audionuttoo,
That’s clearly wrong, and it should be obvious why it’s so wrong.
We are building instruments all the time for detection because of the LIMITATIONS of our perception and senses.
For instance: You know there is sound in a frequency range called "Ultrasonic," right? Do you know why it’s even called "Ultrasonic?"
Because you can’t hear it.
Your ears, if you have fantastic hearing, would top off at approximately 20K. But depending on your age and exposure to noise, it likely caps well below that point.
But you can buy, or even build an SPL meter that is FAR more sensitive and can detect frequencies up to 100K, e.g:
http://logosfoundation.org/elektron/US_SPL_Meter/US_SPL_Meter.html
And when scientists detected the "sound" of black holes emerging far away in the universe...do you think it’s because someone woke up hearing it? Of course not. Instruments vastly more sensitive were used to detect these, and countless other phenomena that our limited hearing permits.
So right off the bat, you are starting with a false premise.
(Putting aside the inscrutable second phrase...)
Your ears are part of a perceptual system; that system can and often enough does get things wrong. Just like your eyes. This is well known and demonstrable.
At this very moment there is a viral meme going around the internet showing how people’s audible perception varies. Google "yanny vs laurel." Also look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbzL9PxtFf0
And then there are all the well documented cases of perceptual bias that will cause you to "hear" things that aren’t there, or perceive changes in sound when there is no external cause.
So you are off with TWO fallacious assumptions.
Whoops. Intuitions are often unreliable. In fact much of the fallacious explanations for natural phenomena through history was based on erroneous extrapolations from "intuition." (In fact, right now the Flat Earth Society is based on just that: it’s intuitively obvious the world is flat...forget any contradictory scientific evidence against this! Intuition is the most reliable thing we have!)
Drat. Another fallacy.
One can have sufficient reasons to doubt a claim without having direct experience. If I tell you the moon is made of cheese, do you have to have traveled to the moon in order to marshal reasonable doubts about my claim?
Similarly, if someone is presenting a claim that is laced with naive understandings of human perception, that already raises doubt about the claim (even if it’s not conclusive against the claim).
You are not actually making a good case for your claims.
That said, although you have laced your post with some faulty ideas, I did not get enough detail from your post as to what you were actually adjusting. It could still be the case you were adjusting something that could plausibly alter the sound, in a way you found desirable.
And that could be really cool.
But we shouldn’t have to buoy our claims with fallacious ideas about the reliability of our perception.
First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world’s best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears!
That’s clearly wrong, and it should be obvious why it’s so wrong.
We are building instruments all the time for detection because of the LIMITATIONS of our perception and senses.
For instance: You know there is sound in a frequency range called "Ultrasonic," right? Do you know why it’s even called "Ultrasonic?"
Because you can’t hear it.
Your ears, if you have fantastic hearing, would top off at approximately 20K. But depending on your age and exposure to noise, it likely caps well below that point.
But you can buy, or even build an SPL meter that is FAR more sensitive and can detect frequencies up to 100K, e.g:
http://logosfoundation.org/elektron/US_SPL_Meter/US_SPL_Meter.html
And when scientists detected the "sound" of black holes emerging far away in the universe...do you think it’s because someone woke up hearing it? Of course not. Instruments vastly more sensitive were used to detect these, and countless other phenomena that our limited hearing permits.
So right off the bat, you are starting with a false premise.
Trust them - they are the one truth in music!
(Putting aside the inscrutable second phrase...)
Your ears are part of a perceptual system; that system can and often enough does get things wrong. Just like your eyes. This is well known and demonstrable.
At this very moment there is a viral meme going around the internet showing how people’s audible perception varies. Google "yanny vs laurel." Also look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbzL9PxtFf0
And then there are all the well documented cases of perceptual bias that will cause you to "hear" things that aren’t there, or perceive changes in sound when there is no external cause.
So you are off with TWO fallacious assumptions.
Pretty intuitive right? How do I know this works? My ears told me so!
Whoops. Intuitions are often unreliable. In fact much of the fallacious explanations for natural phenomena through history was based on erroneous extrapolations from "intuition." (In fact, right now the Flat Earth Society is based on just that: it’s intuitively obvious the world is flat...forget any contradictory scientific evidence against this! Intuition is the most reliable thing we have!)
Those who have not heard it have no basis to criticize it.
Drat. Another fallacy.
One can have sufficient reasons to doubt a claim without having direct experience. If I tell you the moon is made of cheese, do you have to have traveled to the moon in order to marshal reasonable doubts about my claim?
Similarly, if someone is presenting a claim that is laced with naive understandings of human perception, that already raises doubt about the claim (even if it’s not conclusive against the claim).
You are not actually making a good case for your claims.
That said, although you have laced your post with some faulty ideas, I did not get enough detail from your post as to what you were actually adjusting. It could still be the case you were adjusting something that could plausibly alter the sound, in a way you found desirable.
And that could be really cool.
But we shouldn’t have to buoy our claims with fallacious ideas about the reliability of our perception.