🚀 go-pugleaf

Arny Kr�ger <arnyk@flash.net> wrote in article
<v45e2.1070$IO1.11@news.flash.net>...
> 
> >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!

Hope that Mr. Wong don't suffered from "Withdrawal" with extreme stress
caused by such a flush of respond to his original post to so many
newsgroup. :-)


> Let me recommend the following textbook:
> 
> Rock, Irwin, An Introduction to Perception, Macmillan Publishing Company,
New
> York NY (1975).

I doubt anybody will have the time to spend on reading non-audio-related
book. :-)

 
> >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! ;-)

If we can hear more background "noise" on earth & wider range of frequency,
it will be very annoying to our life.
The process of "adaptation" is also an important "filter".
 
> 
> >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.

Although alcohol can be an anesthetic (central nervous system depressant)
in low dose, large dose (personal variation of actual quantities) may
result in disinhibited behaviour, altered coordination, & even deranged
consciousness in case of acute intoxication. 
So, by all means, I consider alcohol is hazardous to 

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

Hope that you won't be bored by the definition of this medical jargon:
Placebo : "inactive substance or less-than-effective dose of a harmless
substance prescribed and administrated as if it were an effective dose of a
needed drug; used as a control in tests of drug efficacy and for treatment
of certain patients who do not need or should not be given a drug they
request"
Placebo effect : " change, usually beneficial, occurring after a substance
(a placebo) is taken that is not the result of any property of that
substance but usually reflects the faith or expectations that the person
has in the substance. "

Some of the commonest placebo by doctors in HK: multi-vitamin tablet,
normal saline eyedrop.....they are harmless, & make provide patient the
feeling of being treated & feel better with this treatment.

The placebo effect is also quite genuine in the world of HiFi.
We may be fooled by our expectation & past experience.

 
> >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, 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.
> 
> >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.

As a matter of fact, some of our HKRAVers did organized some randomized
"blind-test" of vacuum tubes.
We are still amateur audiophile. 
"Personal preference" is the major determinant of choice of gears.
Skeptic is still skeptical to the result of "blind-test".
However, these tests are the only thing that reliable to me.

 
> >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.

Even the CD-R is a bit-perfect copy, I believe the material difference of
the CD & CD-R will affect the sonic outcome. 
My believe is based on the effect of sonic attribute of a CD by application
of Finyl solution to the transparent surface of the CD, the effect of
STATmat, different sound of "silver" & 24K gold version of the same CD.

Lee HC