RonM;611969 Wrote:
A related phenomenon from another realm might be helpful. Consider the
placebo effect.
It is well-established that a real placebo effect exists. If people
believe that a treatment (drug, something else) has been administered,
they will on average report symptom
Contrary to what people may think, placebo doesn't lose its effect once
you realize it's placebo. I take my placebo pills with a smile. They do
make me feel better, and that's what counts. Although homeopathy is way
too expensive for me. The sugar pills from my doctor cost me a tenth of
the
Soulkeeper;612076 Wrote:
Contrary to what people may think, placebo doesn't lose its effect once
you realize it's placebo.
Maybe the placebo continues to have its effect for some
people/situations, but actually it is much more common for the placebo
effect to disappear once it is exposed as a
aubuti;612087 Wrote:
(Many would say it's only half-vast.)
Grin.
--
darrenyeats
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503.
SB3, SB Touch
SqueezeControl for Android
magiccarpetride;611587 Wrote:
You left my dog out of your equation. Was that on purpose?
Yes - it's a well-known fact that dogs have no sense of reality. Do you
have a cat?
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Phil Leigh;611756 Wrote:
Yes - it's a well-known fact that dogs have no sense of reality. Do you
have a cat?
I have two cats. But I always thought that dogs are famous for being
able to hear much higher frequencies than we can.
--
magiccarpetride
You could laugh me out but sometimes I ask my wife about or use my cat
to determine whether my system reproduces the sound with some reality
to it or not. I play some high quality nature sounds like birds etc.
and observe reaction of the cat. It's done every time when something is
changed in the
magiccarpetride;611863 Wrote:
I have two cats. But I always thought that dogs are famous for being
able to hear much higher frequencies than we can.
Dogs are indeed good at high frequencies but they are unreliable - they
are too easily influenced by their owner and so are not helpful in
Phil Leigh;611918 Wrote:
Dogs are indeed good at high frequencies but they are unreliable - they
are too easily influenced by their owner and so are not helpful in
assessing audiophile matters. Cats on the other hand are brutally
honest and not easily manipulated... :-)
Ah, so that's why I
magiccarpetride;611296 Wrote:
One thing not clear to me is why do people insist that our experiences
have nothing to do with reality? Aren't our experiences also reality?
Or, to put it more bluntly: what else is there other than our
experiences?
They certainly have a lot to do with the
On 17/02/11 21:33, magiccarpetride wrote:
Ah, so that's why I can so easily trick my dog into thinking that real
sounds are coming out of the speakers, while the cats remain singularly
unimpressed!
(note to self: get rid of the cats)
...or get a better system ;)
R.
--
Feed that ego and
A related phenomenon from another realm might be helpful. Consider the
placebo effect.
It is well-established that a real placebo effect exists. If people
believe that a treatment (drug, something else) has been administered,
they will on average report symptom alleviation above that reported
Robin Bowes;611951 Wrote:
On 17/02/11 21:33, magiccarpetride wrote:
Ah, so that's why I can so easily trick my dog into thinking that
real
sounds are coming out of the speakers, while the cats remain
singularly
unimpressed!
(note to self: get rid of the cats)
or get a better
magiccarpetride;611296 Wrote:
One thing not clear to me is why do people insist that our experiences
have nothing to do with reality? Aren't our experiences also reality?
Or, to put it more bluntly: what else is there other than our
experiences?
The point I am trying to make is that the
There are of course 4 realities: yours, mine, everyone else's and actual
reality...
:-)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF
x-dacv3/x-10/x-psu(Audiocom full
Rick58;611445 Wrote:
I have not participated in such things, but if I were to, I would insist
that I be allowed to provide the music (say, a CD) that contains
elements that I know well, and be allowed to take notes and refer to
notes that I might bring.
For example, say in the song there
I'm pink therefore I'm spam...;)
--
WAD62
Cheers Will
WAD62's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=38506
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=85681
Grahame;611448 Wrote:
This has been an interesting discussion,
But can you be certain of what it is you are hearing, or experiencing?
If you are interested I suggest you make some time to watch and listen
to the Audio Myths Workshop Video available on youtube at
Phil Leigh;611511 Wrote:
There are of course 4 realities: yours, mine, everyone else's and actual
reality...
:-)
You left my dog out of your equation. Was that on purpose?
--
magiccarpetride
magiccarpetride's
garym;611523 Wrote:
of course you could use your own music, take notes, etc. And DBT doesn't
mean that you listen to a snippit then switch and listen to another
snippit. You can listen for weeks at at time to one source or the
other. Take notes, etc. The key is that YOU, the listener, don't
Rick58;611600 Wrote:
Sounds interesting. I would think that single songs or snippets
(switched or not between playback of the same selections) would
increase the likelihood of being able to discern the difference.
you can do it either way. So you can do some DBT and/or ABX testing
with
garym;611617 Wrote:
If you'd like to play with this, download foobar2000 and the ABX
component and do some ABX testing on how well you can distinguish
between an mp3 file of various compression levels and a lossless file.
I assure you it will be humbling!
This is is when I lost the faith
bluegaspode;611642 Wrote:
This is is when I lost the faith in my own hearing capabilities (along
with the video shown above and I was shocked, when trying out the test
files there myself).
Now I'm in the camp of non-believers - and if anyone tells me there is
a difference I want at least
magiccarpetride;611122 Wrote:
Let me turn the tables for a moment here, and ask a pointed question:
if, by comparing two audio components side-by-side, you can definitely
hear a difference, do you think that difference can be measured?
By 'measured' I mean detected using some measuring
yes it is another myth that human hearing is more sensitive than
measuring.
measuring is probably 1000 of times more sensetive or more.
The problem is correlation between measurments and experience, how do
that difference sound ? why did it sound like this when I did that ?
The only thing that
andynormancx;611129 Wrote:
That depends entirely on what you mean by definitely hear a
difference. As has been discussed many times here before the human
brain is a curious thing.
Logically, if one is hearing a difference but there isn't actually one,
which can very easily happen, then
magiccarpetride;611141 Wrote:
See what I'm saying? Even if you haven't changed any component in your
system, and are listening to the same track again, something else in
your surroundings has changed (including your own conditions), and that
change influences how you experience the second
Daverz;611204 Wrote:
That's not surprising to me. I'm not as impressed with Atkinson's
measurement techniques as some other folks are. I imagine there are
measurable aspects of a speaker's subjective performance that escape
his methods.I am not saying that JOhn's measurements are the
m1abrams;611185 Wrote:
Depth of image, and palpability really have little meaning when it comes
to reproducing sound. Soundstage can easily be measured as I already
stated. However the issue with soundstage is it has more to do with
speaker placement than anything else so while I can
adamdea;611231 Wrote:
The problem is that we all feel a bit differently every time we hear the
same track; it is actually quite difficult to separate out the
Heraclitus effect from the impact if any of changes made in the system.
This has nothing to do with the reality or otherwise of one's
Daverz;611206 Wrote:
To take a more active interpretation: I do think that with control over
frequency and phase response, say with a DSP, many differences one
hears could be reproduced. For example, the differences I hear in
midrange presence and how the soundstage is projected when I swap
magiccarpetride;611298 Wrote:
So if I hear you correctly (and I think I do), if we were to measure the
characteristics of an ultra high end audio system (say, something worth
almost a million bucks), we should be able to store that information
and forward it to some mediocre audio system and
magiccarpetride;611294 Wrote:
One amp was projecting the performers forward, the other was making them
appear as if positioned several feet behind the speakers.
How would your ideal measuring apparatus detect those differences?
By comparing the electrical output of the two amps. You do
andynormancx;611319 Wrote:
By comparing the electrical output of the two amps. You do realise there
isn't any magic involved don't you ?
Either there is a real difference in the output of the amps and thus
the sound, which would then be measurable (either by listening to the
speakers or
magiccarpetride;611298 Wrote:
So if I hear you correctly (and I think I do),
Always a bad assumption to make.
if we were to measure the characteristics of an ultra high end audio
system (say, something worth almost a million bucks), we should be able
to store that information and
Daverz;611338 Wrote:
Always a bad assumption to make.
That was a Seinfeld quote.
--
magiccarpetride
magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this thread:
magiccarpetride;611296 Wrote:
One thing not clear to me is why do people insist that our experiences
have nothing to do with reality? Aren't our experiences also reality?
Or, to put it more bluntly: what else is there other than our
experiences?
I have participated in some blind testing and
darrenyeats;611376 Wrote:
I have participated in some blind testing and in some ways THAT is
something that cannot be explained academically but rather it has to be
experienced to be understood.
When you're listening and you don't know what you're listening
to...well, it's a bit exciting
garym;611399 Wrote:
Oh no! Please don't get MCR started on double blind or ABX testing. ;-)
Thought I'd light the touch paper!
--
darrenyeats
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503.
SB3, SB Touch
Unless I missed it, this thread is incomplete without a reference to the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If you can measure it, you've changed
it, so you're no longer measuring the original it (and before the
quantum mechanics folks jump on me, yes I know that is a superficial
description). But
garym;611399 Wrote:
Oh no! Please don't get MCR started on double blind or ABX testing. ;-)
Why not?
--
magiccarpetride
magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this
magiccarpetride;611413 Wrote:
Why not?
note the smiley face. I don't care if you talk about it obviously,
you've made your position on this known in several other
threads.but not being repetitive is certainly not a requirement on
these forums!
--
garym
garym;611415 Wrote:
note the smiley face. I don't care if you talk about it obviously,
you've made your position on this known in several other
threads.but not being repetitive is certainly not a requirement on
these forums!
Repetitio ist mater studiorum.
--
magiccarpetride
magiccarpetride;611424 Wrote:
Repetitio ist mater studiorum.
No it's not - it requires the intellect of your average canine ;)
--
Stratmangler
There is no element of personal attack in my response.
Stratmangler's
garym;611403 Wrote:
Unless I missed it, this thread is incomplete without a reference to the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The HUP simply does not apply to this kind of macroscopic, essentially
classical system.
--
Daverz
darrenyeats;611376 Wrote:
I have participated in some blind testing and in some ways THAT is
something that cannot be explained academically but rather it has to be
experienced to be understood.
When you're listening and you don't know what you're listening
to...well, it's a bit exciting
This has been an interesting discussion,
But can you be certain of what it is you are hearing, or experiencing?
If you are interested I suggest you make some time to watch and listen
to the Audio Myths Workshop Video available on youtube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
Thew
Let me turn the tables for a moment here, and ask a pointed question:
if, by comparing two audio components side-by-side, you can definitely
hear a difference, do you think that difference can be measured?
By 'measured' I mean detected using some measuring equipment,
preferably with buttons and
That depends entirely on what you mean by definitely hear a
difference. As has been discussed many times here before the human
brain is a curious thing.
Logically, if one is hearing a difference but there isn't actually one,
which can very easily happen, then there is no difference that can be
andynormancx;611129 Wrote:
Logically, if one is hearing a difference but there isn't actually one,
which can very easily happen, then there is no difference that can be
measured.
That's the gist of my question: when you say but there isn't actually
one, on whose authority are you claiming
No I was talking about the logical situation when there really is no
difference but one thinks they can here one.
Can you not see the logical argument ?
Or do you really believe that not a single human has ever made a
change to a hifi setup which made no actual change yet they thought
they
I had a job at a company no longer in business, Voice of Music (union
kill them). My job was to repair audio equipment being rejected by QA.
They QAed every piece of stereo equipment.
We used tone generators and a Ballantine meters. The meter was used to
measure distortion at a given reference
andynormancx;611139 Wrote:
No I was talking about the logical situation when there really is no
difference but one thinks they can here one.
Can you not see the logical argument ?
Or do you really believe that not a single human has ever made a
change to a hifi setup which made no
On 14/02/11 22:31, magiccarpetride wrote:
In other words, there is ALWAYS a difference. From moment to moment,
things constantly change. Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said
that a man cannot enter the same river twice.
See what I'm saying? Even if you haven't changed any component in
vs27;611140 Wrote:
I had a job at a company no longer in business, Voice of Music (union
kill them). My job was to repair audio equipment being rejected by QA.
They QAed every piece of stereo equipment.
We used tone generators and a Ballantine meters. The meter was used to
measure
Robin Bowes;611152 Wrote:
Therefore, there are obviously going to be situations where you really
do *hear* something different, but there has been no *physical*
change.
ie. the difference is all in your mind. That doesn't make it any less
real than a physical change but goes some way to
magiccarpetride;611141 Wrote:
Even if you haven't changed any component in your system, and are
listening to the same track again, something else in your surroundings
has changed (including your own conditions), and that change influences
how you experience the second replay of the same
mlsstl;611160 Wrote:
The problem with your illustration is it has nothing to do with audio
equipment. Rather it deals with epistemological issues that are better
suited to philosophical discussions than measurement.
Your subjective experience, influenced by time of day, your mood, your
magiccarpetride;611154 Wrote:
Interesting explanation. So, in the measuring environment you've
described here, were you guys able to measure the differences in the
soundstage that two audio systems project? Like, you could have 2 audio
systems playing the same track at the exact same
m1abrams;611162 Wrote:
Soundstage is almost always a result of timing shift in various
frequencies. This can be measured.
OK, but how? How do you propose measuring that?
--
magiccarpetride
magiccarpetride's Profile:
magiccarpetride;611163 Wrote:
OK, but how? How do you propose measuring that?
Use a frequency sweep and measure the time delay for the different
frequency. Not hard stuff here.
--
m1abrams
m1abrams's Profile:
As it was said, our brain is under the constant influence of the
countless factors manipulating our experience of hearing. We simply
can't hear with only our eardrums. If that was possible, I think, we
would be able to hear very objectively and measure real changes in
the sound. Unfortunately or
magiccarpetride;611122 Wrote:
Let me turn the tables for a moment here, and ask a pointed question:
if, by comparing two audio components side-by-side, you can definitely
hear a difference, do you think that difference can be measured?
By 'measured' I mean detected using some measuring
Rick58;611173 Wrote:
Not necessarily. I don't believe that qualities such as soundstage,
depth of image, palpability, etc., are able to be measured using
methodologies discussed here.
IF they were, why aren't companies/review mags publishing such results?
I value imaging, depth of
magiccarpetride;611161 Wrote:
If we disregard the epistemological aspect for a moment (even though we
cannot really disregard it, but humor me on this one anyway), and focus
on what you call 'physical state of the stereo equipment', even there
the physical state is not the same from moment
m1abrams;611185 Wrote:
Depth of image, and palpability really have little meaning when it comes
to reproducing sound.Huh? I think the perception of the recording space and
how real the
instruments/voices sound has a very large meaning. At least to me they
do! These qualities are, I believe,
Rick58;611193 Wrote:
I haven't ever seen a definitive measurement that quantifies how deep a
soundstage is presented by any equipment in any room, or explains why
item 'A' provides a deeper soundstage than item 'B' in the same room
and with the same ancillary equipment. Actually, the closest
Rick58;611198 Wrote:
... there is nothing in the NP 2.0's measured performance that reveals
how it manages to throw that enormous soundstage.
That's not surprising to me. I'm not as impressed with Atkinson's
measurement techniques as some other folks are.
--
Daverz
magiccarpetride;611122 Wrote:
Let me turn the tables for a moment here, and ask a pointed question:
if, by comparing two audio components side-by-side, you can definitely
hear a difference, do you think that difference can be measured?
By 'measured' I mean detected using some measuring
magiccarpetride;611122 Wrote:
Let me turn the tables for a moment here, and ask a pointed question:
if, by comparing two audio components side-by-side, you can definitely
hear a difference, do you think that difference can be measured?
By 'measured' I mean detected using some measuring
Soundstage, depth and height cannot be measured because they do not
exist except as constructs within the human mind when listening to a
stereo system that is trying to create the illusion that they do
exist.
NB I'm not talking about Soundfield recording/playback here, just
normal stereo.
--
71 matches
Mail list logo
