Blue or red pill?

[Spacehound]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

On this one I appeal to a higher authority.Enlighten us Spacehound, how does "pretend science" deal with that?

I don't know  much  pretend science other  than  that in  a thoroughly recommended and highly amusing book called "Cults of Unreason" which I found in our IBM Research Lab 

 

Plus  expensive audio cable  manufacturer's  nonsense  of course,  and some gibberish about FLAC and WAV (which we invented to digitally record  the  sound of NASA rockets).

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I don't know  much  pretend science other  than  that in  a thoroughly recommended and highly amusing book called "Cults of Unreason" which I found in our IBM Research Lab 

 

Plus  expensive audio cable  manufacturer's  nonsense  of course,  and some gibberish about FLAC and WAV (which we invented to digitally record  the  sound of NASA rockets).

 

So now you are claiming credit for Josh Coalson's work too ?

[Spacehound]

15 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 ....I absolutely know that is true for you too.

If the truth is something sandyk doesn't like it isn't.

[manisandher]

There's something I came across many years ago while attending a seminar delivered by Ken Wilber. He calls it the 'pre-trans fallacy'. I prefer the 'pre-post fallacy'. Let me give you a simple example:

 

Interviewer: Is it possible to travel faster than the speed of light?

Man from street (pre-rational): Yeah, of course. If I put a bigger engine in my car, it goes faster. All you need is a big enough engine in your rocket. Anyway, I seen it on Star Trek the other day.

Scientist (rational): Nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light. Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Bloody hell, do you have any idea what would happen to our world if this were the case? These guys are nutters who don't know the first thing about physics.

More experienced scientist (post-rational): My esteemed colleague above is correct of course. But there's nothing to say that space itself can't expand faster than the speed of light.

 

Now the problem here is that the man from the street and the experienced scientist sound as if they're saying the same thing, if you don't bother to qualify their answers.

 

I think this 'pre-post' fallacy is rife in our hobby.

 

Can something sound different to a listener if the difference can't be measured (in any way that we currently know of)? Those of us who say "yeah, maybe" are automatically lumped in with the 'audio nutters'. It's frustrating sometimes.

 

Mani.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

If the truth is something sandyk doesn't like it isn't.

 

I reject your analysis, perhaps because I know the man, perhaps because I find so little agreement in what you say.

[Spacehound]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

So now you are claiming credit for Josh Coalson's work too ?

You lack English comprehension skills, possibly because Australia doesn't have  a native language other than aborigine and I'm not posting in that.

 

"Gibberish about FLAC and WAV (which we invented.......)"

 

In our language such a  bracketed phrase   normally  only refers to  its immediate predecessor.

We don't claim  to have invented gibberish  either, though we find it useful in some of  our advertisements. 

[manisandher]

2 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

You lack English comprehension skills, possibly because Australia doesn't have  a native language other than aborigine and I'm not posting in that.

 

Tone it down please.

 

Mani.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

We don't claim  to have invented gibberish  either, though we find it useful in some of  our advertisements. 

 

I think you have found your calling!

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

 

 

 Reply deleted.

[manisandher]

Hey Alex, I don't blame you for responding. Let's just leave it there now.

 

Mani.

[Spacehound]

9 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I reject your analysis, perhaps because I know the man, perhaps because I find so little agreement in what you say.

People with strange ideas are often interesting 

I know a person who has been a devoted Communist all his life. When I compare the numbers  of their own non-military citizens killed  by Stalin vs Hitler (not that I am an advocate for either of them) he goes guiet.

(Or calls me a right-wing lunatic, which is  not dissimilar to sandyk's  standard  procedure if disagreed with.)

[sandyk]

Mani

 While you are at it, do you also have some material that can demonstrate to mansr that the illusions of  Height and Depth of image are also possible with a way better than average system ?

Alex

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Hey Alex, I don't blame you for responding. Let's just leave it there now.

 

Mani.

 

I had already deleted my reply

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

(Or calls me a right-wing lunatic, which is  not dissimilar to sandyk's  standard  procedure if disagreed with.)

 

OK enough.

 

@Spacehound, you're posting at a rate of well over 30 per day. Probably not healthy to be doing this. Maybe take a break from CA for a bit? If not, at least from this thread. Thanks.

 

Mani.

[Spacehound]

37 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Tone it down please.

 

Mani.

Please also tell him to do  the  same with his multiple direct insults to most people, including almost the world's entire body of electronic engineers, if not agreed with.

 

Mine wasn't even an insult, it was a  100% truthful remark about  difficulties many citizens of Australia might have, if a rather 'irreverent' one..

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Mani

 While you are at it, do you also have some material that can demonstrate to mansr that the illusions of  Height and Depth of image are also possible with a way better than average system ?

Alex

 

For me, the quality of the audio gear has a clear influence on soundstaging. As does treatment of first reflection points in the room. It is an interaction between the two. For room treatments I owe great thanks to Barry Diament in guiding me through acoustic treatments of my listening room. Even non audiophile / non audio enthusiasts can hear the spatial resolution.

[Spacehound]

27 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

OK enough.

 

@Spacehound, you're posting at a rate of well over 30 per day. Probably not healthy to be doing this. Maybe take a break from CA for a bit? If not, at least from this thread. Thanks.

 

Mani.

I do not entirely disagree with you.

 

However, please  tell neuroscience (just an example, I'm not picking on him) etc. that their posts on this thread are often no more relevant than mine. Further, most of mine are merely responses to theirs.  I try to avoid initiating things but am happy to be a party to whatever it is afterwards.

 

Also I started on topic and have asked sandyk  to go back to topic more than once.

 

On direct topic.

Instead of a multiple invitation, this has now descended into a one on  one event between you and mansr. And there is no more evidence on the ability/skills/method/bias/agenda  of either of you than there is on the many other people, including sandyk but not myself,  who  have investigated this stuff before.

[mansr]

10 hours ago, lmitche said:

Mansr, this could not be further from the truth. I hope you get a chance to listen to some better systems. Height and depth are always there. Plus one can hear naturally occuring room reflections from the room where the recording was made. This occurs in almost every recording.

Please explain how any conventional recording technique is able to capture directional information, let alone represent it as a stereo signal.

[manisandher]

8 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Instead of a multiple invitation, this has now descended into a one on  one event between you and mansr.

 

Descended? When was it ever anything but a one-on-one event between me and mansr? Read the OP.

 

There's no need to respond to this. Really.

 

Mani.

[mansr]

10 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I am assuming that the room will remain constant. So, If Mani uses such soundstage cues to successfully hear differences, would this not be an example of a heard difference not appearing or measurable in the audio signal?

I guess I'd better bring a tape measure.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

10 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I am assuming that the room will remain constant. So, If Mani uses such soundstage cues to successfully hear differences, would this not be an example of a heard difference not appearing or measurable in the audio signal?

I guess I'd better bring a tape measure.

 

is that a yes, this would be an example of a heard difference not appearing or measurable in the audio signal? Mans, IMO it is a legitimate question.

[Spacehound]

6 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Descended? When was it ever anything but a one-on-one event between me and mansr? Read the OP.

 

There's no need to respond to this. Really.

 

Mani.

Fine I withdraw the  'descended'.

 

So it's just two guys of no publicly demonstrated or recognised  'audio'  expertise doing  a test on stuff that most others won't agree on.

 

So what?

[Spacehound]

32 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Descended? When was it ever anything but a one-on-one event between me and mansr? Read the OP.

 

There's no need to respond to this. Really.

 

Mani.

Further. I see you  waffling on about the speed of light, so pots and kettles come to mind., 

What is more,  much of what we thought we knew is not true.

 

I will 'divert'  the  thread  no longer. Please tell  yourself and the others to do  the same.

[esldude]

33 minutes ago, mansr said:

I guess I'd better bring a tape measure.

If you guys get the room moving near light speed it will shorten, but your tape measure won't know it.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

is that a yes, this would be an example of a heard difference not appearing or measurable in the audio signal? Mans, IMO it is a legitimate question.

If something isn't in the signal, it clearly cannot be heard. Any perception of differences must thus have its cause outside the signal.