Visual input conflicts with what we hear. It is easier to hear accurately with your eyes closed. Imaging is particularly sensitive to this. This proves how badly visual input can screw around with what you hear. First thanks rudyb for this enlightening example..... But the McGurk effect is related to something way more complex than what you just said mijostyn... What you just said is not false, it is only a half truth.... It is common place for everybody that if a sellers of cars convince you that what you see is good and costly you will perveive it ADDING the new "cues" pointed to by the sellers to your first "perception" and they will mask reality or create a new one... But The McGurk effect POINTED to something way more deeper than what you just alleged it is... This effect manifested in 2 modes: COMBINATION or FUSION of sounds and images and COMPLEMENTARITY of the auditory brain with the visual visual brain confronted with a sound and an image interferential stimuli... Here is an example that illustrates the phenomenon of combination: Seen: "ba" (bilabial) Understood: /ga/ (velar) Perceived /bga/ (Result of the combination) Fusion: Seen: "ga" (velar consonant) Heard: /ba/ (biabial consonant) Perceived: ⁄da ⁄ (result = fusion phenomenon) Here for example the "da" is a new potential motivation for and or in this new syllable "da", reflecting also perhaps a past motivation for the sound "da" in the language, by association of the 2 interferential stimuli... The general motivation of the word or of the "root syllable" by new interferential "meaning" created by association participate of speech creative mechanism and history... MOTIVATION of sounds has his own genesis and history in speech history....From Plato to Saussure... In acoustic we create the world by translating it in "visual cues" which are informed takes on the world at large or of a room in speech perception or music listening... Then to allege that this effect point ONLY to non creative mistakes is a complete misunderstanding of this process for your " debunker politic".... Now this effect and his complementary double possible results, combination OR fusion, illustrate the way the brain of man work with integrating all aspect of Visual and Hearing half of the brain so to speak and is ablew to enlisten them in the motivation of sounds and images, MOTIVATION of one by the other, which is one of the deepest root of creative act of perception and of the creative gesture of speech production or of sounds or visual perception ... Not an effect related then ONLY AND MAINLY to misperception, illusion, negative biases...Not an effect that exist to illustrate only misperception This is not EVEN WRONG.... This is half truth.... By the way Science is not a debunker business first.....James Randi dont know what science is because he used it for his OWN AGENDA...
Also ... we hear what we see.
Google for the McGurk effect.
i will add that we see also what we hear.... Thanks rudyb.... |
rudyb, thanks a bunch for that. I did and came up with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM This is even better than my original link. All of you tweak people need to watch this. Close your eyes and listen to the sound all the way through. It never changes with your eyes closed. The other tie-in here is the habit some of us have of closing our eyes when we listen. Visual input conflicts with what we hear. It is easier to hear accurately with your eyes closed. Imaging is particularly sensitive to this. This proves how badly visual input can screw around with what you hear. This also explains why nicer looking equipment seems to sound better and why manufacturers go to great length to make extraordinary looking gear when in reality they are doing nothing about sound quality. |
Also ... we hear what we see.
Google for the McGurk effect.
|
...analyzing vs. listening...the opposite ends of the spectrum.
Mixing the two can be entertaining but ultimately what is (preferably, in mho) best is the the latter anytime. ;)
Polishing a diamond endlessly will either ruin it or jade you.
I wish i would have written your post with so much well said with so much few words.... My deepest respect |
...analyzing vs. listening...the opposite ends of the spectrum.
Mixing the two can be entertaining but ultimately what is (preferably, in mho) best is the the latter anytime. ;)
Polishing a diamond endlessly will either ruin it or jade you. |
mahgister, did you mean, "trunk" of an elephant? Thanks for the correction mijostyn ... You read my mind or i spoke very bad english or the two.... When i worked for these last years creating my audio system and room, my only goal was to reach the day when i will listen music without be bothered by the sound... Mission accomplished ! I dont paid much attention now to anything pertaining to gear or audio matters... I like to discuss with friends here but i only am marginally attentive to new audio matters.... When I am listening to music I am not analyzing the sound.
|
@nonoise , no, I would say we are down to wishful thinking and reality.
mahgister, did you mean, "trunk" of an elephant?
Somehow I have to get through to you guys that listening to the sound and listening to music are two separate things. You can listen to sounds other than music like Gun shots, baby's crying, 18 wheelers passing by. an MRI machine, an F22 flying over, etc. When I am listening to music I am not analyzing the sound. You can switch back and forth. I usually listen to the sound at the beginning of a record as a short analysis of the quality of the recording. Once I have that down and maybe make an adjustment or two I'll settle back and enjoy the music. If a new instrument or voice comes in I might analyze it for a second then settle back again. What I or anyone else for that matter thinks of the sound is totally different from what I think or anyone else thinks of the music. Just listen to any Robert Johnson recording. Pretty bad right! Ah, but the music is another story.
|
Have a conversation with someone at a party, in a noisy room.
There is no problem paying perfect attention to what is being said.
We can easily isolate the details.
Put an Omni directional mic in the same room,, record everything and then try and pay attention to a singular discussion.
Good luck.
We are hardwired to listen for specifics. So what?
Watching a tv with static, if it is something we want to watch, we will keep watching, and eventually not notice the static any longer. So what?
Guess there is no need/reason to audio gear anymore… |
I can't do it at once. I move through the various modes.
Thanks, Mahgister. Interesting ideas, there.
I think the hifi podcast guys, Darren and Duncan, also remarked on how you can tell a room/gear setup sounds good from out in the hallway. That's an interesting indicator of how sensitive we are. |
As a mental exercise can you do it all at once? I certainly can not.
Nobody can do it all at once ...But the point is the ability to do it is there not all at once but in an ongoing process... |
When I was learning to listen critically last year, someone (Darko?) suggested listening not only with focused attention, but to do a crossword puzzle (e.g.) while listening. Almost a "peripheral vision" kind of move. Wow! thanks Hilde... Very important observation... The great biologist Wolfgang Schad wrote a book about Peripheral Seeing and his importance to identify form and function in nature... The neuro psychiatrist writer Iain McGilchrist in " the Master and his emissary", a seminal book, distinguish TWO modes of attention, linked to TWO way to be in the world..."Peripheral attenton" and "focused attention".. For sure we use these 2 modes at the same times .... With the important fact that some people are more focused on details and other to the larger context....I cannot do anything than simplifying a 500 hundred pages book here... To complete your example of the museum... When we look "peripherally" we could become being conscious of the environment and the link to our own body could be thought on another level completely... The inside of our body is a vast world which could be related to the vast world outside of the body by a new geometry for example...This geometry exist by the way....I cannot describe it here in this post... Then instead to think about an object in front of a body we may think about a " function" manifested simultaneously in 2 interrelated communicating worlds.... Then Focus attention and Peripheral attention plays TOGETHER in an evolutive perceptive process... |
nonoise, you are making it far more complicated than it actually is. Why? Personal bias perhaps. That was my point. Are we now down to "I'm rubber, you're glue" school of argument? All the best, Nonoise |
There are just as many if not more factors that make up a great audio performance, timbre, location, size, dimensionality, detail, dynamics, focus. Both your system and the source have to provide all of that and you have to pay attention to all of it. As a mental exercise can you do it all at once? I certainly can not. |
I certainly listen to the landscape with complicated pieces like a symphony unless a particular instrument sticks out that I am interested in.The problem is I do not listen that way when I am evaluating sound. Listening to music and evaluating sound are two distinctly different endeavors When I was learning to listen critically last year, someone (Darko?) suggested listening not only with focused attention, but to do a crossword puzzle (e.g.) while listening. Almost a "peripheral vision" kind of move. This would help one shift to a mode of listening which, while attentive, was not acting like a microscope. (So many visual metaphors! So few aural ones!) To stick with the visual analogies for a moment, when I go to a museum, I start off by standing about 6 feet from a painting; then, I go in close to look at various details, then I back up.Landscape or single element -- they're all attended to critically in this process (for me). |
The fact that "music" is not sound perception ONLY, illustrate the misconception about what acoustic is precisely in his scope....
We cannot hear what we are unable to name first...Save a noise without physionomy....
But for example a good acoustician can SEE the sound in a room... Like some blinds navigate street without help by echolocation... Acoustic laws are not equation on a sheet of paper only or electronic computer equalization impersonal program, but they MAY be perceived phenomena in a room...My mechanical equalizer is precisely that...
And what we are able to name we may hear it in a chaotic crowd of instruments...
And we must learn how to perceive to name something...
A cigar is a cigar for someone who know that he must smoke it, otherwise it is an herb packet...
And nonoise say something meaningful here mijostyn , dont throw a personal argument against him.... This wrong way to argue has a name in a debate....
He said that picking the trump of an elephant when keeping blinders could mask the overall geometry of the object...
|
Hilde45, That is an interesting distinction. Listening to the landscape instead of individual instruments. I think I inferred that with the choir analogy.
I certainly listen to the landscape with complicated pieces like a symphony unless a particular instrument sticks out that I am interested in.
The problem is I do not listen that way when I am evaluating sound. Listening to music and evaluating sound are two distinctly different endeavors. As soon as you start evaluating imaging by default you are listening to individual instruments and where they are, how big they are and so forth. The situation is complicated enough that I am not sure "Habit" applies other that you might listen to bass first and rhythm guitar second. But, for how long and when? The odds of you doing it exactly the same way are very high.
nonoise, you are making it far more complicated than it actually is. Why? Personal bias perhaps.
Cigars make me sick. |
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
When you smoke it, a cigar it is not.... |
Don't let it slip between your fingers. |
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. |
@hilde45,
Thanks for the validation and the Whitehead reference.
That'll make for some interesting reading.
All the best,
Nonoise |
@nonoise Yep -- that’s exactly the sleight of hand that this panel is embarked upon. Fallacy of misplaced concreteness, Whitehead called it.
Thanks for your post.... Very good description if we use Whitehead idea of the fundamental error which reduce the complexities of a concrete phenomenon, sound and music experience, to only one of his aspect, some details, mistakingly taken for the whole and erroneously "proven" (blind test) to be the only concrete reality by an ideological stance.... |
@nonoise Yep -- that's exactly the sleight of hand that this panel is embarked upon. Fallacy of misplaced concreteness, Whitehead called it. |
i concur with your post.... thanks nonoise... |
@hilde45,
At first I was going to disagree but I remembered that gestalt is a psychological term so "placed" and "put together" make sense in that respect. A different kind of perception from a different, but relevant field.
The OP's question is a complex one if one gives it too much consideration as I find it akin to how a fundamentalist would argue. Forget the whole, the sum of the parts, the everything, and argue some minutiae, some basic part, and elevate that to the whole in order to negate what is real, what is apparent, and deny it's existence, relevance or importance.
All the best,
Nonoise |
@nonoise @mahgister -- Agree on the immediacy of the whole. I avoided the word "gestalt" because that word implies the way a thing has been “placed” or “put together." I think we’re all agreeing that this larger whole *starts out* as fundamentally simple.
I also see the OP’s question as a live one, though. How do we take in that whole (whether a complex-simple or a simple-simple) consistently over time? Hard question. Deep question! I myself discover the beginning of an answer in many science of philosophical books... The main one tough was the works of Goethe... Especially his work on morphology of plants and animals...And his color theory complement that... His method is nothing short of astounding, like explained it, in many books, the Bohmian physicist Henri Bortoft... But the clearest explanation was the monumental treatise about animal morphology after Goethe and Rudolf Steiner method...By the biologist Wolfgang Schad, a life changing book...This is the clearest explanation of Goethe natural science method with Bortoft in the last 50 years... http://www.adonispress.org/threefoldness.php “Do not seek for anything behind the phenomena: They themselves are the theory.” “The most difficult thing is to see what lies directly before our eyes.” – J. W. Goethe The same goes for the sound-musical-experience and for hearing... How do we perceive the wholenees that is before our own eyes and all around us in sound experience? By changing the way we observe phenomenon....By becoming "Conscious" observer... Believe it or not, but there is a method to train ourself to see a phenomenon in his perspectival encompassing dimensions... His wholeness.. All the books i just cited illustrated in DETAILS and explained how.... For the musical consciousness experience and history.... The 2 books which are not explicitly Goethean, are also Goethean implicitly though... Ernest Ansermet develop a phenomenology of the musical experience inspired by Husserl, which goes hand in hand with the Goethean approach...( Goethe is the first and the greatest phenomenologist way before the mathematician Husserl because his phenomenology is based on natural science not on mathematical logic) Another book almost unknown this time, which is a doctorate thesis by Akpan J. Essien : Sound sources the origin of auditory sensations complement perfectly Ansermet book this time about sound and not about music first like Ansermet who was also one of the greatest maestro...( Essien comes from Africa and it is not the best place to come from to critic 2000 years of acoustic research in Occident but he succeed in making his doctorate in England and France) In all These books the manifestation of the WHOLENESS through parts of any phenomenon is explained and a method of observation (for visual experience) and even experiments ( for sound experience) is exposed... The KEY principle here it to know that the relation between part and whole is a dynamical internal process THROUGH the observer and what is observed, not an EXTERNAL static relation between an external observer and an external object..... I cannot resume these many thousand pages, in plants and animal morphology. in acoustic and in music and other fields in a few words... My post is here to say yes the wholeness perceived experience is a mystery but not completely hidden or totally veiled for us... There is only ONE thinker in European history whom was at the same times one of the greatest writer and poet of all times like Homer and Shakespeare and a rival of Newton and Darwin with his mastery of natural science...Nowadays the ideas of Goethe, instead of appearing completely out of date appear in a total new light... His name is Goethe... His genius is almost unmatched in history....It is on the same level which was revealed by Da Vinci creative imagination in art and nature and technology and Archimedes founder of the phenomenological physics and almost before Newton creator of the calculus.....The antikhythera mechanism come probably from the archimedean school...Anyway there is a link between the archimedean method in phenomenological and mathematical physics and Goethe and Faraday methods... |
What’s being presented in the video is not controversial. It’s just showing how knowledge about a product or sound influences opinion or messes with our senses. Audiophiles are not immune, they haven’t been " vaccinated " against bias. |
@nonoise @mahgister -- Agree on the immediacy of the whole. I avoided the word "gestalt" because that word implies the way a thing has been “placed” or “put together." I think we're all agreeing that this larger whole *starts out* as fundamentally simple.
I also see the OP's question as a live one, though. How do we take in that whole (whether a complex-simple or a simple-simple) consistently over time? Hard question. |
Great post nonoise thanks.... |
I guess my point would be that the experience of the combination can be as immediate as the experience of the particular; indeed, the experience of a particular which is embedded in a larger whole involves the mental act where we have to "prescind" or "abstract out" something which only then gets our selective attention. But in the initial moment, we experience (what we'll later call) the complex. But we experience it as a simple. Gestalt? Right? Long before the time we're composing our thoughts here (around 1/1/2 yrs of age) we've mastered the task of seeing the whole and not fixate on the parts. So what if we can't (or can we?) really, truly, and exactly differentiate two voices singing at the same time? We bask in the harmony and yet are able to discern individuals all the time even when they seem to compete for our attention. Take a good listen to Lakme's Duo des Fleurs and tell me you can't distinguish between Sabine Devieilhe (coloratura soprano) and Maienane Crebassa (mezzo-soprano) at the same time. I can. The mind works so quickly so as to render the argument that it's impossible to hear both rather silly. That's splitting hairs to the point of red herring territory. There is a lag in time with everything we do and yet we still catch balls, drive cars and bikes and some can even juggle. It's all done so fast that it's a non issue. All the best, Nonoise |
Looking at a landscape, I don’t go jumping around from one particular to another, but "take in the whole." Indeed, most of our experience of eating is exactly about the combination of flavors and not the individual flavors. Great post.... I was saying to him the same thing in a post above about WHOLENESS ... A take by the ear of a maestro on an aspect of musical orchestral sound is a "perspective" focused from a detail to the whole and from the whole to the detail... Tonal Timbre microdynamic playing is a "perspectival information " between the properties of a sounding body and the other objects in resonance with him... We human can "see " music not only hear it... Consciousness is a "learned" power by a spirit not a mere fixed ability mechanically reproducible which wait to be debunk... |
@mijostyn Listen to a choir, pick out one voice then pick out another voice. Try and listen to them together at the exact same time. Your mind can bounce back and forth quickly between the two but you can not listen to both at the same time unless you ignore the individuality of the voices.
Kudos on your description of this difficulty. It captures something very real about the challenge of evaluating audio. My initial approach to such events is to initially take them as single experience, which later turns out (on inspection) to have multiple parts. Scenic views come across this way, as well. Looking at a landscape, I don't go jumping around from one particular to another, but "take in the whole." Indeed, most of our experience of eating is exactly about the combination of flavors and not the individual flavors. I guess my point would be that the experience of the combination can be as immediate as the experience of the particular; indeed, the experience of a particular which is embedded in a larger whole involves the mental act where we have to "prescind" or "abstract out" something which only then gets our selective attention. But in the initial moment, we experience (what we'll later call) the complex. But we experience it as a simple. This point -- about the complex whole -- doesn't really defuse the difficulty you pose, because there again, we can *take* that whole complex in various ways, each time. (Is the landscape cheery? Is it plaintive? Is it intimidating? Etc.) So, how could we ever compare? -- that would be the challenging question. I'd start the answer with the word "habit." I cannot hear a choir in a million different ways for the same reason I cannot see a staircase in a million different ways. I have habits of listening, habits of staircase maneuvering; habits of tasting. These habits become my bases of comparison; they allow me to compare one listening session to the next, and because I'm a self-in-society (and not a random self), I can gain insight from what you hear and perhaps hear it that way, myself. |
I dont like to mock people in their absence....
I dont like people who do so for fun...
it remind me of the schoolyard habit ....
When people could not argue with their brain or dont want to do so, they use other low means...
My best to you anyway....Have fun and i apologize for breaking the party.... |
I see my problem now, I did not buy the "Super Intelligent Chip". Glad to see how it is light activated. (This from the manufacturer of the Brilliant Pebbles). I'm supposed to put the chip on top of the cd player. While the disk is inside, playing......
the CD player isn't really airtight or light-tight - it's actually a "leaky box" with many small openings and gaps in the chassis through which light can easily pass. The CD laser light reaches the Intelligent Chip by escaping through gap around the CD tray and fillingI up the room. The Intelligent Chip's photons reach the interior of the player the same way, through the gap around the CD tray.
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm |
That will work. Bring on mozartfan! |
Negative on the emesis basin but I do have a sitz bath container that is a bit larger than a bedpan? |
phcollie, I'll spring for the compound. If I hear any more about Tang Bang drivers I might get sick and I've run out of emesis basins. You wouldn't happen to have any? |
What we are lacking here is Mozartfan to explain how he can implement the Pebbles and The Clip into his next perfect speaker design. I am willing to spring for the rock polisher. You have 239 posts and you can laugh your way up to peebles or tin foil use if you want and if it is the only positive work you can do in audio...But try to not insult people when they dont speak to you especially in their back...( i dont mind which will be the people name you will use) And try not to assimilate all people you dont like in the same bag with a name you dont like associated to it.... Only a remark about elementary politeness... But you can insult me now if it is the only thing you can give here because i speak to you... Anyway i wish you the best.... |
What we are lacking here is Mozartfan to explain how he can implement the Pebbles and The Clip into his next perfect speaker design. I am willing to spring for the rock polisher.
|
I never think that you will answer with "tin foil hat " argument and "peebles" humor jokes...
Are you OK ?
Anyway i wish you the better there is...
Arguing about audio dont make us foes... |
I've got to have those pebbles. |
I never bought any "tweaks" nor anything costly AT ALL ....Never....
But instead of bad mouthing what seems to me honest people i dont know on audio thread, like Paul Mcgowan, i experiment with no cost devices of my own making...
Then i dont make of myself a fool who will buy costly "tweaks" or not less worst, a debunker who hold more to his debunking ideology than to experimenting with devices...
My motto is:
Dont upgrade before embedding mechanically, electrically and acoustically the gear....
Dont buy "tweaks" try to replicate them at no cost....
Most of the times acoustic low cost treatment and cheap home made mechanical controls beat most gear upgrade....
Try to debunk my method....Good luck....
Some fools have tried, and call all my system : placebos...
Some other reviewer fool have tried, and call my system Low-Fi
Thats all.... But i laugh at all these fools because my system not being the best in the world for sure beat everything in the S.Q./price ratio scale...
Then....
Reading debunkers and reviewers alike i smile.... |
Funny how money is so often involved. But please believe me, I am not an ASR guy, or a measurements guy at all. In fact, am currently looking at a less than stellar measuring NOS R2R DAC because, well, my ears. :)
I will pass on the Quantum Clip and the Pebbles. |
It is very hard to take Paul Mcgowan seriously.
+1 on that. He always seems to do back flips to where the $$$ come from. Cheers George |
Selling costly cables with marketing " false science" is one thing, thinking that debunking that is "pure science" is another propaganda piece... It is reducing a potential phenomena to his speech justification by the alleged "crook" or a circus by the "debunker"...Cables could be linked to different perception in different system...This is a fact easy to experiment with....Selling these cables at a high price is another fact unrelated to their real positive or negative effect...
Claiming we are all deluded when the brain create music from the sounding bodies of an orchestra through the waves imaging information is reducing music phenomena and perception to physical sound waves...Simplistic...
I dont sell anything by the way save ideas and experiments...even with quartz and other "peebles"....
For sure crooks exist, but this does not justify blind test debunking circus no more that the crooks discourse explain cable comparison...
I am sure that there is interesting facts in this video but the beginning convey the hallmark of an engineering point of view not of a musician or a psycho-acoustician... |
@mijostyn
My smiles are related to the items being sold as the comedy of the icebreaker he used to open his part of the presentation. It is the few bad apples that make cynics and skeptics of us all. I see some good points made regarding changes made in the inaudible range, as well as the claim that a person was hearing a phase shift in a 10 foot guitar chord. There are some valid points being made in Winers presentation, but I disagree with some of the generalities regarding how people listen and what we remember or hear. He also has a very nice listening room and some quality equipment and instruments. He does a fair job of busting some myths and outlining how Flether Munson Curves can be involved in what we hear or like. Lastly, I have seen the trick he posted regarding the speaker companies who use averaged third octave for the graph as well as enlaging the gradients on the Y axis. I take everything with a grain of salt or two but it would be obtuse to disregard everything in his presentation. Unless of course we are in the business of selling those Brilliant Pebbles ;) Cheers. |
Listen to a choir, pick out one voice then pick out another voice. Try and listen to them together at the exact same time. Your mind can bounce back and forth quickly between the two but you can not listen to both at the same time unless you ignore the individuality of the voices listening to the choir as one voice like you would listen to McCoy Tyner playing the piano. If you want to listen to one note you have to switch to Monk. You can only listen to or, the better term is "study" one detail at a time.
Like i already said,"😁😊 hearing something which is not there acoustically is precisely the definition of what music is..." I added that this is explained by psycho-acoustic science not physical acoustic... Then you are not EVEN wrong in your misconception of what hearing music is... I will explain to you in few words.... When someone listen to any music his conscious experience thinking,feeling,will, is conditioned ALSO with ALL his subconscious present and past experience... Then his "integral being/brain " pick all there is to pick but not only consciously and his consciousness is ALWAYS a relatively guided and trained perception...You know that a feeling is also a sensation participating in the perception and not reducible to conscious perception? You know what trained perception means no? In music listening the "creative imagination" at work is not ALWAYS and ONLY "illusion" and "placebo" but participate to the creation in the body/brain of the musical experience and perception conscious and subconscious... In a famous experience the great neurologist Libet proved that our brain/body decided to act BEFORE our conscious decision, milli seconds and even seconds BEFORE our conscious decision...( it is called the readiness potential)... I will not explain why this does not negate " free will" here save for superficial materialists or scientism...My point here is to illustrate the active participation of the subconscious integrating ALL the past history of the listener through one perception which is ALWAYS a trained perception...Call them a set of educated biases...And calling these biases only merely illusions is complete ignrance and the reason why you are NOT EVEN WRONG...You throw the baby with the polluted waters thats all you do.... Then all your posts reflect not something wrong, it is more than being wrong, it is HALF TRUTH, like famously said the physicist Feynman... YOU ARE NOT EVEN WRONG... Then you are very far to understand even only the problem itself which is a PROBLEM in psycho-acoustic science related to the way the brain/body recreate the Tonal timbre with a "missing fundamental....I will not explain why.... Do your homework .... In a word THE TIMBRE IS NOT THE SPECTRUM and physical acoustic is half part of the problem to solve and psycho-acoustic the other part... i can reference all that i just wrote.... This creates the illusion that you are hearing new things when you are only studying different ones. This is not my opinion but a well proven fact. Then deconstructing Toscanini experience like the gesture of a trained dog dont tell all the story of human perception save for people unable to distinguish audio and music, and think that electronic engineering EXPLAIN ALL...And assimilating Toscanini to a gullible audio consumer is not science either... You are not even wrong my friend! You cannot state a problem without and before being able to state with the problem his different aspects and terms correctly... We cannot mimic knowledge with short ready made answer coming from blind test in psycho-acoustic like on a circus theater ruled by Objectivist debunker of Subjectivist gullible customers... I read nothing of the sort in psycho-acoustic books .... A simple example for children: A rainbow perception is NOT an "illusion".....It is way more complex than that.... All my observations can be state with only this remark...A tonal timbre microdynamic perception of an orchestra is like a rainbow... I hope you will think out of your scientism agenda....James Randy claims are not science... Guess why? |
dadork, great explanation.
phjcollie, as you note in the posts below yours you can see why the industry works the way it does. People are under the illusion that they know what is going on. As a mental exercise try adding 16 +24 at the same time adding 48+32. Those are easy additions and some of us can do it in rapid succession but none of us can do it at the exact same time. Listening is no different. Listen to a choir, pick out one voice then pick out another voice. Try and listen to them together at the exact same time. Your mind can bounce back and forth quickly between the two but you can not listen to both at the same time unless you ignore the individuality of the voices listening to the choir as one voice like you would listen to McCoy Tyner playing the piano. If you want to listen to one note you have to switch to Monk. You can only listen to or, the better term is "study" one detail at a time. With the infinite number of details in any recording the likelihood of anyone listening to a recording exactly the same way, paying attention to the exact same details in succession is non existent. Every time you listen to a recording you hear it the same but listen/study it differently. This creates the illusion that you are hearing new things when you are only studying different ones. This is not my opinion but a well proven fact. |
Not really sure she's "proves" anything except the cognitive link between our senses. If you now know what the hidden words are and play it again without reading them, do you hear them. I don't. Merely them being suggested is not enough to hear them, reading them at the same time is. It's rather like singing to a record where you think you know the words what you sing is not what's on the record, but that is what you hear. |
Watched the video. First thing that came to mind: with recording industry professionals like that, is it any wonder why so many recordings sound the way they do? And the choice of music for the “examples”? Good Lord! He lost me early on with the claim that when we listen for the bass (or treble, or whatever…) that is the only thing that we will hear or be able to judge. Speak for yourself, dude!
Some of what he says about the power of suggestion can be true. So what? In no way does that mean that what astute and discerning listeners hear cannot be real nor repeatable. Great post by a master musician mr.frogman...Thanks... He lost me also after 5 minutes... 😁😊 I will listen to it completely though....Thanks the op for the video... The second speaker in the beginning use some good psychological science : if you concentrate on bass you will not perceive high in the same way that if you concentrate on highs ...True, but no musician and no lover of music concentrate on limited set of frequencies at the expanse of others, we listen music timbre microdynamic playing notes ...We dont do psychological experiment in our audio room listening music... Instead of concentrating on some specific limited bandwith like a microphone in a sound test , why not listening the specific timbre microdynamic playing? I use that timbre perception to create my acoustic room setting...Am i deluded? Some here will say yes probably, erasing the fact that we cannot explain human hearing ability by only placebo, uneducated biases, and wrong brain working.... For sure suggestion is powerfully true in his effect on ANYBODY mind ... So what? A maestro or an acoustician or a lover of music could also be deluded on DETAILS but could also overpower them by TRAINING in concentrating on the WHOLE not on details.... Alternatives exist between 2 details at different levels, but there is one way to judge a trumpet timbre playing a note, this a single phenomenon at one level...There exist a "relative" musical consensus about that.... Timbre is a WHOLENESS unexplained by addition of frequencies on a screen or by someone listening wrongfully alternate details ...Fourier transform dont explain timbre...Timbre is not a spectrum....Save for uneducated people... An acoustician could use timbre with his ears to set a room in relation to a specific speakers set, is it a deluded dude when he claim that he could do it IN SPITE of the way the brain and/or the room could play tricks? Audiophiles attentive to UNRELATED details like bass spectrum or high spectrum at different volumes are not a maestro listening the WHOLE orchestra and picking some defect in a single trumpet player.... Is the maestro deluded by some placebo or effect of his brain wrong working? Is a measuring device the only way to touch sound and musical reality ? And ANYWAY hearing something which is not there acoustically is precisely the definition of what music is...Read this sentence 2 times i will not repeat it.... If you want to know why this is so, buy a psycho-acoustic science book.... The truth is audiophiles, subjctivist or objectivist one, are completely conditioned by marketing of the audio ENGINEERING field "frequencies" analysis vocabulary...Music lover and musician dont buy the hype and dont mind placebo or biases listening a musical chord...They judge their audio system by listening the only supremum meter in psycho-acoustic : human voice timbre recognition speech and singing ...Singular or choral.... «Each timbre playing microdynamic tonality is an integrated cosmos, like a human figure, perceived by the listener or the musician, not a bunch of frequencies or details which can be separated or assembled by a machine or an untrained or unfocused brain»-Anonymus Musician |
Watched the video. First thing that came to mind: with recording industry professionals like that, is it any wonder why so many recordings sound the way they do? And the choice of music for the “examples”? Good Lord! He lost me early on with the claim that when we listen for the bass (or treble, or whatever…) that is the only thing that we will hear or be able to judge. Speak for yourself, dude!
Some of what he says about the power of suggestion can be true. So what? In no way does that mean that what astute and discerning listeners hear cannot be real nor repeatable. |
