|
Author
|
Topic: Finally got a stand-alone DVD player!
|
Mr. Bungle
Dreamcast
|
posted 05-02-2001 12:42 PM
  
that's gold.gold, i tell you.
IP: Logged |
Feral Monkey
Dreamcast
|
posted 05-02-2001 01:31 PM
So basically, based on his last post, kingcaleb doesn't understand what Dionysus is talking about, and because Dionysus can't/won't make the explanation any simpler for him, he wants to question the validity of that information. You're a knob caleb. *bows*
IP: Logged |
Dionysus
Dreamcast
|
posted 05-02-2001 02:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by StooGe:
Don't mistake belief for fact Scrooge.
I think that is a very valid point. You will not find a single person that can say for fact that they know god exists. It is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. What you will find is people that have faith that god exists. Faith and fact are not the same.
IP: Logged |
DJ Fusion
GameCube
|
posted 05-02-2001 03:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dionysus:
Faith and fact are not the same.
So you have faith in your ears? Is that a fact?
IP: Logged |
StooGe
Dreamcast
|
posted 05-02-2001 10:43 PM
It's a fact that faith is not fact...Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed!
IP: Logged |
mech
Dreamcast
|
posted 05-02-2001 11:10 PM
Very clever DJ. Bravo. 
IP: Logged |
Dionysus
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 10:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Fusion:
So you have faith in your ears? Is that a fact?
LOL @ DJ. Actually, I have faith in my brain's interpretation of what my ears hear.
IP: Logged |
DJ Fusion
GameCube
|
posted 06-02-2001 11:00 AM
Dont worry about me dionysus, I was just being a goose.. 
IP: Logged |
Super Scrooge
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 11:34 AM
Well, I did a comparison test of my three CD players and could hear no discernible difference in sound between any of them. I guess I have proved myself correct.PSX, Sony CD walkman, Bung Doctor V64. Maybe they all have the same components inside. ------------------
There's nothing wrong with charity...as long as it winds up in your pocket. -Ferengi rule of acquisition No.144
IP: Logged |
Prince Underpants
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 11:41 AM
I'm not surprised that you can't hear the difference between those three....------------------
Get Mario Golf! 
IP: Logged |
Dionysus
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 12:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Super Scrooge:
Well, I did a comparison test of my three CD players and could hear no discernible difference in sound between any of them. I guess I have proved myself correct.PSX, Sony CD walkman, Bung Doctor V64. Maybe they all have the same components inside.
I do not think one of them comes even close to a stand alone cd player by any definition. And you are not exactly using what would qualify for a sound system, by any stretch of the imagination, so it is not suprising that you cannot hear a difference. I would not expect to hear one myself. Take your psx to your local hifi store for a comparison between it and a $300 Rotel cd player, then come back and tell us you could not hear a difference. I mean that was what we were talking about in the first place, not comparing 3 machines that just happen to play cd's.
IP: Logged |
kingcaleb
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 01:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Prince Underpants:
Caleb... grow a brain.. or at least increase the % of your brain that you are using... haven't you ever heard of the cocktail party effect (ie. preferential recognition of your own name vs another word/name in a noisy situation)??Or is all social psychology a bunch of shit in your eyes?
[This message has been edited by Prince Underpants (edited 05-02-2001).]
Yes I've heard of the 'cocktail party' effect - that's precisely what I explained. And this is precisely my point - theories based on experience are a dime a dozen. The effect is cited the world over in squillions of articles and textbooks. Evidence for it ? Nope. Evidence is predominantly in favour of attention switching or attention sharing, but it is pure bunk to suggest that an unattended stimulus which has more personal 'relevance' captures attention more readily. However it makes a lot of sense, and is an elegant summary of theories of 'late selection' so it will stay in the textbooks for years to come.
And by the way Prince Underpants, since when has auditory attention had anything at all to do with social psychology? Nothing could amplify your ignorance about the 'cocktail party effect' any more than that assumption. As for the argument about electronic components - I've been visiting... www.hometheaterforum.com This is the forum of forums - no bullshit names, no swearing or abuse, and posts based on emotion and anecdote sink like rocks. If anyone is actually serious about expressing their views on components or cables without ten intervening posts by abusive morons, this is definitely the place to be. No posting links to other sites to explain yourself - because this is the primary source of information.
The engineers (who always say what is 'possible') frequently face off against the empiricists (who counterclaim they can hear the difference), while the scientists simply demand double blind testing.
The threads are regularly interrupted by actual manufacturers - that's when you know you have quality. I highly recommend searching through past threads, as nearly every issue has been debated and resolved.
IP: Logged |
Prince Underpants
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 01:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kingcaleb:
And by the way Prince Underpants, since when has auditory attention had anything at all to do with social psychology?
oh dear....  cocktail party == a group of people at a social event but seriously... there are social psycholgoical explanations for it... but I'm buggered if I can remember them right now...
IP: Logged |
kingcaleb
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 01:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Prince Underpants:
oh dear.... cocktail party == a group of people at a social event
So basically social psych is all about anything and everything that happens at a social event ? So when a cocktail party is further away and it looks smaller, but you perceive it as the same size - that's not perceptual size constancy, no... that's social psych, because it has something to do with a social gathering!
You are so so so wrong on this one.
Let me know when you remember that social psych explanation for this attention effect
IP: Logged |
Prince Underpants
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 01:42 PM
I hadn't thought about perceptual size constancy like that before, but you make a lot of sense... it is about social psychology...
IP: Logged |
Prince Underpants
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 01:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kingcaleb:
You are so so so wrong on this one.
hmmm.... quote:
And here's a few facts :5. When your attention is focused on something else, it is more likely you will hear your own name than someone else's from across the room.
quote:
NO !All the so-called 'facts' I stated are urban legends at best, and downright wrong at worst. Even something as straightforward as #2, which you may have been taught in highschool, is wrong.
http://www.media.mit.edu/~barons/cocktail.html ok, it's not a social psych explanation... but MIT seem to think it's a very real effect...
IP: Logged |
Yoshi Sonic
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 02:04 PM
Hey, what's been going on in this room?<YS pushes his way in> What's all this racket? 160 posts? I thought I heard my name mentioned?
IP: Logged |
kingcaleb
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 02:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Prince Underpants:
ok, it's not a social psych explanation... but MIT seem to think it's a very real effect...
I'm sorry I was wrong, because you were wrong. Having your attention captured by your own name is not the cocktail party effect, at least according to the very first sentence of your reference: "the ability to focus one's listening attention on a single talker among a cacophony of conversations
and background noise" This is a very broad definition of active selective attention by voice identity. I have heard of the cocktail party effect used in a similarly broad fashion, but it's clearly not what I was referring to. And this isn't social psych by a long long shot. I'm quite sure social psychologists steal this kind of stuff all the time to bolster the 'scientificness' of their work, but an individual's selective attention in a jungle or a cocktail party is out of your field by a long distance.
IP: Logged |
Prince Underpants
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 02:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kingcaleb:
And this isn't social psych by a long long shot. I'm quite sure social psychologists steal this kind of stuff all the time to bolster the 'scientificness' of their work
get your hand off it... what a crock... so cog psych is more "scientific" than social psych? quote:
but an individual's selective attention in a jungle or a cocktail party is out of your field by a long distance.
I was primarily taking umbrage at your assertion that the self-relevance of a stiumuli has no effect on attention... there is ample evidence that supports the idea that self-relevance (i.e., fits in with your view of yourself or how you view things) is a cue for stimuli to receive preferential processing... for example, stimuli that are consistent with one's stereotypes and schemas are often encoded and recalled better...
IP: Logged |
kingcaleb
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 03:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Prince Underpants:
I was primarily taking umbrage at your assertion that the self-relevance of a stiumuli has no effect on attention...
You can take umbrage at whatever you want - fact remains you are just bit by bit transforming what I say into your bullshit. Why is it no one on this forum ever says: "Yes I am wrong" ? - but you continue to pick and pick at irrelevances and adapt the argument to suit the little you do know about.
Man I used to think I was the biggest ****head in this place - I felt kind of guilty for making the others put up with my pomoposity, arrogance and intellectual garbage. But now that I've met up with you PU I know I'm just an amateur forum egomaniac wanker. Frankly this place is too big for the two of us - and since you've been here longer than me PU you can stay and I'll find another forum where once again I can reclaim my throne as the biggest ****head. DJ, Dionysus, even my old mate Vyz - it's been a pleasure. So long.
IP: Logged |
DJ Fusion
GameCube
|
posted 06-02-2001 03:28 PM
Dont be stubborn Caleb.Intelligent debates that dont resort to name calling are what this forum thrives on. If we didnt have discussion like this based around simple disagreements, it would be a very boring place indeed. Dont take it personally, if you're sure of yourself just slug it out with Undies until he submits or vica versa. Dont let everyone see you bail at the first sign of debate and resistance, it looks weak. Hit the books, research, surf the net, and then come back for more. Hit him with something irrefutable.
IP: Logged |
Prince Underpants
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 03:47 PM
quote:
(from the URL)The cocktail party effect can be analyzed as two related, but different, problems. The primary problem of interest has traditionally been that of recognition: how do humans segregate speech sounds, and is it possible build a machine to do the task. What cues in the signal are important for separating one voice from other conversations and background noise? Can, and should, a machine use the same cues for the task, or can it use other acoustical evidence that humans are not efficient at detecting?
I agree that they use a very broad definition of the cocktail party effect (I didn't do an exhaustive search for better refs), but I think the crux of it is in bold in the quote there. quote:
Originally posted by kingcaleb:
You can take umbrage at whatever you want - fact remains you are just bit by bit transforming what I say into your bullshit.
ha! hardly... sorry if I sullied your wonderful and pure argument with my counter-arguments... quote:
Why is it no one on this forum ever says: "Yes I am wrong" ? - but you continue to pick and pick at irrelevances and adapt the argument to suit the little you do know about.
Perhaps you should listen to your own advice... quote:
Man I used to think I was the biggest ****head in this place - I felt kind of guilty for making the others put up with my pomoposity, arrogance and intellectual garbage. But now that I've met up with you PU I know I'm just an amateur forum egomaniac wanker.
don't worry, I still consider you to be a bigger wanker than me, I'm big enough to admit that... quote:
Frankly this place is too big?? for the two of us - and since you've been here longer than me PU you can stay and I'll find another forum where once again I can reclaim my throne as the biggest ****head.
There's plenty of room around here... I'm sorry that I disagreed with you... I'll agree with everything you say in the future... anyway, can you expect me to be anything but a ****head to you after your arrogance over at ODWF? Suck it in big boy and play nice with us. [This message has been edited by Prince Underpants (edited 06-02-2001).]
IP: Logged |
UrinalCake
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 04:10 PM
Awww, I think you guys broke him, he was such a bundle of joy too! 
IP: Logged |
Prince Underpants
Dreamcast
|
posted 06-02-2001 04:16 PM
NooOooOOoOOooOOoOOOOOOOOO coooooOOOOOOOoooome baaaaacckkkkk Caaaaaaaaleb!I'm looking sad now... see....  [This message has been edited by Prince Underpants (edited 06-02-2001).]
IP: Logged |
DJ Fusion
GameCube
|
posted 06-02-2001 04:17 PM
Does that mean he won? Regarding the whole idiotica take on the situation?Damn, and I was so sure it was going to be Z or H...
IP: Logged |
PlayNOW! Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
