pkane2001 Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 9 hours ago, AnotherSpin said: Any and each object, or thought, or feeling appears in our subjective knowing only. There is no other way for us to know it. As such perception is subjective. Does that mean that objective reality doesn't exist and we shouldn't attempt to know or understand it? You can sit forever in Plato's cave and assume that the shadows you perceive represent the best reality you can hope for, and that you'll never be able to break the chains. Or you can try to break out into the light and work towards seeing the world the way it really is. Your choice. March Audio 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Popular Post pkane2001 Posted June 19, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted June 19, 2021 19 minutes ago, idiot_savant said: Deep. Can we prove black is white and get killed on a zebra crossing?* your friendly neighbourhood idiot *HHGTG, sorry probably not even the right quote, but couldn’t resist 😉 Since we are quoting the greatest modern philosophers, here's another one: The truth is out there! Teresa and March Audio 2 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 33 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said: Exactly. The mind adapts objects according to pre-embedded concepts and habits. This is called an illusion. At least attempt to struggle to free yourself from the chains. You may be able to see the light. Of course, if you’ve already given up, there is no chance, you’ll see everything as shadows. March Audio 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 11 minutes ago, March Audio said: I actually think that anotherspin and Summit don't exist. They are just an illusion. My mind sort of has pre embedded expectations of stupid stuff on forums. As such can safely be ignored 🤪 Ha! Agreed. It wasn’t me talking. I was channeling Plato, as AnotherSpin apparently asked to talk to him. March Audio 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 3 hours ago, AnotherSpin said: You can give any characteristics you want, no problem. Am I correct in assuming that you can not demonstrate how objects can exist without you knowing about it? Ive demonstrated it perfectly to myself. Since you only exist in my imagination, I have no inclination to demonstrate it to you ;) March Audio 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 16 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said: You have not, it is not possible. But, no worry, I've stopped arguing within my head, and I care even less about arguing with anyone else. Have a nice day. How do you know it’s not possible? Have you been to my mind? Anything’s possible here, I think on the scale of infinitely many universes and can see all reality as it really is. Prove that this is not true. You can’t do it, because you gave up too early. -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 3 minutes ago, idiot_savant said: Any Douglas Adams stuff always welcome Was he an objectivist? -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 Just now, idiot_savant said: He was very funny - a tragic loss, there can be no argument about that? Understood ( mostly ) the science your friendly neighbourhood idiot So, objectively funny, then. March Audio 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 10 minutes ago, idiot_savant said: @pkane2001 - funnily enough, I was collating evidence and proof he was funny, but I accidentally triggered my infinite improbability drive and all was lost… your friendly neighbourhood idiot They don’t make these drives like they used to! Not recoverable, is it? March Audio 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Popular Post pkane2001 Posted June 21, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted June 21, 2021 I don't think the subject of the thread is all that controversial. The definition of "ears" in "Trust your ears" might be 😎 As an objectively-minded person, I fully trust my ears. I trust my ears to tell me if I prefer something, if I enjoy something, or if I can hear differences, and also if I cannot. To me "my ears" means just that -- my ears and my brain. No other senses should exert an influence, not any preconceived notions, opinions of others, no reviews, or even measurements. Since I have no way to block all these external influences out of my mind, a good double-blind test is the only way I know to determine what I'm actually hearing. The only way to exclude all the superfluous influences that have nothing to do with sound. It's not that I like taking blind tests, or that I think they are a fun way to spend the time. It's that I've been fooled enough times in sighted/non-blinded tests to know that it is an unreliable way to judge. So, I can fully agree with the subject of the thread, if we can only make a tiny change: Trust only your ears. skikirkwood, kumakuma, ASRMichael and 4 others 6 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Popular Post pkane2001 Posted June 22, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted June 22, 2021 36 minutes ago, Jud said: But of course this is the exact difficulty with giving supposedly untrained listeners an orientation telling them they ought to listen for a particular sonic characteristic: You’ve lost your control. What you now have is better trained listeners and less thoroughly trained (but not untrained) listeners, because you can’t preclude the possibility the orientation is a source of bias. No good scientific experimental protocol would be set up this way, nor its results thought useful. John Swenson said something about one of these ‘evergreen’ audio arguments once I liked very much, to the effect that both sides were wrong. It’s no wonder we can’t reason our way to a correct conclusion when no one is relying on provably correct (truly objective) premises. There's no reason not to instruct listeners as to what to listen to if the test involves distinguishing those specific characteristics (say amount of bass, or soundstage size, or ...) In fact, this should be required. Or if you want the subjects to rank-compare devices based on these characteristics. On the other hand, if you want to know if any differences are audible, you should not instruct subjects as to what specific differences they should pay attention to, as that can bias the test. cab33, Confused and March Audio 2 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Popular Post pkane2001 Posted June 22, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted June 22, 2021 6 minutes ago, Jud said: Exactly. So if you instruct people how to listen for flatter frequency response, those results should not be used to demonstrate people *prefer* flatter frequency response, because subjects have been biased regarding which sonic characteristic is important. Yet that’s precisely the conclusion those results are often cited to prove. Not sure which studies you're referring to, Jud. Toole, et al, didn't instruct subjects as to what to listen to when evaluating speakers. Speakers that measured flat in an anechoic chamber were the ones that were preferred in double-blind testing by trained and untrained subjects, alike, IIRC. March Audio, Teresa and cab33 1 2 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 22, 2021 Share Posted June 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Allan F said: Do I assume correctly that you are referring to this? Harman's How to Listen Toole published his first speaker research in 1985-6 (years before joining Harman) that indicated that certain measurements of loudspeakers correlated extremely well with subjective preferences of "advanced" listeners. The subjects were given minimal instructions and were not trained before taking the test, AFAIK. For those early studies, they were chosen from among musicians, sound-recording engineers, and audiophiles. He later expanded the audience to include students and other "civilians" as well as trained individuals. The result was that with training, the subjects were able to make more consistent choices. Untrained individuals often ranked the same loudspeaker high and then low in the same categories but in different tests, producing less consistent results. cab33 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 21 minutes ago, Allan F said: Before joining Harmon, Floyd Toole was Senior Research Officer of the Acoustics and Signal Processing Group at Canada's National Research Council, where he used the facility's anechoic chamber to measure speakers. Correct. At Harman he built more elaborate test facilities and ran larger scale studies, but the results of his initial research at NRC withstood the test of time. March Audio 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now