TrevC said:
LOL nice one Trev. I'm glad you read my posts carefully. Hehe. its is a bit dull out. I onder whether the sun will come out.
LOL nice one Trev. I'm glad you read my posts carefully. Hehe. its is a bit dull out. I onder whether the sun will come out.
MajorFubar said:
I have a better analogy. ATC say it takes some small number of milliseconds for their components to reach optimum performance. They, of course, make most of their money from professional installations rather than domestic hifi. Can you imagine the conversation after they've fitted a million dollar concert hall installation? 'It'll sound a bit rubbish for the first dozen or so performances, but it'll be fine after that.'
'I trust my ears'. Thats where you are going wrong. As in my previous reply. Not only expectation bias but ears are totally unreliable. I expect my youtube link would 'fool' (unfortunate word) golden eared, trained audio engineers and every other ear out there. 
I am again amused by innapropriate analogies. Meat now I suggest you try cheap Aldi scottish steak with more expensive from M&S etc.
Must dash - off to Aldi .......
I am again amused by innapropriate analogies. Meat now
I suggest you try cheap Aldi scottish steak with more expensive from M&S etc.Must dash - off to Aldi .......
Glacialpath said:
I'd say that would be the only reasonable thing to do, since most of us are using ears and brain to listen to music :boohoo: , not some sort of measuring equipment, military grade or not. Buying hi-fi to indulge oneself in some sort of measuring hobby :read: would be just silly.
:?
I've learned something from this thread. Folks go on and on and on about how we should always audition kit before we buy. It's obviously complete b******s, because we can't trust our ears and brains to detect any differences. Therefore, we should all buy the cheapest of everything.
What amazes me most about this revelation is that it's often the same people who tell us to audiotion as also tell us not to trust our ears.
What amazes me most about this revelation is that it's often the same people who tell us to audiotion as also tell us not to trust our ears.
RobinKidderminster said:
What came first our ears and the ability to hear and desipher sound or the technology we created using our existing knowledge of sound and having to feed that knowledge into the new technology before it could understand what it's purpose was?
Oh hang on I thought of another great analogy for you. Submerines used to use Sonar to listen for othe ships/subs in the water but hang on that made a noise, what did they do when the wanted to stay silent.....? Oh hang on these guys would sit there with headphones on and could tell exactly what sounds were being heard, you've seen the movies I'm sure so you know what I'm talking about. Oh but before they would relay the message to the captain and the crew they would ping off a few Sonar pings just to be sure.....oh woops they get depth charged for making a sound, dam should have just stuck with trusting the guys ears.
Sorry mate science will only prove so much but until you feel, hear and see a train coming, will looking at a divice clearly stating there is a train coming will it actually be coming??????? Just thought I would throw that in for a laugh.
Glacialpath said:
Hugely entertaining......!
You really think sailors in billion pound submarines listen out for the enemy with their ears, too many WW2 movies for you......!
Next you'll be telling me that modern astronomers actually look through their telescopes........ :rofl:
You need to consider what you are saying....!
"The first law of holes", applies very strongly in this case...... :read:
davedotco said:
So Dave at what point did I mention modern submarines or suggest I was talking about anything other than WWII period subs and crews?
I must learn how to write so I sound clever because clearly I'm not.
Most Astronomers look through some kind of screen and don't look directly at the object the scope is pointed at. On a lesser scpoe you look through the eye piece looking at the morror reflecting the image and never down the scope itself. Come on next. What are youo sure I don't know?
RobinKidderminster said:
Sorry Robbin I only just looked at this video clip. Yeah it's very cool. However I was only fooled because my eyes were open for the first Bar/Far bit I knew the sound hadn't changed. The circle flashed once but nothing to do with the sound made me get it wrong. My brain thought it flashed once then logic stepped in and said I was only meant to think it flashed once but it flashed more than once. The double audio blip didn't really play much part in that. And yeah I'm a musician I know about the ever upward sounding scales but I didn't fall for it. A fret board is only so long you know.
Regarding the first clip as I said my eyes tricked me but only because the video changed of couorse the sound didn't. My ears told me the the sound hadn't changed but my eyes did. I'm saying I trust my ears not my eyes. Try again mate. If you whole heartedly believe we are all tricked that easily then you are wrong.
I'm not saying our sences cn't be fooled.
pauln said:
I think it does, but you could substitute "cheapest" with "prettiest" or "smallest" or "biggest" or "blackest" or anything at all so long as it has nothing do with sound quality.
Glacialpath said:
Submarines use passive sonar and the results are analysed by computer, the sonar operator looks at a screen. This has been the case since WW2, though in early days the 'computers' were simply a complex range of filters and frequency multipliers.
Serious astronomers do not 'look through' telescopes, they use still cameras, hugely more sensitive, assuming they are interested in visible light. (Most are not)
If you are going to use analogies, it is best to make sure they are clear.
Trusting what you hear, without some form of 'check' on whether what you are hearing is 'real' or not is pointless, in any kind of factual way.
Yes you may well hear a difference, and that may be extremely meaningful to you, but applying your experience outside of yourself does not work in any sort of meaningful way.
Glacialpath said:
It’s an unfortunate trend on the forum that some people seem to take pleasure in mocking those they think less intelligent or knowledgeable than themselves.
It’s all very childish and not even funny.
I disagree with you about cables, but I hope you stick to your guns.
Matt
Yet more analogies to smile at Cars, nuclear physics, meat & now sonar, submarines and astronomy. Can I compare thee to a summer's day?
The OP referred to burn in solid state - how these threads wander (lonely as a ....)
IMO ears are unreliable in comparitive situations and can easily be fooled. However, it seems sensible to audition over a short period if possible to ensure it sounds right.to our individual ears in our individual environments.
I also believe that science is the only way to determine differences in sound reproduction although those differences may or may not be audible.
I would like to know why 'burn-in' always IMPROVES sound never degrades it.
I say let science find the facts and then let our ears decide how those facts effect our hearing.
Must go - steaks to cook .....
Cars, nuclear physics, meat & now sonar, submarines and astronomy. Can I compare thee to a summer's day?The OP referred to burn in solid state - how these threads wander (lonely as a ....)
IMO ears are unreliable in comparitive situations and can easily be fooled. However, it seems sensible to audition over a short period if possible to ensure it sounds right.to our individual ears in our individual environments.
I also believe that science is the only way to determine differences in sound reproduction although those differences may or may not be audible.
I would like to know why 'burn-in' always IMPROVES sound never degrades it.
I say let science find the facts and then let our ears decide how those facts effect our hearing.
Must go - steaks to cook .....
RobinKidderminster said:Yet more analogies to smile at
The OP referred to burn in solid state - how these threads wander (lonely as a ....)
IMO ears are unreliable in comparitive situations and can easily be fooled. However, it seems sensible to audition over a short period if possible to ensure it sounds right.to our individual ears in our individual environments.
I also believe that science is the only way to determine differences in sound reproduction although those differences may or may not be audible.
I would like to know why 'burn-in' always IMPROVES sound never degrades it.
I say let science find the facts and then let our ears decide how those facts effect our hearing.
Must go - steaks to cook .....
I'll have my medium rare please. Keep yoour Aldi one I'll have the Sainsbury's any day. Scratch that, lets go posh and have M&S steak.
Regarding letting science finding the facts. I'll just save my time and go straight to my ears :cheers:
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Question How do I get my sound working through my DAC? Need some advice!- Started by Yoran
- Replies: 38
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram