“ Dr. Choueiri the last genius in musical acoustic taught after many others psychoacoustics dont explain even the way we identify sound qualities... ( scottwheel will not contradict me about Choueiri he own the BACCH filters) 😊”
that’s not true at all. Edgar is one of the top researchers in spatial perception. He can tell you how in great detail how we identify sound qualities. He has conducted many controlled listening tests to clearly identify these things. Everything he would tell you is based in science, a lot of it his own research. I have had these conversations with him.
It escape your criticism that i spoke about OTHER qualities than the spatial one Choueiri explained very well ( these spatial qualities we loose by the crosstalk effect in the way stereo work). I spoke about these qualities which were spoken about in the psycho-acoustic article i send to your intention and did not read ...😊You are too busy patronizing primitive audiophiles ....
For example these qualities by which we perceived any information ABOUT THE INTERNAL STATE of any vibrating source of sound...Be it the dimensions of a set of holes in a wooden tubes and the number of holes or a leaf sound difference between the lips or the inimitable meaningfuls inflexions of your mother voices communicating very complex set of information or the very detailed meanings of a stranger voice heard for the first time and read instantly ... Do you think we know perfectly how the brain extracted these qualities information complex meanings by reading a set of Fourier maps of the sound ? 😁
A fruit is ripe or not, if we tap it we feel it because we recognize it by qualitative synesthesical association... An empty space is localized this way by tapping in a tunnel...
The scale of tones meanings and recognition in relation to pitch is a set of qualities that poses many theoretical problems in psycho-acoustics even deep mathematical one...
Have you read the article of a psycho-acoustician i posted for your comment above before jumping on one of my sentence and misreadeading it ...All sound qualities are not spatial qualities of sounds...You get it ?
By the way i can as you just did but in a more rightfully way examine the error you comitted conflating high technical measuring precision with CONCEPTS and understanding in science ... For sure high precision in measure is related to theoretical understanding but are not the same at all ...The epycycles of Ptolemaus were measured way more precisely than the poor Copernic gross circular heliocentric orbits by the way ... Do you get the point ?
A set of concepts is not always a set of measures...it is the same for a set of perceptions which is always anyway a set of implicit or explicit concepts called also by psychologist "biases"...Untrained and /or deceptive biases and/or thruthful biases , as well as trained and/or deceptive biases and /or truthfull biases ...
"Hopefully " as you said you do not confuse measures and theory because they can be well correlated or not so well ...The discrepencies could be explained by a new concept, a new perception and a new theory or not ...
How many hearing theories do you think exist now ?
"Hopefully" you know that many opposing and complementary one exist, because hearing is as many other things , as qualia perception, are not understood well at all ...
In the article above the psycho-acoustician spoke about auditory scenes analysis which is one of these theories ...
"Hopefully" for us you are not a techno-cultist masquarading as scientist as " Dr." Bill Gates or are you ? 😊
Hopefully you understand I didn’t make any claims that special relativity *explains* anything in audio. Hopefully you understand that I was pointing out the degree of precision needed to process and transmit real time compensation as an example of the depth of understanding we have of signal processing and transmission
