anyone in LA want to help me do a blind test?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:

> You should care because consciousness reacts to different features of
> the senses in different states. It's my hypothesis

AFAICT, it is your "hypothesis" that you can achieve a higher state of
consciousness that will allow you to hear differences missed by all the
ordinary shmoos who have ever taken DBTs in the past. Can't you see why
some of us would be skeptical of that claim?

> that in a state of
> musical enjoyment and broad attention, consciousness reacts to
> different features of the signal than in a state of "listening
closely
> for differences."

So what? No one in any "state of consciousness" has ever been able to
hear distortion 100 dB down.

> The conclusion about what is audible cannot be
> transferred from one situation to the next.

But at some point the universal lack of countervailing evidence starts
to be telling, doesn't it?

> Note this situation: perhaps what IS audible in a quick-switch test
is
> NOT audible in listening for enjoyment. That's a possibility, too.
> For example, a slight change in tonal balance that shows up in the
> quick-switch test, but due to adaptation of the ear in long-term
> listening isn't noticeable at all.

How does the *ear* "adapt" in "long-term listening"? You are not
entitled to your own facts.

> I would guess that listening tests which are designed to promote
> listening to music for enjoyment

What in heaven's name are you talking about? What kind of a test would
be "designed to promote listening to music for enjoyment"? Tests are
designed to answer questions. When they are designed by people who know
what they are doing, they succeed in answering those questions.
Universities are well-stocked with such people. So far as I can tell
from reading their research--which you've been mangling quite well, by
the way--they all think you are wrong. Doesn't that give you pause? Or
do you think you are somehow more qualified to speculate on these
matters than everybody in every psychology department in the country?

<snip>

> Let's leave aside "extraordinary" claims. Doesn't this "trivial"
fact
> relate to your ability to generalize the results of quick-switch
> testing? Are you confident that whatever you hear in a quick-switch
> test relates directly to what you hear in normal listening?

"Normal listening" is not a scientific concept. It is your baseless
speculation that there is some meaningful difference between what you
call "normal listening" and some other kind. Despite your tossing
around of terms like "hypothesis," you are being supremely
unscientific.

> Are you
> confident that everything you hear in a blind test also makes a
> conscious impression during normal listening?

I am confident that "everything you hear in a blind test" comes close
enough to physical limits that we aren't missing anything. And I will
remain confident until somebody has some new evidence to put on the
table.

<snip>

> I don't claim that the ear can hear any very small signal. But I
> suspect certains kinds of very small signals can be heard with
> precision better than suggested by standard psychoacoustical testing.

IOW, it is your "hypothesis" that you can achieve a higher state of
consciousness that will allow you to hear differences missed by all the
ordinary shmoos who have ever taken DBTs in the past.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
> >
> > I tried once to entice a local audiophile to help me with the promise
> > of money. He backed out. I DO have a problem finding people who
> want
> > to do blind tests. I really have no perspective to say how
> widespread
> > this is, but certainly among local people I've talked to, there's not
> > much interest.

> It's very widespread. It is a matter of unshakable faith among a large
> number of self-professed audiophiles that blind tests are useless
> because their results don't agree with their own, sighted experiences.

FWIW there;s an amp dealer posting on AVSforum who is offering to fly
skeptics to his place in minnesota to do blind testing and/or proctor
blind tests on himself. He claims to have audibly distinguished several
amps using QSC ABX box with one-point level matching. He's trying to get
Nousaine to visit him in August.

I told him if he wants to set one up near me or in NYC , I'm game ;>

--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > > On 3 Apr 2005 15:57:50 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> > <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >When anyone tells me something, I generally ask (or think to
myself)
> > > >the question, "How do you know?" I wonder how you know that
quick
> > > >switching comparisons provide conscious access to all musical
> > aspects
> > > >of a signal?
> > >
> > > That would be because lots of experiments have shown it to be the
> > most
> > > sensitive method for detecting signals with known differences.
> > >
> > > > You would say you know it from evidence gathered through
> > > >experimentation.
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > >
> > > > I say, that's fine, but were the experimentors aware
> > > >how different modes of attention affect consciousness? So far,
no
> > one
> > > >has pointed me to an experiment that shows any attention to
this.
> > So I
> > > >wonder, how certain is this knowledge that quick-switching
provides
> > > >complete conscious access to the signal?
> > >
> > > Simple, really. Put the same known differences into two signals
which
> > > are tta tke limnit of detection by quick-switch DBT, and no
other
> > > method will reveal them. Care to provide any evidence that this
is
> > not
> > > the case?
>
> > I see the point you are making.. quick-switch is the most sensitive
of
> > the available methods, by this reasoning.
>
> > However, what I asked was, "How do you know that quick-switch
provides
> > *complete* conscious access to the signal?"
>
> Enough already. We go through this thicket of supposed
neuropsychological mysteries
> ever year or so on RAHE it seems. And as ever it seems the main
reason subjectivists
> engage in this sophistry is simply because blind test results don't
accord with sighted test
> results often enough for their tastes. You guys start from the
premise that subjective
> 'sighted' comparison is in some way a reliable reality-test, and leap
off from there into
> propositions about ways that blind testing might be flawed. Well,
sorry, but
> your premise is *wrong* and thus your leaps are , shall we say,
premature if not
> outright presumptuous.
>
> The well-established fact is, sighted comparison is a *demonstrably
poor and unreliable*
> reality-test for audible difference. Science abandoned it decades
ago. You can experience its
> massive potential for delusion yourself, in any 'phantom switch'
situation.
> The sort of strenuous, bass-ackwards rhetorical
> calisthenics you and Harry engage in to bend reality to fit the
subjectivist view,
> are IMO little more than special pleading for what science long ago
> verified to be a *bad method*. All the neurological findings in the
> world are unlikely to change that, just as they are unlikely to
render
> 'eyewitness testimony' inherently reliable.
>
> Taking the broad view of the audio reportage as it is practiced
today,
> wouldn't these rhetorical energies be better spent advocating the
> *abandoning* of this demonstrably bad method, rather than speculating
on how
> its far-too-infrequently-used scientific alternative *might* be
flawed?
>
>
>
> --
>
> -S
> It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld,
testifying
> before the House Armed Services Committee

This entire post is a strawman. I have never advocated sighted testing
over blind testing. It would seem that you wish experimental
methodology to be immune to criticism, and that you would ignore an
entire field (psychology and neurology) which provides abundant
evidence for the idea that people are not conscious of how they
construct their experience nor how they are filtering their senses.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7 Apr 2005 00:51:49 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it. Very
>> >good point.
>> >
>> >But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
>>
>> Blind testing.
>
>I'll give you a chance to explain this--but it seems to me you are
>reasoning circularly. I believe you have said that we know
>quick-switch blind testing is very sensitive because it detects
>differences right at the limit of what we can hear. But now, you say
>that we know what we can hear via blind testing. Isn't this circular?

No, it's just a repetition of the original statement. The inability of
listeners to detect such marginal differences by *other* means is the
proof of superiority. More importantly, the tendency of lsteners to
report *non-existent* differences in 'false sighted' listening, AA
testing if you like, is what disqualifies sighted testing.


>> You'll find a set of graduated listening tests on Arny Krueger's PCABX
>> website.
>
>How do graduated listening tests help to disentangle the effects of
>consciousness and the physical ear?

They don't, and this difference doesn't matter. Either you can hear a
difference, or you can't. How you get to that decision point is
irrelevant.

>By the way, I checked out Arny's site. It seems to be partially
>broken--the home page brings up an FAQ and I had to poke around before
>I found an actual page that let me download something. Also, the
>"listening room" page comes up blank on two browsers that I tried.

Ah well, that's technology for you!

>Here's a quote from Norman, "Memory and Attention" (1969) :
>
> "We would
> like to peel back the different levels one by one, starting with an
> understanding of the sensory organs, moving through sensation and
> perception and finally ending at decision making and thinking.
> ... One problem is that no process can be analyzed in isolation. We
> can, for example, analyze sensations only through the responses
> made by our experimental subjecs, and these responses must be the
> result of the whole structure of their psychological processes, from
> sensation through decision making."

Here's a quote from Albert Einstein:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

You seem to be attempting to complicate a very simple matter indeed.


>> > In any given test, the resolving power of
>> >consciousness may be the limit. But this is an important observation,
>> >because consciousness is a highly malleable, non-static entity that
>> >responds to (1) the test directions, (2) the nature of the test
>> >stimulus, (3) subtle cues in the people around, etc. etc. Under
>> >different conditions, consciousness may have more resolving power.
>>
>> Have you any idea what the above is supposed to mean?
>
>Of course *I* have an idea, but I guess you are saying you don't have
>an idea. I'm not sure what you aren't getting.

I get that our discriminatory ability varies. I have a nasty suspicion
that you extrapolate this to mean that *you* may sometimes be able to
hear a mouse fart at a mile. It ain't so.

>However, the ear is not characterized by one sensitivity number. It's
>simply a misrepresentation to say that the ear "hears distortion down
>to -X db", whatever X is. In fact, the ear doesn't "hear distortion."
>It recognizes and processes features of the sound. Distortion changes
>those features and thus changes the representation of the sound on the
>auditory cortex.

Correct - and it can't discriminate *anything* below 0dB SPL or so.
Now, if you're playing music with a peak level of say 95dB (louder
than most would find comfortable), and you know that your system has
no artifacts above -100dB with reference to peak level, would you
agree that you won't hear those artifacts? If not, why not?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 8 Apr 2005 00:52:15 GMT, nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

>> I don't claim that the ear can hear any very small signal. But I
>> suspect certains kinds of very small signals can be heard with
>> precision better than suggested by standard psychoacoustical testing.

>IOW, it is your "hypothesis" that you can achieve a higher state of
>consciousness that will allow you to hear differences missed by all the
>ordinary shmoos who have ever taken DBTs in the past.

And all he has to do to change *my* mind about it is to actually provide
convincing evidence that he is right, as opposed to vague speculations.
A properly done double blind experiment showint that he or someone else
actually can beat chance in distinguishing between wires for example.

What would change his mind, I wonder? One of the hallmarks of a
scientific approach to gathering knowlege is the willingness to be
convinced by evidence that one is wrong. What experiment would do that
in his case? He hasn't mentioned any so far as I remember.


Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

jjnunes@sonic.net wrote:
> Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> > <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it.
> > Very
> >> >good point.
> >> >
> >> >But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
> >>
> >> Blind testing.
>
> > I'll give you a chance to explain this--but it seems to me you are
> > reasoning circularly. I believe you have said that we know
> > quick-switch blind testing is very sensitive because it detects
> > differences right at the limit of what we can hear. But now, you
say
> > that we know what we can hear via blind testing. Isn't this
circular?
>
> No, you're playing fast and loose with what 'hear' means. Not
everything we
> 'hear' has acoustical cause.

That's exactly what I've saying, that you must consider the ear, the
auditory cortex, and consciousness together.

Actually I'm using the word "hear" in a very precise way, above.

Hear: to resolve a feature of an objective external stimulus into
consciousness and reliably distinguish it from what is imagined.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2005 00:51:49 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> ><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it.
Very
> >> >good point.
> >> >
> >> >But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
> >>
> >> Blind testing.
> >
> >I'll give you a chance to explain this--but it seems to me you are
> >reasoning circularly. I believe you have said that we know
> >quick-switch blind testing is very sensitive because it detects
> >differences right at the limit of what we can hear. But now, you
say
> >that we know what we can hear via blind testing. Isn't this
circular?
>
> No, it's just a repetition of the original statement. The inability
of
> listeners to detect such marginal differences by *other* means is the
> proof of superiority.

You say that as though we really knew *all* other means had been tried,
and as though we had a good way to characterize *all* types of marginal
differences. That's what I doubt.

> More importantly, the tendency of lsteners to
> report *non-existent* differences in 'false sighted' listening, AA
> testing if you like, is what disqualifies sighted testing.

This isn't about sighted versus blind listening.

>
>
> >> You'll find a set of graduated listening tests on Arny Krueger's
PCABX
> >> website.
> >
> >How do graduated listening tests help to disentangle the effects of
> >consciousness and the physical ear?
>
> They don't, and this difference doesn't matter. Either you can hear a
> difference, or you can't. How you get to that decision point is
> irrelevant.

It's relevant if you want to know that you have a good basis for your
conclusions.

>
> >By the way, I checked out Arny's site. It seems to be partially
> >broken--the home page brings up an FAQ and I had to poke around
before
> >I found an actual page that let me download something. Also, the
> >"listening room" page comes up blank on two browsers that I tried.
>
> Ah well, that's technology for you!
>
> >Here's a quote from Norman, "Memory and Attention" (1969) :
> >
> > "We would
> > like to peel back the different levels one by one, starting with
an
> > understanding of the sensory organs, moving through sensation and
> > perception and finally ending at decision making and thinking.
> > ... One problem is that no process can be analyzed in isolation.
We
> > can, for example, analyze sensations only through the responses
> > made by our experimental subjecs, and these responses must be the
> > result of the whole structure of their psychological processes,
from
> > sensation through decision making."
>
> Here's a quote from Albert Einstein:
>
> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

You've made it simpler than it is.

>
> You seem to be attempting to complicate a very simple matter indeed.
>
>
> >> > In any given test, the resolving power of
> >> >consciousness may be the limit. But this is an important
observation,
> >> >because consciousness is a highly malleable, non-static entity
that
> >> >responds to (1) the test directions, (2) the nature of the test
> >> >stimulus, (3) subtle cues in the people around, etc. etc. Under
> >> >different conditions, consciousness may have more resolving
power.
> >>
> >> Have you any idea what the above is supposed to mean?
> >
> >Of course *I* have an idea, but I guess you are saying you don't
have
> >an idea. I'm not sure what you aren't getting.
>
> I get that our discriminatory ability varies. I have a nasty
suspicion
> that you extrapolate this to mean that *you* may sometimes be able to
> hear a mouse fart at a mile. It ain't so.
>
> >However, the ear is not characterized by one sensitivity number.
It's
> >simply a misrepresentation to say that the ear "hears distortion
down
> >to -X db", whatever X is. In fact, the ear doesn't "hear
distortion."
> >It recognizes and processes features of the sound. Distortion
changes
> >those features and thus changes the representation of the sound on
the
> >auditory cortex.
>
> Correct - and it can't discriminate *anything* below 0dB SPL or so.
> Now, if you're playing music with a peak level of say 95dB (louder
> than most would find comfortable), and you know that your system has
> no artifacts above -100dB with reference to peak level, would you
> agree that you won't hear those artifacts? If not, why not?

I would agree it is a very good hypothesis those differences can't be
heard. Strictly speaking, since the ear is nonlinear, its response to
signal S + D is not the response to S plus the response to D. So it
isn't strictly valid to reason by saying "the response to D is zero,
hence the response to S + D equals the response to S".

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:

> You say that as though we really knew *all* other means had been
tried,
> and as though we had a good way to characterize *all* types of
marginal
> differences. That's what I doubt.

Then you ought to go get yourself a degree in psychology. Because right
now, you really have no idea how much has been tried, and why so much
of what you have speculated about has already been rejected.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> jjnunes@sonic.net wrote:
>> Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >> On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>> > <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it.
>> > Very
>> >> >good point.
>> >> >
>> >> >But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
>> >>
>> >> Blind testing.
>>
>> > I'll give you a chance to explain this--but it seems to me you are
>> > reasoning circularly. I believe you have said that we know
>> > quick-switch blind testing is very sensitive because it detects
>> > differences right at the limit of what we can hear. But now, you
> say
>> > that we know what we can hear via blind testing. Isn't this
> circular?
>>
>> No, you're playing fast and loose with what 'hear' means. Not
> everything we
>> 'hear' has acoustical cause.

> That's exactly what I've saying, that you must consider the ear, the
> auditory cortex, and consciousness together.

And in order to understand the whole, you need to disect the parts. Which
means at times, data collection occurs without considering the whole and the
data is used later to help understand the whole.

Moore's partial loudness model was constructed in precisely this way. The
sensitivity of the receptive mechanism is defined as the lowest
instantaneous loudness as a function of bandwidth that results in a firing
of the auditory nerve. They use simple signals at first in order to
minimize masking issues, which are induced on the system as a whole by the
interaction with the brain. A sailent point of this is that with more (no
pun intended) complex signals, the sensitivity of the system as a whole goes
down. While not all masking patterns have been mapped out, (lots of
research is ongoing about that) that hasn't changed the basic point that
masking makes the whole system less sensitive. I'm all for suggesting
otherwise, but it has to supported with rigorous empirical evidence to
have any weight, and nobody has produced any.


> Actually I'm using the word "hear" in a very precise way, above.

> Hear: to resolve a feature of an objective external stimulus into
> consciousness and reliably distinguish it from what is imagined.

If you say so. Your speculations make one wonder. That's all.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> > You should care because consciousness reacts to different features
of
> > the senses in different states. It's my hypothesis
>
> AFAICT, it is your "hypothesis" that you can achieve a higher state
of
> consciousness that will allow you to hear differences missed by all
the
> ordinary shmoos who have ever taken DBTs in the past. Can't you see
why
> some of us would be skeptical of that claim?

No, not a "higher state" and not me personally. This isn't a mystical
thing; it can be easily observed that people pay attention to different
things in different states. It can also be easily observed that a DBT
which encourages the listener to focus on one part of their experience
over another will change the state of consciousness.

>
> > Let's leave aside "extraordinary" claims. Doesn't this "trivial"
> fact
> > relate to your ability to generalize the results of quick-switch
> > testing? Are you confident that whatever you hear in a
quick-switch
> > test relates directly to what you hear in normal listening?
>
> "Normal listening" is not a scientific concept. It is your baseless
> speculation that there is some meaningful difference between what you
> call "normal listening" and some other kind. Despite your tossing
> around of terms like "hypothesis," you are being supremely
> unscientific.

Actually the different states of attention are something we can easily
make hypotheses about and test. You are wrong when you say it isn't
scientific. It would be a difficult area to control, for sure. But
when you say it is "unscientific," I think that you preferring to deny
the fuzzy and uncertain areas, because it is easier to be absolutely
sure of things.

-Mike

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 00:51:49 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >> On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>> ><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it.
> Very
>> >> >good point.
>> >> >
>> >> >But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
>> >>
>> >> Blind testing.
>> >
>> >I'll give you a chance to explain this--but it seems to me you are
>> >reasoning circularly. I believe you have said that we know
>> >quick-switch blind testing is very sensitive because it detects
>> >differences right at the limit of what we can hear. But now, you
> say
>> >that we know what we can hear via blind testing. Isn't this
> circular?
>>
>> No, it's just a repetition of the original statement. The inability
> of
>> listeners to detect such marginal differences by *other* means is the
>> proof of superiority.
>
> You say that as though we really knew *all* other means had been tried,
> and as though we had a good way to characterize *all* types of marginal
> differences. That's what I doubt.
>
>> More importantly, the tendency of lsteners to
>> report *non-existent* differences in 'false sighted' listening, AA
>> testing if you like, is what disqualifies sighted testing.
>
> This isn't about sighted versus blind listening.
>
>>
>>
>> >> You'll find a set of graduated listening tests on Arny Krueger's
> PCABX
>> >> website.
>> >
>> >How do graduated listening tests help to disentangle the effects of
>> >consciousness and the physical ear?
>>
>> They don't, and this difference doesn't matter. Either you can hear a
>> difference, or you can't. How you get to that decision point is
>> irrelevant.
>
> It's relevant if you want to know that you have a good basis for your
> conclusions.
>
>>
>> >By the way, I checked out Arny's site. It seems to be partially
>> >broken--the home page brings up an FAQ and I had to poke around
> before
>> >I found an actual page that let me download something. Also, the
>> >"listening room" page comes up blank on two browsers that I tried.
>>
>> Ah well, that's technology for you!
>>
>> >Here's a quote from Norman, "Memory and Attention" (1969) :
>> >
>> > "We would
>> > like to peel back the different levels one by one, starting with
> an
>> > understanding of the sensory organs, moving through sensation and
>> > perception and finally ending at decision making and thinking.
>> > ... One problem is that no process can be analyzed in isolation.
> We
>> > can, for example, analyze sensations only through the responses
>> > made by our experimental subjecs, and these responses must be the
>> > result of the whole structure of their psychological processes,
> from
>> > sensation through decision making."
>>
>> Here's a quote from Albert Einstein:
>>
>> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
>
> You've made it simpler than it is.
>
>>
>> You seem to be attempting to complicate a very simple matter indeed.
>>
>>
>> >> > In any given test, the resolving power of
>> >> >consciousness may be the limit. But this is an important
> observation,
>> >> >because consciousness is a highly malleable, non-static entity
> that
>> >> >responds to (1) the test directions, (2) the nature of the test
>> >> >stimulus, (3) subtle cues in the people around, etc. etc. Under
>> >> >different conditions, consciousness may have more resolving
> power.
>> >>
>> >> Have you any idea what the above is supposed to mean?
>> >
>> >Of course *I* have an idea, but I guess you are saying you don't
> have
>> >an idea. I'm not sure what you aren't getting.
>>
>> I get that our discriminatory ability varies. I have a nasty
> suspicion
>> that you extrapolate this to mean that *you* may sometimes be able to
>> hear a mouse fart at a mile. It ain't so.
>>
>> >However, the ear is not characterized by one sensitivity number.
> It's
>> >simply a misrepresentation to say that the ear "hears distortion
> down
>> >to -X db", whatever X is. In fact, the ear doesn't "hear
> distortion."
>> >It recognizes and processes features of the sound. Distortion
> changes
>> >those features and thus changes the representation of the sound on
> the
>> >auditory cortex.
>>
>> Correct - and it can't discriminate *anything* below 0dB SPL or so.
>> Now, if you're playing music with a peak level of say 95dB (louder
>> than most would find comfortable), and you know that your system has
>> no artifacts above -100dB with reference to peak level, would you
>> agree that you won't hear those artifacts? If not, why not?
>
> I would agree it is a very good hypothesis those differences can't be
> heard. Strictly speaking, since the ear is nonlinear, its response to
> signal S + D is not the response to S plus the response to D. So it
> isn't strictly valid to reason by saying "the response to D is zero,
> hence the response to S + D equals the response to S".

That last sentence is rather meaningless, since distortion is only
present when there is a signal. No signal, no distortion. You cannot
measure a response to distortion in the absense of signal.

Now, more to the point, if any artifact less than 100 dB down from FS is
not audibly detectible by itself, it is even less likely to be audibly
detectible in the presence of a strong signal.

Any non-linearity in the ear would simply make it less sensitive to
small signals in the presence of strong signals.

>
> -Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> jjnunes@sonic.net wrote:
> > Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > >> On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> > > <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it.
> > > Very
> > >> >good point.
> > >> >
> > >> >But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
> > >>
> > >> Blind testing.
> >
> > > I'll give you a chance to explain this--but it seems to me you are
> > > reasoning circularly. I believe you have said that we know
> > > quick-switch blind testing is very sensitive because it detects
> > > differences right at the limit of what we can hear. But now, you
> say
> > > that we know what we can hear via blind testing. Isn't this
> circular?
> >
> > No, you're playing fast and loose with what 'hear' means. Not
> everything we
> > 'hear' has acoustical cause.

> That's exactly what I've saying, that you must consider the ear, the
> auditory cortex, and consciousness together.


Except, what jjnues is saying, is that not eveything we think we
are 'hearing', is *real*...which is what science has noticed for
dozens of years now.


> Actually I'm using the word "hear" in a very precise way, above.

> Hear: to resolve a feature of an objective external stimulus into
> consciousness and reliably distinguish it from what is imagined.


Then the difference that one 'hears' in a phantom switch isn't really
'heard' -- which is also what science has noticed for decades now.

Now, extrapolate to what one 'hears' in an a non-bias-contolled sighted
comparison....

Reliable distinction of real from 'imagined' derives from
repeatable controlled comparison and correlated meausurement.

--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 8 Apr 2005 22:35:55 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>jjnunes@sonic.net wrote:

>> Not everything we
>> 'hear' has acoustical cause.
>
>That's exactly what I've saying, that you must consider the ear, the
>auditory cortex, and consciousness together.
>
>Actually I'm using the word "hear" in a very precise way, above.
>
>Hear: to resolve a feature of an objective external stimulus into
>consciousness and reliably distinguish it from what is imagined.

Unfortunately for your fanciful 'hypothesis', there is a hard limit to
what one can actually hear, and that is set by the firing of the
auitory nerve. This is a well known limit, and is the basis for
Moore's partial loudness model. No doubt you will call this
'reductionist', but it is in fact the reality of the situation. We can
of course *imagine* that we hear all kinds of things at a lower level
than this, but now we're into pure psychology, we have left the
acoustics bit behind....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 8 Apr 2005 22:37:44 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 00:51:49 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >> On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>> ><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it. Very
>> >> >good point.
>> >> >
>> >> >But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
>> >>
>> >> Blind testing.
>> >
>> >I'll give you a chance to explain this--but it seems to me you are
>> >reasoning circularly. I believe you have said that we know
>> >quick-switch blind testing is very sensitive because it detects
>> >differences right at the limit of what we can hear. But now, you say
>> >that we know what we can hear via blind testing. Isn't this circular?
>>
>> No, it's just a repetition of the original statement. The inability of
>> listeners to detect such marginal differences by *other* means is the
>> proof of superiority.
>
>You say that as though we really knew *all* other means had been tried,
>and as though we had a good way to characterize *all* types of marginal
>differences. That's what I doubt.

Doubt what you like - but provide *evidence* to back your doubts.

>> More importantly, the tendency of lsteners to
>> report *non-existent* differences in 'false sighted' listening, AA
>> testing if you like, is what disqualifies sighted testing.
>
>This isn't about sighted versus blind listening.

Fine, so can we discard all references to anything but blind tests?
Some kind of progress would be nice.................

>> Correct - and it can't discriminate *anything* below 0dB SPL or so.
>> Now, if you're playing music with a peak level of say 95dB (louder
>> than most would find comfortable), and you know that your system has
>> no artifacts above -100dB with reference to peak level, would you
>> agree that you won't hear those artifacts? If not, why not?
>
>I would agree it is a very good hypothesis those differences can't be
>heard. Strictly speaking, since the ear is nonlinear, its response to
>signal S + D is not the response to S plus the response to D. So it
>isn't strictly valid to reason by saying "the response to D is zero,
>hence the response to S + D equals the response to S".

That's correct, but you seem to have missed the point that such
masking *decreases* the sensitivity of the ear. That's the
psychoacoustic science behind MP3.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Michael Mossey wrote:
> >
> > > You should care because consciousness reacts to different
features
> of
> > > the senses in different states. It's my hypothesis
> >
> > AFAICT, it is your "hypothesis" that you can achieve a higher state
> of
> > consciousness that will allow you to hear differences missed by all
> the
> > ordinary shmoos who have ever taken DBTs in the past. Can't you see
> why
> > some of us would be skeptical of that claim?
>
> No, not a "higher state" and not me personally. This isn't a
mystical
> thing; it can be easily observed that people pay attention to
different
> things in different states.

It can be easily observed that people pay attention to different things
at different times, and under different conditions. To elevate this
trivial observation to something as grand as "states of consciousness"
strikes me as just a tad pseudoscientific.

> It can also be easily observed that a DBT
> which encourages the listener to focus on one part of their
experience
> over another will change the state of consciousness.

Not unless you've got a definition of "state of consciousness" that can
explain how the mere procedures of a DBT can alter it. (But please see
my last point before you try.)

> > > Let's leave aside "extraordinary" claims. Doesn't this "trivial"
> > fact
> > > relate to your ability to generalize the results of quick-switch
> > > testing? Are you confident that whatever you hear in a
> quick-switch
> > > test relates directly to what you hear in normal listening?
> >
> > "Normal listening" is not a scientific concept. It is your baseless
> > speculation that there is some meaningful difference between what
you
> > call "normal listening" and some other kind. Despite your tossing
> > around of terms like "hypothesis," you are being supremely
> > unscientific.
>
> Actually the different states of attention are something we can
easily
> make hypotheses about and test.

Ah, now they're "states of attention." (A phrase I doubt you'll find
too often in your psychology literature, BTW.) Again, you'll have to
define this term in order to make your assertion even meaningful.
That's what I mean by saying you are being unscientific.

> You are wrong when you say it isn't
> scientific. It would be a difficult area to control, for sure. But
> when you say it is "unscientific," I think that you preferring to
deny
> the fuzzy and uncertain areas, because it is easier to be absolutely
> sure of things.

Ad hominem, and wrong. I'm not denying it because it's uncertain; I'm
denying it because it's meaningless. You're trying to make this sound
very erudite, methinks, when what you are really arguing is far more
pedestrian. This has nothing to do with "states of consciousness,"
whatever they are. What you really mean, if I read your earlier posts
right, is that people who take DBTs are concentrating on the wrong
things, and the protocols of those tests prevent them from
concentrating on the right things.

If that's what you really mean, I'll be happy to explain where I think
you are wrong.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

jjnunes@sonic.net wrote:
> Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > jjnunes@sonic.net wrote:
> >> Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> >> On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> >> > <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy
it.
> >> > Very
> >> >> >good point.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Blind testing.
> >>
> >> > I'll give you a chance to explain this--but it seems to me you
are
> >> > reasoning circularly. I believe you have said that we know
> >> > quick-switch blind testing is very sensitive because it detects
> >> > differences right at the limit of what we can hear. But now,
you
> > say
> >> > that we know what we can hear via blind testing. Isn't this
> > circular?
> >>
> >> No, you're playing fast and loose with what 'hear' means. Not
> > everything we
> >> 'hear' has acoustical cause.
>
> > That's exactly what I've saying, that you must consider the ear,
the
> > auditory cortex, and consciousness together.
>
> And in order to understand the whole, you need to disect the parts.
Which
> means at times, data collection occurs without considering the whole
and the
> data is used later to help understand the whole.

I understand. But there is a difficulty in obtaining data about the
ear, considering only the "ear" and not consciousness. If you are
doing a test with conscious subjects, they have to give a conscious
responses.

>
> Moore's partial loudness model was constructed in precisely this way.
The
> sensitivity of the receptive mechanism is defined as the lowest
> instantaneous loudness as a function of bandwidth that results in a
firing
> of the auditory nerve. They use simple signals at first in order to
> minimize masking issues, which are induced on the system as a whole
by the
> interaction with the brain. A sailent point of this is that with
more (no
> pun intended) complex signals, the sensitivity of the system as a
whole goes
> down. While not all masking patterns have been mapped out, (lots of
> research is ongoing about that) that hasn't changed the basic point
that
> masking makes the whole system less sensitive. I'm all for
suggesting
> otherwise, but it has to supported with rigorous empirical evidence
to
> have any weight, and nobody has produced any.

I understand that the science is very compelling. However, notice that
the test subjects still had to be conscious, and focusing their
attention in a very particular way, to answer these questions. I think
that leaves an "opening"--in which certain kinds of small changes in
the sound leave a conscious impression under other listening
conditions, such as being involved with music.

All along I've explained why I think this is a possibility. I cannot
offer "rigorous empirical evidence." I think I'm allow to speculate
anyway. I happen to enjoy thinking, philosophizing, and speculating.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
> > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Michael Mossey wrote:
> > >
> > > > You should care because consciousness reacts to different
> features
> > of
> > > > the senses in different states. It's my hypothesis
> > >
> > > AFAICT, it is your "hypothesis" that you can achieve a higher
state
> > of
> > > consciousness that will allow you to hear differences missed by
all
> > the
> > > ordinary shmoos who have ever taken DBTs in the past. Can't you
see
> > why
> > > some of us would be skeptical of that claim?
> >
> > No, not a "higher state" and not me personally. This isn't a
> mystical
> > thing; it can be easily observed that people pay attention to
> different
> > things in different states.
>
> It can be easily observed that people pay attention to different
things
> at different times, and under different conditions. To elevate this
> trivial observation to something as grand as "states of
consciousness"
> strikes me as just a tad pseudoscientific.

Okay, I guess you are thinking of "states of consciousness" as
something like new age. I've read a couple books on consciousness..
have you read any? They discuss the different levels of consciousness,
and how damage to different parts of the brain affect them. For
example, higher consciousness can be disrupted while core consciousness
is not, in Damasio's theory. To suggest that consciousness is both a
complex phenomenon that can enter different states and be composed of
parts, and yet to suggest that it can be scientifically researched,
doesn't seem odd to me at all.

>
> > It can also be easily observed that a DBT
> > which encourages the listener to focus on one part of their
> experience
> > over another will change the state of consciousness.
>
> Not unless you've got a definition of "state of consciousness" that
can
> explain how the mere procedures of a DBT can alter it. (But please
see
> my last point before you try.)
>
> > > > Let's leave aside "extraordinary" claims. Doesn't this
"trivial"
> > > fact
> > > > relate to your ability to generalize the results of
quick-switch
> > > > testing? Are you confident that whatever you hear in a
> > quick-switch
> > > > test relates directly to what you hear in normal listening?
> > >
> > > "Normal listening" is not a scientific concept. It is your
baseless
> > > speculation that there is some meaningful difference between what
> you
> > > call "normal listening" and some other kind. Despite your tossing
> > > around of terms like "hypothesis," you are being supremely
> > > unscientific.
> >
> > Actually the different states of attention are something we can
> easily
> > make hypotheses about and test.
>
> Ah, now they're "states of attention." (A phrase I doubt you'll find
> too often in your psychology literature, BTW.) Again, you'll have to
> define this term in order to make your assertion even meaningful.
> That's what I mean by saying you are being unscientific.

Attention and consciousness are overlapping phenomena. But anyway, the
area is so broad and complex I can't define it here. Would we say that
we have to define "intelligence" precisely before we can start to
investigate it?

>
> > You are wrong when you say it isn't
> > scientific. It would be a difficult area to control, for sure.
But
> > when you say it is "unscientific," I think that you preferring to
> deny
> > the fuzzy and uncertain areas, because it is easier to be
absolutely
> > sure of things.
>
> Ad hominem, and wrong. I'm not denying it because it's uncertain; I'm
> denying it because it's meaningless. You're trying to make this sound
> very erudite, methinks, when what you are really arguing is far more
> pedestrian. This has nothing to do with "states of consciousness,"
> whatever they are. What you really mean, if I read your earlier posts
> right, is that people who take DBTs are concentrating on the wrong
> things, and the protocols of those tests prevent them from
> concentrating on the right things.
>
> If that's what you really mean, I'll be happy to explain where I
think
> you are wrong.

Well, I thought of one argument that I'm wrong. Brains are
well-interconnected and pretty good at learning to sense things, if
they are anyway to be sensed. I know that DBT's usually involve
training.

But go ahead, tell me where I'm wrong.

-Mike


>
> bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2005 22:35:55 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >jjnunes@sonic.net wrote:
>
> >> Not everything we
> >> 'hear' has acoustical cause.
> >
> >That's exactly what I've saying, that you must consider the ear, the
> >auditory cortex, and consciousness together.
> >
> >Actually I'm using the word "hear" in a very precise way, above.
> >
> >Hear: to resolve a feature of an objective external stimulus into
> >consciousness and reliably distinguish it from what is imagined.
>
> Unfortunately for your fanciful 'hypothesis', there is a hard limit
to
> what one can actually hear, and that is set by the firing of the
> auitory nerve. This is a well known limit, and is the basis for
> Moore's partial loudness model. No doubt you will call this
> 'reductionist', but it is in fact the reality of the situation. We
can
> of course *imagine* that we hear all kinds of things at a lower level
> than this, but now we're into pure psychology, we have left the
> acoustics bit behind....................
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Okay, I accept that this is good science.

However, just to be really thorough, I'm going to point out that when
you change a signal into the ear, you change one or both of the
following:

(1) the amplitude (or rate) of firing of the auditory nerve
(2) the timing - i.e. the time relationship between different neurons
and the absolute time that a neuron fires

If you want to convince me that the science can answer all questions
about how signals A and B are perceived differently by the brain, you
will have to convince me that we understand both (1) and (2).

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2005 00:52:15 GMT, nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> I don't claim that the ear can hear any very small signal. But I
> >> suspect certains kinds of very small signals can be heard with
> >> precision better than suggested by standard psychoacoustical
testing.
>
> >IOW, it is your "hypothesis" that you can achieve a higher state of
> >consciousness that will allow you to hear differences missed by all
the
> >ordinary shmoos who have ever taken DBTs in the past.
>
> And all he has to do to change *my* mind about it is to actually
provide
> convincing evidence that he is right, as opposed to vague
speculations.
> A properly done double blind experiment showint that he or someone
else
> actually can beat chance in distinguishing between wires for example.
>
> What would change his mind, I wonder? One of the hallmarks of a
> scientific approach to gathering knowlege is the willingness to be
> convinced by evidence that one is wrong. What experiment would do
that
> in his case? He hasn't mentioned any so far as I remember.
>
>
> Ed Seedhouse,
> Victoria, B.C.

I would change my mind if I either did myself, or found in the
pscychoacoustical literature, experiments testing the various theories
of consciousness I have.

Now, this is *really* going to draw ridicule from the objectivists, I
think there may be more possibilities in life than can be known or
tested by science. So even if I convince myself that my favorite
amplifier doesn't actually sound "smooth" or whatever, I will probably
always feel some fondness for it and suspect that maybe there's
something "real" about its sound. I wouldn't try to describe these
feelings as scientific, however.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Chung wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 7 Apr 2005 00:51:49 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> > <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> >> On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> >> ><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy
it.
> > Very
> >> >> >good point.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Blind testing.
> >> >
> >> >I'll give you a chance to explain this--but it seems to me you
are
> >> >reasoning circularly. I believe you have said that we know
> >> >quick-switch blind testing is very sensitive because it detects
> >> >differences right at the limit of what we can hear. But now, you
> > say
> >> >that we know what we can hear via blind testing. Isn't this
> > circular?
> >>
> >> No, it's just a repetition of the original statement. The
inability
> > of
> >> listeners to detect such marginal differences by *other* means is
the
> >> proof of superiority.
> >
> > You say that as though we really knew *all* other means had been
tried,
> > and as though we had a good way to characterize *all* types of
marginal
> > differences. That's what I doubt.
> >
> >> More importantly, the tendency of lsteners to
> >> report *non-existent* differences in 'false sighted' listening, AA
> >> testing if you like, is what disqualifies sighted testing.
> >
> > This isn't about sighted versus blind listening.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> You'll find a set of graduated listening tests on Arny
Krueger's
> > PCABX
> >> >> website.
> >> >
> >> >How do graduated listening tests help to disentangle the effects
of
> >> >consciousness and the physical ear?
> >>
> >> They don't, and this difference doesn't matter. Either you can
hear a
> >> difference, or you can't. How you get to that decision point is
> >> irrelevant.
> >
> > It's relevant if you want to know that you have a good basis for
your
> > conclusions.
> >
> >>
> >> >By the way, I checked out Arny's site. It seems to be partially
> >> >broken--the home page brings up an FAQ and I had to poke around
> > before
> >> >I found an actual page that let me download something. Also, the
> >> >"listening room" page comes up blank on two browsers that I
tried.
> >>
> >> Ah well, that's technology for you!
> >>
> >> >Here's a quote from Norman, "Memory and Attention" (1969) :
> >> >
> >> > "We would
> >> > like to peel back the different levels one by one, starting
with
> > an
> >> > understanding of the sensory organs, moving through sensation
and
> >> > perception and finally ending at decision making and thinking.
> >> > ... One problem is that no process can be analyzed in
isolation.
> > We
> >> > can, for example, analyze sensations only through the responses
> >> > made by our experimental subjecs, and these responses must be
the
> >> > result of the whole structure of their psychological processes,
> > from
> >> > sensation through decision making."
> >>
> >> Here's a quote from Albert Einstein:
> >>
> >> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
> >
> > You've made it simpler than it is.
> >
> >>
> >> You seem to be attempting to complicate a very simple matter
indeed.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > In any given test, the resolving power of
> >> >> >consciousness may be the limit. But this is an important
> > observation,
> >> >> >because consciousness is a highly malleable, non-static entity
> > that
> >> >> >responds to (1) the test directions, (2) the nature of the
test
> >> >> >stimulus, (3) subtle cues in the people around, etc. etc.
Under
> >> >> >different conditions, consciousness may have more resolving
> > power.
> >> >>
> >> >> Have you any idea what the above is supposed to mean?
> >> >
> >> >Of course *I* have an idea, but I guess you are saying you don't
> > have
> >> >an idea. I'm not sure what you aren't getting.
> >>
> >> I get that our discriminatory ability varies. I have a nasty
> > suspicion
> >> that you extrapolate this to mean that *you* may sometimes be able
to
> >> hear a mouse fart at a mile. It ain't so.
> >>
> >> >However, the ear is not characterized by one sensitivity number.
> > It's
> >> >simply a misrepresentation to say that the ear "hears distortion
> > down
> >> >to -X db", whatever X is. In fact, the ear doesn't "hear
> > distortion."
> >> >It recognizes and processes features of the sound. Distortion
> > changes
> >> >those features and thus changes the representation of the sound
on
> > the
> >> >auditory cortex.
> >>
> >> Correct - and it can't discriminate *anything* below 0dB SPL or
so.
> >> Now, if you're playing music with a peak level of say 95dB (louder
> >> than most would find comfortable), and you know that your system
has
> >> no artifacts above -100dB with reference to peak level, would you
> >> agree that you won't hear those artifacts? If not, why not?
> >
> > I would agree it is a very good hypothesis those differences can't
be
> > heard. Strictly speaking, since the ear is nonlinear, its response
to
> > signal S + D is not the response to S plus the response to D. So
it
> > isn't strictly valid to reason by saying "the response to D is
zero,
> > hence the response to S + D equals the response to S".
>
> That last sentence is rather meaningless, since distortion is only
> present when there is a signal. No signal, no distortion. You cannot
> measure a response to distortion in the absense of signal.

That's exactly my point. Strictly speaking, saying that the
"distortion" is below 0 dB SPL doesn't directly imply the ear can't
hear it.

>
> Now, more to the point, if any artifact less than 100 dB down from FS
is
> not audibly detectible by itself, it is even less likely to be
audibly
> detectible in the presence of a strong signal.
>
> Any non-linearity in the ear would simply make it less sensitive to
> small signals in the presence of strong signals.
>

That's more to point, and I understand that. However, there is one
kind of nonlinear system that would be an exception to this rule. That
is a system which is not very sensitive to level, but very sensitive to
time. A signal below 0 dB SPL would not have a detectable edge.
However, a very small distortion of a signal at 95 db SPL would be a
small change in the detectable edge.

No doubt you can tell me the limits of the ear's sensitivity to time.

-Mike