🚀 go-pugleaf

Lee HC wrote in message <01be2972$8c375680$LocalHost@default>...
>
>Interesting!

Yes.

>Eventually arrived at the term "Perception".

IMO, very relevant.

>Should the original post writer of this thread, Kit-pui
Wong<kpwong@psy.cuhk.edu.hk> , come out & enlightened as on the psychological
viewpoint?

It might just change his life!


>I use this term too, for quite a number of circumstances in the HKRAV.

>So, I copy a bit of information from Longman Concise Medical Dictionary for
the definition of "Perception":

>" a process by which information received by senses is recognized,
interpreted and analyzed to become meaningful."

Works for me!

Let me recommend the following textbook:

Rock, Irwin, An Introduction to Perception, Macmillan Publishing Company, New
York NY (1975).

>So, for the same bits of information will result in different meaning to
different person with difference in:

>1. sensory organs structural & functional difference.

True. However, these organs have physical limitations. For example, the
smallest sound that the ear can hear is about the same order as the random
noise created by thermal motion of air molecules. In short, we never evolved
ears that can hear below the lowest possible noise floor on earth. Makes
sense, does it not! ;-)

>2. culture & personal preference.

Everything we perceive goes through "filters" based on culture and past
experience.

>3. psycho-social background.

Everything we perceive goes through "filters" based on culture and past
experience, and current state of mind.

>4. the status of the sensorium of the audience. That is where the LSD (add
hallucination), cigarette, alcohol ...... can affect the auditory perception.

Alcohol taken in quantities is an anesthetic. It dulls the senses. This is one
reason why many loudspeaker failures trace to alcohol use by the people
setting the volume levels.

>May I invite Mr. Wong's expert opinion on this.

For a high end mystic to persist in their lines of thinking, they usually end
up denying how perception affects their sonic judgements.

For your next trip to that dictionary, check out the word "Placebo". ;-)


>Furthermore, the auditory "information" form the same CD is also highly
variable for different audiophile >settings. So, even the same CD will sound
very different in different audiophile settings (gears, audition
>environment).

Yes. The usual means of dealing with this is called "The controlled listening
test". You hold as many things as possible constant, and see if differences
are still reliably heard.

>So, there is also a question of revealing power of an audiophile settings &
the software tested when we >try to deliver maybe-different "information" from
original CD & the digital CD-R copy.

True.

>This is my personal experience, a more revealing setting & more revealing
software can more readily tell >the different "information" from the original
CD & the digital CD-R copy.

True.

>So, I insist : "hearing is believing".

If the test is adequately controlled and the results pass reliability tests,
then hearing is believing, even for the skeptic.

>Whether someone can hear the difference is not a simple matter for
discussion. This involved the >"integrity of the information" in an audiophile
settings & "personal perception".

True.

>If someone "perceive" no auditory difference of the "information", why
border.

Perceptions can be the subject of reliablity testing. Reliable perceptions
exist, and in fact are the basis of scientific knowlege.


>None claim himself as "golden ears" when he found audible difference of the
original CD
>& the digital CD-R copy, in the HKRAV. It  may be unfortunate for someone who
hear the difference as >he need to buy the original CD rather than made a CD-R
copy.

Reliable listening tests suggest that bit-perfect CD-R copies don't sound
different from originals. CD-R copies of collections of songs are widely used
in critical listening tests of audio equipment.