And if doctor told you that it was a huge awful stone, it would of hurt worse…odd how these things all work in both directions
I see the issue with ABX blind testing
I’ve followed many of the cable discussions over the years with interest. I’ve never tested cables & compared the sound other than when I bought an LFD amp & the vendor said that it was best paired with the LFD power cord. That was $450 US and he offered to ship it to me to try & if I didn’t notice a difference I could send it back. I got it, tried it & sent it back. To me there was no difference at all.
Fast forward to today & I have a new system & the issue of cables arises again. I have Mogami cables made by Take Five Audio in Canada. The speaker wire are Mogami 3104, XLRs are Mogami 2549 & the power cords are Powerline 10 with Furutech connectors. All cables are quite well made and I’ve been using them for about 5 years. The vendor that sold me the new equipment insisted that I needed "better" cables and sent along some Transparent Super speaker & XLR cables to try. If I like them I can pay for them.
In every discussion about cables the question is always asked, why don’t you do an ABX blind test? So I was figuring out how I’d do that. I know the reason few do it. It’s not easy to accomplish. I have no problem having a friend come over & swap cables without telling me what he’s done, whether he swapped any at all etc. But from what I can see the benefit, if there is one, will be most noticeable system wide. In other words, just switching one power cable the way I did before won’t be sufficient for you to tell a difference... again, assuming there is one. So I need my friend to swap power cables for my amp/preamp & streamer, XLR cables from my streamer to my preamp, preamp to amp & speakers cables. That takes a good 5-10 minutes. There is no way my brain is retaining what I previously heard and then comparing it to what I currently hear.
The alternative is to connect all of the new cables, listen for a week or so & then switch back & see if you feel you’re missing anything. But then your brain takes over & your biases will have as much impact as any potential change in sound quality.
So I’m stumped as to how to proceed.
A photo of my new setup. McIntosh MC462, C2700, Pure Fidelity Harmony TT, Lumin T3 & Sonus Faber Amati G5 & Gravis V speakers.
200 responses Add your response
@botrytis With that much anxiety I‘m wondering how you sleep at night. I know all about bias. I once was sure I had a kidney stone. The pain was real. I got an x-ray and as soon as the doctor told me I didn‘t have a kidney stone the pain was gone. No idea why the pain ever started. | ||
@tonywinga Then enjoy. The point being our brain is a bias machine. That is what it does as it is a survival mechanism. Realize the placebo affect can be so strong that people believing that a sugar pill is the strongest opioid in the world, will say their pain is gone. This has been demonstrated over and over. Everything is affected as well. I mean everything we do is affected by it. If you don’t want to understand, enjoy. | ||
Perception is reality. I don‘t totally buy into that, especially with today‘s technology and its ability to affect our perception. But then magicians have been amazing and delighting us with their sleight of hand since the beginning of time. W. Shakespeare said, “My wife doth lie, but I believe her anyway.“ That‘s how I take technology. If I hear a difference between components or cables and I judge it to be worthwhile then I will buy it. Some people might need ABX testing to be sure they are spending their money wisely. I do not. I notice in this video that the speaker concluded what he already knew through ABX testing. Interesting that he never mentioned which he like better- oversampling or no oversampling. The days of high pressure salesmen in audio shops is over- or so I believe. Those types certainly existed in past decades pushing people to spend beyond their means convincing them that their speakers, amps, turntables were the best for the money. But nowadays it is possible in many cases to bring something home to try and return it if it doesn‘t meet expectations. If under no pressure, why the uncertainty that something sounds better or not? If the shoe fits, wear it. | ||
You read my post the wrong way as it suit you... I insisted on acoustics experiments learning...NOT ON MY ROOM S.Q. save anecdotally which was my laboratory .... It does not matter how sound my room for you ... What matters is the results even if someone can consider them imperfect, they were stunning and would be stunning for everyone... How do you think i learned how to create the listener envelopment and sound source auditory width ratio correctly for my ears/brain located at some specific spot in my AUDIO ROOM ? In acoustics research papers it is called LV/SRW, here the definition : https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1027235/FULLTEXT01.pdf It is not important that my room please you, it please my specific ears and the change is stunning for anyone as night in hell before and day in heaven after...😊 You can doubt it because you are ignorant in acoustics. Phone one and ask him ...Ask him if i am in delirium describing the potential effect of acoustic control of a room and ask him about this ratio : LV/SWR Only narrow mind and ignorant of what acoustics means as concept in science can think that it means ONLY few panels on a wall because his wife own the living room ...Acoustics science exist with or without wife and in dedicated room ... 😁 Helmholtz resonators works as a deep central concept in acoustics...Try wikipedia...or a handbook of acoustics...I modified not only my room but by headphones and my speakers using these principles... My room was my fun laboratory not a theater for ABX double blind test of cables for "deaf" consumers... Read this above it describe what it is in great hall but the concept are the same but not applied in the same way for sure in a small room i can send you articles ... I used many articles for room acoustics because Hall acoustics is another applied realm but it is the same concepts..
You stop discussion because your ABX double blind test made no sense in architec tural acoustics construction process be it a Hall or a room ...Guess why ?😃 It is because the construction is based on physical acoustics measurements and each in wall resonators can be computed... But you can work in a very small room with various resonators and tune them by ears ...I did it for fun ...It takes 100 because of auto correction of the timbral and dynamics to my taste ... I learned acoustics in the process. I even created by the resonators grid positioning around each speakers and around my ears gaining some ambiophonic results using others mechanical means (fold screen ) with the resonators...
When someone here said "i am out" facing real argument revealing the preposterousness of this ABX circus with no answer, he say "i am out" because he act like a children going to pout in his corner ... Simple blind test are useful as i said i used them many times.it is necessary all along the acoustic tuning process.. ABX double blind is used with good reason in the industry for sure... For audiophiles it is a circus which is amusing to see and the results for a couple of cables not scientific at all because all others usual factors linked to a cable evaluation are eliminated ( our usual environment) Cables are secondary factors of S.Q. anyway not primary fundamental one ... Yes cables may sound different it does not means that it is rational to buy 10,000 bucks cables... It is ignorance of acoustics or deep pocket ...
| ||
Odd argument. No one but you thinks that you tune your room with 100 resonators with astonishing results. You make such a statement, deem it a fact because you say its & then challenge anyone to disagree with your opinions. I've tried to take this topic seriously but it's comments like that that make me think that it's too silly to continue. I'm out. | ||
Your argument are so lame, do you think i tune my room by ears with 100 resonators with astonishing results but all is wrong because my eyes were open ? Do you think we can ABX double blind a piano tuner tuning the piano to be sure he do the job? Do you think save occasional simple blind test that i needed ABX blind test to convince me that what i perceive in each changing of parameters, on 100 resonators tweaked mechanically , thousand of operations for the fun of experiment, do you think my ears/brain delude me ? Study real acoustics science not ABX double blind test manual useful for statistical studies in science yes but useless and impracticable when creating our system/room/ears paradise... You are in a techno-cult as many engineers... Do you wait the replacement of man by machine too ? 😊 I change the porthole of my speakers using a bundle of straws of different size and lenght by ears, using Helmholtz principle about resonators all this with a complete improvement so great it is no more the same speakers at all . Do you think i need ABX double blind specialist to guide me ? If you think so you are deluded by your ideology which has nothing to do with science... We are not a big pharma company here nor a studies group in acoustics using population statistics with double blind test... 😊 | ||
| Post removed | ||
@benanders that whole sentence sums up your stance on this matter. I literally took nothing out of context. I don’t know what you mean by “behavior”. | ||
Well, that’s what I was getting at re: perceiving what one “wants,” @audphile1 - you plucked one sentence, chopped off the second half to change its meaning, then added a false narrative to make my statement contradictory. Odd if not uncommon behavior. Doesn’t warrant my effort to reconstruct what I hoped to convey. Sigh. I keep curious why folks who perceive sighted differences in their audio kit don’t aim to be more interested in uncovering whether it’s the kit or their brains as the source of perceived differences. To me, it’s just seems a weird thing to avoid. Obsessive minds can definitely be objective, and those folks tend to be very interesting (IMO); to be obsessive but only within the lanes of one’s own selective constraints for inquiry is fine, but it might not teach anyone much other than a suite of untransferable personal opinions (and if/when those are worded in factual tone, I’d say that can be an info QC issue). However, your mistaking my (lack of) formal testing for my (routinely performed) blind ABX’ing suggests an important knowledge gap, and as you don’t seem to wanna close it, I agree a good signal to end convo. All good, no hard feelings. 😊
ATM’s are likely designed / manufactured to a keypad standard shared by both drive-through and walk-up units. | ||
I am not interested by cable threads ... There are annoying for me because the cables changes are often evident and minors change anyway compared to most others in the acoustic , mechanical, and electrical dimension... I was able to tune by ears my 100 resonators ( it was an acoustic experioments as with piano tuning) the results were not thin, but so amazing it changes the way i understood acoustics because my ears catch it not my brain placebo prone...Who will accuse a piano tuner of placebos effects in his job ? Then i learned to trust my ears and they are biased yes and prone to some illusions as anybody but they also work for a specific job, then how could i need a ABX double blind test for verifying my cables choices if i dont need it for my room after thousands of changes in a 2 years 7 days on 7 of experiments ?😊 The room is tuned for my ears system not for a circus ? Then why coming in cables thread arguing with people ? To show your engineering credentials ? It is useless because no one here will travel to a James Randi show to debunk his cables buyings which can be for sure debatable as any buyings .. Cables may differ and differ in my experience with the rightfull system in the right room minimally well installed but nothing compare to the modification of a single straw size located at some point in the room...😁 Do i need a test to verify this claim about a single straw ? No it is an acoustic principle : It is the basis of Helmholtz resonators ... Try it ... But the straw must be put in the right volume, at the right place, and of the right size... Train your ears ... It is funnier than arguing about cables and more useful to demonstrate how your hearing work and can be trusted to some limits... And you will learn your room pressure distribution zones with your body...Not by a computer measuring tools... That was my goal train my hearing "by hands" so to speak for the fun and for learning ... 😊 Acoustics is something we feel with our body not only something we write and compute on a paper ... The greeks were acousticians designing without electronics acoustic marvels and the Egyptian too ...Do they passed ABX double blind test ? I will be frank i dislike techno-cultism who plague the world right now and that some call science... The last years demonstrated to us the results of coupling techno-cultism as science and in place of science and big corporations together .. i will stop here ...
«I am an acoustician Amish»-- Groucho Marx🤓 | ||
@benanders Your cryptic posts are serving no purpose here. Your main point is that people’s opinions are basically invalid because they are not confirmed by a controlled scientific study and thus have not been proven and could be wrong or misleading. Well duh, and welcome to the real world. That’s why they’re opinions and not fact, which pretty much everyone here understands except you. Continually pointing out that people’s opinions are potentially fallible is as tiresome as it is pointless. If you have such low opinions of people’s subjective opinions and their reliability why are you even here? Why continue to torture yourself (and us)? Go play with your peeps at ASR and spare us, or better yet go start your own website where people are free to express their opinions as long as they’re confirmed by a rigorous study that conforms to strict scientific methods. If that doesn’t sound like a fruitful endeavor then you should understand why your posts are both ineffective and useless here. And no, this was not Chat GPT generated. | ||
this further solidifies what I said above. So here’s the rub…I do not need my entire zip code to hear the changes in my system and nod their heads in approval before I finalize any purchase be it cables, streamers, dacs, etc. The only element that matters to me is what I hear and how much of an improvement there is. There were multiple instances where I had sent cables back. Cables that I had actually high hopes for they just didn’t work out. The change was so negative that I couldn’t endure listening to my system for more than few minutes before getting severe fatigue. These were high priced cables and no, they were not defective. And this, my friend, is where the discussion ends. Please let me know when you get around to trying some cables as an experiment in a comfort of your home and system, and what you had heard.
| ||
I think there lies the rub, @audphile1 - I’m not denying anything (I haven’t formally tested for it short of some blind swapping of some on-hand types). I’m reiterating the need for demonstration (of it being more than a placebo). As soon as one robust, properly controlled study is undertaken and shows a significant number of participants perceived difference between two or more types of cable, the stance of “no difference possible” will be disproven, or at least shaken. Nothing gets proven in science. Disproof is how the process is works. | ||
@benanders I respect that you remain respectfully doubtful. | ||
Heyya @soix , was your reply chat GPT-generated? It missed the point of my hypotheticals (= people sometimes perceive what they “want” to, so it’s dubious that audiophiles’ hearing isn’t prone to known human limitations). Oh well, maybe that’s on my writing. Im not sure I’m clear on how you meant me to interpret the term “measurement” as you applied it in your rebuttal. Seems you haven’t further interest, and that’s fine; otherwise you’re free to read on.
@audphile1 that video - strong effort, some audiophiles heed no limits (respect!), except respecting (uh oh, I sense a ‘but’…) the importance of sample size for study of behavior / perception. YouTubers and forum-goers continuing to avoid / dismiss a properly controlled sampling of human listeners for inquiries like this is not in line with methodological reality of how factual info is demonstrated. Is that tendency really due to some audiophiles’ assumption of (1) needing to be skilled / trained at listening to components, or just that (2) they might be inexperienced / untrained about how experiments must be structured? Maybe both are at play? I respectfully remain doubtful. Not for insisting whether there could be audible differences, but for some audiophiles persistently assuming properly controlled studies haven’t relevance for comparison in hifi. That is the common ground x Achilles heel of (1) most / all subjective listening tests and (2) most studies based on device-derived measurements (many lack properly controlled listener preference assessments with which to correlate conclusions). It’s a two-part equation but each “camp” keeps assessing one side only, from what I can tell. Whatever happened to A, B, C it’s easy as 1, 2, 3? As simple as… Doh! Hence my stance these discrepancies could be resolved. | ||
Nice video @audphile1 . It is good to know that there are people still interested in digging into why people hear a difference vice stating none is possible. | ||
Cool video. Thanks audphile1 for that. Perhaps I should spend more time perusing the internet and less time with cognitive regurgitation. Certainly answered my question about Bode plots. :) But see, in this video they listen, take measurements, listen, work to understand how the measurements correlate with what they are hearing. Contrast that to other videos with measurement radicals who just take a few measurements and then conclude no one can hear a difference. Hahaha. | ||
Because we can evidently hear differences with many cables we can or we will measure differences ... Thanks for the video audphile1 ...😊 But generally as a factor of S.Q. it is secondary...It is why cables threads are boring for me... 😊 | ||
Another way to measure a cable that came to mind is a Bode plot. The X-axis is frequency, say 0-100,000 Hz and then two lines on the Y-axis. The first line would be amplitude ratio, input over output and the second line on the Y-axis would be phase angle. Now I know the changes in those two lines for a cable will be very small- nothing like an amplifier circuit; but variation will be there. Again, easier to hear than to measure. | ||
Measuring something is both an art and a science. It is called Metrology. The methodology to measure something is just as important as the measurement equipment used. Let‘s consider an interconnect cable. What could we measure? Well, we can measure length, weight, diameter. We can measure tensile strength, flex strength, minimum bend radius, hardness of the wire, wire gage, etc. The list can grow quite long. Then we can measure it‘s electrical properties. A cable has resistance, capacitance and inductance. But those three properties are not fixed. They can vary with temperature, frequency of the signal passing through and amplitude. Let‘s say we measure this interconnect cable with an LCR meter. We get a value for resistance, capacitance and inductance. That measurement doesn‘t say anything about a signal passing through at 5000 Hz or 10,000 Hz or 20,000 Hz. I remember cable makers back in the 1980s touting their audio cables could pass signals in the MHz range. I wondered what use was that? Well, now I understand that harmonics in cables up into the ultrasonic range is important to the sounds within our range of hearing. So the properties of that cable will cause the phase angle to change between the input and output but the amount of change is dependent upon the frequency. I‘ve never seen anyone map that in a cable measurement. How about a waterfall plot of an interconnect showing impedance, and phase angle across a frequency range from 0-100,000 Hz? One cable vs another will have phase angle changes that are unique. Non-linearities. Non-linearities are the biggest headache in engineering. Hard to predict the outcome without some extensive computer modeling. And in the end, what measurements we see on a graph could be smearing over what is so easily heard. Another example: How mechanical vibrations can affect the sound of a cable. How can that be? I don‘t know, but I have heard the difference between an isolated cable vs one that is exposed to mechanical vibrations. My guess is that movements of the wires inside the cable alter the capacitance and inductance- an additional complication. These minute mechanical changes create colorations in the sound, smearing of images. I bet cable manufacturers know or understand much of this but they aren‘t about to give away trade secrets to how or what they measure as well as how they manufacture. | ||
@audphile1
| ||
It pass my mind why people argue with no understanding of psychoacoustics where any kind of parameters and measurement ( musical, acoustical physiological, mechanical or electrical measures are subordinated to subjective guinea pigs voluntary listeners perceptive evaluation from all background) are correlated to subjective impressions collected by sampling them on a given population and studied statistically . Cables; be it for objective measurement crowd with their obsession with mere electrical measurements or be it for the other crowd for which their own ears only tell the tale and only their ears; cables, must be investigated in psychoacoustics studies. Period. Not on audio thread. If a cable matter for you fine, If the cable do not do the job, dont go objecting with Maxwell or contradicting by using it corrected by quantum theory. It is useless.Preposterous.Ridicule. I dont like cables thread. 😁😊😋 | ||
Professional musicians can easily identify differences between the sound of different violins but they’re not trained to identify differences between cables. It takes commitment, years of swapping components, cables and working on room acoustics to dial your system in and train your ears in the process to get all pieces of the puzzle to the level where differences between components and cables are easily discernible. Exposure to live music is priceless to build a reference (not talking about a Metallica concert here which is nearly impossible to replicate at home). Once it all comes together, add the recording quality to this equation and when all stars align you can, if you have the ears to do so, not only identify differences between cables, but also identify the differences between a Strad and a Guarneri, a Yamaha and a Steinway or a Kawai. It’s not impossible in a context of a properly set up system and room with trained and capable hearing listening to a high quality recording. | ||
@benanders Your post is as slanted as it is ineffective in its stated upfront point that differences between objective/measurement and subjective/trust your ears types are avoidable. You give several examples of “experts” who hear no difference between cables and then contrast them with people with no stated “expert” credentials as being able to hear differences. That’s ridiculously slanted from the start and shows your inherent bias. The fact is that there are plenty of your so called “experts” out there who hear cable differences and plenty who do not hear differences. And likewise there are plenty of people you’d classify as “non experts” who can and cannot hear differences in cables. Further, there are tons of audiophiles out there who may not have your idea of credentials (recording engineer, musician, etc.) but who have extensive experience comparing various cables and can readily hear differences between them, and I’d submit that this experience gives them excellent credentials and are people I value — frequently more than so called “experts” — and who I’d like to hear from.
And there’s your bias laid bare Objective people use so called “appropriate” measurements whereas people who subjectively evaluate cables by listening don’t use what you call “appropriate” measurements and only “think” they hear what they hear, which is a not very veiled slap at their credibility. You have no idea what the “appropriate” measurements are or if they’re sufficient or comprehensive enough to reliably assess the overall sound of a cable, which they’re not BTW. You start your thread stating the rift between the objective and subjective crowds is avoidable, but it’s just not and your post does nothing to explain how or why it’s avoidable. The objective/measurements contingent is dug in as are the subjective/trust your own ears crowd and thus it will remain and is unavoidable. Then there are those of us who are open to both sides, but the reality is there’s precious little measurement data on individual cables so we’re largely left to use our ears in choosing specific cables, and that’s just reality like it or not. You’re clearly in the objective/measurement contingent but try to dance around and hide it — just own it and that’s fine, but these indirect backhanded slaps you give here and elsewhere to the subjective/trust your ears crowd are unsuccessfully cloaked in some foggy veil of being unbiased and show your true colors. Personally I don’t hop onto threads where people tout measurements as necessary to assess a cable’s sound (not that there are many of those threads) yet objectivists who need/rely on measurements or believe there’s no difference between cables constantly pollute threads where people are looking for and value others subjective opinions, and that’s just useless and frequently serves to just derail an otherwise interesting and useful thread. But that, unfortunately, is likely unavoidable and inevitable here. But back to the original point here, your post does nothing to address the unavoidable rift with regard to cables but does yet again expose your disdain for those of us who are able to use/trust our ears no matter how hard you try to hide it.
| ||
very well said ... +1
| ||
The drain-circling that purported cable audibility causes could be avoidable. … A fellow HiFi guru says “I perceive no difference”, well, that poor soul doesn’t have sufficiently well-trained ears and/or resolving enough kit to cut it. A musician says “I perceive no difference”, well, that player’s instrumental experience is too narrow. A conductor / music theory prof says “I perceive no difference”, well, live music and stereo playback are two different things, so that maestro’s comparing apples to oranges. A studio recorder/mixer/masterer says “I perceive no difference”, well, HiFi components that reproduce those recordings somehow reignite sonic elements lost or masked by gear-inattentive negligence of those techs who made said files. Then another forum avatar types “I do perceive difference…”, and no experience or credentials need be forthcoming: that fella understands! The anecdote rolls into a collective mindset convinced of reality despite lacking enough general curiosity to rigorously test it. And yes, anyone who swears cables are audible components and got upset by the term “snake oil” or someone insisting no difference could possibly exist, that’s the same tendency using different words, guised in an analogous package of pseudoscience. The two polarized mindsets can be much more alike than some folks seem to recognize. I really like the tv analogy @jetter - well-chosen! | ||
It would seem they were disappointed because they were expecting a noticeably higher sound difference between your system as compared to what they have at home. The analogy: I imagine it is the same for televisions. You could put an average 4k tv in a room with an ultra expensive TV. I might see some difference, but the difference would not at all hinder my enjoyment of the programming. But to a TV buff, the difference is monumental. | ||
@tonywinga Yeah, these are the same people who have the contrast and sharpness controls cranked up to 11 on their TVs and think Bose makes good stuff. Oh well. | ||
Audphile1: I wanted to disagree with you but then I thought of my wife and brothers. You are probably right. The differences seem obvious to me. And my two sons. Seems like any non audiophile that hears my system expects to be blown back into their chair by the bass. That‘s what seems to matter. They are generally disappointed. I might as well just set up the Sony boombox behind my speakers that my brother talked me into buying. I‘m sure my wife wouldn‘t know the difference. | ||
Neighbor blind test is the ultimate one of them all. You get the true ABX blind test using non audiophiles who are not familiar with your system. There ain’t no chance in this world that there would be any difference identified between cables. | ||
I moved the sub to the right, between the stand and the right speaker, about an inch behind the front of the speaker. I've also ordered a second sub. As for the cables, I'm satisfied with my assessment. I don't believe anything I do will result in a dramatic difference and for the price it would have to be dramatic. So I've sent them back. I had neighbors interested in hearing the difference but my opinion of the sound is all that matters to me as I'm paying for it. | ||
Dwcda: I just went back to the beginning of your post. We have wandered a bit from your original posting. First of all, you have assembled what looks to be a fabulous system. Very nice indeed. Congratulations. Putting aside the blind testing for a moment, when it comes to cables its easy to get lost in the weeds. The first rule of cables is that they should not get in the way of the music. That‘s heard a lot on these forums. My rule, if I do not hear an immediate difference, or improvement in a cable or power cord change, I go back a step and try again. I‘ve been involved in blind subjective testing in automotive but it was always done with a jury of four people. Test conditions have to be stable and at a minimal level. Testing was always done either in an open field or a hemianechoic chamber. I have a question. Having integrated subs into my stereo one time in the past, I struggled with getting the phasing right- or at least how I liked it. I see your sub in the middle rather than placed at a node. It is also forward of the plane of your speakers. Are you able to adjust the phasing of your sub? Ie, does your sub have a phaser adjustment? The sub could also be confusing your listening results with different cables. Did you try listening to different cables with the sub unpowered?
| ||
Technology has been developing for almost two centuries now finding ways to fool our senses. We hear a human voice from a speaker- a diaphragm powered by an electromagnet that is nothing like vocal cords in an articulated throat. We watch movies that are not real motion. They are a stack of still images flashing at us. We internalize these false sounds and images to make them seem realistic- not real, realistic. Why do we see black on a white projection screen? Because our senses are comparative. Dim the room lights and project an image onto a white screen and the darkest areas appear as black to us while the brightest areas still appear as white. We have become so accustomed to technology that we rarely ever notice the difference between real and realistic. I’m looking at this screen and it looks like the page of a book but in reality it is flickering at 60 Hz, or 120 Hz in some cases. But it looks so realistic. | ||
I apologize to you because i was perhaps rude saying this...😁 I apologise sincerely ... But hearing is perhaps easy to trick in artificial condition but in natural one it is more reliable if not we would have less survival successes in tracking animals without being a prey ... And social decoding of language content, intonation , direction and conditions ask for a very refine tool not a tool easy to deceive ... i reacted to this common place and cliche about the fact that any senses cannot be trusted... ... Thats was my point among others in my posts ...
| ||
@mahgister Sorry - it is not 'Pop-psychology' it is based on what has been learned from studying animals and humans. If you think that, sorry. | ||
Saying that :
Does not mean that our hearing is a poor tool waiting to be tricked... It only say that in natural environment we hear the sound from ONE source not from TWO speakers... Then this does not means that the ears/brain are easily tricked, it means that in a stereo ARTIFICIAL environment the ears /brain are tricked because they are designed by evolution to detect amazingly detailed information on many levels with accuracy which is unexplained by Fourier principle..... Using it as an example of a defective quality of our ears/brain is erroneous and misleading... | ||
@donavabdear I’m completely fine with what you believe in. It makes no difference to me. My observation from many of your posts is that you don’t see the forest for the trees. You’re deep in the weeds without being able to expand your comprehension beyond the boundaries of the recording studio. There’s probably not a chance that this will ever change. No point evolving this conversation any further. Take care. |