He's overstating his case, we are not "back to the beginning." The fundamental point about perception not being something you can compare is fine, but, it's simply not true here that an outsider "can only measure the question by his own perceptions", he can measure the question any number of ways, he can dive into and analyze his perception, he can discuss what he's hearing, he can measure the results with instruments.pdxindy wrote:Only in intellectual wankery...IncarnateX wrote:How much I like to believe you, I can't from a scientific perspective. You cannot just refer to your own auditory perception as being the objective authority and your opponents' the subjective. They may reproduce your patch to an extent where they cannot hear any differences or though you claim you can. I already covered the training argument and though it may likely be valid, an outsider can only measure the question by his own perceptions and we are back to the beginning
The bottom line is that it's all talk.
If you can't hear it in the video, then I'm not sure that there's any hope. Seriously, I understand bias, in fact, it's a bit funny, but I'd have to talk too much about my real life to demonstrate that. In any case, perception bias generally goes away when we remove the source of the bias. It's immediate, it's not something that you have to work hard to see. Watch the McGurk effect video to see it for yourself. This is why the audiophile industry doesn't like blind tests.sit in a room with both live, and you would talk very different because the differences would be obvious to your ears.
I've noticed this myself. Just record two synths and then listen to the recording in such a way that you don't know a priori which synth you're listening too. You can see these kinds of effects for yourself in real time.