QuestForThe13thNote said:
lol, wrong
https://www.inverse.com/article/5946-science-says-your-emotional-state-changes-how-you-see-hear-and-taste
try again. But you're just making stuff up now to back up your point of view.
lol, wrong
https://www.inverse.com/article/5946-science-says-your-emotional-state-changes-how-you-see-hear-and-taste
try again. But you're just making stuff up now to back up your point of view.
You have to look at and concentrate on the explanation for why the trick happens. Ie in the train example we have evolved to rely on our eyes, and that would stand to reason in a primitive and safety sense.
my brain can’t be tricked that I want a drum to sound better and deeper and more accurate, just because of a trick that can’t happen or be explained. That I want it to, or I got up in the morning or night. It’s the same sound. How would you explain that?
You cant generalise and say that because the brain plays tricks in known specific instances, we apply it to all thinking, as you do. We understand what goes on in the mcgurk effect from an evolutionary sense.
There is absolutely no reason to hear drum not sounding as god by morning or night. Can you imagine if we applied that thinking extremely. Hearing an alarm when it’s a cat, etc. That’s what davedotco is implying and I’m sorry we don’t work like that.
my brain can’t be tricked that I want a drum to sound better and deeper and more accurate, just because of a trick that can’t happen or be explained. That I want it to, or I got up in the morning or night. It’s the same sound. How would you explain that?
You cant generalise and say that because the brain plays tricks in known specific instances, we apply it to all thinking, as you do. We understand what goes on in the mcgurk effect from an evolutionary sense.
There is absolutely no reason to hear drum not sounding as god by morning or night. Can you imagine if we applied that thinking extremely. Hearing an alarm when it’s a cat, etc. That’s what davedotco is implying and I’m sorry we don’t work like that.
QuestForThe13thNote said:
actually you're still wrong about what you say. Time of day with air pressure does affect our hearing. Keep trying though. I could hand you a ladder to get out the hole, but it might not be expensive enough for you to believe it will work
cheeseboy said:
yes but that’s physiological (rather than to do with brain function) because the pressure in the middle ear effects how the eardrum will vibrate the ossicles of the ear. Clearly if you have higher or lower pressure there will be an effect there. And check out what I said before pshysiological things are different to brain functioning.
but I don’t buy these studies mentioned on being fearful and hearing better, or a hill looking steeper when tired than not. That’s the way our brain influences our thinking due to contradicting messages as with the train station platform. I still hear the same thing, or I still see the same slant of the hill whether I’ve walked 20 miles before or 1mile.
But quite how we’d apply this to sitting down in a hi Fi shop or demo and being in the same state, whatever view we take on those studies, as hearing one cable and then another and being able to discern differences, is quite another matter. But not only we do that but the whole room of people does too. If you’d expect differences in our mood, or if fearful, the list davedotco mentions, wouldn’t we expect variance in people’s thinking. We don’t.......
davidf said:
If that was actually true, it would make this thread worthwhile. The reality is that we can not control the subconcious part of the brain and that affects everything.
Hi-fi is a relatively trivial hobby so no-one is going to spend lots of time and money on scientifically viable tests to prove or disprove differences in cables, not going to happen.
What we can do is examine the test data that we do have, for example we know that, when tested in even the simplest of blind tests, differences in equipment or cables (often 'night and day' in sighted tests) virtually dissapear. There are many examples to be found, see previous threads on this subject.
We also know that in critical medical tests, the testers go to great lengths to avoid suggestion bias and placebo effects, double blind testing has become the 'gold standard' for subjective testing and it is so for a reason.
QuestForThe13thNote said:
and therein lies your entire argument i guess. Perhaps you could show us the studies you have read that lead you to believe this, or maybe ones which you have carried out yourself. Or is your opinion now more valid than the raft of scientific studies out there that contradict what you are saying?
davedotco said:
our hearing is not related to our subconscious in most healthy people, it’s related to the conscious parts of the brain. It has to as we have to be conscious of hearing to respond to our environment.
i agree it’s trivial and no interest to do proper tests, so when these people say lots of tests prove abx issues, I say where are they, as if you are looking at them they are rudimentary. Oh how come that cable isn’t so good, oh ‘Dave told me from his test’. So there are not examples as davedotco says. As always you have to consider all the right reasons that you need to know how it works in your environment. You can’t rely on some internet test but I’d agree if you put strangers in a shop not knowing systems they probably wouldn’t be able to discern differences, I think this is down to familiarity in hi Fi, as nobody is going to deny the types of differences cables like Ethernet cables make are relatively small (if you believe they do of course)
cheeseboy said:
no I didn’t say that. You implied it. My view is there are no reliable scientific study in the hi Fi abx debate FOR BOTH FOR AND AGAINST THE DEBATE people can and can’t pick out cables in such tests. The one I did myself with a friend was small sample size, not significant as a argument as a whole therfore, but it did show me what I believed and it was easy to discern two speaker wires in abx, one performing well and one not do well. My friend picked them out too. I did so 4-5 times in a row.
nopiano
Well-known member
As most will have discovered, the usual way is to play a couple of minutes of a track, switch something, then play them again.
I never listen to music like this, especially something I may never have heard before. As a sort of test for the process, choose a new recording or something off a streaming service you don’t know. Play the first two mins, then pause and replay it. I’m sure you’ll hear different things second time around.
If you do, that’s your Ethernet test debunked!
I never listen to music like this, especially something I may never have heard before. As a sort of test for the process, choose a new recording or something off a streaming service you don’t know. Play the first two mins, then pause and replay it. I’m sure you’ll hear different things second time around.
If you do, that’s your Ethernet test debunked!
abacus
Well-known member
QuestForThe13thNote, (And others of a similar vain) if you want to be taken seriously then provide verifiable evidence of your claim, (You just need to say what you heard and then what tests and investigations you performed to remove all outside interference (Which includes expectation bias) so that others can replicate it) as once it is confirmed by others it becomes fact. (Not before)
In addition don’t take my word about human senses that I posted in my original post, but ask a doctor, that way you will not look silly and keep posting all your ridicules statements about the human senses, when it is quite obvious you know nothing about them.
Bill
In addition don’t take my word about human senses that I posted in my original post, but ask a doctor, that way you will not look silly and keep posting all your ridicules statements about the human senses, when it is quite obvious you know nothing about them.
Bill
cheeseboy said:
yeah we did that one didn’t we. I was interested in what it said and one had to buy the paper study online. I asked if anyone had downloaded it and nobody responded. So we come from the perspective of what others says, I always prefer to make my own mind up, but as davedotco rightly says there is no will unlike some chemistry or biology studies that have huge importance eg cancer studies etc. I do find it bizarre that people just believe others without making their own mind up. Is it just because we believe aes, has nobody actually read any of this stuff. Thats not how it works.
QuestForThe13thNote said:
odd, must have been the other Questforthe13thnote that I quoted then
QuestForThe13thNote said:
I don't need to imply anything. I'm just quoting you. Plus, there are reliable studies that I have linked to just now and in the past.
nopiano said:
it's very true. When I've done any kind of tests in the past, I always like to do the test where I don't actually change anything, and low and behold people still swear they hear differences. So if people hear differences when nothing changes, what chance is there to *reliably* hear differences if things do change?
cheeseboy said:
you can’t just quote something and say that because someone else thinks it, you are correct. You have to have thought it through too. Do you really believe from your experiences that if you’ve walked 20miles and you look at a hill, your visual system bends the hill to be steeper like you’d taken lsd. Now you may be thinking it’s stepper but that’s different to your visual cue. We can’t change the way we see stuff because of such matters. I don’t think they will be implying the vision is bent to make the hill steeper. I don’t because if I’ve walked up my hill at the end of my road whether I’m tired or not, it still looks the same. What they are talking about it is how we interpret and feel the experience, and feeling is very much a part of our higher brains not the simpler wiring of say the wiring between our eyes and visual cortex on the optical nerve.
cheeseboy said:QuestForThe13thNote said:
odd, must have been the other Questforthe13thnote that I quoted then
QuestForThe13thNote said:
I don't need to imply anything. I'm just quoting you. Plus, there are reliable studies that I have linked to just now and in the past.
you aren’t making any points here for the debate.
QuestForThe13thNote said:
Read my post before posting such drivel. Where on earth do I say that what we hear is only related to our subconcious, nowhere!
Regarding blind testing, we can only look at the evidence that we have and I refer to the difficulties people have in 'even the simplest of blind tests', there are plenty of examples of this should you care to look.
Much of the rest of your post makes little sense and is simply a rant, it does not address anything and what on earth does 'ABX testing' have to do with this?
QuestForThe13thNote said:
*ROFL* comedy gold. I'm guessing the irony is lost on you no? At least I'm quoting things to back stuff up, you are quite literally making things up as you go along and just expecting everybody to curtail to what you think. *dash1*
cheeseboy said:
thats really illogical thinking. It’s like saying if I give you an apple to taste blind and then another apple blind, and you say you can discern the second fruit being different, when I then give sineone else an orange blind and an apple, you consider what chance would someone else have of discerning that apple from the orange????
cheeseboy said:
now you are starting to get aggressive with me and personal. If you think what I say is rubbish why not say and we can have a good debate.
cheeseboy said:
no I’m going along with good reasoned well thought out stuff, based on how our brains work and common experiences. You can’t quote nothing to back stuff up, where is the article what does it say, where are the conclusions. If you want to add something why not mention that. Please do........
QuestForThe13thNote said:
Dude, I am saying why I think it's rubbish, but all you are doing is saying that you don't agree with it, then going off on some incomprehensible rant which make no sense.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram