14 Apr
2010
14 Apr
'10
7:07 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:06:42PM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
On Wednesday 14 April 2010 21:40:08 Kim Cascone
wrote:
Absolutely.
And let me add that psychoacoustics is not the same as
subjectivism - the methods used are what they should be
to qualify as science, results can be verified and
falsified, and there is no voodoo involved at all.
If psychoacoustic experiments show not once but over
and over again that humans can't detect e.g. a sound
in the 2 kHz band if there is another one 50 dB louder
in the 1 kHz band (the numbers are just an example, I
don't claim them to be exact), then for any subjective
result that is in contradiction with this the burden of
proof is on those claiming the subjective result.
You can't just say 'I do hear this' - you have to
explain it as well, and prove it in tests that are
as least as strict as the ones leading to the psycho-
acoustic results which you seem to invalidate. Usually
subjectivist claims fail on both accounts.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
yeah well that quite nicely works for machines
but with human sensory systems you'll find they are quite non-linear
and hence the field of psycho-acoustics which can be interpreted
as voodoo by some
You are mixing something up here.