| 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
So, Elk, you've now become one of "them"?
dup just asked me a similar question. Maybe you two should get together with ethan and do movie reviews since this thread is not going anywere.
I really have become less than fond of your style of questioning me, Elk. I think my link to the "Charts" post should provide sufficient information. And what Wes has said in his review is as good as anyone, IMO, can state. I'll pull from that review if you just won't go read it yourself.
Speaking of Rashand Roland Kirk's Blacknuss WP writes, "I was struck by the power of the recording, the effortlessness of the sound ... My gosh, I thought, I'd forgotten what a big man he was. Wait a minute, did I just think about the size of a man because of how a few drivers in a box moved some air?
"Every Kirk performance had its trancendent moments, but every moment at the Keystone was outstanding. 'Something special happend whenever we play here', Kirk told Joel Dorn, who produced the recording ... 'It's better than good - there's a certain something in the air, on the floors, on the walls of the club. You can't see it, you can't taste it, you can't touch it, but you sure as hell feel it through Rashand's music"
"And Dorn was right - you do feel something in Kirk's music: you hear how much he loved it. I'm not sure John Atkinson has a measurement for that, but the Ushers reprodued it palpably, holographically and definitiviely."
Is that clear enough?
Who's next?
Doesn't perception become observation the instant you try to describe something you perceived?
Maybe perception transitions to observation once one becomes aware of having perceived something.
I guess I'd be prone to consider a perception that is remarked upon (or cogitated internally at any point after it occurs) to be in the realm of observation.
Interestingly (well, to me,) Renoir once wrote about the difference between observation and perception and how it applied to his art.
I'll go look for it.
Oh! I almost forgot...I'll go look for it, your caveman level peckerheads.
I can't find it yet, but I found a few quips that kind of hint at the notion of "caputirng perception" from some art articles:
By Suan Sontag, 1977: "In spite of this, photography actually inspired artists to pursue other means of artistic expression, and rather than competing with photography to emulate reality, artists focused
It seems to me that by "observing" we enable ourselves to have "perceptions". When I use the term "observing" I refer to the act of directing our conciousness at a sight, sound or feeling of some kind such as a burn, chill, or even an emotion.
By the way, on Yahoo news there is a report of another exhoneration today. #18 from Dallas, #31 in Texas.
I don't agree with all of your conclusions, but it has been clear to me from the onset that you have an insatiable curiosity.
I have the same problem.
Yes!
That's the spirit!
SSSSSSSSSMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCH!
Not even an honest try.
It is clear that after all the noise and bluster, you simply cannot state what you believe perception is and why it matters.
All we get is nonsense such as declarations that science has shown that science is wrong, twisted definitional arguments, and the like.
I tried to take you seriously. I recognize the mistake.
As you need to be right, I'll agree that you are somehow right - once someone (anyone?) can figure out what you actually stand for.
And for this we gave up "Charts and Graphs".
Mr. "I'm so disappointed in you but Ethan is sooooooo curious", if you want a definition of perception, go ahead. This thread began on a negative tone, it might as well end on a negative tone. Anybody? Step right up. Don't knock each other down trying to get to the stage. Explain "perception". Go ahead.
And now you'll try to shift the perception of fault my way, eh? No one else provides an answer but you think this is my problem? Good going, Elk. You've done a great job here.
Jan, I have explained over on the other thread that I will continue on THAT thread because the original title of that thread was "Acoustic effects and size matters" which is the area where I was initially interested in responding after your request for people to do so.
Yes, I am interested in Perception also but, as you have pointed out, so much of the background is still in that other thread.
Regarding your quote :-
>>> "If, as Elk suggests, we cannot count on science and the laws of nature to pull us through these difficult decisions regarding whether any tweak might work effectively - other than trying them, of course, which is not allowed, then what can we rely on?" <<<
I would like to split 'science' and the laws of nature and keep them separate.
Now, to answer both you and Elk. I know enough about audio to know that we cannot explain all that we are 'hearing' from within conventional electronic or acoustic 'science' theories. IF we COULD, there would not be all the different controversies which have been raging - to my knowledge - for over 30 years - since the mid 1970s when Jean Hiraga of the French Hi Fi Magazine stated that he could hear different wires and cables 'sound' different. What Keith Howard describes as "creating a seismic eight on the Richter scale of audio".
I do not dispute Ethan that there are acoustic air pressure waves, in the room, being reflected and delayed, in addition to the acoustic air pressure waves coming directly to our ear drum from the loudspeaker system (or musical instrument). That is what I call the 'acoustic' side of audio and I couple it with the 'electronic side' of audio (i e what happens to the audio signal) as areas of audio which are not within what I wanted to discuss within the original title "Acoustic effects and size matters".
And let me spell out as clearly as I can what I mean by that. I mean that I am not touching on (discussing) the area of what happens to the audio signal as it travels through the audio equipment and I take it as 'read' (as accepted by everyone) that there are acoustic air pressure waves both direct and reflected and delayed in a room. I take it as 'read' that Ethan can take some acoustic measurements in a room, can place a room acoustic panel in that room, can take another measurement of that room and show differences in the measurements. What I do not believe is that area of acoustics is IT - THE WHOLE - 100% of the problem - and therefore nothing else affects the 'sound' . I believe that there is a whole new world of 'what affects sound' which may now bring in the Laws of Nature, of Biology, of Physiology, of ?????? - which is what our Perception of what is going on and our experiences and onservations are requesting that we explore.
What are we observing ? What are we hearing ? What are we understanding ? What are we not understanding ? What can we explain ? What can we not explain ?
You say Jan, that we cannot count on the Laws of Nature to pull us through. I would suggest that we haven't tried enough !! But, it means such as Ethan (or anyone else for that matter) having to place his (their) treasured beliefs of measurements and charts 'up on the shelf' for the moment because they cannot help in our search for answers. If they could, the problem of what people can or cannot perceive would have been solved !!! There would be no controversy !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
Jan, it would seem that you have a problem with the negativity that's been erupting around here. To be clear, it would seem that you are strongly against this negativity. However, your attitude against this current state of negativity is absolutely incredible because, as far as I'm concerned, you -- more than anyone else -- are creating and feeding the negativity.
If you want things here to be more positive, why don't you try being more positive yourself?
If you have a problem with this, or if you have any questions or concerns, please e-mail me.
Let's try to refocus this particular thread. If I find that things continue to go in a negative direction, I'll close this thread sooner than I did the last.
Thanks.
May, it's great to see you return!
Probably not, hobbyists are good at arguing.
Much of the argument might still exist simply because each of us values certain things about reproduced sound that may differ from what others value. This difference might evaporate if we could truly reproduce live music absolutely accurately in all respects.
Beautifully, crisply and cleanly stated!
If there are indeed aspects of reproduced sound that we do not yet understand, I fully agree; natural law will still explain it - but it may take a lot of work to get there.
This is where Ethan and I diverge. I am not convinced that we know everything about reproduced sound nor, for that matter, about everything in any branch of science.
So now the hard part as I see it. In your opinion, what is there that exists in reproduced sound that is not about 1) the signal passing through the equipment and 2) is not about measurable frequency response and timing but which still influences the sound?
If we assume as a given that a particular esoteric tweak does in fact change the sound in a beneficial manner, my assumption has been that we would be able to measure this difference given high enough resolution in the measuring equipment. As you suggest however, let's avoid arguing about this and accept that this simply isn't going to work. Instead, let's explore your idea.
What is your concept of what is happening?
Maybe I should have clarified this earlier, as I clarified that I do in fact listen to music all the time. I do not believe all is known about anything! But a lot is known about audio. That perception is fragile is also well known. So put the two together and I find good reason to conclude that too-small acoustic devices don't actually change the sound, even if some people think they do. In other words, as Occam might say, it's possible that Mpingo disks really change the sound, but I have a simpler explanation.
--Ethan
>>> "So now the hard part as I see it. In your opinion, what is there that exists in reproduced sound that is not about 1) the signal passing through the equipment and 2) is not about measurable frequency response and timing but which still influences the sound?" <<<
In my concept :-
1) The signal has already passed through the audio system and been presented into the room by the speaker system.
That is why I do not get involved in discussing the audio signal. In the concept I am trying to get over, the audio signal (information) is already in the room. Obviously, with my knowledge of audio, I am completely aware that the audio signal can be changed in many ways as it travels through the audio system - so please do not anyone now start describing to me how the actual audio signal can be changed - I know ! I am discussing AFTER it has left the speaker cones and is in the room.
2) Therefore the measurable frequencies and timing are already in the room - it is US (human beings) who are then not able to resolve all that wealth of information which is already there - in the room. Because we are under tension, because we cannot 'sign off' our environment as 'safe'. So, somewhere in the hearing mechanism (not somewhere in the room) some (stress ????) chemical is interfering with the correct information and it is this incorrect information which the working memory is struggling to identify. There is enough information getting through for the working memory to identify the music but not to correctly identify the wonderful nuances available in music. Put some reassuring energy patterns (Nature has many) onto objects in the environment, we can relax better, produce less stress ??? chemicals, less of the (musical) information is interfered with, the working memory can better identify more of the nuances in the musical information and present a better 'sound picture' to the brain.
That is why I introduced the subject of the actual hearing mechanism in my early article - there is much going on there which is not fully understood.
Sorry, Elk the 'thread' "Acoustic effects and size" has been closed. Over on that thread I had just taken the trouble to give a more detailed explanation of our concept but I think the old arguments are just going to continue - over and over again. Thanks for your appreciation of my effort. It just does not seem worth trying again.
Regards,
May Belt.
Yes May, but this has nothing to do with "stress chemicals!" It is simply the resolution of our "bio sensors." If you tape three threads to a window something will change in the room. The change will be very small! But there will be a change. This is like raising the temperature in the room from 70.000 degrees to 70.002 degrees. This can probably be measured by sensitive equipment, but nobody can perceive such a small change. That's why (much earlier) I said frequency response changes of less than 0.1 dB and artifacts 80 dB or lower cannot be heard. Things that small are down in the noise and simply cannot be perceived by human sensors. Likewise with light. If you have four 500 watt halogen bulbs blaring in a small room and then plug in a 2 watt night light, nobody will notice the difference in overall room lighting.
--Ethan
Thank you, Stephen, for providing yet another example of Perception. Your perceptions of what has transpired on this thread and the "Charts" thread are not similar to my perception of the events. However, I've found you and I seldom have the same perception of what transpires, or what is likely to transpire, on this forum. Since your perception of events is relevant to this thread, I don't see a reason to divorce my comments from this thread and into an email where they will be hidden away from others.
I see my definitions of "perception", "cognition" and "observation" at the front of this thread. Purely left brain stuff. Those left brain dicitonary definitions are ignored and the discussion continues as if there is no difference between what we observe and what we perceive. Those wishing to make a point ignore obvious contradictions of those facts.
When asked for more on perception I direct Elk back to what I consider a substantial breakdown of my views of perception and why we cannot assign the capacity for perception to a machine. All left brain for those who are functioning there exclusively in this thread. I go on in that post to further describe the elements of perception which I see relevant to this thread and "Charts". A mixture of left brain/right brain activities are described in the post.
When pressed still harder by Elk I quote what I feel is an eloquent right brain description of perception provided by WP in this month's magazine. A description that emphasizes the left brain trying to make sense of what the right brain tells it; "My gosh, I thought, I'd forgotten what a big man he was. Wait a minute, did I just think about the size of a man because of how a few drivers in a box moved some air?"
That description of right brain perception continues with what I felt would be meaningful references to perception which many of those on this thread would recognize; "there's a certain something in the air, on the floors, on the walls of the club. You can't see it, you can't taste it, you can't touch it, but you sure as hell feel it through Rashand's music"
And the passage ends with a pertinent observation on perception that could not have been timed more serendipitously had I planned it; "I'm not sure John Atkinson has a measurement for that, but the Ushers reprodued it palpably, holographically and definitively."
And the response I get from Elk to all of this is, "Not even an honest try."
Now I admit my meager contribution to the concept of "perception" fails to convey the thousands of years of study and thought which followed Plato from the cave. And unlike others I have not made perception my life's work by publishing volumes on the topic and conducting workshops and classes deconstructing the entire subject only to still have disagreement between the "experts". But ...
Other than May, no one else has provided anything to elaborate on their interpretation of perception. And no one else has been pressed for information. I do perceive something not quite right going on there. I assume you do not.
Not to get into any "he said it first" arguments but the only negatives of this thread where commenced by Ethan.
So, Stephen, I'm very sorry you shut down "Charts" when you did. May has an excellent post at the very end. It is a beautiful introduction to right braining this thread. If we are to get anywhere in this thread, we must, as May suggests, put at least a portion of our brain on the shelf while we discuss what is predominantly, IMO, a right brain function.
May,
Thanks for the reference to the other thread. I looked and read your last post.
You indicate:
"After the second observation/experience we also began to realise that we (human beings) are also programmed, by evolution, to constantly read/sense our environment for signs of reassurance - for signs which tell us "It's OK, you can relax, the danger has gone away."
Then you further elucidate that certain tweaks or other environmental changes replicate or mimic
"Nature's techniques for providing signs (energy patterns) of reassurance."
When you state "energy patterns" are you using the phrase in the conventional sense that there is actual physical energy that we somehow sense? That is, are you stating that there is actually a physical change in the environment or are you stating that the changes simply are pleasing or relaxing or somehow emotionally calming?
You also state:
"What I believe we have discovered is how to superimpose, on objects in our environment, reassuring energy patterns which we have been programmed, by Nature, to search for, so that when we detect those energy patterns, we can relax and conserve energy !!"
Are you indicating that you know how to create these "energy patterns"? That is, it isn't simply trial and error but you can purposefully create objects that contain this capability?
Do we as humans perceive these energy patterns outside of our use of the "normal" five senses of sensory perception?
If our ability to detect these energy patterns was refined through evolution, why do people react so differently to such tweaks?
We react very similarly to other sensory inputs. While we have variable sensitivities to sound, light, etc. our overall responses are very similar and are repeatable among sample groups. Yet with respect to "non-sound changing tweaks" (I hope this is a fair term) we exhibit extremes of response.
You may know this but I am sure find interesting that most animals sleep only with one half of their brain at a time. This allows them to literally keep an eye out for threats. Humans are one of those animals where the entire brain sleeps at once. Interesting in light of your theory.
Thanks for the clarification, Ethan. I unintentionally misstated your position earlier.
As a student of neuroscience, I can't seem to understand how "perception" has been equated with "memory for sensory events" in this thread. While I make no argument against the existence of false memories, that logic is inadequate to attack the credibility of perception.
People with inaccurate memory for events likely PERCEIVED their surroundings accurately at the time, but interpretation and encoding were flawed.
I think that for an even-handed discussion of perception, it's necessary to be aware of how various psychological terms are defined, and in what contexts they may be relevant.
Definitely agree with Erik here. Perception and memory are two entirely different processes, and while one may determine the other, what is often perceived may change in memory over time due to categorical representations. For example, if you saw an excellent movie but your grandmother died just before you saw it (and you knew she died and were very sad) you will thus associate the movie with feelings of sadness and anger despite the fact that it was a comedy or an oscar-winning film.
Perception is dependent on the state of mind and the associated activities so that when it is later encoded in your memory, you may not have the exact recollection of what happened but you have linked activities, emotions, and ideas which cue how your perception was. The relation also works the other way. Lets say the movie that you saw had Dennis Quaid. You will then later associate all later dennis quaid movies with your emotions from that last one you saw. So the issue about perception in terms of audio components leads one to ask the following questions: do I normally associate this type of construction with good components? what is my own personal history with components that I like and don't like? What do I think of a brand? what have I read in the reviews?
Perception isn't just sitting down and listening and saying what you think. All of your thoughts are based on established categorical representations of what these audio components represent and do.
That's a great point! The two are not the same, and I confused those two different things too when talking about how small a temperature or lighting change can be perceived. Keeping this to audio, if I boost 5 KHz by 1 or 2 dB and switch the boost in and out repeatedly, most people could probably hear that. But if you play music without the boost, go to lunch and play it again an hour later with the boost, probably nobody would notice.
--Ethan
Ethan, you are still missing the point. Perception is not so much about the the "overall" sensations and observations. Perception on the level this thead must address is at the edge of observable events and beyond into sensation. Sensation without a measurable cause. Not sensation of an additional 2 watt lamp or the sensation of heat from a warming oven. Sensation that is more "fragile" because if we are not paying attention, we will either never find it or we can loose it. Perceptions that is not "fragile" nor "variable" because they are shared experiences we have all had and can describe with similar terminology.
If May returns she can tell me whether I follow her thoughts correctly but this is where I believe she is heading. When we attend a concert we have a different set of ears on. A set of ears that feel comfortable and relaxed in what we perceive to be a "safe" environment. When we listen at home, or at a dealer's shop or friend's home or when we do "critical" listening, we divorce ourself from that "safe" environment we pereive at the concert hall. In those instances we put on a different set of ears. Those ears are aware of the dog at the back door, the neighbor four houses down mowing their lawn, the children up stairs, etc. Those ears can even be attuned to what might occur, say, a phone call from a parent in poor health. Unless we can put back on those "concert hall ears" we cannot perceive all that is present on a recording. If the Mpingo discs or any other "stimuli" bring us closer to listening with "concert ears" we increase our percetion of what is within the room even through a mediocre system.
Whether we are sitting in a room lit by 5k watt Fresnels or a 2 watt night light, our perceptions exist within us. What we observe during an event is not the same as what we perceive. We observe a woman and a child. We observe the actions between them and we interpret those events to fit our perceptions of what is transpiring between the two individuals. What shade has not mentioned is how many of the prisoners on death row in Texas are non-white and what that means regarding perceptions and how little they have to do with observations.
Let's get to right brain events and leave those left brain activities on the shelf for awhile. Is there anyone here who does not understand the "perceptions" that were present when Rashand Roland Kirk played the Keystone? The "energy" that is present is not something that could be measured by any instrument - but the audience and the performers' perception of that energy is real. So real it is captured on the recording. Captured so well WP could perceive its presence coming from the recording.
Can anyone deny the perception of something "special" is there as an exchange between audience and performer on really good nights? And the negative energy of an audience or performer not up to snuff can be just as real? And they can exist in the same night?
If it exists, can it be captured on a recording as WP suggests? If you think yes, how? Is it measurable?
And what are we to make of this comment?
Does no one else see that as the very essence of "perception" when we discuss what can occur within our listening rooms?
I fail to see the distinction. Adding a too-small device to a room makes a change so tiny that it cannot be perceived. Assuming we're still talking about whether dime-sized plastic dots can make a real and audible change, this is exactly the same as adding a 2 watt light when 2 kw of light is already turned on. It's a matter of scale and degree, whether changes in light or changes in sound.
Maybe you do but I sure don't! Again, I listen for a living so my critical listening skills are always engaged. I couldn't turn it off if I wanted to.
Perfect case in point, a while back a good friend, who is a musician and careful listener, and his wife brought a movie to watch at my house with me and my wife. The four of us were in a good mood, beers all around etc. We were there to watch the movie and have fun, not pick the audio quality to death. Though he did come to my house because my audio system is better than his. Anyway, the movie was a western from the 80s I think, and the sound was noticeably distorted on louder parts of the music. He had never noticed the distortion before in his untreated room, but now it was very obvious and we both commented. We weren't listening for distortion, or any other aspect of the sound quality, but we both heard it.
--Ethan
Excellent distinction.
"Perception" than as data input. Can we assume the perceptory data input is pretty accurate as long as one's senses are intact? Is this relatively consistent among individuals (that is, exhibits the standard bell curve of distribution)?
Then the inaccuracies which do occur in our understanding of sensory input occurs at the processing level?
That is, we misinterpret perfectly accurate sensory data based upon experience, the ways our brains are structured, emotion, adrenaline, bias, etc.?
That's my understanding, yes. I'd be interested in what Kal has to say, although he may not want to join this circus.
exactly. so nobody has immaculate hearing. There is one thing which can benefit someone's reliability in terms of sensory perception or any other task. That is expertise. People who spend hours and hours and hours perfecting their task i.e. musicians or chess masters. Or by the standards of this forum, the writers at Stereophile, masters in the art of listening.
Talent or skill is not innate as many studies have shown. Instead the people who are the best are the ones who spend the most hours doing what they excel in, and are often raised in a nature conducive to their skill.
But expertise or not, chances are, everyone's perception will differ based on previous experiences, chemical imbalances, bias, adrenaline, all that stuff you said. So what one person hears in a system may be entirely different from another person's perception. I believe that the people with expertise, like the Stereophile writers, are able to take their experience, honesty, and ears and really apply what they know about listening to their reviews and writings. Its not that they have better ears. They just listen more.
What about the audiophile who does have lots of experience in listening? the one who goes home everyday and tweaks and listens, then tweaks some more. Well they may also have the necessary hours, but maybe not the vast amount of full blown experience. Listening to component after component, reviewing and thinking about everything, and really getting to know audio. Thus people read Stereophile because of the writer's perception on audio and music.
Ethan, How on earth do you expect Jan to react to this BS? He gave an extremely clear citation and explanation of a great equipment review that opened a window into perceptual capabilities that all humans have the ability to develop if they immerse themselves in the time and space of the music experience.
And you choose to prattle on about how you picked up distortion in a movie soundtrack. It's crazy making. Science loses all credibility in this context and its champions sound like fools when they don't acknowledge the truths that can't be charted and graphed.
But if you were in that situation you would have already perceived its effect. Either way, try the experiment or not - as is your typical fashion - it can be "perceived" as you would incorrectly use the term - I would use the term "observed" which is not the same as "perceived", all you need to do is look at the 2 watt lamp. If you focus your attention on that area that surrounds the 2 watt lamp, there is a substantial amount to notice. If your critical "looking" skills are tuned only to broad, overall light levels, you'll likely miss the 2 watt lamp and its effect. If you shift your attention to the existence of a 2 watt lamp in the room, you'll notice the two watt lamp's effect. No placebo required.
Go try it, Ethan, turn on all the lights in a room and then place a tiny flashlight in one corner. Look at the flashlight's beam. You don't see anything? Or you only see a placebo light? OK, I assume you can observe that light. What are your perceptions of its effect? Whether your "perception" is that the light adds little to the overall light levels in the room or that there is quite a bit to see around that light, your perceptions of that light are fixed. You can chnage them but you must put forth the effort to do so.
Ethan, if you aren't going to make an effort to distinguish between observation and perception, this is going to be a very long slog again.
Your self-perception is astounding! You are either fooling yourself, misunderstanding my intent or purposefully ignoring the reality. My personal experience with anyone who plays any instrument would say one of the above is true. You may not be any more able to "turn off" your listening skills but you can certainly refocus them to different effect. But you must make the effort. If you do not, then you can't be listening to everything available to you.
ErikB, Perhaps in a general discussion of sensory perception, this is the scientifically valid position. But how do we discuss the qualities of perception that get us closer to the musical experience? In this case, I feel reductive thinking down to the cellular mechanics of the brain takes us away from that ability. The truth is in and beyond the whole person- a connection into the mystic, as Van Morrisson might say. And just because it is not measurable doesn't mean it's not real! Norman O. Brown talked about the "wisdom of the body" in its capacity for understanding meaning and experience. He wasn't talking about the brain. We need to expand our horizons and try to acknowledge uncomfortable truths that we don't understand.
I don't think that has been my intent nor has it been May's. The problem comes, IMO, in addressing "perception" as an entire subject. It is too large as whole and must be defined down to what area and function of perception we want to discuss. Even the idea of "active perception" or "passive perception" must be cleared away if we are to focus on an area of perception sufficiently small to cover in a few pages and not an entire lifetime.
You're the student but I'd say no, that's not correct. They "observed" their surroundings. They interpreted the actions based upon their perception of the situation. Take a hold up as an example. The clerk observes the perpetrator and sees what is pertinent at the moment, another customer. Unless the "perp" has something unusual in his appearance such as a ski mask in July the clerk is fairly non-committal about his observations regarding appearance, height, hair color, actions, time, etc. When the gun is placed in the clerk's face, the observation turns to interpretation and the clerk notices the gun and little else. Based upon his interpretation of the gun holder's intent, he perceives the need to respond accordingly. His perception of a "black guy" vs a "white guy" or a "dope head" vs a "professionl criminal" might change that interpretation. Perception encompasses interpretation which encloses observation.
The observation is fixed in the past and remains there, it won't change even with evidence to the contrary. The interpretation of events can change if the clerk is confronted with a video of how the events actually occurred and that the gun was actually a toy or the perp wore a red sweatshirt and not a blue T-shirt. But the perception of what took place is slower to change and the clerk still perceives a "dope head" would have killed him during a robbery.
Perception is everything.
I agree and that's why I laid out the differences between "perception" and "observation" at the front of this thread. We now need to pay attention to those differences or the thread goes astray.
Excuse me! Isn't this what I tried to introduce with WP's comments? Is this not an example of "concert ears"? Isn't this what May is focussing on?
To me this seems to be very important. WP "perceived" Kirk as a "big man" from a recording. He didn't do that by observing the overall lighting effect. His ability to conceive that image was based upon his perceptions of the recording and his perception of the sounds made by a big man rather than the sounds made by a small man or a large woman. I don't believe JA would necessarily have a measurement for perceiving "a big man" made the recording. This is transparency to the source, what's the measurement for transparency?
I don't find this perception "uncomfortable". Quite the contrary, if we approach this and think of it as as uncomfortable place to be, we shut down the very tools we use to perceive things such as a "big man" or "the energy in the room".
The better we understand how the brain works, the more we will come to understand how music affects us. I don't think it's possible to divorce brain from mind. The brain and its capabilities and processes produce what we experience as consciousness.
Neuroscience is interesting by virtue of there being many things that we don't yet comprehend. As for the perception of sound, this is generally pretty well understood. What is not well known is specifically how percepts can influence emotion, which I believe is what you're getting at.
I don't maintain that science can fully explain exactly how or why we respond to music the way we do. What I do think is that the brain is the key to everything we see, hear and touch; and what touches us.
Not necessarily. As an extreme example, I would cite psychedlic drugs, whose use thus alters the cellular mechanics of the brain, and thus if you ask anyone who's tried them, they definitely perceived themselves as closer to the musical experience. As the music became a part of them. But I dont think one should go dropping acid every time they turn on their turntable.
But more seriously, what do you mean by the qualities of perception?
No, we cannot. Go read May's last post in "Charts". She lays out a scenario that does not rely on "senses" in the common meaning of smell, sight, etc. I'll agree "perception" is dependent on data input but not the kind always derived by sensory mechanisms such as sight or even, for this discussion, hearing. The "something special" that occured when Kirk played the Keystone is not a "sensory experience" in the common use of that term.
I have to once again say that WP's comments are a perfect example of "perception" on a level far beneath what can be measured or what can be seen, heard or determined by way of touch. It is felt but not by anyone's hands.
If it is not the type of perception we should be discussing, would someone please explain why not?
I do not see why someone would need to invent senses in order to explain the things we encounter when what we can preceive with our usual faculties is quite sufficient.
In the party example, would you expect yourself to be able to pick up a similar vibe if this situation were part of a movie? Purely sound and sight?
I would say, yes, and that's without soundtrack music!
Can you tell the same thing from a radio broadcast? Yes.
Can you tell if there is tension between two people by watching a silent film? Yes, again.
Heck, anyone who's ever dated can probably do this via the low fidelity of a phone canversation.
There is so much information at our disposal, and we process it very well, that we can accomplish this sort of task, even if "blind" or "deaf."
We all carry with us a vast reservoir of previous experience from which we draw information...body posture, proximities, eye contact, gestures, tones of voice, inflection (something that is quite difficult for us to share sometimes when we post the written word,) pitch, frequency of utterance, etc...that to declare we need senses beyond our senses doesn't pass the "smell test" for me.
Add to our typical gross interpretations some of the finer stuff like maybe smells, and we turn out to be pretty well tuned without the need to describe what we accomplish as being beyond our usual senses.
I guess my main question about this extra "sense" is "why is it necessary?"
In the case of this extra "sense," I think it is a phenomenon of not being willing to give our actual sensory apparatus enough credit for what it can do.
One of the things that music scientists study about music is music perception. But "music perception" is the perception of music, and music is something that we don't know what it is. In fact, music appears to be something created entirely so that we can perceive it. Which is all very circular.
RG
No one is "inventing" any new sense. Only acknowledging those that already exist to which we pay little attention. If you only acknowledge five sense, then you belong with the left brain folks over on the shelf while the rest of us talk.
We filter out substantial amounts of information in order to make day to day life much simpler for ourself. In "Charts" I gave the example; a quiet room, the clock ticks, our heart beats. We don't need to pay attention to those things in the middle of a conversation with the electric company over a bill. Remove the distraction so we can put on a different set of ears and now we hear things that are already in the room but not part of our day to day perception of what's in the room. If we are not allowing ourself to listen with "concert ears", we are listening with "dogs need to be let in ears", "neighbor's mowing grass ears" or "waiting for phone call ears". We adapt our sense to what we need to perceive and more importantly what we do not need to perceive at the moment.
"Concert ears" is nothing more than removing a group of filters that occur in a setting where we would not normally hear live music. A musician can do it to focus on a performance played on a cheap rack system. We as audiophiles typically can't do it completely because we are focussed on all the distractions and can't quite remove our "critical listening to how my system sounds" ears.
When we are drawn into a world of "big man" perception it strikes us as out of place. I suppose May would ask whether we thought that "big man information" wasn't already in the room and we just needed to be placed in a situation where we allow our perception more freedom.
And the "reservoir" you describe is our pooled perception. It is the bank of information we draw from when the perp sticks the gun in our face - hepped up dope head/cool criminal? It is the self perception that always says, "I'm the sane one", or "It was his fault I hit him with my car".
It is something separate from "observation" or "sensory perception" which can be color blindness. As with the optical illusions a page or so back we cannot train ourself to not be color blind. It's is a lack of perception (compared to what we describe as "normal color vision" which we learn from anecdotal evidence supplied by the majority) rather than a "correct" color perception. The language gets tricky but the result is the same. We can however train ourself to recognize (cognition) the sound of a "big man" just as we can train our self to perceive timbre or room sounds/palpable space. Did you listen for "palpable space" before you knew you should?
Onto the "perception" of the "energy" in the room when Kirk played the Keystone. Every performer feels this without training. First time actors will tell you they felt the energy from the audience. Long time actors will tell you they "used" that energy to fuel their performance. People on both sides of the proscenium know of it and know when it exists and when it does not. There's no training for it like there can be for recognizing "timbre" or "PRaT". But it's real and good performers do know how to focus in on it and use it. Even in the booth, with the audiences' back to them, the technicians can feel that sort of energy and go with it to perform their function at a higher level - or miss a cue because the energy was just dragging.
You can't "feel" it with your hands any more then you can "feel" what goes through you when you're alone in a strange house in the dark. It is our pooled awareness that intiates the fight or flight response. If perception equates to "awareness of what is", then we can call it that instead. Either way it is running high in a dark house or when we use concert ears. Those are other "sets of ears" that are heighthened or primitive perceptive skills and upon which we rely for our survival or entertainment depending on who is beating the drum. You can't measure it per se but it certainly is part of your perception of the moment. Take those "ears" and you become acutely aware of that two watt lamp in the corner or anything else that is out of the ordinary, like the perception of a "big man" on a recording.
Hey, Jan, cut the shitty tone and the "left brainers" bullshit.
I'm actually not fond of your tone. You're aura has gone all brown.
You've become an "auto-pedant."
Maybe the DUP of "right brainers?" Or maybe "no brainers?"
You do sort of accidentally key into something interesting with this sxith sense that you seem to fond of: What you are describing is our emotional reaction to sensory data, which is cool, but again, does not require unkown senses.
The basic thing that brings us together here is that very interface between external sounds and our internal responses.
I agree that we can have feelings in common, but I do not agree with its independence of sense data, memory, and cognition.
OK, now, I'm sending you a certain type of image and energy right this minute....
I get ... uh, ... 10!
Now don't lie about the answer.
I don't understand what you mean.
When we observe, or acquire data of our surroundings, I think we see, hear, and feel whats around us as best our level of attention permits. And then we process that data with memorys and knowledge acquired up to that time. I most certainly recognize feelings and emotions as part of the input which contributes to the final perception in a given situation. As you stated, the clerk being robbed might percieve that he/she is being robbed by a dope fiend and in danger of dieing even though the perpetrator is actually a college kid with a toy gun. The perception is very real to the clerk. It will cause said clerk anguish, fear, and sleepless nights. But it doesn't change the fact that the perception was flawed to begin with. Even after the truth is revealed, the clerk is likly to be traumatized for ever. It is infact the processing of the data, or the faulty, limited acquistion process where the error lies. But from that time forward the perception is flawed until the error is corrected.
I agree with you fully that to hear a minute change for better or worse you must make the effort. And I understand that by focusing your attention on something seemingly imperceptable, you can become aware, sometimes. Not everyone at all times. Were that so, then we could just go to any friendly neighborhood audio dealer and settle some of these dis-agreements.
May I would really like to hear more about the "energy patterns" you mentioned. This seems fascinating to me, and it relates to some other things that have puzzled me for quite some time! Please expand on this if you have the time.
I'd have to disagree with the perception or awareness of "what is" being flawed. I would say the interpretation of what is happening would be flawed but the (pooled) perception or awareness of danger is still what the clerk responds to. The clerk responds to "what is" (his perception of) the situation as he interprets it. Observation is flawed under the circumstances - all the clerk see is the gun and a "hop head". This would make the interpretation flawed. But the perception of or the "awareness of what is" seen as impending danger is what drives the clerk's actions.
The clerk's perception could be wrong from the beginning, "all hopped up dope heads kill all clerks during every robbery." If he lives because the college kid had a toy gun, then he'll file that in his pool of perception - his pool of "awareness of what is" the situation - not all clerks get killed in robberies. And he'll draw on it after he's had a chance to filter it through the pool that says "all clerks die."
Our interpretation of what is available in the room could be wrong from the beginning, "I listen for a living so my critical listening skills are always engaged. I couldn't turn it off if I wanted to." The issue that is being missed in this statement is that you can still miss something if you're not focussed in to find it. Have you ever been driving with a passenger along when they say, "Did you see that flower-dog-store-etc over there?" No, you didn't because your focus was on what's in front of you not what's on the side of the road posing no potential threat of running you down. You didn't see "X" and the passenger didn't see the semi that cut in front of you.
If you are attuned to the overall 2k watt lighting in the room, you can miss a 2 watt lamp of in a corner. However, once you've seen the 2 watt lamp and made yourself "aware of what is" the situation, you can find the lamp more easily the second time, and the third and from there on after once it's been placed in your pool of "awareness of what is". "The situation is very bright but you are also aware of what is - a small lamp in the corner."
I'm not trying to pick on Ethan here but the overall focus on broad lighting levels becomes the equivalent to someone who is focussed on large scale changes such as frequency response, loudness, broad outlines of imaging and soundstaging, etc. When the broad outline of what is happening is your focus you miss a lot of small things - like the toy gun or the color of the sweatshirt. When your observation is incorrect your interpretation of "what is" will be incorrect or incomplete. For example, when you first began listening you were concerned largely with the broader outlines of the experience. As you learned there are more things to hear or be aware of, your focus became more refined - your pool of awareness/perception grew. Once you were made aware of "palpable space" you said, "Yes, I can hear palpable space." Once you were made aware of PRaT, you could detect PRaT with ease. Timbre, texture, micro-dynamics, etc. were all treated the same way. They had to be placed in your "awareness of what is" pool after passing through the filter of "concert ears" before you could make use of your perceptive skills to perceive any of them. Each time you pulled information from your pool of awareness or "what is the situation" the task of using your perceptive skills was more easily accomplished. Practice makes for better performance. Not practicing makes for less performance. You can be trained to use your "concert ears" effectively and easily just as a police officer can be trained to assess the situation and use her perceptive skills to interpret "hopped up dope head with a gun" or "college kid with a toy".
If you focus on the clues which surround information that say "big man", you find "big man" more easily and you don't go looking for "small woman". But you don't do this without some effort. How much effort? Depends on whether you're listening with "concert ears" or with "dogs need to be let in ears".
Certainly I am not an expert on perception or the "what is" of all situations. However, I see perception as a series of pools we draw from with each pool being filled by data after passing through filters. As more data is processed, the filters and the pools become almost interchangeable. What goes out is filtered just as what came in was filtered. The second time the clerk is robbed, he'll have a bit more perception or "awareness of what is" the situation so he can better interpret his observations. His focus will have improved.
Let's see if that makes sense in the morning.
My hope is that May will respond to the questions I asked earlier. I, too, am curious as the ideas appear to have been carefully worked out and considered over time.
You can send May a message and ask for her repsonse. I'm afraid she has had it with this forum. Too bad if that's the case.
webmaster@belt.demon.co.uk
I wonder why she's "had it."
Everyone was being pretty agreeable. Well, except for maybe one, and he was on her side!
Shall we return to the discussion of perception as it relates to audio or stay in a discussion of perception of events on this forum? I vote for the former. Voting for the latter would imply you really don't understand why May might have had enough of this forum.
>>> " May I would really like to hear more about the "energy patterns" you mentioned. This seems fascinating to me, and it relates to some other things that have puzzled me for quite some time! Please expand on this if you have the time." <<<
I don't mind putting in the TIME, it is not that which is the problem. The problem is that it is quite ludicrous to have to refer back to what has already been written in another (extremely recent) thread which was closed suddenly. The thread did not appear to have naturally 'run it's course', nor had it 'ground to a halt' leaving just two people arguing with one another. Nothing like that - just stopped !!
Now, to the expression "energy patterns". We have a problem finding adequate words which describe what we want to describe - hence "energy patterns" when I want to talk about 'something which is there' which we seem to be sensing but which has no associated word in any dictionary. That is why I have to resort to stories, hypothetical and real, to outline what I want to describe because there is no actual specific word available which everyone can understand.
Jan seems to be able to grasp some of what I am trying to describe.
Quote from Jan:-
>>> "If perception equates to "awareness of what is", then we can call it that instead." <<<
So, shade, is Jan's "awareness of what is" better than "energy patterns" ? What I am trying to get over is that there is 'something' (in fact many things), in our modern environment, which we are 'sensing' which are not allowing us to do what Nature has programmed us to do - to 'sign off' our environment as 'safe' !!
Buddha's "the brain and the five senses are all that is needed to explain what is going on" is, in my opinion, far too narrow - typical but narrow. Millions of years before the five senses and a brain, early creatures were able to sense their environment for danger, take the necessary action (if they were not able to do so then they did not survive but they were successful and they did survive and they did replicate and we are here today so whatever technique they used must have been successful), and they were able to communicate with each other !!!!!
Even plants can sense their environment and they can communicate with each other without OUR five senses and OUR brain. Please see my reply to Elk.
Referring back to my story of the room temperature (in the other thread !!!).
My story was trying to concentrate on the BODY and what the body does, and what the body SENSES quite automatically without us actually realising that it is doing so. The subsequent responses to my story soon reverted to measurements of temperature when I had SPECIFICALLY steered away from measurements because I did not want to cloud the issue with measurements because concentrating on measurements completely ignores the millions and millions of years of evolution when there was NO SUCH THING AS MEASUREMENTS - creatures just got on with doing what they had to do.
It IS a parallel to audio and that is why I used it. I think Jan appreciated it's use.
You have person A who has only ever lived in a room with a temperature of 5 degrees C. So, his body has only ever known that level of hard work in order to do the job Nature has programmed it to do - to maintain it's body temperature at 37 degrees C. If you ask person A if he feels comfortable, he will say "Of course, perfectly comfortable." Of course he will feel comfortable, that is the only experience his body has had.
Person B has similarly only ever lived in a room with a temperature of 5 degrees C but one day, by chance, he is mixing two chemicals together which have a reaction, and produce a very hot liquid which raises the room temperature to 6 degrees C. His body does not now have to work quite as hard to maintain it's body temperature at 37 degrees C and person B says "Oh that is better. I feel much more comfortable."
At that particular time in history, there is no understanding that the body has certain inherited and automatic functions, acquired over millions of years of evolution, to aid survival. So, there is no understanding that the body is working away, automatically, doing what it is programmed to do. The person B is not specifically aware that his body is NOT having to work as hard, all person B knows is that he now feels 'much more comfortable'. Now person B can tell other people what experiment to do to "feel much better, to feel more comfortable" - in other words person B is telling people of HIS experience. Some people will try the same experiment and will experience the same 'feeling much more comfortable' but others won't.
The way some people responded to my story was that "if the temperature did increase 1 degree C, then surely, physically, everyone SHOULD sense the change, SHOULD be aware of the change - after all it was something physical which had happened in the room." Again, completely missing the point that the BODY will have sensed that change of 1 degree C and not had to work as hard but the person might quite easily have been distracted and not EXPERIENCED or been aware of the less hard work the body was having to do !!!
In my story ALL the people are right.
Person A who has not done anything, who has not tried anything, has not changed anything is right when he says that he is perfectly comfortable. Of course he is, nothing has happened where he could make any comparison - he is as comfortable as he has always been.
Person B is also right. He has tried something and feels much more comfortable.
The people who have tried the experiment person B described are also right. They feel much more comfortable.
The people who have tried the experiment person B described but feel no different are also right. Their body will have sensed the change in temperature and adjusted so that it does not have to work as hard (because it does it automatically) but they have not actually sensed any change in being comfortable - for many reasons - even just being distracted and not registering any change.
But Person A would be wrong to tell person B that he (person B) cannot possibly be feeling much more comfortable after mixing the two chemicals together - because it does not make sense - what have two chemicals to do with 'feeling comfortable'.
Audio Person A who has never tried any 'tweak', never made any changes is right when he says that he enjoys his music very much, thank you.
Audio Person B who has tried something and hears their sound to be much better is right.
Audio people who try person B's experiment and also hear their sound to be much better are also right.
Audio people who try person B's experiment but do not hear any changes in their sound (for whatever reason) are also right.
Audio person B can encourage audio person A to try the 'tweak' saying he should get much better sound after doing so but he would be wrong to tell audio person A that what he is hearing now, before the tweak, because as far as audio person A is concerned, it is as good as he had always heard it.
Audio person A would be wrong to tell audio person B that he (audio person B) cannot possibly be hearing what he is claiming to be hearing after trying the 'tweak' - because it does not make sense - what have chemicals/or/or/or to do with 'better sound'.
Back to my example of the BODY, in a harsh environment, having to work hard to maintain a constant body temperature. In the modern environment I believe the brain is having to work extremely hard, in a harsh environment, to do the job it was programmed to do - to 'sign off our environment as 'safe'. Apply some of Nature's 'assurance energy patterns', the brain produces less 'stress' chemicals, has to work just that bit less hard, so the working memory can now resolve more of the nuances in the musical information.
I comment on two peoples description of using a particular 'tweak' in my article on PFO.
Jeff Day :-
>>> "The non-musical elements of the recording process such as soundspace, soundstaging, imaging, extreme detail recovery and so forth all have a dollop of naturalness applied to them.
With the RR-77 doing its little magic act, I can listen all day long with zero listening fatigue." <<<
And
Staephan :-
>>> "But, I never experienced the sense of relaxededness that the RR-77 Promotes." <<<
Both refer to how relaxed they feel after applying the 'tweak' !!! Both are having to tentatively consider that it might, just be, the human being who is doing the reacting to the 'tweak' !!!!
Regards,
May Belt.
Maybe she didn't like your attitude.
So far, this thread has consisted of people talking about a subject and then you berating them for not sticking to your agenda.
I say, if people want to talk about other aspects of perception, they should be allowed to. I can only hope that by doing so, they will encourage you to do as May seems to have done.
Pages