I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

Nobody commented this flabbergasting video and genius idea... 😁😊

I am leaning towards the total irrelevance in relationship with the topic for the lack of interest.  It's akin to all the factual but irrelevant science often brought up in audio. First start proving a change is really heard. Otherwise it is just flights of fancy.

I am leaning towards the total irrelevance in relationship with the topic for the lack of interest. It’s akin to all the factual but irrelevant science often brought up in audio. First start proving a change is really heard. Otherwise it is just flights of fancy.

 

 

I am sure that you understand why these new converging science revolution is about a transformation of our notion of what is a "brain" and what is "music" in the largest meaning of the word..

Did you consider yourself the arbiter of the matter of this thread because you are a scientist? If so you are wrong....My post is related to this useless debate...

It is evident that any measures about sounds in his relation to the brain and to the subjective impression cannot be interpretated OUT OF A THEORY OF HEARING...

Music cannot be reduced to measured electrical devices or to their tools anyway , anymore than sound interpretation cannot be reduced to linear relation between noise and information in a Fourier contextual setting...

These scientists, notably the Indian one illuminate the research background to understand hearing and the brain in a complete new perspectives...

You are a physicist no? Why criticize me for elevating the debate ?

Why not helping me and us to understand this better ?

Why keeping this ridiculous debate between "0" and "S" ongoing in circle here?

It is a false controversy...A children arguing contest...

An ideological stance with no relation at all to sound experience in psycho-acoustic and to reality...

Is your only pleasure is to put some ignorant audiophiles in their hole?

I can say that measuring obsession about gear by some is not useless for sure, but completely secondary to audio S.Q. experience...And measuring must be CORRELATED to subjective impressions to be meaningful anyway at the end...in any sound design...

For sure an amplifier must measured good.... So what?

In life your goal is debating with some ignorant audiophile insisting to listen before buying? it is not my goal....I listen too before buying anyway... 😁😊

The bad news is in psycho-acoustic  listening is primary, measuring secondary...In design, measuring is primary, listening secondary...But the two are always CORRELATED...

The good news is this debate between "o" and "s" is useless...Psycho-acoustic science exist because of this elementary fact....Neuro-acoustic too...

Between some "fetichists" among audiophiles, and a few "zealots" among disciples of the measuring hobbyists like Amir, i chose to be interested by new theory about the brain and new theory about hearing...

Why not?

Are you a scientist or a moderator of audiogon ?

i was waiting for a "thank you" for this information about these new research.... 😊

Or is this relation between non commutative geometry, music, numbers, time fractals, non Turing and non algorythmic machine, microtubules, hearing, and sound is already so mastered well by you that my post is trivial?

Then say so, i will ask you questions, and dont make me feel bad because i seem to be out of this trivial debate "o" and "s"...I am not....

 

 

yes, i am born "naive"....

😁😊

 

 

 

Did you consider yourself the arbiter of the matter of this thread because you are a scientist? If so you are wrong....My post is related to this useless debate...

The horse is dead. Long live the horse. You seem at a loss for why no one commented. I am taking a stab at the likely reason. Even the most ardent tweakaholic has lost interest.

I didn’t arbitrate anything. I just stated rather clearly that until you either prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claims are really heard or provide some relevant scientific basis for differences to be heard, then the posts are simply self indulgent.

How our brains work or our auditory system works is not even relevant. This is all external observation. From my reading there is a large body of work in what is audible, whether level, distortion, frequency response, noise, phase, and I am sure a large number of other factors that could define audio, primarily electronics as this appears to be the topic under discussion. These tests all appear to be done under special conditions meant to give us poor old humans every chance at success, as opposed to music for which it will be harder.

Your posts do nothing to advance whether what is perceived as being heard is really being heard, nor that there is a real physical mechanism for the difference, nor whether the tested limits of human audio perception for measurable differences is significantly better than already shown by those working in the field. I suggest starting with the first as it will require by far the least experimental rigor or knowledge to accomplish.

Your posts do nothing to advance whether what is perceived as being heard is really being heard,

All this debate can be summarized around this sentence with emphasis on "really"...

First this debate emerged in audiophile circles, not from people who enjoy the subjective REAL pleasure to listen...But from others...

Some Amir disciples come and say no this dac is better than this one,no need to listen to it...

Did you not see why this is ridiculous, to claim that some measures replace all listening, and as ridiculous as saying that some listening replace all measure, in the two cases?

Do you think only audiophiles can de deluded in life?

What is heard by seomeone is most of the times "real", but it can result from a positive or a negative set of biases, but also it can be in some case a slight illusion...Like in ridiculous cables debate ...

This does not means that all audiophiles reviews are meaningless if they are not  based only on all possible  hard factual set of measures... No more so this do not means that the designer who measure their ongoing design dont know what they are doing because they dont listen to it while doing it...

Pretending that any audiophile must PROVE his experience is ridiculous, like asking to a designer to listen to his design before creating it....

But any audiophile must learn basic acoustic to understand sound concretely, and any designer must study psycho-acoustic to improve his results...This is common place fact...

Then your critic of my post is right on one count...

These new science revolution pass over the head of most people and then i posted it to help at least ONE person for which it will be interesting... It seems that this ONE person is not you.... 😁😊

Then i apologize for this "useless" information for most here, about these very new research if no one give a dam for sure...

But i was hoping to be useful for ONE unknown person here... This will be more than enough.... Anyway this debate between some fetichists and some zealots is useless for EVERYONE and forever useless anyway because based on a false alternative...

For any wise person there is no debate because it is a trivial evidence that listening and measuring must be correlated...

Not only i am born "naive" but i was born enthusiastic by the way and all my life i communicated about all ideas, it was my job anyway ... 😁😊

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn’t respond as I didn’t see any relevance to audio much less anything at all. Looked like quack nonsense to me.