Quote:
Originally Posted by Weasel9992  you are engaging in a methodological fallacy that's been around for about 2,500 years |
Jim already gave you a good "philosophical" response, and there's no fallacy I can see. My comment was based entirely on what you wrote:
"all 10 would be able to tell which was which. A plot won't tell you that though."
Maybe all the time I spend (waste, really) in hi-fi forums makes me overly sensitive to the false idea that we can hear things that "science" doesn't yet know how to measure. But that's exactly how I read your post - drummers could tell the difference between wood and concrete, but an REW sweep wouldn't show any difference. But now you say you agree anything that could be heard can also be measured, so that's cool.
Quote:
|
The data in a plot is simply a description of data that is analyzed in the brain
|
Ah geez, more effin philosophy.
Actually, the data in a plot of comb filtering off a surface is
reality, and it shows exactly what frequencies are reflected and by how much. The "brain" may or may not hear it as it really exists, which is a whole 'nother discussion in itself. Glad to go there too if you'd like. That's my specialty!
Quote:
|
is expressed by us in phases such as "that sounds like wood", or "that sounds like concrete". those descriptions are just as valid as the plotted data
|
I disagree strongly. Those descriptions are no different than "that sounds like analog" or "that sounds like digital" which I hope you realize is often not reality either!
Quote:
|
I'm challenging your assertion to the contrary, which is essentially the opposite: that no matter how different the plots are, all the rooms sound the same so long as they are the same size and shape and assuming that the measuring apparatus is identically placed.
|
I never said any such thing!
--Ethan