In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people "believe" things
sound different. It's the same mental process that have people
believing in God, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have
a shred of objective evidence that things sound different, just
their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that then opens up
all the ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the word
'perceive' in different ways and argue at cross-purposes... :-)


What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive to believe, do
they not?

Depends what you wish to describe. If the situation is that there is no
clear or reliable evidence either way that the physical soundfields differ
in a way that could be audible, then a term like 'believe' seems OK as it
allows that the idea may or may not be well-founded in physical reality.
However this is a difficult area for the reason I outline below.

The problem is that 'perception' can be taken by some people to mean
"something which I can perceive/sense' hence implying that a perceived
difference *must* be based on a physically real one being sensed. Whereas
others may assume it means the 'impression' people have even if it due to
imagination, error, wishful thinking, or some other factor completely
different to that being discussed.

If the evidence gives reason to think the idea *is* simply misguided or
incorrect, them something like 'impression' might be better.

Depends on the details of the case.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html