Jump to content
IGNORED

Archimago on Greene vs Harley


Archimago/Greene/Harley  

40 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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.

 

Well bully for the textbooks! I guess those are physics textbooks in the main where they're not interested in perception. But if you were to get some textbooks on perception you might find them making distinctions between what impinges on the ear and what impinges on consciousness.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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.

 

Well, now I'm confused - I optimise a system to make it sound realistic - which you don't disagree with. But I don't do that in an "Audiophile Approved Manner" - that's the disagreement - okay, got it now, 😜.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Well bully for the textbooks! I guess those are physics textbooks in the main where they're not interested in perception. But if you were to get some textbooks on perception you might find them making distinctions between what impinges on the ear and what impinges on consciousness.

 

Oh, dear - back here again, are we ... let's cut this short, shall we? 😝

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound
 

Quote

 

In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid.

In human physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain.

 

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Well bully for the textbooks! I guess those are physics textbooks in the main where they're not interested in perception. But if you were to get some textbooks on perception you might find them making distinctions between what impinges on the ear and what impinges on consciousness.

 

I thought I was very clear to make that exact distinction, between the physical and the perceived. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jabbr said:

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. 

The fMRI may show that the brain is responding differently and, with corresponding psychophysical studies, it cant show a correlation. Beyond that, it cannot show causality.  

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment
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.
 

 

What Richard, opus101, is getting at is that, right here, you're confusing the different meanings of the word "sound".

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

The fMRI may show that the brain is responding differently and, with corresponding psychophysical studies, it cant show a correlation. Beyond that, it cannot show causality.  

Right, more so because if you imagine having a sensory  experience, your brain lights up the same way as it does with the physical  experience. 

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, opus101 said:

 

I disagreed with what I quoted :

 

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 I'd write this would be to say

 

Audio is an activity that aims to reproduce a percept - sound, using physical phenomena - waves in the air.

 

Hmm, no, audio is not about perception. It's about sound reproduction. Sound being the physical phenomenon we already discussed. Perceived sound is the result of physical or audio-generated sound, and occurs in one's head, not in the power cable or the DAC or the speakers.

 

We are again, getting into definitions of common words, such as audio or sound. I suggest that you take a quick survey of various English dictionaries if you disagree with my definitions of 'sound' or 'audio'.

 

Quote

I'd omit saying that the physical phenomena have nothing to do with the senses as that's misleading - rather they are the raw material the senses use to construct sound. I would say that traditionally the wave aspect of audio has been studied separately from the perception aspect (except in certain fields such as codec development) and might express a hope that the traditional separation would lessen going forward.

 

But sound has nothing to do with senses. It exists even with no human around. And I stated clearly that perception is part of the equation, one that's much more complex to measure or to generalize.

 

You seem to be arguing definitions and semantics, nothing about the substance of what was said.

Link to comment
Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

Hmm, no, audio is not about perception. It's about sound reproduction.

 

That's your perspective, I disagree as explained. Sound reproduction cannot take place in the absence of perception.

 

I think definitions and semantics are very important to get right. 'Semantics' is about meanings and so the meanings are indeed the substance of what's being discussed.

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What Richard, opus101, is getting at is that, right here, you're confusing the different meanings of the word "sound".

 

You both are missing the fact that I specifically described the context that I used the word 'sound' in. If you want it to mean something else, sorry, that wasn't what I wrote or meant to write.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You both are missing the fact that I specifically described the context that I used the word 'sound' in. 

 

So you say. Yet there is a very real disagreement here between us.

 

You claim that audio isn't about perception, I claim that perception is a very important aspect of audio. Perception is important not just in the perception of waves to form sound, but also in the marketing of products which we use to create those waves in the air. Perception of their value, capabilities most certainly impinges on how the listener perceives the final sound.

Link to comment
Just now, opus101 said:

 

That's your perspective, I disagree as explained. Sound reproduction cannot take place in the absence of perception.

 

I think definitions and semantics are very important to get right. 'Semantics' is about meanings and so the meanings are indeed the substance of what's being discussed.

 

 

Sound and Audio are common words. If you want to use them to mean something different, then you do so, but don't expect others to understand you. I clearly described the context when I used these words, and it happens to match the common use definition in the language we are using to communicate.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sound and Audio are common words. If you want to use them to mean something different, then you do so, but don't expect others to understand you.

 

That's OK - I don't have expectations of what others will understand. I do my best to explain but understanding - that's up to the reader.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

That's OK - I don't have expectations of what others will understand. I do my best to explain but understanding - that's up to the reader.


So, your whole disagreement stems from your desire to redefine common English words to mean something that makes sense to you but disagrees with the everyday use of these words. OK, I got it.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You both are missing the fact that I specifically described the context that I used the word 'sound' in. If you want it to mean something else, sorry, that wasn't what I wrote or meant to write.

 

Paul, you said

 

Quote

Audio is an activity that aims to reproduce a physical phenomenon  — sound, at a different location and time.

 

This is the physical phenomenon - which the cheapest, lo fi contraption can do. The very, very highest standard of a replay setup can get nowhere close to replicating The Truth of the original sound event - so, we are doomed, before we start, at achieving this ... therefore, a compromise, acceptable to at least some, is required.

 

Quote

This part of the activity has nothing to do with the senses and can be studied and measured using existing instruments.

 

Why study it, in the sense you seem to mean; because it is severely deficient, from the get go ...

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:


So, your whole disagreement stems from your desire to redefine common English words to mean something that makes sense to you but disagrees with the everyday use of these words. OK, I got it.

 

No, you haven't got it. But if that works for you, go with it.

 

Words in everyday usage do often have different meanings to those in more technical discourse. Take one you've already used  'semantics' - that gets used in linguistics quite differently from the way you've used it on this thread. Are linguists wrong to have a technical meaning for it?

 

Or take astronomy, most lay people would count Pluto as a planet. But astronomers apparently beg to differ, it doesn't meet the definition and thus is a 'dwarf planet' to them. But does the dictionary reflect this definition? From my limited research, no it doesn't.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Paul, you said

 

 

This is the physical phenomenon - which the cheapest, lo fi contraption can do. The very, very highest standard of a replay setup can get nowhere close to replicating The Truth of the original sound event - so, we are doomed, before we start, at achieving this ... therefore, a compromise, acceptable to at least some, is required.

 

 

Why study it, in the sense you seem to mean; because it is severely deficient, from the get go ...

 

Yes, audio is any reproduction of sound. The term doesn't say anything about quality or believability. An old wind-up gramophone was an audio device.

 

I didn't say we shouldn't study perception -- I just said it's a much more complicated field because of all the different components that go into forming a perception. 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

No, you haven't got it. But if that works for you, go with it.

 

Words in everyday usage do often have different meanings to those in more technical discourse. Take one you've already used  'semantics' - that gets used in linguistics quite differently from the way you've used it on this thread. Are linguists wrong to have a technical meaning for it?

 

I'll let you argue your case at Merriam-Webster. If they agree to change their definition, I'll agree with their decision :)

 

But again, you've ignored the fact that I specifically described the context of how I was using these words in the original post. You, instead, decided to use another context outside my message and have been arguing about this for over an hour. Sorry I wasn't much clearer. Next time I'll include links to dictionary definitions of all the words I use.

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...