Almost a good catch! The brain is biology; the mind (inc. perception) is psychology. Actually, it's all physics.
Bruno Putzeys on audio pricing
- Thread starter Markus S
- Start date
Almost a good catch! The brain is biology; the mind (inc. perception) is psychology. Actually, it's all physics.
ultrawomble
Sith Lord
Psychology doesn't exist without biology.
Apparently not. Maybe listening without a perception framework is like trying to taste with a blocked nose . . .
Maybe knowing what you're listening to helps you to characterise it. Maybe not knowing what you're listening to modifies your mental state and impairs acuity.
I know it seems equally problematic - perhaps self-defeating - to advocate sighted listening, but the 'expectation bias' argument is overstated - very frequently your impression of a product goes counter to your expectation. The more often this happens, the less you are influenced by the 'sighted' aspect of the trial. Often, two components DO sound very similar. And there is widespread, independently arrived-at, consensus on the 'signature' of certain products. Sighted listening produces results that are much more plausibly diverse than the homogenisation that results when blind. Which rather supports the idea that sighted listening is more accurate.
Remember too, that the only alternative viewpoint demands belief in a vast and unlikely delusion among the worldwide community of listeners.
Referencing Bart Locanthi's insightful observation of a codec glitch gleaned almost immediately from 'normal' listening that had been 'overlooked' by years of blind trials by Swedish radio, Robert Harley asks:
How is it possible that a single listener, using non-blind observational listening techniques, was able to discoverin less than ten minutesa distortion that escaped the scrutiny of 60 expert listeners, 20,000 trials conducted over a two-year period, and elaborate double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference methodology, and sophisticated statistical analysis?
Nothing exists without physics, or as mathematicians say, maths - what is your point?
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
He just had better hearing and likely a hifi that highlighted the glitch, duh
sergeauckland
pfm Member
But that's my point. We don't all know what they mean. I have no idea what "timing" is, or "coherence" or "musicality" or any of the other words used to describe sound. I know what a dip of 2.3dB at 10kHz sounds like, but couldn't tell anyone else, they just have to hear it for themselves.
S
sergeauckland
pfm Member
A common way of measuring wine excellence is to ask the drinker "how much would you be willing to pay for this wine". A group of friends of mine used to have regular wine tasting parties. One of my "party tricks" was to be given a number of glasses and be asked to place them in price order. I usually made only a few mistakes. Rather depressing in that you seldom get a cheap wine tasting like an expensive wine. More common (but still quite rare) is that some expensive wines are duds.
Nic P
Nic P
sergeauckland
pfm Member
It also depends on what is considered "cheap" or "expensive". My all-time favourite wine at any price is 10/ bottle. I would rather drink that than any other wine at any price. When does that fit in the global scheme of things?
S.
There are a few reasonably priced stars, please mention the wine's name and I will see if I can get a bottle. For me the Californian wine Bonterra (organic made by Robert Mondavi) both Merlot and Chardonnay punch above their weight. On offer they are also about the 10 euro level. Unfortunately such stars are few and far between.
Nic P
sergeauckland
pfm Member
It the Domaine de Mayrac Millesime 2006. I get it at the wineyard, no idea if it's exported. The 2007 is a bit thin, and they haven't declared a later vintage. They have all sorts of other wines, but none to my taste as the Millesime 2006. I don't know what I'll do when the 2006 is finished, perhaps they'll declare a later vintage. In the past, they had great vintages in 1998, 2002 and the current 2006.
http://www.domaine-mayrac.com/
onlyconnect
pfm Member
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
The glass may affect the perception of wine, but not nearly to the same extent nor the same complication as hifi does to music.
onlyconnect
pfm Member
I agree, of course. Hi-fi has some way to go. The purpose of these discussions, I imagine, is to help us invest in the things that matter as opposed to those that matter little, in the pursuit of the best possible sound at home.
Tim
ultrawomble
Sith Lord
To refute your attempt to declare that audio perception is psychological and so blind testing is not applicable since it deals with a biological system.
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
I understand the difference between original and reproduction. My point is, the usual objective measures don't tell how well the original signal is preserved through the replay chain, particularly at the loudspeaker (due to reasons I outlined earlier) and room interface.
Until someone comes up with a full-range, point-source loudspeaker system, hifi can NEVER be accurate to the source. With that being the case, the only meaningful arbiter of quality is the listening experience for the individual. Much like your favourite wine, really.
James
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
Absolutely. But I do accept that there is a wide ground on subjectivity, ranging from pixie-dust imaginings to generally accepted observations. The difficulty for many people is how their experience compares to another at the same event. I think that's where general consensus of the majority gives some credence to subjective performance, sheep/lemmings excluded.
Oh OK - I honestly didn't know where you were going with that line of enquiry. Perception is a function of the mind. Blind medical trials are effective because they separate the psychological element from the autonomous biological functions of the subject so we can tell whether a treatment really 'works' - ie, acts effectively on the subject's somatic biochemistry.
However you can't remove the psychological element from the listening process: you could argue that it's 'only' a neuro-physiological process but that would be a little specious. The bottom line is that if the test method tampers with the mental state of the listener, it will inevitably distort the outcome. Is that clearer?
Musicality is a weird term, I'll grant you: it's nonsense. Nonetheless, a significant component of our listening experience is not easily reported. I sympathise with anyone struggling to communicate their listening experience. It's therefore reassuring to have such concrete markers as decibels and hertz. But can you imagine how this conversation would work if we hadn't yet invented those scales?