Jump to content

Audiophile Neuroscience

Members
  • Content Count

    3459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Audiophile Neuroscience

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

5130 profile views
  1. Me: Dude, man, bro...I get it but try as I may, it won't fit on my T-shirt N: Oh, Dude, major SOZ and SSS, sorry so sloppy. let me lay this on ya Without music, life would be a mistake Me: Okay man, maybe.....got anything on Audio forums? N:Sure Dude, whats say ya.. There are two different types of people in audio, those who want to know, and those who want to believe. Me: Nah, they'd never believe ya
  2. “Where words fail, music speaks.” ― Hans Christian Andersen
  3. To do is to be - Nietzsche To be is to do - Kant To be is to be the value of a variable - Quine Do Be Do Be Do - Sinatra
  4. Humorous or serious musical philosophy moments
  5. Hi Gary wow that brings back memories. I had a draw of TDK Chrome mix tapes I threw out a few years ago. I probably should not have but it was probably 20 years since I had touched them and no way of even playing them....if they still played.
  6. While I have auditioned a great many Levinson products over the decades it is only the Mark Levinson 31.5 transport/30.6 Dac combo that I ever purchased. It was to my ears way better than their other gear. You need to also remember that by the time these products came out Mark Levinson the man had sold the company and was making other stuff, none of which I bought. AFAIK Mark Levinson had nothing to do with Madrigal which produced the Mark Levinson 31.5 transport/30.6 Dac reference products. Harman bought Madrigal in 1995 but abandoned the "Mark Levinson" 31.5 transport/30.6 Dac reference products. Some of the team responsible were reunited by an ex Harman employee who co-founded Bricasti. The bricasti has similarities to the heyday ML of old, striving for excellence. Gryphon is simply awesome.The Mephisto unbelievably awesome. I also like VTL....and Kim Cattrell !
  7. I'm only talking about the Mark Levinson 31.5 transport/30.6 Dac combo. Touted to be the best at that time and I agree. Then again others disagreed preferring Wadia or the belt driven top model CEC model at the time. For amps it has always been Gryphon I have returned to, but owned and auditioned many
  8. Nostalgia colors perception, or memory of it. There is little doubt that today's gear is superior sounding to my ears than yesterdays gear and that is across the price range. The first revelation into the high-end and what that might bring to SQ came in the 90's with the then SOA Levinson products, Transport and DAC. I had good gear before but it wasn't in the same league. There was hype aplenty in Stereophile and elsewhere and the cost was obscenely staggering, more than a fancy car. Now, I had a very skeptical negative expectation bias but an audiophile friend and I enjoyed doing the rounds of dealer showrooms and checking out gear. The fact that I couldn't afford the MLs nor had ANY intention to purchase obscenely expensive, waste-your-money on stupidly expensive gear, shamelessly did not make me hesitate to "audition" them. "Why, certainly I'll have a listen, don't mind if I do". My jaw dropped and my eyes swelled with tears. I did end up owning them and still own them. Great memories and great nostalgia, and I will never sell them. Then one day my laptop playing dig files over usb was sounding as good as my ML transport playing CDs. Again, I had massive negative expectation bias against the laptop but times move on.
  9. So yet another perspective which would appear to have some explanatory power. I must say, I am biased to be persuaded by this argument in that it tends to validate having good quality gear🙂 At the risk of oversimplification, as I see it, a good system will reveal the flaws of a bad recording but OTOH it will not accentuate some flaws the way a bad system might do. As is already popularly believed a good system will minimally introduce it's own flaws ie getting out of the way of the music. Good parts of a recording will shine. Obvious plus. The corollary is that it will not compound or accentuate some recording flaws by negatively interacting with them. One obvious example may be a "bright" system will accentuate "bright" recordings, but you also offer other examples. It will then depend on the extent and type of flaws in the recording as to whether net effect will be "improved".
  10. Amen to that. I would wager there are no new theories that need developing to address the questions in audio. I am of course talking theories in the scientific sense not the popular usage of 'a bit of a guess'. I find myself guilty at times of doing this also, mea culpa. Hypotheses take on a much more limited scope and while they do not grow into theories they still have explanatory powers, and when tested, may be integrated within theories. Sam, you may or may not agree, but I make the distinction because I believe at times people just assume that a particular hypothesis should be dismissed if it doesn't seem to fit under a known theory. No experimental evidence is required. This of course comes back to how preposterous or absurd the reported observation is deemed to be, that leads to a new hypothesis. Case in point - audio cables, the great debate - right smack back on topic. How would you go about testing perceived differences with standard psychophysical methods. Can you explain those methods in plain English. Could you please elaborate a little more on the distinction between "reported" and "perceived" differences and how standard psychophysical methods address this. TIA Cheers David
  11. Reporting a difference and perceiving a difference are separate things (irrespective of the stimulus changing) . My understanding was that in your thought experiment a difference was perceived (not just reported). I know it gets tricky but this is why I questioned SAM about "response bias" regarding his comment relating to reporting vs perceiving. All good, just a clarification. Placebo is a bit different....but in non medical circles, like expectation bias, it takes on negative connotations. Indeed it seems to used as some kind of weapon of ridicule by some. I see where you are going now with electrical bias as analogy. The term bias is well recognized and studied in medical and scientific research as you know. The term will obviously need to stay in the vocabulary but I think it is great you are trying to dissociate it from negative connotations. IMO, we simply need more people in audio taking on an indifferent (impartial) approach, scientifically speaking, interested in answers , not being right or proving something in a "I told you so" manner.
  12. Hi my kinky titled friend S&M (yeh its an old joke) Jonathan's thought experiment established that there was a difference heard (as I understand it) I presume you are talking about response bias in assessment of perceptions ? It is often cited in placebo studies as I am sure you know. Are you neuroscientist or neuropsychologist?
  13. Popper's falsifiability does work and serve well in many situations but may not be one size fits all. It has its limitations and indeed its criticisms. There are things that by nature cannot be falsified and things that can be falsified but still not advance truth - it depends on how you frame the hypothesis. I don't want to argue about it, it is not a contest, but just be careful of generalizations.
×
×
  • Create New...