You're starting to sound like an "audiophile".
You do realize that those "two worlds" you speak of are the Objectivist's world and the Subjectivist's world.
I'm having a hard time understanding where you stand based on you comments.
Measurements, unless correlating to audibility, are just numbers. Below a readily achievable point, lower measurable performance has no correlation to audible sound quality.
I've explained this to you very clearly but you still can't grasp this rather basic concept.
Yes, I'm with you that listening to real music is where we can hear the differences but if you bring that up the objectivists will say it's a figment of you imagination because the test tones don't support your conclusion.
Audiophiles who claim XYZ from their audio gear do so using
music, not pure tones. Objectivists who
may claim imagination as a possibility are not necessarily wrong - it's certainly a possible cause when the listening is uncontrolled.
In my world self-deception and imagination exists. Unless controls are put in place to isolate it from the listening...
Yet, if like John Siau you listen to test tones (which are withing human hearing limits) to appease these people, and can correctly identify the differences then inevitably someone says, well...what you basically said.
Audiophile claims are based on musical signals, not pure sine waves so your argument is irrelevant. John Siau used a pathological test condition that is not representative of actual real-world use.
He could have easily performed a controlled test using music to put skeptics in their place but chose not to
and for good reason. That's all you need to know.
This is completely and utterly incorrect. Read up on the current science.
Studies are still being conducted that are uncovering how millions of years of evolution had fine tuned our hearing of spatial cues and timing in order for us to survive. Sure listening to tests tones, yes. But how our ears perceive spatial cues and timing to "see" and "map" the space around us is still an area that is not fully understood. Far from it.
<Eargiant, humans do not have infinite hearing sensitivity, there are limits to what can be heard. These limits haven't magically changed. Dunning-Kruger prevents people from recognising this. Just like it prevents them from recognising the effects of psychology on perception.
First off, quit with the insinuating personal attacks. Stating that something is way over my head does not make you look as smart as you think you are.
Stating that this discussion is over your head is an observation, not a personal attack. I have conversed with many audiophiles like you over the years so I see the patterns rather clearly and sadly I suffer fools.
You seem to jumping from an objective to a subjective viewpoint as it suits you.
Yes, "seems to". When you can't read what is written effectively communication suffers. Neither matters since you can't back up any of your claims.
