C....D.
> Wind up or no wind up this is my last comment on the matter with Steven.
> We
> have a word for these type of folks here - it starts with T and ends with
> T
> and is four letters.
>
> 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.
>>
>> 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
>> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - 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
>
--
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