Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2012 22:49:20 GMT
Hi jkeny, Thanks for bringing this thread back, it prompted me to reread some of it... but now I understand because over the Christmas break I spent 3 days listening to this course: The Deceptive Mind www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=9344The typical "audiophile" threads are now crystal clear to me. I would recommend "everyone" spend the time to find and do this course. For the analytical engineer type, it will explain why things get so out of hand during many threads, and for others it may arm you with techniques required to participate in many of the audio threads. I believe if we all understanding the flawed human thinking process we would all be better off. EDIT: This post wasn't directed to any post or person in particular, purely a timing thing, I finsihed the course and this thread popped up. regards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2012 23:17:25 GMT
Hi Greg Boy, am I going to have fun at the next GTG ! I have been in recent days,able to make the differences so bloody obvious , that even someone like yourself ( and "owdeo") should be able to hear marked differences. At least "owdeo"admitted to hearing differences the 1st time around, then later tried to blame it on PsychoAcoustics. Just make sure that you have no wax build up in your ears beforehand. After you hear the differences for yourself, you are welcome to do all the binary checks of the files you want until the cows come home! ;D Kind Regards Alex P.S. Happy New Year. I will not respond further in this thread. If you want to try and convince J.K. he is imagining the same things,go for it ! John is more than capable of speaking about these things for himself, and his well reviewed DAC products show that he also trusts his ears . P.P.S. I have already had confirmation of the latest change by a European R.G. member.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2012 23:45:12 GMT
Hi Alex,
Happy new year to you as well !! (and everyone else)
I hope no one thinks that I am having a go at them (or product).
The course is referring to everyone's Mind including mine, we are all deceiving ourselves, just human nature.
I found the course quite enlightening and wondered if someone else may be interested. In this thread I see a couple of people that it may help understand the process of the "cyclic discussions".
I am not sure "what differences" you are referring to.
regards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 0:08:27 GMT
Hi Greg Of course you are. They involve .wav files with identical check sums.This time, I have also been able to harness the differences between BluSpec comparison CDs , where even famous Recording and Mastering Engineer Barry Diament thought they came from different masters initially.If you are at a loose end later in February, and if it's before the next GTG, you are welcome to listen and try and find out why , directly from my PC, using any non destructive methods you choose. Also, don't forget that "The Captain" jets in on January 24th! Regards Alex P.S. I doubt that anybody disbelieves that the mind can cause you to jump to an incorrect conclusion. With experience, you are able to greatly reduce the incidences of that happening, at least in a specialised area. That still leaves you jumping to wrong conclusions in all other areas though. ( Especially where the female of the species is concerned!) Now over to John, if he wishes to continue debating you in this thread.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Dec 31, 2012 2:00:02 GMT
Hi jkeny, Thanks for bringing this thread back, it prompted me to reread some of it... but now I understand because over the Christmas break I spent 3 days listening to this course: The Deceptive Mind www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=9344The typical "audiophile" threads are now crystal clear to me. I would recommend "everyone" spend the time to find and do this course. For the analytical engineer type, it will explain why things get so out of hand during many threads, and for others it may arm you with techniques required to participate in many of the audio threads. I believe if we all understanding the flawed human thinking process we would all be better off. EDIT: This post wasn't directed to any post or person in particular, purely a timing thing, I finsihed the course and this thread popped up. regards Yes, all, happy new year! Greg, Just one observation & one question - your use of the phrase "arm you with techniques required to participate in many of the audio threads" is pretty revealing of your motivation here. I come here to learn, to participate, to give opinion, to analyse & digest new information. I don't participate "to win" anything. However, if I'm attacked I usually retaliate. Seeing as you have learned something by doing this course & used it to analyse some of this thread, & "now I understand", can you give us the fruits of this understanding? It would help us evaluate if the course is worthwhile spending any time on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 3:31:11 GMT
[quote author=jkeny board=talk thread=8192 post=125028 time=1356919202Yes, all, happy new year! Greg, Just one observation & one question - your use of the phrase "arm you with techniques required to participate in many of the audio threads" is pretty revealing of your motivation here. I come here to learn, to participate, to give opinion, to analyse & digest new information. I don't participate "to win" anything. However, if I'm attacked I usually retaliate.[/quote]
When I said: "arm you with techniques required to participate in many of the audio threads" I was referring to people that don't believe in the scientific process. This course presents the main methods of arguing against a scientific method. Most audio related threads fall into this category.
Hope you don't see this as an attack on you?, not intended.
It's best to read the first page when you follow my link. My literacy skills are appalling. Read the reviews, there are some bad ones there. If there is any inkling of interest you will seek it out.
In a lot of threads I couldn't follow the discussion process. It seemed like I was in an alternative universe. Now I realise it a matter of science versus pseudoscience and I am pretty much in the minority.
IMHO at the end of the day, this is a hobby for enjoyment and any path to this enjoyment is valid (for the individual).
regards
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Dec 31, 2012 4:21:59 GMT
When I said: "arm you with techniques required to participate in many of the audio threads" I was referring to people that don't believe in the scientific process. This course presents the main methods of arguing against a scientific method. Most audio related threads fall into this category. Hope you don't see this as an attack on you?, not intended. No, I didn't think it was an attack on me - I was just interested in your use of the phrase i& probably read too much into it. Sorry if I seemed to be adversarial. I agree with your final statement that, yes it is a hobby for enjoyment & there are many paths to this enjoyment. It's like any hobby, there are many ways to approach it - take cars for instance - some will like to strip them down & rebuild them with modifications others will just want to drive around the stock version, still others will want to race them & some just want to be seen with expensive ones. Rarely do these different flavours of personal enjoyment start fighting with one another. In audio, it happens all the time. Why? Most of the real friction comes from the so-called objectivists Vs subjectivists but this is a false division. Firstly nobody is ever truly purely one or the other. Secondly, an objectivist is a flattering term because it implies objectivity & I have found this not to be the case in the most rabid version - the one that causes most friction, the "measurement mafiosa" - the ones that accept nothing unless you can "prove" it with measurements. If they were truly objective they a would admit that there is a very tenuous link between measurements & what we hear. So given this fact how can they insist on presenting measurements when they can't even do so themselves. They also settle for a very limited set of measurements themselves - often the ones that support their world view. What I find interesting is this lack of rigour when it come to measurements - I look on this as pseudo-science as it denies the true spirit of science which is to do all the analysis in an open-minded manner before reporting the results of these measurements & the ensuing theorem. On the other hand I'm sceptical of claims unless they resonant with my own thinking or there is some evidence presented. Luckily we have the instruments to test claims - our ears. Yes, I know our hearing is a very malleable sense & can be influenced/over-ridden by many many factors. The rigour in this is to try to negate these influences as much as possible. Anyway, I read the first page of your link & guess that this is what you were referring to: - The smaller the scientific study, the greater you should be concerned about the potential for statistical noise. Larger scientific studies are often needed for the random effects to average out so that a more reliable answer can be arrived at.
- While it's important to remember that emotions have an influence on an individual's thought processes, it's dangerous to completely deny them when analyzing information or trying to make an informed decision.
- Learn to be comfortable with the uncertainty of the world. The truth is that there is no single guarantee of legitimacy when it comes to scientific information, only solid indicators of legitimacy.
- Be particularly on guard when dealing with controversial subjects frequently covered in the media. The more controversial a topic, the greater the chances are that information about that topic is skewed in one direction or another
|
|