Numbers are not objects either. Yet one can represent them. Unlike God. So guess which is more complex? Where did our ability to appreciate music come from? Not numbers. Just saying.
I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.
I just can't clear my head of this. I don't want to start a measurements vs listening war and I'd appreciate it if you guys don't, but I bought a Rogue Sphinx V3 as some of you may remember and have been enjoying it quite a bit. So, I head over to AVS and read Amir's review and he just rips it apart. But that's OK, measurements are measurements, that is not what bugs me. I learned in the early 70s that distortion numbers, etc, may not be that important to me. Then I read that he didn't even bother listening to the darn thing. That is what really bugs me. If something measures so poorly, wouldn't you want to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? I learned that can be a big mistake. I just don't get it, never have. Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements? Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep.
368 responses Add your response
God is not an object.... 😊 And this is uncontroversial... Ask any mathematician which is the most complex object and the more packed with information object in the universe... it is the prime distribution...And there exist even a theorem describing this fact discovered in 1975 called the Voronin universality theorem...
«This extraordinary 1975 result receives surprisingly little coverage (it was difficult to find a clear and accurate statement anywhere on the WWW in March 2004): Let f(z) be any analytic function which is nonzero in the open disc |z| < r for some 0 < r < 1/4 and continuous up to the boundary of this disc. Then a disc of radius r centred on the line Re[s] = 3/4 can always be found in which the zeta function approximates the behaviour of f(z) in |z| < r, within any given accuracy. In other words, given such an f(z), r and
Note that through a simple translation and rescaling procedure, we can obtain as a corollary that the (nonzero) behaviour of any analytic function on any open disc in the complex plane can be reproduced with arbitrary accuracy by the zeta function acting on one of these discs of radius 1/4 in the right half of the critical strip.»
|
Wow the most complex object in the universe! Really? That’s big! Who knew we even had discovered that? Here I was thinking maybe that was God or something similarly impossible to render. I wonder what that sounds like? Hopefully not fatiguing. I think I’ll stick to reggae and Bach. Still can’t quite even figure out what makes my Dog tick. |
@music_is_life none is likely well below “not enough” 😎 |
i am amazed.... Look at the book cover of the book "nanobots"...
This second picture is the most complex object in the universe (no it is not the brain) we see here only the first stages here of his increasing complexity which develop itself to the infinite the infinite...: This object inspire the indian scientist and all mathematicians for years... This is a simple view of the prime numbers distribution which is the archetypal structure behind the cosmos universal memory internal chain and integrated external chain of clocks... This image illustrate for me one of the main idea of the Indian scientist in one of his paper to come soon : 15. How phase prime metric generates fundamental principles of physics to govern universe. With that we assist to the birth of a new physic based on sound, frequencies and time, instead of space, matter, and the eyes... a new concept of information too... it is an EVENT.... Then it is also the beginning of a new hearing science...Music is also way more fundamental that we humans think it was....
|
I am sorry but here is my post above and i apologize because it is more than 20 words
|
Hey @mahgister what is your point? 20 words or less please. 😉 |
I smoke a ton of weed and I think @mahgister @holmz do not smoke enough man. |
It is not because Einstein could be interviewed by Chopra that Einstein is a goon...suggesting the opposite is called a "sophism"... Second it takes second of research to verify the seriousness of the indian scientist..Even if you dont understand anything of what he do... Then your post is only a mirror of your own limitation... Call me a quack, it will be an honest reaction...And i am a "quack" anyway...But reserve your opinion when we talk science which is over your head...
Do you think that the japan institute pay a goon ?
This is a list of some of his research with HIS TEAM... PATENTSPAPERSPatents patents processed A list of the 10 patents filed & issued on our brain building project: Summary of filed patents (US, EU and Japanese, total 10 filed, 10 under prep):
A list of 15 patents under review will be filed by 2020
Papers: Here are 15 papers on the nano brain that we have completed and waiting to be published by 2020. Here are the 15 works that would be produced from our lab in developing the artificial brain by 2025.
And do you think one of the greatest science institute in japan pay for a goon ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Materials_Science
This is one of his collaborator in japan does he look like a goon? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daisuke-Fujita-5
Do you think the list of books written and edited by this guy look like the work of a goon? https://www.amazon.com/Anirban-Bandyopadhyay/e/B0826MG5D6%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
When i dont understand something before posting and bragging about my opinion in an audio forum i STUDY more... And if you are unable to understand say it or stay silent... Or insult me like some, at least i am a "quack" and i cannot contradict you about this fact... But sorry i undertstand this matter and i KNOW that the Indian scientist is not a quack, and it is easy to verify by anyone with GOOD FAITH... is it clear? Without good faith no discussion is possible... |
I do not, but I feel like I need to do a Chech-n-Chong skit, with the subject going to clocks inside of clocks inside of clocks.
The one fellow has “Chopra Foundation” on his slides… Chopra has been a darling of the unscientific for a while. Usually wild eyed ranting, that would get many admired to an asylum for observation.
But those people that you revere are not posting their clocks in clocks stories in an audio forum thread about “whether measurements have merit.”
I think honesty, and calling things as we see them, is worthwhile. And I did not listen to the 2 hour talk. The Indian fellow’s non-sense on clocks within clocks was more than enough. |
I dont want to insult your intelligence, but confusing these scientists with Timothy Leary is not a good point if you want to criticize my articles and videos postings , nor Penrose, neither Connes or Anirban Bandyopadhyay are LSD users... Be wise call me a quack but do not confuse serious science you dont understand with your impression of me..it is not to your advantage... And before posting an opinion take the time necessary to understand a difficult matter.... Sorry to say so..... All people talking about the " geometry of music" are not idiots in audio forum... I can be an idiot posting in audio forum, yes, you are right, but Anirban Bandyopadhyay is not one.... Dont confuse thing... By the way do you smoke too much marijuana yourself ? It seems you confuse the messenger, me, with the message, them....
|
When people talk about the geometry of music it sound more like they might be describing an LSD experience. So much so, that I could not get through the video. I would certainly take measurements over a geometry analogy. |
My main interest is how do we hear and tune in and interpret sound with this spiral-like and non linear structure of the cochlea, my Ariane thread is the non commutativity of the tone scale ...What is music?
Yes, it’s an interesting phenomena indeed. It’s probably one that will never be fully understood either. How can it be, seeing as how we’re all the result of quite different life experiences? Not to mention different listening environments and apparatus.
On the other hand, playback equipment is nothing like us. No amount anthropomorphism can change the fact that it has no feelings, no emotions, no moods and no memory of what it did yesterday or yesteryear. Its sole function is to react to whatever signal that is passed through it whilst contributing as little as possible of its own character. Take the example of the infamous Linn LP12 and ask yourself which version is more neutral, the original or the current one? Or perhaps we could ask why Rega titled their book, A Vibration Measuring Machine? I’m pretty sure that neither of these companies, both steeped in engineering, would want their products described has having ’character’ or ’colour’.
If some folks do want to play with the speakers and amps and what have you that audibly deviate from the ideal of neutrality, then that’s their choice. They are free to indulge themselves in the same way that an impressionist artist is wont to do. A life through a distortion lens can certainly have its tinted appeal.
The rest of us might instead prefer playback equipment that seeks to emulate a clear glass window into the recording studio, warts and all.
There’s a good summing up of how the industry cold bloodedly approaches these issues of high fidelity that matter so much to some of us here courtesy of the audiophilliac himself, Steve Guttenberg.
|
The situation is not very good in the world right now... I think music help a lot to relax... But good news and interesting stimulating research too... Then why ridiculizing this instead of thinking? Do you want and miss if you are an objectivist arguing with some fetichist subjectivist, or if you are a subjectivist arguing with some zealot objectivist ? Do you miss this circling over this empty meaningless brain void? Not me... We are all normal audiophiles here and we dont need stupid oppositions based on the wind coming from some rear end.... What is sound? what is music? what is hearing? This interest me the most..... What is time is a very deep question and why time exist? What is musical time? Music dont obey the laws of external time, music emerge with his own time, and Alain Connes was amazed by this fact which for him illustrate a fundamental non- commutativity in the cosmos and in number theory like in music... All great maestros like Furwangler and Ansermet have wriiten about this fact, conducting a musical work is letting emerge his internal temporality over the external one... It is a new take in what philosophers of the past called "Platonic forms", which are better described for Anirban Bandyopadhyay by being time-like fractal crystals acting like clocks and geometrical patterns at the same time and distributed by the ruling prime numbers series.... i am amazed...
|
Here is a Fields medallist, Alain Connes and a nobel prize Penrose coupled with this Indian scientist who cumulate already many prizes who is 37 years old now, already first author of many books, with ten to come soon, are they look like a quacks assembly, save perhaps for someone who type non sense here? Do you think Penrose lost many days of his life discussing with a quack? Call me a "quack" it will be less damaging for your brain reputation here... Born in a musical family,[1] father, late Ajoy Kumar Banerjee and mother Chhanda Banerjee, he grew up in Malda district of West Bengal, India. He studied in Ramkrishna Mission Vivekananda Vidyamandir, Malda and completed an honors degree in Physics from Malda college. He completed a master’s degree in Solid state physics, with specialization in Astrophysics from North Bengal University (1998-2000). His master’s thesis was on Gravitational wave. He did a doctorate in Indian Association for the Cultivation of science, IACS, from 2001 to 2005. In PhD, he was involved in inventing plastic memory[23] and organic memory switching devices. He joined as ICYS fellow at the International Center for Young Scientists, ICYS in 2005 for building artificial brain. From 2008 April, he is continuing as a permanent faculty in National Institute for Materials Science, NIMS, Japan and developing artificial brain. He was a visiting researcher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, 2013–2014. Currently he is jointly at the World Premier Institute (WPI) International Center for Materials and Architectronics (MANA), and Research Center for advanced measurement and characterization (RCAMC) in Japan. |
😁😉😊 I like the artistic variation anbd esthetic aspect of this one image of beating a horse compared to the other one... it is appreciated... But i am afraid that your brain slowly miss this paradigm shift which is why i post it... These artcles are not related for sure to this narrow and useless debate about O and S.... Try to work your brain through you will thank me...
By the the way, no this has nothing to do with Poincaré problem... begin with microtubules reading and Non Turing programing....
And No Alain Connes and Fractal time crystals has nothing to do with audio engineering ... They are related to the very idea of what we call "sound" and music through frequencies and clock which are at the base of this author idea... IT is really an earthquake paradigm change on brain reasearch... It will illuminate even hearing... I am interested by hearing theory... It is also the first demonstration in 2014 by the writer of the book that Penrose-Hamerof hypothesis of the orchestrated quantum model maybe right if the microtubules exhibit non algorythmic and non Turing behaviour which the writer interpret as a new fractal time "computing" with simple geometrical form instead of bits and Q-bits... it boggle the mind.. If you read his book and curriculum this guy is no joke... The reason why he is not well known is simple: All brain research is on a dead road if he is right.... Billions of dollars are at stake right now... If he is right the only comparison between this guy genius and another moment in past history will be the beginning of physical modern science with Galileo ... Now the basic parameter will be no longer spatial but fractal time-like... The definition of time will change completely... It is so extraordinary than my head turn.... To a beginning of understanding about time no books will beat Chandra Kant Raju... His two books are the deal....After that we move in a more revolutionizing new mathematical description of time which is no more only with functionnal differential calculus in the Raju description but with non commutative geometry beyond even the mathematics of the Indian genius with Alain Connes deep work in nunber theory and the quantum algebra... With Connes idea the brain scientist Indian work is illuminated...behind all the clocks fractals expresion there is a source of variation and change more deeper than time itself... Here Connes and Penrose cosmology meet one another... Ok i will not add anything to this my job is done for information transmission of this great news here... 😊
My main interest is how do we hear and tune in and interpret sound with this spiral-like and non linear structure of the cochlea, my Ariane thread is the non commutativity of the tone scale ...What is music? A richer information phenomenon for the body/brain than anything we ever think of... My deeperst respects to all...
|
Thank God engineers are mostly using geometric shapes like triangular diode symbols, and circular summing junctions.
The “beating of a dead horse”, is starting to resemble a Pegasus, or the winged horse that Rushdie mentioned in his “Satanic Versus” book.
Or the geometry is resembling something out of the “Three Body Problem” books, where a subatomic partial is unfolded in dimensionality.
They sound great in literary prose… |
I cannot resist to post this very deep and beautiful sentence:
«The topology of silence holds the actual information of biology and also in every complex system integrating the information of the universe.» it is in the article i posted above...If you want to understand this sentence read the article... A clue: «We do it every day, it was not just part of science, how? For example, somebody asks you ‘What are you doing?’, you say ‘Nothing’ (peaceful tone), you could say ‘Nothing’ (furious tone) or you could say ‘Nothing’ (dreamy tone), so N-O-T-H-I-N-G, seven ‘ticks’ are there, but you change the time gap between the letters to give a completely different kind of meaning to another path. So your information is not hidden in the ‘tick’, it is hidden in the silence.» Amazing mind! Link all this to the non Turing programming described in the image above....
By the way, only this remark hold the key to the linguistic theory about the relation between phonetic and phonology.... I am interested by the musical origin of language hypothesis... 😁😊
«When we say clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock, then we simply say that no event in the universe could be expressed as a sequence of simple events. It’s not possible. Because they are 3D geometric shapes, events are connected one inside another topologically, connections are undefined, you cannot make an equation. So if you want to convert it into a straight line, as events happening one after another, you will not be able to do so, because you are losing the topological information of the geometric structure. This is where we actually challenge the very foundation of the information theory existing for the last century.»
|
Now look about the subject matter, especially the link between fractal time programming and music and sound... It is amazing that a poster here , an alleged physicist, instead of discussing science want to put me with the audiophile subjectivist fetichist crowd, after i clearly demonstrated that i am not one...Is it because he is an objectivist zealot himself ? i dont know... His image of a "dead horse" against my posting mean what? Why not thanking me for an interesting post about the new meaning of "sound" in the brain and in the cosmos instead ? If it take me minutes to undertstand the matter around Anirban Bandyopadhyay discovery, without being a physicist, why a patented physicist will be losing time in a so stupid alternative as O versus S ? i dont understand...Enlighten me here please ... Anyway look at the image here called " the last machine of mankind"...Where Non Turing programming is resumed in one image...
What is a "sound" now ? Think about that? What is music? No not only a vibration sorry, a time fractal crystal, not a spatial fractal, a time-like one...Remember we called music a sound who convey a MEANING for the ears/brain/body... If you need a clue Anirban Bandyopadhyay articles will give you the story... His work encompassed Karl Friston work, the last time i was amazed so much by a scientific research theory was years ago... My job was teaching students how to read books by the way...Yes we must learn how to read like we must learn how to listen sound in a room... My first rule teaching reading was to read a book about any field and another book about any other field and discover the relation between the two... What is the relation between prime numbers and music: read Alain Connes and Anirban Bandyopadhyay in the same day... Ok i feel lonely since i retired , i miss the students... None of the students i know will oppose so narrowingly, O and S , to understand sound experience...None....I dont speak with fetichist and with zealots... I prefer to think.... And instead of argument i dont post like people on facebook a cartoon.... https://asynsis.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/amsterdam-16th-jan-lecture-debate1.pdf
|
A resume of the article matter: « We are not the first ones to talk about clocks in biology. For example, circadian rhythm was introduced by Franz Halberg in the 1960s, so rhythm exists in the living systems. We are clocks, and rhythms of life is a concept that haunted scientists for ages. But, no one knew or ever proposed how those clocks are connected. We know that our body clocks are in synchronisation with the motion of the planet or the galactic bodies. These kind of associations were studied exhaustively even to the single cellular scale. What our contribution was that we started from the millisecond clock of the neuron and we went inside to microsecond clocks in the giant protein complexes and when we went inside them we found nanosecond clocks in the singular protein scale, and inside them we found the picosecond clocks in the secondary structures, and inside them we found picosecond clocks in a group of atoms. So clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock, which we humans created, we use it on our wrist, is out there in our body to keep time. Similar kinds of clocks are also there in the biological system but it does not end with a neuron pairing. So before people did noticed the clock, inquisitive scientists did much to understand our clocks and the mechanism, but did not go deep inside it. No one ever thought time could be connected in a geometric shape to process everything that we see, that we feel.»
In the writer word and concept, clock means frequencies, distributed in a fractal time fashion... Clock are music....He designed the first non Turing brain machine then it is not speculation at all... What is music? What is sound? Are these questions not interesting for us audiophiles?
|
Instead of pushing open doors why not thinking?
There is no opposition at all in audio science and in audio experience between any measurements and any subjective listenings experiments...Only possible and necessary correlation...Thinking otherwise is preposterous... Those who promote those non sense are a minority of "fetichists" or "zealots"... And asking for a proof because a listener claim it is a "fact" for him is a waste of time, not science....And all competent designer adjust and verify their audio design by listening to it after their measures standard procedure and adjust and fine tuned it after listening tests ... Thats all there is to say in this debate... Subjectivist audiophile must all learn objective acoustic to control sound in their room...Most think this is secondary and they are dead wrong! Objectivist engineer must study psycho-acoustic to understand our actual hearing theory limitation and possibilities...Those who dont do that are a minority and not the best there is...atmasphere here just spoke about the way the ears perceive harmonics and why this matter to a material designer... This is an example of a creative engineer ...
Now for the science of tomorrow read a trailblazer genius about the brain, This scientist is amazing, his first book is one of a series of ten and he is the world specialist in rythm engineereing programming and science design of the brain... Why reading it? Because the way we think about the brain can illuminate what is sound, music and hearing... I dont post about it to brag , like mean people will accuse me, i post it because i am AMAZED... An very happy to read his book... Yes i am an enthusiastic mind...i spoke too much too... 😁😊 But i will not apologize to be a messenger for this interesting new work in brain research....
https://www.beautifulhumans.info/anirban-bandyopadhyay/ Yes i have a dam to give not because it is a big one, but because no one here gives a dam, save circling in a circle, and my posts tried to break this circle ... There is no S or O meaningful debate ...There is only few fetichists and a few zealots... I am neither one... You ask a question i give answers who point in a direction...At least...
|
If you remember i do not contradicted your perspective... When we listen a piece of gear in a specific room, with our specific ears , with many components, we must learn how to perceive and analyse what we perceived in acoustic term...Reading specs sheets is no more enough here... The idea that designer must SEPARATE cause and effect and not confuse them is trivial evidence...But the idea that all sound experience by someone to be valuable must be proved by electrical measures alone is meaningless in an audio forum...And meaningless because it takes also other science like acoustic to complete the description and explanation of the experience... All my point is it will help audiophile to experiment with acoustic and psycho-acoustic to understand their own experience in a room ...
And yes for sure i am guilty of posting interesting theories about the brain and music, and numbers, etc which are specualation and experiments about "hypothetical" causes, not concrete designer day to day matter... But at least i post interesting matter to say the least for at least i hope one reader.... Perhaps i presume too much... 😁😊
|
"I had my own revelations many years ago now, thinking that I could easily hear differences between amplifiers, speaker cables, and yes CD players. Then someone forced me to do a listening test without knowing what I was listening to. All those changes I thought I heard disappeared. As opposed to dismissing the tests, I delved into the technical details and realized there was little reason I should hear a difference. I just had not really given it enough thought before."
The first time I compared my Sony MP3 player (an NWZ E585 or something similar) to my super duper Marantz CD6000 KI CD player, volume matched of course, just to see what I was losing when plugging it in to my system for convenience, I was in for a rude shock. I couldn't hear any difference. No, really, I could not hear any difference?! Not on U2s Achtung Baby, or the Doors LA Woman. Now had I been an optimist I might have rejoiced in the knowledge that I wasn't losing anything at all. However, all I could feel was a sense of disappointment that my CD player had, in some way, let me down. So much so that I didn't even consider that the fact the Marantz was connected to the amp via some fancy IXOS cables as opposed to the cheap proprietary Sony cable that connected the MP3 player to spare RCAs on the back of the Creek amp. That would have just rubbed salt into the wound. I'm not a great believer in the sonic differences that cables can make, but that was ridiculous. Surely there should have been SOME difference? Just even a little bit? Anyway, if I have some time to kill, I might repeat that same experiment with my phone next time just to see if O can hear any differences there. To protect my sanity, I might also need to draft in some volunteers to a t as witnesses. This kind of thing can sure be a little disturbing.
|
Fundamentally, you are either confusing the situation or confused yourself as it concerns cause and effect. Our labs are filled with millions of dollars of equipment for exploring cause. If we have a better (or worse) result, we need to know exactly why so we can replicate it or avoid it, or to confirm an intended change happened as expected at the process level. The effects of those causes, or what the customer or application will experience, can be characterized sufficiently with relatively inexpensive equipment, and in some cases, a $25 multi-meter would be sufficient to demonstrate an effect (not that we use $25 multi-meters). With odd exception, everything you are posting about is cause. You are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to find potential causes, while ignoring the most important thing is effect. Listening is effect. What happens inside our head is cause. What we hear is effect. Trying to come up with causes without showing a conclusive effect is a thought exercise. Those thought exercises are popular in this community, perhaps because they require little effort, nor do they have to be correct or even relevant. The issue with thought exercises about cause is they are irrelevant if you cannot relate them in some fashion to effect. When we discover an effect, we will go looking for causes. We will dismiss some causes early as they are unable to cause the size of effect measured. You are doing a thought exercise, based on a thought exercise, guessing at a potential effect, an effect you have no ability to relate to what is likely able to be heard, and attempting to use it to justify an effect that has not even be shown to conclusively occur. |
You are totally right... I cannot say it better
i will never contest this fact at all... This is common place fact.... it seems we are more on the same page than what it appear... i only say that environment and gear being different and each pair of ears, listening the gear is important and not only deciphering specs sheets... For me there is no debate between O and S at all... Only participation...
For sure.....Who contest that? A few fetichists... Who contest about the necessity of a listening test before buying? A few zealots...
|
This whole need to label people in camps is an ongoing failure in audio (and society). To more accurately state what many believe is that if certain measurements are sufficiently good (and they appear to include significant tolerance in those measurements) and there are no system induced issues, then those two devices will sound the same. I have yet to seen that view proved conclusively wrong. I did follow a long thread on ASR where one of the prolific posters found an audible difference between DACs when he listened, but when he measured the units, he found a significant measurement difference. I believe the final conclusion was a software driver issue. I think I have mentioned I got really into headphones. One popular Youtube reviewer was fully convinced of the difference in audibility of headphone amplifiers that measured the same and he had even convinced himself he was right with AB tests (all with awareness of what he was listening to). He took the challenge expecting he would have no problems telling them apart when he could not see what he was listening to. The result? They sounded exactly the same. I had my own revelations many years ago now, thinking that I could easily hear differences between amplifiers, speaker cables, and yes CD players. Then someone forced me to do a listening test without knowing what I was listening to. All those changes I thought I heard disappeared. As opposed to dismissing the tests, I delved into the technical details and realized there was little reason I should hear a difference. I just had not really given it enough thought before. When I "discovered" the high resistance of the Fidelium cable and was doing Google research, I came upon an article by the much lauded Nelson Pass about speaker cables. His article deals almost exclusively with simple circuit elements, R, L and C. He does discuss a corner condition he experiences but ensures his new designs do not experience that condition. Also he indicated the most common cable issue is dirty connections. Atmasphere also noted a cable difference in a power cord, and my interpretation is this was exclusively a factor of high resistance or simple circuit elements. When respected scientific research and respected technical users are predominantly in agreement, it is unwise to not give credence to their conclusions, especially if you cannot unequivocally, and as important easily show them to be incorrect.
|
Perhaps you dont understand what these articles and videos spoke about... I am not surprized... But saying like deludedaudiophile that these articles and videos are not related to this thread matter is one thing, and he is right in the sense that this is not evident that they are related to this thread... He is right on that, we differ because for me there is a relation... But deludedaudiophile being intelligent and polite NEVER say like you just did that this articles and video about a Nobel Prize winner, a Fields medallist and a new genius in advanced neuro-computing research were "QUACKERY" ... Then spoke your mind , say i am a quack... it will be clearer...and less damaging for your own persona here... 😁😊
« "If it quack like a duck it is a duck"...No, it is an elliptic curve sorry»-Groucho Marx 🤓
|
All this debate can be summarized around this sentence with emphasis on "really"... First this debate emerged in audiophile circles, not from people who enjoy the subjective REAL pleasure to listen...But from others... Some Amir disciples come and say no this dac is better than this one,no need to listen to it... Did you not see why this is ridiculous, to claim that some measures replace all listening, and as ridiculous as saying that some listening replace all measure, in the two cases? Do you think only audiophiles can de deluded in life? What is heard by seomeone is most of the times "real", but it can result from a positive or a negative set of biases, but also it can be in some case a slight illusion...Like in ridiculous cables debate ... This does not means that all audiophiles reviews are meaningless if they are not based only on all possible hard factual set of measures... No more so this do not means that the designer who measure their ongoing design dont know what they are doing because they dont listen to it while doing it... Pretending that any audiophile must PROVE his experience is ridiculous, like asking to a designer to listen to his design before creating it.... But any audiophile must learn basic acoustic to understand sound concretely, and any designer must study psycho-acoustic to improve his results...This is common place fact... Then your critic of my post is right on one count... These new science revolution pass over the head of most people and then i posted it to help at least ONE person for which it will be interesting... It seems that this ONE person is not you.... 😁😊 Then i apologize for this "useless" information for most here, about these very new research if no one give a dam for sure... But i was hoping to be useful for ONE unknown person here... This will be more than enough.... Anyway this debate between some fetichists and some zealots is useless for EVERYONE and forever useless anyway because based on a false alternative... For any wise person there is no debate because it is a trivial evidence that listening and measuring must be correlated... Not only i am born "naive" but i was born enthusiastic by the way and all my life i communicated about all ideas, it was my job anyway ... 😁😊
|
The horse is dead. Long live the horse. You seem at a loss for why no one commented. I am taking a stab at the likely reason. Even the most ardent tweakaholic has lost interest. I didn’t arbitrate anything. I just stated rather clearly that until you either prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claims are really heard or provide some relevant scientific basis for differences to be heard, then the posts are simply self indulgent. How our brains work or our auditory system works is not even relevant. This is all external observation. From my reading there is a large body of work in what is audible, whether level, distortion, frequency response, noise, phase, and I am sure a large number of other factors that could define audio, primarily electronics as this appears to be the topic under discussion. These tests all appear to be done under special conditions meant to give us poor old humans every chance at success, as opposed to music for which it will be harder. Your posts do nothing to advance whether what is perceived as being heard is really being heard, nor that there is a real physical mechanism for the difference, nor whether the tested limits of human audio perception for measurable differences is significantly better than already shown by those working in the field. I suggest starting with the first as it will require by far the least experimental rigor or knowledge to accomplish. |
I am sure that you understand why these new converging science revolution is about a transformation of our notion of what is a "brain" and what is "music" in the largest meaning of the word.. Did you consider yourself the arbiter of the matter of this thread because you are a scientist? If so you are wrong....My post is related to this useless debate... It is evident that any measures about sounds in his relation to the brain and to the subjective impression cannot be interpretated OUT OF A THEORY OF HEARING... Music cannot be reduced to measured electrical devices or to their tools anyway , anymore than sound interpretation cannot be reduced to linear relation between noise and information in a Fourier contextual setting... These scientists, notably the Indian one illuminate the research background to understand hearing and the brain in a complete new perspectives... You are a physicist no? Why criticize me for elevating the debate ? Why not helping me and us to understand this better ? Why keeping this ridiculous debate between "0" and "S" ongoing in circle here? It is a false controversy...A children arguing contest... An ideological stance with no relation at all to sound experience in psycho-acoustic and to reality... Is your only pleasure is to put some ignorant audiophiles in their hole? I can say that measuring obsession about gear by some is not useless for sure, but completely secondary to audio S.Q. experience...And measuring must be CORRELATED to subjective impressions to be meaningful anyway at the end...in any sound design... For sure an amplifier must measured good.... So what? In life your goal is debating with some ignorant audiophile insisting to listen before buying? it is not my goal....I listen too before buying anyway... 😁😊 The bad news is in psycho-acoustic listening is primary, measuring secondary...In design, measuring is primary, listening secondary...But the two are always CORRELATED... The good news is this debate between "o" and "s" is useless...Psycho-acoustic science exist because of this elementary fact....Neuro-acoustic too... Between some "fetichists" among audiophiles, and a few "zealots" among disciples of the measuring hobbyists like Amir, i chose to be interested by new theory about the brain and new theory about hearing... Why not? Are you a scientist or a moderator of audiogon ? i was waiting for a "thank you" for this information about these new research.... 😊 Or is this relation between non commutative geometry, music, numbers, time fractals, non Turing and non algorythmic machine, microtubules, hearing, and sound is already so mastered well by you that my post is trivial? Then say so, i will ask you questions, and dont make me feel bad because i seem to be out of this trivial debate "o" and "s"...I am not....
yes, i am born "naive".... 😁😊
|
I am leaning towards the total irrelevance in relationship with the topic for the lack of interest. It's akin to all the factual but irrelevant science often brought up in audio. First start proving a change is really heard. Otherwise it is just flights of fancy. |
Nobody commented this flabbergasting video and genius idea... 😁😊 If you dont fall of your chair reading that , you dont understand what its means.... We have here the convergence of the works of three geniuses which are four,😁 the mathematician Alain Connes on non commutative geometry, quantum physics and number theory and music , Roger Penrose/Stuart Hameroff on a new way to "orchestrate" the relation between consciousness and the cosmos through microtubules dynamics related to quantum physics and cosmology and Anirban Bandyopadhyay on the fractal/time non algorythmic computing and articial brain "musical" auto-programming... Astounding... In a word a new physic like the one created by Galileo mostly grounded in visual experience, but now improved by a new physics more grounded on music and hearing and his non commutative aspects and timelike fractal resonance at all scales of the universe...All that experimentally analysed through microtubules working indicating a complete new way to conceptualize the integrated brain/mind/cosmos relation...( we can distinguish brain and mind and the cosmos but cannot separate them) OM or AUM, Indeed! 😁😊
I will give you the "flavor" in one image...
«a Fourth circuit element Hinductor not memristor (US patent 9019685B2). Charge stores to generate magnetic flux (top). An analogue made of capacitors (middle). Magnetic field distribution on its surface (bottom). b A oscillatory or nearly linear relationship between charge storage and the generation of magnetic flux. c Hinductor elements are kept without wiring inside vibrating membranes to create a composition of vibrations. d Classical beating (top) and quantum beating (bottom) inside a microtubule (experimental measurement). e Quantum and classical beating measurement setup used to detect Wilczeck’s time crystal. The concept of fractal beating where classical and quantum beating is nested explained. f Ordered architectures inside a neuron, beta-spectrin-actin assembly (STORM data), microtubule bundle are being constructed in NIMS, Japan using Hinductor, the fourth circuit element »
|
Now in a very short video by one of the most influential thinker in neuro-computing and modelling and the one who prove the presence of quantum vibrations in microtubules, i will suggest why hearing music by the brain /ears is a so complex oerations at all scale that the measures about electronic microprocessors in audio cannot explain the essential about sound listening but only gives us minimal good audio design yes, but cannot replace human hearing experience... It is a neuro-acoustic science matter... it "suggest" why psycho-acoustic which is a subfield of neuro-acoustic has more to say about sound quality analysis than mere electrical measures in electronic design... listen to this video:
He propose in his book a new concept of Turing machine based on fractal rythmic computing and nanobrain made of time crystals... https://www.amazon.com/Nanobrain-Making-Intelligent-Molecular-Machine/dp/1439875499 For him music is not in time, but it is more time which emerge from music... The Mathematician Alain Connes say the same thing about time as this neuro computer scientist but he comes from Quantum algebra reformulated as noncommutative geometry ... In his video here:
Now remember that all maestro like Furtwangler and Ernest Ansermet in their works Demonstrate how music created time, not the reverse... This all suggest that ears/brain are way more active and powerful with their resolutive internal tuned and parsing tools in the creation and interpretation of sound experience and meaning, that all we anticipated in the past... The ear is way more than a mere Fourier computer... The ear also create meaning and extract it from chaos...
For those interested in the different Time conceptions these two books by Chandra Kant Raju are very deep and enlightening...And the author goes in the same direction than The Indian neuroscientist about the time deep fractal nature or about the time deep mathematic non commutative operators nature, but for this writer the mathematical tool in used is functional differential equations ... for the beginner this book is easier to read: |
It is clear that neither of you are wrong and neither of you completely right... The hearing science upon which ultimately all measures and all listening experiments are based upon continue to progress, and all along his progress discover something new about the ears complex ability and limitations which is new and was not included in precedent objective experiments...So O snd S attitudes are always correlated for this progress to happen...
Yes some audiophile can be "fetichist" and focus on the gear colors taste, nothing else, but i reserve the word "zealot" to those who negate the value of the subjective listening experiments in acoustic and psycho-acoustic and wanted to claim that measuring sheets is complete and perfect so much that listening is useless in gear choices... And remember that for me the most important measures and material devices are not electronic processors but physical and psycho-acoustic measures and devices.... "Reverberating time" is more impactful than decimal in some electronic processor for a dac or an amplifier.... The same is true for the acoustic crossfeed and crosstalk between speakers....Precise location of a resonator also etc...No blind test is necessary here, few second of listening in the tuned process of a room spell it clearly....But change is not improvement, then listening experiments must be taken in numbers and on a long time period...it is the way to tune a room... It is not perfect but the end give a HUGE S.Q. and this improvement is "written" in a purely very precise acoustic language...It is not audiophile or electronical engineerring vocabulary here... Acoustic engineering exist... All room tuning will be "better" made tomorrow by artificial Intelligence, but we will loose the learned listening skill so precious for our human development... Perfection in technology is not perfection in knowledge not even perfection in science...Some phenomenon can be detected by human and by no artificial intelligence, in acoustic or in other fields...
For sure fetichists and zealots are a vociferating minorities, most people, engineers and audiophiles, listen to make a move and consult about specs sheets ... |
While there is still some truth to this, the truth in this declines year by year. Most of the low hanging fruit was long ago discovered. As we progress, advancements and discoveries get harder and harder, hence it takes a lot of existing knowledge and skill to add anything.
I disagree. I think the argument is whether what is claimed to be heard is really true. If it can be proven that the audible claims that audiophiles make about many products is true, the result will be technical types dissecting what is happening and why. There is obviously a group who will always chose pure precision to an arbitrary measure no matter what and claim it is superior, but they are a minority, even on sites like ASR. I believe even Mahgister agrees with this view, as he felt there were a few "zealots". Part of the issue is even understanding "the language". It took me a bit to review the measurements, do some reading, etc. before I felt comfortable engaging. |
Use of questionable science is not of critical importance here, these are outliers, vast majority of equipment is designed using legitimate science.
By the way, innovations in all human endeavors come from both STEM and non-STEM educated individuals. Innovation comes from those with curiosity and imagination. One must ask the right questions, or even what at time posed, considered silly questions by some. To believe there are no more known unknowns is sheer lunacy.
While o vs s arguments may be interesting or infuriating, depending on disposition, it is far too early to settle this with absolutism. The only thing we're really arguing about is whether we have settled science or not in regard to s claims. I'd bet the house on fewer known unknowns in future, this all premature. |
Your argument has no value in acoustic and psycho acoustically speaking... Analysis of sound experience never supposed nor proved that his subjects which are not "stem" educated, like artist, poet and musicians are less reliable in describing sound experience than engineers or physicists .... It is probably the opposite in fact...I already put here an article describing how trained ears beat the Gabor limit... Sound is first and at last a psycho-acoustic phenomenon, not a mere result of integrated circuitry... The fact that some sellers wrote bogus equations to justify their products has no relation with the matter here: objectivist measuring stance to determine audio experience or subjective listening stance... Psycho-acoustic CANNOT operate without linking the two: objective dispostion and measures and subjective ability to perceive discriminately...Then rejecting all audiophiles impressions mean nothing more than picking gear only by virtue of his measuring score... It is preposterous attitudes in the two cases.... It is so absurd i dont understand why people argue O against S and S against O...The only explanation is ignorance of psycho-acoustic and lack of systematic listenings experiments ... This is the most stupid distinction ever when this distinction is not contextually correlated by a superior conscious motive.... Like democrat and republican war nowadays....
Blind test is a secondary tool not the necessary focus in audio experience by the way... Musician dont use blind test guess why? A clue: it is not because they cannot be fooled...
And cables debates are the most riduculous of all debates and proof that people have no idea of the improvement scale of acoustic over basic good chosen cables differences... Then arguing with physics books that such cable or the other one is without any sonic value is waste of time... Audio thread are bout trivialities most of the times, "O " trivialities or "S" trivialities, and the center of experience is not even discussed together and not so often separately ... : acoustic and psycho acoustic control, vibration control, and electrical noise floor control... Why? The best gear in the world at any price must be EMBEDDED in his 3 working dimensions to be evaluated at his peak or optimal level of quality ... There is no two identical acoustic music Halls, or music rooms, or living rooms, or studios, in the world, Why? A clue: it is because the way the "S" ears and the " O" material environment can be paired in an interesting acoustic way are multiples and interesting... Acoustic and psycho-acoustic are Science but also Art...Like medecine... Suppressing one aspect over the other is criminal and stupid...We have seen it and the results of the negation of freedom all over the world in the last 2 years are with us..
|
I accept it is possible, however, having participated in blind tests where I was previously convinced there was a difference and then couldn't detect any, I did the calculations and realized there should not be a difference. In another topic, I dissected a marketing page for a cable and was able to determine only from that that it would have high resistance (and was correct) and I have no doubt that cable is audibly different. I have no doubt there are other cables that are audibly different. I have even wrote that in other posts. However, I am quite certain this has nothing to do with all the questionable science communicated by vendors and users alike, but by simple parameters we are all familiar. The claims of exotic science and justified by exotic materials and exotic construction do not hold up to scrutiny. |
@deludedaudiophile Your moniker fits you exactly, inability to accept this as possible reason certainly exhibits a certain disconnect from reality. Your STEM argument has so many flaws, also fits the moniker. |
I'm not sure if this has been discussed previously in these forums, but the difference between S and O could be explained by means other than philosophical and psychological.
We've all heard of color blindness, medical term is monochromacy. Well there is also ageusia, or loss of taste, and there is hyposmia which is a reduced ability to smell. And so, perhaps the O really has reduced ability hear what we S's call color, perhaps there is real organic cause for their perspective. I haven't researched this, but I wonder if there is means to test for this. |
> 0, we can always find some real value t such that
