What determines "believability of the reproduction illusion"

[treitz3]

Hello gentlemen and good morning to you. Personal insults are not tolerated on this board. Please refrain from making any or administrative action will occur. If you have something constructive to add to the thread, please make it about the technical merits of the thread. Any more personal comments made will be deleted and administrative action will be handed down. Please make a note of it before posting.

Also, a word to the wise. The words "in my opinion" can go a long way toward maintaining a friendly atmosphere. Please refrain from making absolutes when it boils down to opinions. If you have any questions, please refer to our TOS. Thank you.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....

Tom

 

[microstrip]

(...) please attach all your research that validates that "an illusion", which by nature is clearly subjective, can be quantified as an "objective", absolute truth.

Who said that "objetive" means an absolute truth? Truths in perceptual sciences are statistical. Opinions can become objective data once they are properly analyzed.

 

[thedudeabides]

I see you prefer to try to insult rather than to try to prove me otherwise...figured that would be your approach given your hostile post above...

If you have nothing constructive to add that might counter what I am saying then take your knee jerk responses elsewhere.

Better yet, go read something on the subject and then we can have a healthy debate.

There's nothing to prove within an objective context. Therefore there's nothing to debate. Sorry you are so intolerant when someone disagrees with your assertions.

Have a good day sir.

PS: Please read the definition of "illusion". That may help you understand my perspective.

 

[morricab]

There's nothing to prove within an objective context. Therefore there's nothing to debate. Sorry you are so intolerant when someone disagrees with your assertions.

Have a good day sir.

PS: Please read the definition of "illusion". That may help you understand my perspective.

There's nothing to prove within an objective context??? There is nothing to debate?? Then why did you chime in?? I am intolerant?? Did I insult you? No, I made a statement based on how I interpret research into the correlation of measurements with sound quality.

What do you mean by nothing to prove on an objective context? Could you please clarify what you mean with this statement.

The science behind analytics is not just making a measurement and getting a number where it is simply the lower the better. For audio, this has been shown to not be true. It is in the correlation of data to a real cause and real effect in the physical or psychological world.

 

[booboobaer]

I agree completely. A room not treated will add undesired issues. Comb filtering, standing waves, room nodes, etc. So no matter how well the electronics perform there is a corruption that is not good.