On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Britre <britre123@gmail.com> wrote:
Yea that last line made me laugh out loud too! If I had a nickle for
everything I misremembered I would have a fair amount of beer money to
really misremember everything.
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Hide quoted text -
On Jan 29, 6:55 pm, realafrica <paul.gam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LOL!
> Someone was planted in here to wind some of us up.
> He can't possibly be really serious!
> It's a joke that's all.
> It took me a while to see how funny it is, but now I do & I'm hooked!
> I keep coming back here to see the latest laugh!
> What a wind up!
> LOL!
>
> On Jan 29, 10:57 pm, "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Because, perhaps unwittingly, you insult my judgement by telling me what
> > > I
> > > hear is not real.
>
> > I'm 'telling you' not to presume it's real. Researchers would 'tell
> > you' the same.
>
> > > And yet I have spent many years proving otherwise.
>
> > I'm 'telling you' that methods of 'proving' are typically more rigorous
> > in research, than at home, and why that is. Researchers would 'tell you'
> > the same.
>
> > > Steven
> > > you need tact and to use some empathy which is clearly not in your set of
> > > scientific tools.
>
> > I was met almost immediately with hostility to posts that were quite
> > 'tactful' -- clearly we are reading different posts? At this point I'm
> > less concerned with tact.
>
> > > What we require is someone to clearly and scientifically
> > > state why some of us hear timbre, tonality, depth, height, richness and
> > > timing when others do not.
>
> > And as I've said, you need to step back first, and acknowledge the many
> > sources of error in the methods 'we' (you) have used to 'prove' that you
> > heard differences in these things in the first place.
>
> > It's also a bit rich for 'you' to be demanding precise *scientific*
> > explanations when you have evinced zero interest in, and even hostility
> > to, how perceptual research is done.
>
> > > Science is about discovery and discovering why
> > > some folks can perceive things on a different paradigm, it's not about
> > > whether these things exist because I know, and not aggressively, that in a
> > > room with you with the correct and not so expensively high end gear, that
> > > I
> > > could demonstrate all of those aforementioned elements and perhaps a lot
> > > more.
> > > If you appreciated this then you would have a different approach,
> > > unfortunately you wish not to learn but to keep quoting perhaps peer
> > > approved papers by people in a similar vein to you.
>
> > It is not a matter of me 'appreciating' your anecdotal reports. You keep
> > asserting as definite 'knowledge' on your part, things that any serious
> > researcher would want more evidence for first. You've lumped a variety
> > of elements into the same grab bag -- "timbre, tonality, depth, height,
> > richness and timing" -- rather than try to dissect what the formal
> > meanings of all those are, we might start more basically with defining
> > what two things are being compared. Is it two loudspeakers, two CD
> > players, two cables, two room EQ algorithms, two audio formats, two
> > masterings?
>
> > > I don't need people to tell me why I cannot hear what I know I hear but
> > > to
> > > find out why some of us hear things in a different way' and then pass on
> > > this to share with others, we need to get back to quality and appreciating
> > > the values of real sounds and not the tinnitus of personal audio devices.
>
> > You're so wedded to the language of what you 'know' that there doesn't
> > seem to be room for research into what you 'know'. The issue is much more
> > basic and , apparently, threatening to you: how do you KNOW what you
> > claim to 'know'?
>
> > > As a footnote I remember well the research into PASC and ATRACS both which
> > > lead to MP3 - the scientists behind this stated that this would give the
> > > same results as a linear recording/playback - who was right? Perhaps
> > > though
> > > you could even quote evidence to state that MP3 is perfect.
>
> > I have shared beers, and many online exchanges, with people who helped
> > developed lossy perceptual coding. I have never seen it written or heard
> > it said by anyone knowledgable that mp3 or other lossy codecs are
> > 'perfect' in the sense of 'ALWAYS indistinguishable from source'.
>
> > And again, here you are going off on a new, disgressive tangent ; are we
> > to spend three or four posts determining exactly what you are claiming
> > about mp3, and whether it is in fact something you 'remember well' instead
> > of misremember?
>
> > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> Does it enrage you to know that when researchers study hearing, they
> > >> don't
> > >> accept 'I know what I heard' as sufficient evidence? Would you accuse
> > >> them of 'borrowing' others ears, and 'knowing better', on that basis?
>
> > >> If not, why do you keep making such false and inflammatory claims about
> > >> what I have written?
>
> > >> > I do not moderate unless the post cites areas such as the hub or
> > >> slanders
> > >> > members personally. Although I personally disagree with Steven
> > >> because
> > >> he
> > >> > has borrowed my ears and knows better than what I hear myself, with my
> > >> own
> > >> > ears; lol. He is free to have an opinion, So if we differ we do,,,
> > >> That's
> > >> > the great thing with democracy.
>
> > >> --
> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > >> Groups
> > >> "SurroundSound" group.
> > >> To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
> > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > >> SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > >> For more options, visit this group at
> > >>http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "SurroundSound" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > > For more options, visit this group at
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
No comments:
Post a Comment