| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Ummm... is it backwards day, and nobody told me? Shouldn't that be MY line, since you're the one who's been arguing otherwise?
Uh-huh. Whereas a real scientist understands that when you have as much anecodotal evidence as some of things that skeptics have been skeptical of here, it becomes statistical evidence.
Sorry, no can do mi amigo. I reserve the unenviable inalienating right to complain about anything. At any time. To any one. Ad infinitum. And a day.
No I'm going to have to claim authority in determining what it is that *I* am arguing.
Not even close. Big problem there in the gathering of that evidence.
Ha! Appeal to Authority fallacy! That's a double bonus score for yours truly! Read 'em and weep, buddy! I knew I'd get you on one of those, sooner or later!
Patterns, my friend. It's all about patterns. And trends. Patterns and trends.
But how do you know your no-difference bias isn't being biased by a difference bias? Perhaps you have both kinds of biases, locked in a sort of mortal combat with each other. Whether you hear a difference or not, it would seem, is incidental to what's really going on. It's a waste of time to do any tests that focus on sound quality, or things like that. What you need to do is tests that focus on what kind of biases that you have; diff biases or no-diff biases, sympathetic biases or unsympathetic biases, flabby biases or fit biases, green biases or environmentally-destructive biases. I can see that you're intellectually advanced enough to realize that you can never eliminate your biases. But maybe, with the right tests and the right focus, you can cause them to migrate into distinct compartments that can be more easily classified and studied individually. And then, controlled, as far as they can be. For learning how to listen to your biases, is much more important than learning how to listen to music, anyway. Because your biases can tell you much more about yourself, than music ever will.
What audio myth would that be?
The one about being able to draw conclusions based on negative results of an experiment.
Yet people will fight tooth and nail to defend their "position."
Not really sure what you are trying to say here. If I couldn't tell the difference (observation) then I couldn't tell the difference. (conclusion) Are you suggesting that is not true? I thought it was the job of the rabid objectivist to challenge the validity of other people's perceptions.
Yep you got me real good there. Imagine claiming authority of one's own intentions and beliefs. That was outrageous of me.
Indeed it is. But in this case the patterns and trends in gathering anecdotal evidence work against you. Big time.
You really don't know.
No. Let me remind you there are two elements to what we percieve with sound. The person and the actual sound.
For godssake, Scott, it's "explanation" with an "a" in the middle. Even Desi Arnaz got closer than you manage.
I'd say something about your assumptions but I know even not saying anything will be disputed word by word.
>>> "and I responded by "screaming" bias effects! And by screaming bias effects I mean asserting that bias effects were the certain cause.
If you break it down there are two things in audio. Sound and humans. If someone percieves a change in what they are hearing there are three broad possible causes. A change in the sound, a change in the person or a change in both. Until one does something to eliminate variables that is what we always have on the table with anecdotes. I don't have a problem with that. I'm starting to think I may be the only one around here who doesn't have a problem with that.
it seems there is yet another misunderstanding of what "I think they are." Because I don't think that having bias effects in play always is nearly the same thing as them being "relevant to everything or everyone, equally, and all of the time." Again I have to point out that with anecodtal evidence we have the possibility that they are a cause and the possibility that they are *not* a cause." <<<
>>> "Again I have to point out that with anecodtal evidence we have the possibility that they are a cause and the possibility that they are *not* a cause." <<<
That statement is SO unbelievably obvious it does not need saying. That is an example, Scott, of what I mean as 'choosing sentences for the sake of choosing sentences for the sake of arguing' and not doing it in order to advance knowledge. Saying that "there is a possibility that 'bias' etc 'may' be a cause or 'may not be a cause" is such fundamental knowledge, it should be taken as 'read' in discussions !!!
It is like someone saying in a discussion "Oh, I have felt it to be unexpectedly warmer this week" To which you reply "But I don't think you have taken into consideration that in Summer the sun rises earlier each day and THAT could be the reason for it feeling much warmer."
That statement is SO obvious - it is a truism so does not need saying - particularly if said in the middle of a discussion group consisting of Meteorologists!!!!
The known FACT that in summer the sun rises earlier each day would have already been taken into account before the original person made the observation "Oh I have felt it be much warmer this week" They would be meaning that they had observed something 'out of the ordinary' - out of what would be normally expected, i.e completely unexpectedly warmer !!. Which is what audio people do, they don't discuss the ordinary, the expected, because it would not be interesting.
I challenged your earlier response of "I don't think people have taken into account 'bias effects'" for exactly that reason - i.e that 'bias' is KNOWN - that 'bias' would have been considered - within the context of discussing 'sound' with a group of audiophiles - and, I believe, would have certainly been taken into account before such as Michael Fremer, Stephen Mejias, John Atkinson, Robert Harley, Keith Howard submitted any of their articles !!
>>> "If you break it down there are two things in audio. Sound and humans. If someone percieves a change in what they are hearing there are three broad possible causes. A change in the sound, a change in the person or a change in both. Until one does something to eliminate variables that is what we always have on the table with anecdotes." <<<
Another obvious statement !! Who, exactly, in the world of audio, do you know who does NOT know those things ?
I have not yet seen you trying to work out, from reading of people's experiences, COUPLED with your own experiences and experiments, whether the changes they are hearing and describing are actual changes in the signal, are changes in the room acoustics, or a change in the person, or a combination of some or all simultaneously.
I could not agree with an earlier statement of yours more. Let's discuss audio "surprises", not debate one word against another word. There are enough controversial things happening in audio which warrant serious discussions to keep us occupied for months if not years.
Let us take as 'read' that we all know about 'bias effects', 'auto-suggestion effects', 'the placebo effects', 'imagination effects', 'effective marketing effects', 'rituals', 'props', 'talismen', 'potions', 'elixirs' etc.
And, REALLY, Scott, for you to just say to MJ Frog the sentence "Let me remind you there are two elements to what we percieve with sound. The person and the actual sound", is really talking down to him as having no more than an ounce of intelligence !!
Regards,
May Belt.
790 words.
You just ruined the sound of my computer based system.
May, could you edit in an extra word so the 'good' sound will come back?
Twenty-nine words...now.
You are correct. My spelling sucks. Grew up with dyslexia. thank you for the correction.
I considered not bothering to respond to this post because I thought it was so obviously absurd, and pure ad hominem with zero content about the subject of the thread. But....
So you take my responses out of their original context and then whine about how they are obvious and insulting. May:
"Hey Scott, what is 2+2?" Scott:"4" " May:
"That statement is SO unbelievably obvious it does not need saying. That is an example, Scott, of what I mean as 'choosing sentences for the sake of choosing sentences for the sake of arguing' and not doing it in order to advance knowledge."
I want to play nice but sometimes satire is the right response. It looks to me like you are desperate to find some sort of fault in my posts no matter how absurd. Finding fault via excessive obviousness? OK......
Wow, you claim that everything I am saying so obvious that I shouldn't be saying it and then you come up with this. You haven't seen me "work it out" with anecdotal claims!? Do I dare respond? The answer is pretty ***king obvious. *All* those reports are anecdotal. Just read what I have already said about anecdotal evidence. I don't want to offend you by repeating myself. I don't want to insult you by stating the obvious.Jeez. For someone to whine about the obvious being overstated it's pretty laughable that you would show confusion over something so obvious.
How does one do that in response to a post that either explicitely or implicitely denies all those things?
I am sorry that you have such little regard for his intelegence May. but if you put my words back into the context they were originally stated you might see that they were a reasonable response.
For some, the claim is more like, "It feels warmer, and I don't care what the thermometer says, I just proclaim it to be anecdotally warmer. And it's not just me, it actually is warmer, despite the lack of measurable temperature change. It is obviously warmer, and it's not just me, dammit. It can't be me."
Audiophiles are often willing to look everywhere but inward.
This all so dreary and dull. Doesn't anyone have an amusing anecdote to tell? Perhaps an off-color joke?
If you guys are going to hold up your end of the debate I'm afraid you'll have to put on your thinking caps and make this thing a little more entertaining. I'm afraid I'm starting to lose interest.
The sky is blue.
www.machinadynamica.com/machina69.htm
I already told the story of my friend's ritual of dancing in his underwear to the Pogues
May won't like that, it is too obvious.
On the plus side, it's also incorrect, so May may go for it.
Blue, eh?
Such a limited observation.
Ok, let's get back to the subject of this thread, then. I think you're a good guy Scott, with honest opinions, and a bit of a fresh slant on things. But some of us have trouble understanding your arguments, and since you're basically arguing against everything, that leaves a lot of room for confusion.
If a claim is made that freezing CD's improves its sound, or demagnetizing a vinyl LP does, or drawing a lemniscate on a compact disc logo effects an improvement, or the claim that different speakers sound different, one allegedly better than the other. You're not claiming you know what the source of any of these claims are, right? So then, how do you propose to resolve the question you raised, about whether the claim can be taken as real or imagined?
That's rather interesting and quite coincidental. Is he in the group photo I just appended to my last post?
Did it improve the sound of his Hi Fi?
I bet that's what made Shane MacGowan's teeth go bad.
Now that you mentioned it, that must be the cause.
To be more precise I am claiming that the anecdotal nature of these claims prevents us from determining a specific underlying mechanism. We can talk about the broad range of possibilities but the variables prevent us from making any meaningful determinations between these possibilities.
I propose we don't worry about it so much. We are hobbyists not scientists. We are not going to answer that question. I think the very language you use shows a core problem. "Real or imagined?" Our hobby is purely perceptual. It's not like we are trying to cure cancer and need objective data to move forward. A "percieved" improvement is_an_improvement in a perceptually based hobby. There is no real or imagined when it comes to the perception.
I don't know if it did anything for sound. But he claimed he never had a bad run of foam rubber when he did the dance. Coincidence? You be the judge.
Geoff,
Sorry, I have not searched for it. I have limited time to spare fo quite a while now, and rarely get to this forum too.
To be more precise I am claiming that the anecdotal nature of these claims prevents us from determining a specific underlying mechanism. We can talk about the broad range of possibilities but the variables prevent us from making any meaningful determinations between these possibilities.
Which again was exactly my argument; that the variables prevent us from making any meaningful determinations.
Quote:
So then, how do you propose to resolve the question you raised, about whether the claim can be taken as real or imagined?
I propose we don't worry about it so much. We are hobbyists not scientists. We are not going to answer that question. I think the very language you use shows a core problem. "Real or imagined?" Our hobby is purely perceptual. It's not like we are trying to cure cancer and need objective data to move forward. A "percieved" improvement is_an_improvement in a perceptually based hobby. There is no real or imagined when it comes to the perception.
Fair enough. Then that confirms your bias theory is, as I mentioned earlier, irrelevant to this hobby.
relevance is a matter of perspective in our hobby. I have found it both relevant and useful to know about and deal with bias effects in my auditions.
Ethan has said in a separate 'thread' :-
>>> "Since most tweaks (demag vinyl, swap speaker wires) are totally in the mind, it only makes sense that any "differences" are very small. Therefore it's probably wiser to start from the perspective that nothing really changed, and then question why some people think they heard a change.
IMO this is the entire issue in a nutshell." <<<
And, with beliefs like that, so many people's experiences are dismissed and so the controversy goes on, year after year.
Ethan dismisses so many people's experiences with hearing different wires give different sound as "totally in the mind" !!!! TOTALLY ??????????
Dismissed as in "it only makes sense that any "differences" are very small. Therefore it's probably wiser to start from the perspective that nothing really changed"
Ethan continues with the words "and then question why some people think they heard a change".
Meaning he is looking at it from the perspective that 'no change ACTUALLY took place, it only took place in people's minds' so, therefore, there is nothing that warrants serious investigations and he is therefore not looking at it from the perspective that 'SOMETHING changed (as experienced and described by so many people) therefore, if we are professionally involved in the world of audio, this warrants serious investigations'.
I repeat Ethan's conclusion "IMO this is the entire issue in a nutshell."
THIS (narrow) perspective is the problem. THIS is why there is continuing controversy.
Regards,
May Belt.
With so many people claiming 'it's all in the mind,' how can you face all those reports and NOT consider the possibility?
May, with beliefs like hers, dismisses all those people's reports about this being all in the mind, and so, the controversy continues...
May dismisses so many people's experiences not hearing different wires give different sound as "It cannot possibly be in the mind!!!!" None??????
May's (narrow) perspective is the problem. THAT is why there is continuing controversy.
I give Ethan credit for not inventing some sort of evolutionary paradigm and faux science to act as the basis for his false claims. Ethan achieves his fallacious reasoning in a more direct manner. Point to Ethan.
Your own experiments at the CES, Buddha. :-
>>> "We had a pair of "Brand X" mass produced interconnects that were already 'burned in' and known to work just fine and Purist Audio Design kindly loaned us a pair of their interconnects.
We used Kind of Blue as our reference material and had people listen to an entire cut with one set of interconnects, and then the same cut with the other pair. We alternated which interconnect went first.
Only the person changing the interconnects knew which was which at any given moment, and we changed people doing the changing so there would be less chance of a 'tell' if one person did it every time.
We had 100% repeatability, 'accuracy,' and preference for the Purist Audio design interconnect.
100%.
WTF?
Obvious improvement in spatial representation (imaging) and feeling of air around instruments. This was commented upon without prompting and with different listening groups. For many trials, I was not even in the room and did not discuss what was happening.
_______
Then we tried the same thing with a smaller sample size comparing my Straightwire Maetros with the Purist Audio Design, and this time we had the same group of a half dozen listeners stay and keep track of preferences with multpile changes.
The opinion was split as to which was now preferred, but the preferences stayed locked in place. Each person's preference was consistent between the two cables.
Double WTF?
I've had the Straightwires for years, I know they 'work right,' and although there were differences of opinion as to which interconnect people preferred, the ability to consistently 'prefer' a cable stayed in place with changes.
Really, WTF?
So, then, we tried the "Brand X" interconnects between the Esoteric DV50S in the main room's system - no complaints, and we didn't tell anybody anything. We were just listening for ourselves.
The next day, we put in the Purist Audio design and we had listeners from the previous day come back and spontaneously offer, "The system sounds better today. You got it locked in now!"
Triple WTF?" <<<
*****************
All the trouble you went to Buddha in conducting those experiments and all those people's experiences, Buddha, so simply dismissed by Ethan as "being TOTALLY in the mind" and you say "Point to Ethan" ???
Regards,
May Belt.
No, May, and it's an important point you miss.
We did those trials blind, which seems to render so many people in your camp deaf.
We also did not invent a new form of evolutionary pseudo-biology to explain what we heard.
Further, we did not extrapolate that if a difference was heard, there was a universal conclusion.
Now, student, can you write a 2,000 word reply to compare and contrast our result with you style of result: "I knowingly rubbed creme on my coffee table and heard an improvement. Therefore, everyone will hear it; and if they don't, then they are missing out on a superior experience that we superior listeners can hear."
Can you blame Ethan for his disdain?
May, you think the only thing that doesn't change is your mind, and with Ethan, it's the only thing that does.
Both are wrong.
Bingo.
>>> "May, you think the only thing that doesn't change is your mind, and with Ethan, it's the only thing that does." <<<
I do NOT say that the only thing that doesn't change is the mind. Please do not put words into my mouth which I do not say !!!
>>> "Both are wrong." <<<
I.e both May and Ethan. !!
Then why do you say "Point to Ethan" when he says that the people who heard what they heard from what you say were 'BLIND TRIALS' at the CES show, that it was "TOTALLY in their mind" ?????
And that "We had 100% repeatability, 'accuracy,'"., "Obvious improvement in spatial representation (imaging) and feeling of air around instruments. This was commented upon without prompting and with different listening groups."
Do you still agree with Ethan, Buddha, that what those people heard (in different listening groups but still describing the effect in identical fashion) was TOTALLY in their mind ???
It is the word (and belief) of TOTALLY which I object to. Are you really prepared to dismiss those people's experiences as being TOTALLY in their minds ???? Are you really not prepared to challenge Ethan with his belief of it being TOTALLY in the mind ??
Regards,
May Belt.
Yes, Scott. If I DID say that "the only thing that doesn't change is the mind" then it would be BINGO !!! But I do not say that, never have and never will !!
Regards,
May Belt.
I frequently disagree with Ethan. You occassionally slip and say something agreeable. So, both sides can take points. Notice, I did not add, "...Game, set, and match," now did I?
Since you took the time to go and find an older post of mine, you might have noticed that Ethan and I can differ.
In fact, IIRC, Ethan was mentioned by name in the post of mine you copied about the cable experiment.
Additionally, the WTF's were more for epmhasis for Ethan's benefit (like a New York City WTF) than merely expressions of an interrogative.
Perhaps it would help if I invented some indisputable pseudo-science to go with it to even things out...
You see, the cables had all been in the same room as my laser light tweak, but for differeing amounts of time. For the best sounding cable, the lasers had time to fully penetrate the subatomic structure of the inner conductor and, instead of creating a situation with quantum dots, we had actually produced quantum strings - neh, Sub-Quantum Stringwires - thereby triumphantly merging The Standard Model and String Theory, all in the comfort of a hotel suite.
My laser tweak creates a multi-dimensional fundamental air and solid substrate linkage that better couples the gear and room to the listener's ear. It undoes the sonic degradation caused by morphic fields and transcends such simplistic rules by creating a new, unified field, free of the arbitrary and, frankly, faith based limitations of morphic field theory.
There's no other explanation! Trans-supra-nonmorphic unification.
Sales to begin January, 2010.
>>> "I frequently disagree with Ethan. You occassionally slip and say something agreeable. So, both sides can take points. Notice, I did not add, "...Game, set, and match," now did I?" <<<
This "occassionally slip and say something agreeable. So, both sides can take points" does not quite make sense in a serious discussion (or weren't you having a serious discussion with Ethan) - did I get that part wrong ? Saying something agreeable so that both sides can take points ???? How can things move forward ???
I am sure Buddha that if I had said "Since most tweaks are TOTALLY NOT in the mind" you would not have said "Point to May" in order to 'say something agreeable' to me !!!!!!!!!!
I am sure you would have challenged me straightaway !! Why the double standard ? Either you agree with Ethan that "Since most tweaks (demag vinyl, swap speaker wires) are totally in the mind" or you don't. I don't. So I challenged that belief structure.
Regards,
May Belt.
Well let's look at the statement Ethan made. He said he believes the idea that demagnetizing vinyl and changing speaker wires could possibly produce a perceived change in sound to the listener is "totally in the mind"; IOW a placebo effect. An illusion that doesn't exist in reality. His basis for saying this? Ignorance. Pure, unadulterated ignorance, as he has no basis for saying this. Just the RCI values alone can account for changes produced by speaker wire, and Ethan has been informed about the science of how magnetic particles can find their way into carbon black. But unfortunately, when science doesn't agree with his beliefs, science loses the bid to win Ethan's favour. Not only did Ethan not produce any hard evidence from his own research to back up his statement against demagging and wire, but he has evidently not done any such research that might give him a leg to stand on. So if you're going to use an example of it might not be in the mind, use a better one than Ethan! "All those reports" we heard on this forum against the vinyl demag, were all from people who had never even tried the device!
To the consumer, it really doesn't matter (or shouldn't) what explanation you give for your dark matter transmogrifier. It's going to have to work - and work well. That means, not just change the sound, but change it in a way that is perceived to be musically acceptable (this is of course subjective), and superior with the product in place. By and large, products are sold on the basis of what they can do. Not how they do it. There may be some companies that sell such products that are purported to work on difficult to believe principles, and offer no ready means of evaluation and no return policy. But they are not going to be very successful doing that.
If you believe that an audio company can produce products for decades, which don't do anything, say because the explanations for their operation can't possibly be right (or for any reason), then I suggest you don't know audiophiles. But even if you're right, that there are companies like this which are able to sell untold quantities of audio products that don't work, then clearly, it makes no difference either way. For this would mean they are enjoying the exact same long-term benefits as products that do work.
40 years ago, what is the reaction you think you would get from saying you can improve audio sound from tourmaline balls in a hair dryer? Yet this is a product that can sells today. The fringe of research has never had an easy time with acceptance. As new ideas develop, however long they take to establish themselves, it helps progress in our resistance to new ideas. Maybe one day, nothing will seem impossible! What I'm saying is, in our future, these silly controversies that people in the mainstream make over at least some of these issues we debate today, will be seen for what it is: an opposition to change.
For the same reason muscle amps, zip cord and 14-bit cd players that yield "perfect sound forever" are no longer de rigeur in our hobby. If you really have a laser tweak you are developing, do not be surprised if you find the populace not rushing to embrace your product. It will have to prove itself in real world terms, and be of good value, relatively speaking. And I don't care if you tell me your tweak is based on secret Martian technology that was discovered in a time capsule stuck inside an asteroid. I might not believe you (assuming I even understood the principle it was purported to operate by), but I would still be thrilled to evaluate it. I have never been so skeptical of an audio product that I was unwilling to try it, if the opportunity arose. And I'm not about to start now!
May, I directly contradict Ethan frequently.
No double standard.
Go through some of the recent thrills and spills threads, you'd have thought I drank some Belt Kool Aid I was arguing with Ethan so frequently.
May, can you name ANY tweaks that are "totally in the mind?"
Ethan will actually venture into the realms of reality and try to differentiate. You, on the other hand, have never met a tweak that didn't work.
Help us out, May. What tweaks are only having an effect via suggestion to the listener?
Ethan is able to draw a line, whether you agree with it or not.
Where is your line?
That information should certainly help move the subject along! It will make for possible common graound!
>>> "May, can you name ANY tweaks that are "totally in the mind?" "Help us out, May. What tweaks are only having an effect via suggestion to the listener?" <<<
Buddha, sorry, I cannot think of ANY tweaks that are "totally in the mind". I suspect that any such thing would have to be ingested (i.e not associated within anything ACTUALLY physically happening in the environment) and as I do not take any drugs of any kind, even medicinal, then I do not know of their (if any) effect on the perceived 'sound' and I have not personally experienced any changes in the sound after drinking such as alcohol. So any 'tweak' suggested from that area I have no experience of.
And, before anyone 'jumps in', YES, I know that different studies can show that people can be made to 'hear' things, through such as hypnotism, which are not there in reality !!!! But, just because there ARE such studies, it does not mean that EVERY 'tweak' which cannot be easily understood should be dismissed as "auto-suggestion", as "Totally in the mind" etc.
Let me quickly spell out, yet again, my (our) concept - which does, eventually, end up with what is happening in the brain. I say EVENTUALLY, because, as far as I am concerned, something else (something physical) has to change, in the environment, first !!!
I (we) believe that something physical happens in the listening environment which 'triggers' something else to happen. That is why I disagree when Ethan says that "most tweaks are TOTALLY in the mind". And I am not referring to physically doing something in the environment and BELIEVING that an improvement in the sound will take place !!! I am sure that if nothing of particular relevance (relevance to us, human beings,) changed in the environment, then there would not be the relevant reaction in the brain to change anything associated with the perception of - sound, sight, taste, smell. Ethan's simplistic "Oh, but things in the environment do change, the human being is constantly moving their head" does not, for me, explain EVERYTHING which people have experienced ! That, in my opinion, is too simplistic, too dismissive of what people experience.
But, things are constantly happening in the listening environment, things are constantly changing so the brain is constantly having to deal with those changes - at the same time as having to deal with the information it is WANTING to listen to (to enjoy) from the music which is playing !!!!!!!
"Something" changed, in the listening environment, for the people involved in the blind trials you did at CES for them to 'hear' differences in the sound with the different wires. Different people at different times but giving similar descriptions of the sound. I do not believe it can be explained by it "being TOTALLY in their minds" !! For Ethan to state that "it is totally in the mind" then that means that he is discounting completely ANY changes taking place in the actual signal going along the different wires. Yes, that, then, is perfectly in line with the conventional theory way of looking at things, particularly wires. Ethan's belief structure of "it's TOTALLY in the mind" also discounts anything else happening in the environment which could have an effect !!
If you want to agree with Ethan on that then, Buddha, you will end up denying those people their experiences !!!! Ethan, from within his belief structure would probably reply "But "something" did happen, but it happened TOTALLY in their minds" !! If you wish to agree with Ethan on that, even in some attempt to be friendly, then so be it.
The problem now facing the rest of us is HOW to explain what happened, because "something" happened. You just cannot simply explain away what happened by "those people moved their heads". Sorry, I will correct that last sentence. Obviously you CAN simply explain away what happened because Ethan actually DOES !!
"Something" changed, in the listening environment, for Michael, Stephen in the room after applying a demagnetiser to an LP and "something" changed in the listening environment, for John, in another room, not being aware of what was being done, to also hear similar improvements in the sound which Michael and Stephen had been hearing.
The problem now facing us is HOW to explain what happened, because "something" happened. You just cannot explain away what happened by the "those people moved their heads" sentence. Sorry, I will correct that last sentence. Obviously you CAN simply explain away what happened because Ethan actually DOES !!
Ditto, this 'tweak', Ditto that 'tweak'................
If people do not wish to struggle, to try to work out what must be 'going on', then it is perfectly within their rights to say "Count me out of the struggle". But, if some of those people profess to be 'a professional in audio' yet still say "Count me out from investigating what could/does/might affect sound, even though numerous people are reporting such", then what ????
Does one stay with the AlexO's of this world with "If it can be heard, it can be measured. If it can't be measured, then it can't be heard" ??
Does one stay with Ethan's "I wasn't there, so I can only guess that it could be one or more of the four explanations I give" ?? And, by that, he implies 'those four are the only explanations I have'.
I think that there is a 'cause' and then an 'effect' which results in a change in the 'sound'.
The 'cause' is a physical change in the environment which can then result in a reaction in the human being. The 'effect' of that reaction can then result in a change in the 'sound' but by 'sound' I mean the information which finally reaches the working memory - to be resolved by the working memory so that it can present a 'sound picture' to the brain. From such as Ethan's viewpoint the 'physical change' would be the 'moving of the person's head' resulting in a change in the 'sound' which reached the working memory. From such as your (stated) viewpoint Buddha, the 'physical change' would be doing something in the environment and then BELIEVING that it will improve the sound !! But, surely, EVERYTHING can't be explained so ??
I am going away on holiday now so may be "out of Internet action" - certainly I would not be deliberately ignoring you, Buddha if I do not reply any further..
If you are SERIOUSLY interested Buddha, I can continue when I return. I realise, from your many replies to me personally - or even from your general responses - that you do not seem to have as good an understanding of our concepts as many others do. For example :-
Your comment :-
>>> "I give Ethan credit for not inventing some sort of evolutionary paradigm and faux science to act as the basis for his false claims. Ethan achieves his fallacious reasoning in a more direct manner." <<<
In that ONE sentence you have introduced various 'snide' comments.
I.e "not inventing some sort of evolutionary paradigm and faux science to act as the basis for false claims."
I do NOT introduce evolutionary aspects as faux science. Evolutionary aspects are evolutionary aspects if one believes in evolution !! Evolutionary aspects are then not faux science to the person who believes in evolution. Which I do.
When it is the human being involved in doing the listening as opposed to purely a microphone picking up a physical acoustic signal and then that signal being technically processed, then aspects of who we are and what we are become important - and certainly cannot be dismissed. AND, before people react, YES, that would include consideration of such as biases, auto-suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, audio faith healing, effective marketing, props, talismen, rituals, potions and elixirs etc. All of which have to be taken into account before concepts can be 'honed' further. ALL those things AS WELL AS what we have inherited throughout millions of years of evolution !!
Really, (sorry, I just can't help but react) Ethan's four explanations as his answer to all that is happening just leaves me somewhat paralysed at the thought of such narrowness.
Regards,
May Belt.
Pages