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
--
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