An interesting demonstration

Listen to a choir, pick out one voice then pick out another voice. Try and listen to them together at the exact same time. Your mind can bounce back and forth quickly between the two but you can not listen to both at the same time unless you ignore the individuality of the voices listening to the choir as one voice like you would listen to McCoy Tyner playing the piano. If you want to listen to one note you have to switch to Monk. You can only listen to or, the better term is "study" one detail at a time.

Like i already said,"😁😊 hearing something which is not there acoustically is precisely the definition of what music is..."

I added that this is explained by psycho-acoustic science not physical acoustic...


Then you are not EVEN wrong in your misconception of what hearing music is...

I will explain to you in few words....

When someone listen to any music his conscious experience thinking,feeling,will, is conditioned ALSO with ALL  his subconscious present and past  experience...

Then his "integral being/brain " pick all there is to pick but not only  consciously and his consciousness is ALWAYS a relatively guided and trained perception...You know that a feeling is also a sensation participating in the perception and not reducible to conscious perception?

You know what trained perception means no?


In music listening the "creative imagination" at work is not ALWAYS and ONLY "illusion" and "placebo" but participate to the creation in the body/brain of the musical experience and perception conscious and subconscious...

In a famous experience the great neurologist Libet proved that our brain/body decided to act BEFORE our conscious decision, milli seconds and even seconds BEFORE our conscious decision...( it is called the readiness potential)... I will not explain why this does not negate " free will" here save for superficial materialists or scientism...My point here is to illustrate the active participation of the subconscious integrating ALL the past history of the listener through one perception which is ALWAYS a trained perception...Call them a set of educated biases...And calling these biases only merely  illusions is complete ignrance and the reason why you are NOT EVEN WRONG...You throw the baby with the polluted waters thats all you do....

Then all your posts reflect not something wrong, it is more than being wrong, it is HALF TRUTH, like famously said the physicist Feynman... YOU ARE NOT EVEN WRONG...

Then you are very far to understand even only the problem itself which is a PROBLEM in psycho-acoustic science related to the way the brain/body recreate the Tonal timbre with a "missing fundamental....I will not explain why.... Do your homework ....

In a word THE TIMBRE IS NOT THE SPECTRUM and physical acoustic is half part of the problem to solve and psycho-acoustic the other part...

i can reference all that i just wrote....

This creates the illusion that you are hearing new things when you are only studying different ones. This is not my opinion but a well proven fact.

Then deconstructing Toscanini experience like the gesture of a trained dog dont tell all the story of human perception save for people unable to distinguish audio and music, and think that electronic engineering EXPLAIN ALL...And assimilating  Toscanini  to a gullible audio consumer is not science either...

You are not even wrong my friend!

You cannot state a problem without and before being able to state with  the problem  his different aspects and terms correctly...

We cannot mimic knowledge with short ready made answer coming from blind test in psycho-acoustic like on a circus theater ruled by Objectivist debunker of Subjectivist gullible customers...

I read nothing of the sort in psycho-acoustic books ....

A simple example for children:

A rainbow perception is NOT an "illusion".....It is way more complex than that.... All my observations can be state with only this remark...A tonal timbre microdynamic perception of an orchestra is like a rainbow...

I hope you will think out of your scientism agenda....James Randy claims are not science... Guess why?

@mijostyn 

 My smiles are related to the items being sold as the comedy of the icebreaker he used to open his part of the presentation. It is the few bad apples that make cynics and skeptics of us all.  I see some good points made regarding changes made in the inaudible range, as well as the claim that a person was hearing a phase shift in a 10 foot guitar chord. There are some valid points being made in Winers presentation, but I disagree with some of the generalities regarding how people listen and what we remember or hear.  He also has a very nice listening room and some quality equipment and instruments. He does a fair job of busting some myths and outlining how Flether Munson Curves can be involved in what we hear or like.  Lastly, I have seen the trick he posted regarding the speaker companies who use averaged third octave for the graph as well as enlaging the gradients on the Y axis.  I take everything with a grain of salt or two but it would be obtuse to disregard everything in his presentation. Unless of course we are in the business of selling those Brilliant Pebbles ;)  Cheers. 

Selling costly cables with marketing " false science" is one thing, thinking that debunking that is "pure science" is another propaganda piece... It is reducing a potential phenomena to his speech justification by the alleged "crook" or a circus by the "debunker"...Cables could be linked to different perception in different system...This is a fact easy to experiment with....Selling these cables at a high price is another fact unrelated to their real positive or negative  effect...

Claiming we are all deluded when the brain create music from the sounding bodies of an orchestra through the waves imaging information is reducing music phenomena and perception to physical sound waves...Simplistic...

I dont sell anything by the way save ideas and experiments...even with quartz and other "peebles"....


For sure crooks exist, but this does not justify blind test debunking circus no more that the crooks discourse explain cable comparison...

I am sure that there is interesting facts in this video but the beginning convey the hallmark of an engineering point of view not of a musician or a psycho-acoustician...

It is very hard to take Paul Mcgowan seriously.

+1 on that.


He always seems to do back flips to where the $$$ come from.

Cheers George

Funny how money is so often involved. But please believe me, I am not an ASR guy, or a measurements guy at all. In fact, am currently looking at a less than stellar measuring NOS R2R DAC because, well,  my ears. :)
       I will pass on the Quantum Clip and the Pebbles.