Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[FrantzM]

Frantz,

Sorry, but wrong guess again. The question is crucial in any debate in audio, as it is not a philosophical issue, but fundamental to situate a perspective about sound reproduction. It is why known audio scientists such as Toole and Linkwitz have lost their time writing long and thoughtful lines about it. Surely it deserves a little more reflection than a few seconds in an audio forum and you have to read it in the original context to debate it.

And yet you quoted it out of context and expect us to understand? I'm still confused.

So am I ..

@microstrip
I am not guessing anything you posted a fallacy I answered to it.
This is what you quoted from some site, you said it was Linwitz so OK, emphasis is mine

QUESTION:
If a tree falls in a dark forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make any sound?

ANSWER:
No!

The falling tree sets huge numbers of air particles into oscillatory motion. They push on other air particles and cause a chain reaction that propagates away from the tree at the speed of sound. In this process mechanical energy is transformed into heat as the wave hits other objects, is reflected, diffused and absorbed.
If a person is in range of the air particle disturbance, then a few particles hit the left and right ear drum. This is registered in the brain and perceived as sound.
For evolutionary reasons it is important to recognize the nature of a sound source. The detailed shape of the external ear, i.e. the pinna and the ear canal, changes the strength of the sound wave at the ear drum depending upon the frequency of oscillation and the direction from which the air particles arrive. This is further enhanced by the sound shadowing of the head between the ears. The separation of the two ears causes a delay between the particles arriving at each ear drum when the source is not located in the median plane, the vertical plane that bisects the body. Thus, turning the head sideways or up and down changes the air particle strength at the ear drums.
The brain has evolved to process spectral, temporal and directional cues to form a mental picture of the origin of a sound, its direction, distance, size and nature. This is further enhanced by visual and tactile cues, and certainly by learning and memory.

My reply is that if one is to abide to this logic WWI never occured since you weren't there to witness it ... I am not guessing , I am stating, I am refuting an argument.

 

[microstrip]

And yet you quoted it out of context and expect us to understand? I'm still confused.

No, I was asking Tim about his opinions concerning texts taken from the Linkwitz site, that are easily and freely accessible in the net. Apologies for those who have not been following WBF debates and expect us to repeat ourselves 100 times. The tree and the forest were debated many times here, I did not feel necessary to repeat it all. For me t is now audiophile jargon.

 

[opus111]

I don't see a desire to understand here, just a misreading of the original. It says the answer is 'no' but so far there's at least one claim that it really means 'yes' despite clearly saying 'no'. Another post with a non sequitor about WWII.

So where are the questions? - they'd be evidence for a desire to understand.

 

[microstrip]

So am I ..

@microstrip
I am not guessing anything you posted a fallacy I answered to it.
This is what you quoted from some site, you said it was Linwitz so OK, emphasis is mine


My reply is that if one is to abide to this logic WWI never occured since you weren't there to witness it ... I am not guessing , I am stating, I am refuting an argument.

Perfect, I now know you think it is a fallacy. I will not pretend you are wrong, but I see your definition of sound is different from many others. At some time we do not have to have all the same ideas - your use of the WWI as an example why it was a fallacy shows it all. Sound reproduction is not a logical game with winner and looser.

This matter was important in the line I was debating with Tim - it is why I remembered it.

 

[opus111]

My reply is that if one is to abide to this logic WWI never occured since you weren't there to witness it ... I am not guessing , I am stating, I am refuting an argument.

That's faulty logic - in saying there was no sound, its not saying the tree did not fall over. It still did. Hence WWII still happened - but WWII was all about people fighting so its impossible to have WWII happening without people being there to witness it. Unlike the original of the tree falling.

 

[rbbert]

Understand what?! The same things are still being debated here that were discussed about 60 or 70 pages back, with not an inch of give on either side of the debate/discussion, and no new evidence or significant argumentative points made. JMO, of course.

And as far as the Linkwitz quote, the explanation clearly describes sound being present whether or not someone is there to hear it. Sound is a physical property distinct from the perception of sound; they are not equivalent.

 

[microstrip]

I don't see a desire to understand here, just a misreading of the original. It says the answer is 'no' but so far there's at least one claim that it really means 'yes' despite clearly saying 'no'. Another post with a non sequitor about WWII.

So where are the questions? - they'd be evidence for a desire to understand.

Please see this old post http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?7278-The-origin-of-arts-according-to-Harvard&p=122947&viewfull=1#post122947

It says it all. But many people do not share this view.

 

[opus111]

Understand what?!

Understand that vibration and sound are not the same thing. Its possible to have vibration with no sound (the tree falling). Its possible to have sound but no vibration (e.g. tinnitus).

And as far as the Linkwitz quote, the explanation clearly describes sound being present whether or not someone is there to hear it.

if it really is 'clear' as you are claiming then you'll be able to paste in the part where it says what you claim. Will you do it?

 

[rbbert]

I guess it depends on your personal definition of sound. Most dictionaries will use something like "Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard" as the primary definition, and the first part of the quote describes that being present. Now, the surrounding context of the quote may make it clear that a different definition of sound is being used, and that's why I posted as I did.

 

[FrantzM]

opus111

In a forrest vibrations caused by a fallins tree make a sound whether a human is there to witness or not...

The debate is verging on the pedantic just to make points and win arguments ... Expecting the return of some more substance to the debate ... exiting for now ...

 

[opus111]

In a forrest vibrations caused by a fallins tree make a sound whether a human is there to witness or not...

Nope. Like I said I see no desire to understand here, just restatements of falsehood. Which is fine by me incidentally

The debate is verging on the pedantic just to make points and win arguments ... Expecting the return of some more substance to the debate ... exiting for now ...

There is no debate here - just an inability to read text without imparting perceptual bias.

 

[opus111]

I guess it depends on your personal definition of sound.

Yes indeed it does. I know I don't use the distinction between 'sound' and 'vibration' consistently in informal discourse. But here its philosophy and so we do need some consistency of our nomenclature. Dictionaries are no good when it comes to doing philosophy, what's necessary is that we maintain consistent distinctions. Incidentally as a part-time teacher of English I don't treat a dictionary as prescriptive of language use, its rather descriptive of contemporary usage.

 

[microstrip]

opus111

In a forrest vibrations caused by a fallins tree make a sound whether a human is there to witness or not...

The debate is verging on the pedantic just to make points and win arguments ... Expecting the return of some more substance to the debate ... exiting for now ...

Happily we know you always say so ... and come back almost immediately with plenty of ... and some curious views ... BTW, the debate with substance was on how close we are of the final objectives of SOUND reproduction - so a definition of sound really matters.

 

[JackD201]

opus111

In a forrest vibrations caused by a fallins tree make a sound whether a human is there to witness or not...

The debate is verging on the pedantic just to make points and win arguments ... Expecting the return of some more substance to the debate ... exiting for now ...

Actually, it doesn't have to be a human to perceive it to be defined so. It just has to be audible to something, anything.

 

[NorthStar]

---Did you guys know that I am a member of some of the best Science & Philosophy sites.
Very true too. :b

Excusez-moi for the small interlude.

-----------

...One of my avatars.

 

[rbbert]

Actually, it doesn't have to be a human to perceive it to be defined so. It just has to be audible to something, anything.

Again, if the definition relates more to perception than a physical event or characteristic, then a human is conventionally the perceiver.

BTW, tinnitus is sometimes audible to other people and recordable with sound recording equipment, so that is another poor example?

 

[terryj]

so the dear runs away from the falling tree, no humans in sight.

Why does it run?

 

[JackD201]

Again, if the definition relates more to perception than a physical event or characteristic, then a human is conventionally the perceiver.

BTW, tinnitus is sometimes audible to other people and recordable with sound recording equipment, so that is another poor example?

Sound is perceptible vibration. So that covers elephants and bats and not just us. The deer ran to get out of the elephant's way. LOL.

Actual presence not required, only that if a similar event happened and someone or something would or rather could have heard it, it is a sound.

 

[terryj]

Sound is perceptible vibration. So that covers elephants and bats and not just us. The deer ran to get out of the elephant's way. LOL.

Actual presence not required, only that if a similar event happened and someone or something would or rather could have heard it, it is a sound.

indeed, it's equivalent to trying to argue that ultra violet light et al do not exist simply because we do not perceive it.

I can't believe people get trapped by such a silly semantic argument, which revolves only around definitions (the trick is to not give the definition, pretty low grade trick I reckon) yet people fall for that trick.

Still, I can see it's attraction on an audio forum, it fits in so neatly to the arrogance of the audiophile, the primacy of MY experience and of course the converse. Same deal with the tree, if I did not hear it it did not make a sound.

Such an egocentric concept is ripe for adoption.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Didn't we just do this old tree/forest zen cliche a couple of weeks ago?

Tim