Snake oil came first. By a likely ~ +50k years

@geoffkait "Duh?"

You asked. Sherlock.

"  it’s probably best to use my interpretation - hearing is the same thing as perception of sound"

Not really.You can perceive sound without a functioning auditory system. Not many people would call that hearing. So your interpretation is not precise either. The semantics can get dicey. 

My point in differentiating the two is to point out that two people can hear the exact same thing and respond to and describe it differently even with both of them having equally sensitive auditory apparatus. The signal is received or perceived if you will (hearing) but is processed (perception) differently. This is consistent with the dictionary definition which give both: awareness of the elements of the environment through physical sensation -AND-physical sensation interpreted in light of experience.

"Including psychological factors, but other factors as well. I’m surprised you left psychological factors out. "

I didn't. That's why I said hearing and perception. See above. Quit being such a Geoff and this won't be so hard. 

n80,

With some experience, you will interpret and perceive geoffkait differently. There is a lot of semantics involved. geoffkait, Geoff, Kitty...

Thanks, glugson, Semantics is the word I was looking for! n80 is playing a semantics game with me. We are on an audio forum and when asked to differentiate “hearing” from “perception” he gives me this whole vision perception spiel. For someone who fancies himself an expert on physiology he didn’t do a very good job with hearing and perception, as I already pointed out, and left himself wide open to attack. Plus n80 lost a golden opportunity to blow his placebo horn. 🎺 I’m guessing he thinks he’s still back on his photography forum. Let’s try to focus here.

@geoffkait :"n80 is playing a semantics game with me."

It only feels like a game to you geoff. I doubt anyone else was struggling to parse terms just so they could attack someone.

"he gives me this whole vision perception spiel".

My bad. Did not know that you were analogy impaired. I guess that's why you don't get the whole snake oil/ sham audio tweaks thing. 

"For someone who fancies himself an expert on physiology he didn’t do a very good job with hearing and perception"

Hardly a "fancy". I've got the credentials to back it up. But that's beside the point isn't it? We know who has the only credentials that count. Everyone else's are pretense, right?

And the only reason you think it wasn't a good job is because as always your initial impulse in virtually any thread is to attack. And this time, like so many others, it failed and made you look rather, well, Geoffish.

"left himself wide open to attack"

I guess it still seems counterintuitive to have to protect myself from "attack" in a hi-fi forum. Were it not for you that would not have become a necessity here at Audiogon.

"Let’s try to focus here"

Strange comment from the primary disruptor of civil conversation on this site. Apparently you are irony impaired as well.

geoffkait, n80,

I abstain from this hearing/perception war but I did see an opportunity to use placebo.

When it comes to physiology, many mention it, it is almost inevitable when talking about humans which listening to music actually is. Sometimes, statements are a bit off, but, so far, I have encountered only one member who is certifiably clueless about it. And arrogant to match it and then some. All be glad he has not started spilling his wit and wisdom on this particular thread. Taking it into perspective, geoffkait sometimes does make a point. Two of you can decide if that is now, but I am just saying "it can get much worse".