Archimago on Greene vs Harley

[jabbr]

18 hours ago, Jud said:

So - equipment measurements, I think we're mostly doing fine. Measurements of what's going on inside our brains when we listen, we're not there yet, and I'm not willing to rely on conscious verbal responses as a substitute.

 

Of course not as important at distinguishing the differences in SQ supplied by different power supplies, this line research: http://europepmc.org/article/PMC/5084724 Komisaruk demonstrates that imagined sensory stimulation lights up exactly the same areas in the brain on fMRI as actual sensory stimulation.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Of course not as important at distinguishing the differences in SQ supplied by different power supplies, this line research: http://europepmc.org/article/PMC/5084724 Komisaruk demonstrates that imagined sensory stimulation lights up exactly the same areas in the brain on fMRI as actual sensory stimulation.

Not surprising.

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Not surprising.

There is the old debate about quantifying what cannot be electrically measured. It has been suggested that functional MRI might determine what is actually heard, that is to say the human auditory system might perceive things that cannot be measured electrically. It can! An active sensory imagination is capable of lighting uop the brain in the same way that an actual sensory input can, and the results, in terms of pleasure are  similar 

[fas42]

Ah, the need to prove that people's hearing can be deluded, Is Strong ...

 

Turns out there is a mighty powerful way of determining, The Truth ... if for whatever reason one has decided that something can't possibly make a difference, then leave the setup in the 'poorest' state, selected from the possible options - eventually, you will be fed up being aware that the SQ is sub-par, compared to what you know it can perform like ... and then switch over to the best version - ahh, relief!!!

 

Humans can put up with inferior qualities in whatever for long periods, but will instantly recognise when there is a step change in a positive direction, after being denied it for some time ...

 

 

[pkane2001]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Ah, the need to prove that people's hearing can be deluded, Is Strong ...

 

Turns out there is a mighty powerful way of determining, The Truth ... if for whatever reason one has decided that something can't possibly make a difference, then leave the setup in the 'poorest' state, selected from the possible options - eventually, you will be fed up being aware that the SQ is sub-par, compared to what you know it can perform like ... and then switch over to the best version - ahh, relief!!!

 

Humans can put up with inferior qualities in whatever for long periods, but will instantly recognise when there is a step change in a positive direction, after being denied it for some time ...

 

 

There’s no need to prove it again, Frank. The fallibility of senses have been known for centuries and all of science has moved away from using human senses as the primary way to study reality or the Truth. That progress was made centuries ago. Must we revert to the “old ways”?

[Kal Rubinson]

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Ah, the need to prove that people's hearing can be deluded, Is Strong ...

This has nothing to do with delusion.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

There is the old debate about quantifying what cannot be electrically measured. It has been suggested that functional MRI might determine what is actually heard, that is to say the human auditory system might perceive things that cannot be measured electrically.

I do not follow you.

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

An active sensory imagination is capable of lighting uop the brain in the same way that an actual sensory input can, and the results, in terms of pleasure are  similar 

Yes, I know that.

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

There’s no need to prove it again, Frank. The fallibility of senses have been known for centuries and all of science has moved away from using human senses as the primary way to study reality or the Truth. That progress was made centuries ago. Must we revert to the “old ways”?

 

But the trouble with audio is that it is an activity which normally aims to satisfy the senses - unless, perhaps, maximum bling is your goal, 😁. Truth is whatever returns the greatest pleasure to the listener - if you wish to satisfy the instrumentation at your residence, instead, then so be it ... 😉.

 

Edit: Of course, "maximum bling" satisfies the visual senses ... so, it's all good, after all 🙂

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

This has nothing to do with delusion.

 

Don't follow ...

[Kal Rubinson]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Don't follow ...

I won't.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

But the trouble with audio is that it is an activity which normally aims to satisfy the senses - unless, perhaps, maximum bling is your goal, 😁. Truth is whatever returns the greatest pleasure to the listener - if you wish to satisfy the instrumentation at your residence, instead, then so be it ... 😉.

Audio is an activity that aims to reproduce a physical phenomenon  — sound, at a different location and time. This part of the activity has nothing to do with the senses and can be studied and measured using existing instruments.
 

How we perceive audio is another story altogether. That’s a much more complex subject that involves physics, physiology, psychology, neurology, genetics and many other disciplines. Your ‘simple’ approach doesn’t even come close to explaining any of it, I’m afraid.

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I won't.

 

You perhaps misunderstood - you say the discussion is not about delusion - as far as I was aware, in a positive sense all of audio reproduction is about 'deluding' the listener that they are listening to the original performance, while being displaced in location and time

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Audio is an activity that aims to reproduce a physical phenomenon  — sound, at a different location and time. This part of the activity has nothing to do with the senses and can be studied and measured using existing instruments.
 

 

Not bad ... you used the same concept as me, "location and time" - simultaneously ... would you accept that the 'accuracy' of the reproduction is of prime importance?

 

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

How we perceive audio is another story altogether. That’s a much more complex subject that involves physics, physiology, psychology, neurology, genetics and many other disciplines. Your ‘simple’ approach doesn’t even come close to explaining any of it, I’m afraid.

 

So, the concept that, say, either real musicians, or an artificial recreation of them, via an audio system being able to fool a significant number of people so that they can't tell them apart, when they are not aware which is which, has little bearing on The Truth?

[jabbr]

16 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I do not follow you.

There is a pervasive belief among certain audiophile “factions” that measurements do not explain how certain components such as cables “sound” and that measurements never will.

 

So then we get into DBC trials etc etc etc .., we have all heard these perma debates.

 

In an attempt to bridge the gap it has been suggested that fMRI might show in an objective fashion that Person A is actually perceiving a difference between Component X and Component Y. That fMRI can show the differences in audio perception at the audio cortex by  measuring audio cortical brain activity. 
 

Yet it turns out that when you *imagine* that you are hearing something, that the same cortical centers light up as when you hear something with your ears — well assuming that the above referenced study and line of research were replicated for audio, as opposed to touch.

[pkane2001]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

Not bad ... you used the same concept as me, "location and time" - simultaneously ... would you accept that the 'accuracy' of the reproduction is of prime importance?

 

 

So, the concept that, say, either real musicians, or an artificial recreation of them, via an audio system being able to fool a significant number of people so that they can't tell them apart, when they are not aware which is which, has little bearing on The Truth?

But Frank, you are not saying anything that everyone has not said thousands of times, except that you keep repeating it as if it’s a big revelation: at some point the reproduction is good enough to fool a listener.
 

Sure — all audiophiles are trying to get to this exact point. What your method is missing is any definition of what that point is or how to get there — it’s not useful for anybody but you. Can you guarantee that a rig that sounds perfect to you will also sound like that to me? I don’t think you can because my sound perception is different than yours, what sounds ‘real’ to me is different than to you, and my ability to be ‘fooled’ is different than yours. That’s why I said that perception is a very complex subject, and making simple conclusions based on no knowledge except for your own experience is simply not prudent.

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

But Frank, you are not saying anything that everyone has not said thousands of times, except that you keep repeating it as if it’s a big revelation: at some point the reproduction is good enough to fool a listener.

 

Wait a minute ... you have just jumped to that, after saying

 

Quote

How we perceive audio is another story altogether. That’s a much more complex subject that involves physics, physiology, psychology, neurology, genetics and many other disciplines. Your ‘simple’ approach doesn’t even come close to explaining any of it, I’m afraid.

 

This is where I really start scratching my head, I'm afraid ...

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sure — all audiophiles are trying to get to this exact point. What your method is missing is any definition of what that point is or how to get there — it’s not useful for anybody but you. Can you guarantee that a rig that sounds perfect to you will also sound like that to me? I don’t think you can because my sound perception is different than yours, what sounds ‘real’ to me is different than to you, and my ability to be ‘fooled’ is different than yours. That’s why I said that perception is a very complex subject, and making simple conclusions based on no knowledge except for your own experience is simply not prudent.

 

Simple question ... do you think I would be 'fooled' by your rig?

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Simple question ... do you think I would be 'fooled' by your rig?

 

Simple answer: I've no idea, nor do I want to even try to predict, for the reasons explained. Sounds good to me, though.

 

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Yet it turns out that when you *imagine* that you are hearing something, that the same cortical centers light up as when you hear something with your ears — well assuming that the above referenced study and line of research were replicated for audio, as opposed to touch.

 

There are actually 4 things in play here:

 

1) Real musicians are at work - you perceive this

 

2) Substandard recreation of this - you don't perceive this

 

3) The illusion is highly convincing, and all the required triggers in your head agree - you perceive real musicians

 

4) You've decided to imagine that real musicians are playing in the room, in spite of what your ears are telling you; with enough alcohol, etc, in your system this might work - parts of your brain can be monitored to 'prove' you perceive real muscians

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sure — all audiophiles are trying to get to this exact point. What your method is missing is any definition of what that point is or how to get there — it’s not useful for anybody but you. Can you guarantee that a rig that sounds perfect to you will also sound like that to me? I don’t think you can because my sound perception is different than yours, what sounds ‘real’ to me is different than to you, and my ability to be ‘fooled’ is different than yours. That’s why I said that perception is a very complex subject, and making simple conclusions based on no knowledge except for your own experience is simply not prudent.

 

Okay, next step 🙂 ... 100 people, picked completely at random, in a room, with real versus replay - 50 consistently are fooled when asked, "Is it Ella or is it Memorex?" 😉 - significant or not?

[pkane2001]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

Okay, next step 🙂 ... 100 people, picked completely at random, in a room, with real versus replay - 50 consistently are fooled when asked, "Is it Ella or is it Memorex?" 😉 - significant or not?

 

Significant for those 50, I'd assume. By the way, have you had your "method" tested by 100 people? Just curious.

[fas42]

31 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Significant for those 50, I'd assume. By the way, have you had your "method" tested by 100 people? Just curious.

 

Of course not - however, there are enough people out there who have had exposure to highly tuned audio setups, however this was done, who relate the same subjective reactions to what they hear as I do when I succeed in optimising my setups, using my methods - to lead me to believe that this is a universal pattern in human hearing. Arguing about whether a specific rig does it for a specific person is as valuable as a single person's reaction to a a movie, either good or bad - if over an extended time there is an accumulation of opinion that a movie was a great movie, then that becomes, The Truth.

 

The simple way to get people on board is to fake the presentation, using the Mega Bling!! approach - a false, visually impressive rig, with the real thing "behind the curtain" ... not my way. The real point is that the recordings are in fact the 'magic' in all of this - my "method" is to make the playback mechanism completely anonymous in the listening - it ceases to be part of what you can pick up, when listening ... if you feel that this is not part of what The Truth is, then I'm not sure what you're after ...

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course not - however, there are enough people out there who have had exposure to highly tuned audio setups, however this was done, who relate the same subjective reactions to what they hear as I do when I succeed in optimising my setups, using my methods - to lead me to believe that this is a universal pattern in human hearing. Arguing about whether a specific rig does it for a specific person is as valuable as a single person's reaction to a a movie, either good or bad - if over an extended time there is an accumulation of opinion that a movie was a great movie, then that becomes, The Truth.

 

The simple way to get people on board is to fake the presentation, using the Mega Bling!! approach - a false, visually impressive rig, with the real thing "behind the curtain" ... not my way. The real point is that the recordings are in fact the 'magic' in all this - my "method" is to make the playback mechanism completely anonymous in the listening - it ceases to be part of what you can pick up, when listening ... if you feel that this is not part of what The Truth is, then I'm not sure what you're after ...

 

Once again, you're stating the obvious. You're trying to convince audiophiles that their goal should be to make their rigs sound realistic. Let's see how many disagree. Sorry, this is not the Truth, this is tautology.

[opus101]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

Audio is an activity that aims to reproduce a physical phenomenon  — sound, at a different location and time. This part of the activity has nothing to do with the senses and can be studied and measured using existing instruments.

 

I disagree here - 'sound' is a percept. What you're talking about is vibrations in the air. They're the physical phenomena that can be measured etc. To get sound, one needs a listener.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

I disagree here - 'sound' is a percept. What you're talking about is vibrations in the air. They're the physical phenomema that can be measured etc. To get sound, one needs a listener.

 

You disagree that sound is a physical phenomenon? Sorry,  but in every science textbook I've seen sound is never defined as what a human perceives, it is indeed vibrations or waves propagating in a medium.