of spectral energy at each step. You could do that sort of thing with any event, not just an impulse. You could do it with the attack of a clarinet note, or the beat of a drum.
 
If you've seen a waterfall plot, you may be aware that the precise moment that the energy peaks varies across the spectrum. That's because of group delay. That means that the relative timing of events with different spectral energy can be altered.
 
Bottom line: a speaker can change timing and articulation.
 
Actually, this is what I perceive (and it's easy to perceive). However, it's a perfectly valid idea for testing rigorously. I just don't see any interest in it here. Does any scientist actually care?

 

[proton007]

Your argument is founded on deliberately defining 'accuracy' so vaguely and poorly that every single person has a wildly different interpretation of it. Such a definition is useless for any purpose, for applying to something or for communicating an idea.

Yes, your argument is correct for a definition of 'accuracy' which cannot be used.

+1

 

[proton007]

raddle,

Going by your threads, you seem to diverge and dodge the issues without answering them, start new arguments without closing existing ones, and change definitions on the fly.

I feel as if talking to an ADD thread.

Answer the questions directly, as they're asked. Stick to a point.

Otherwise there's no use.

 

[raddle]

  Your argument is founded on deliberately defining 'accuracy' so vaguely and poorly that every single person has a wildly different interpretation of it. Such a definition is useless for any purpose, for applying to something or for communicating an idea.
 
Yes, your argument is correct for a definition of 'accuracy' which cannot be used.

 
You're being very vague yourself. Be specific. What do you think my "definition" is? Why can't it be used?

 

[higbvuyb]

   
This is another misunderstanding among objectivists, that an audio system can't affect the perception of rhythm.
 
First let's get clear that we are talking about rhythmic QUALITY, not just rhythm. A musician would know what I'm talking about, but in case you don't, imaging someone dancing a waltz. Imagine that they vary the angle of their leg, the height of their foot, the trajectory of their foot from step to step. That's rhythmic quality.
 
In music, rhythmic quality emerges from timing and ARTICULATION (as well as accents, dynamics, staccato/legato, etc.)  
 
Some of you may have seen one of those waterfall plots of a speaker's impulse response... it takes an event (an impulse) and slices it into time steps, analyzing the distribution of spectral energy at each step. You could do that sort of thing with any event, not just an impulse. You could do it with the attack of a clarinet note, or the beat of a drum.
 
If you've seen a waterfall plot, you may be aware that the precise moment that the energy peaks varies across the spectrum. That's because of group delay. That means that the relative timing of events with different spectral energy can be altered.
 
Bottom line: a speaker can change timing and articulation.
 
Actually, this is what I perceive (and it's easy to perceive). However, it's a perfectly valid idea for testing rigorously. I just don't see any interest in it here. Does any scientist actually care?

You're confusing speakers with musical instruments and musicians.
 
A piano has a -60 dB decay time measured in seconds.
 
Headphones have -60 dB decay time measured in milliseconds.
 
 
A musician can regularly miss their timing by tens of milliseconds. And you, the listener, won't notice.
 
How do you expect to hear the vastly smaller error of a speaker?

 

[higbvuyb]

   
You're being very vague yourself. Be specific. What do you think my "definition" is? Why can't it be used?

 
Point out the part that is vague and what you need to be explained further?

 

[higbvuyb]

duplicate post

 

[raddle]

  You're confusing speakers with musical instruments and musicians.
 
A piano has a -60 dB decay time measured in seconds.
 
Headphones have -60 dB decay time measured in milliseconds.
 
 
A musician can regularly miss their timing by tens of milliseconds. And you, the listener, won't notice.
 
How do you expect to hear the vastly smaller error of a speaker?

 
First of all, the -60 dB decay of a piano is irrelevant to the fact it has a very distinct and sharply defined attack.
 
That's completely false, to say that a listener wouldn't notice timing that's altered by tens of milliseconds. I was a witness to an experiment back when I was a computer science/EE student... a pianist's timing was measured to be precise to a sub-millisecond level, and that precision affected the PERCEPTION of his RHYTHMIC QUALITY. No, you don't hear a millisecond delay as a literally perceived delay... you hear it as altered RHYTHMIC QUALITY.

 

[raddle]

   
Point out the part that is vague and what you need to be explained further?

I did point that out. I asked you what you think my "definition" is, and why it is useless. You stated my definition is useless without stating what you think it is, or why it's useless. I asked you to explain.

 

[higbvuyb]

 
First of all, the -60 dB decay of a piano is irrelevant to the fact it has a very distinct and sharply defined attack.
 
That's completely false, to say that a listener wouldn't notice timing that's altered by tens of milliseconds. I was a witness to an experiment back when I was a computer science/EE student... a pianist's timing was measured to be precise to a sub-millisecond level, and that precision affected the PERCEPTION of his RHYTHMIC QUALITY. No, you don't hear a millisecond delay as a literally perceived delay... you hear it as altered RHYTHMIC QUALITY.

[citation needed]
 
http://www.musiccog.ohio-state.edu/home/data/_uploaded/pdf/Music%20Perception/MP%2093S%20Note-Onset%20Asynchrony%20in%20J_S_%20Bach's%20Two-Part%20Inventions.pdf
 
Again, you're claiming that these things are significant. Do you have evidence to support your claims, or should I just accept your concession here?
 
 

 
I did point that out. I asked you what you think my "definition" is, and why it is useless. You stated my definition is useless without stating what you think it is, or why it's useless. I asked you to explain.

 
We can hardly say what your definition is, given how incredibly vague you're being (quite deliberately so). All we can determine is that you intend for everyone's definition to be different. A term that means something different to every single person is worthless, as it has no meaning.
 
 

This is another misunderstanding among objectivists, that an audio system can't affect the perception of rhythm.

It would be also good if you could cite evidence suggesting that this is a critical, huge misunderstanding beyond regular ignorance that it must be brought to everyone's attention. Are these again those apocryphal 'Objectivists' who only look at measurements, their pure ears never touched by music?

 

[raddle]

  [citation needed]
 
http://www.musiccog.ohio-state.edu/home/data/_uploaded/pdf/Music%20Perception/MP%2093S%20Note-Onset%20Asynchrony%20in%20J_S_%20Bach's%20Two-Part%20Inventions.pdf
 
Again, you're claiming that these things are significant. Do you have evidence to support your claims, or should I just accept your concession here?
 
 
 

 
I skimmed your reference, and it's not relevant to rhythmic quality. It's about the perception of events as single or double. Nowhere does this paper support your claim that a listener won't notice timing errors in the tens of milliseconds. The question is not whether the event is single or double, but the MUSICAL QUALITY of the event.
 
I'm not asking you to take my claim on faith. All I want is to find a scientist who thinks this is a valid field of study. Instead of being told "music is art. not valid field of study by scientists."
 

 
We can hardly say what your definition is, given how incredibly vague you're being (quite deliberately so). All we can determine is that you intend for everyone's definition to be different. A term that means something different to every single person is worthless, as it has no meaning.

 
How people perceive music and the differences between them is a valid field of study. There's no need for it to be vague. "Subjectivity" does not imply "vagueness."

 

[raddle]

   
 
It would be also good if you could cite evidence suggesting that this is a critical, huge misunderstanding beyond regular ignorance that it must be brought to everyone's attention. Are these again those apocryphal 'Objectivists' who only look at measurements, their pure ears never touched by music?

I don't have a survey, but let me address your reference to "objectivists who only look at measurements etc." I don't think anyone who owns an audio system doesn't enjoy it and listen to music. What I object to is this perspective in which phenomena are divided up.
 
I.e. relegating subjective experience to the umbrella category of "preference"
 
Or claiming that emergent properties of measureable details are in the category of "art," something deemed off-limits to science.
 
Keep in mind there are something like 20 people here objecting to my statements, each with their own spin on it. If you ask each person on this thread "what questions are in the category of scientific investigation?" you'd probably get 20 different answers.

 

[L0SLobos]

.

 

[higbvuyb]

   
I skimmed your reference, and it's not relevant to rhythmic quality. It's about the perception of events as single or double. Nowhere does this paper support your claim that a listener won't notice timing errors in the tens of milliseconds. The question is not whether the event is single or double, but the MUSICAL QUALITY of the event.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/25/110425fa_fact_bilger?currentPage=9
 
The best drummer measured averaged less than ten ms error. The other article indicates that this sort of variation is normal in musicians/music.
 

How people perceive music and the differences between them is a valid field of study. There's no need for it to be vague. "Subjectivity" does not imply "vagueness."

If there's no need for it to be vague, then why are you being so vague?
 
It's been 8 pages and nobody has been able to discern what your actual point is, or why it changes all the time.
 

  I don't have a survey, but let me address your reference to "objectivists who only look at measurements etc." I don't think anyone who owns an audio system doesn't enjoy it and listen to music. What I object to is this perspective in which phenomena are divided up.

You've missed the point. Every time you say "Objectivists say X" or "Lots of people here X", who are these people you are referring to?
 
 

All I want is to find a scientist who thinks this is a valid field of study.

I don't know why you're having difficulty with this. Are you seriously claiming that there is no research into music? Go have a look in a psychology journal. Or one of the several more specialised journals.

 

[L0SLobos]

Why the op decided to reinstigate this pointless debate (in which he keeps trying to prove a meaningless point and show that his opinion is right) after 5 days of radio silence befuddles my mind. Please take your drivel elsewhere. Judging by his recent posts he has been spamming the Sound Science forums

 as if he has nothing better to do. Please get this thread locked already.
 
Quote:

raddle,

Going by your threads, you seem to diverge and dodge the issues without answering them, start new arguments without closing existing ones, and change definitions on the fly.

I feel as if talking to an ADD thread.

Answer the questions directly, as they're asked. Stick to a point.

Otherwise there's no use.

 
Precisely this.