> 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 <ssully@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
>
--
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