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.
Idolatry of science is not science, but technology cult, see Bill Gates who want to treat viruses in biology in his last book like virus in computer... Shutting all them down at once!... Stupidity is not opposed in the same person to a I.Q. over 120 it seems... 😁😊 Objectivistic zealots are more limited than subjectivist fetichist in the audio arena ? Why? Because in psycho-acoustic the EARS are king and queen...The objective installation and numbers are only the 7 working dwarves... |
I proved for myself that a great audiophile experience can be reach AT LOW COST... Modulo minimal control over mechanical,electrical and acoustical working domensions.. Price tag means something only in design not in sound.. The correlation between price tag and sound is MEDIATED completely by the three working domensions controls...
|
It took me about 5 minutes to find other academics to call out Peterson on his limited interpretations of creativity not to mention method errors in assuming even for simple creativity tests that test subjects are levelled in their existing abilities. I will leave it to you to look up what that means. I will give you a hint it is related to cultural influences on IQ tests.
However, it is best to simply use Jordan’s own words at 3:31 in this video, "The CAQ is also potently predicted by IQ as expected". CAQ is a creativity score.
Jordan is well known and I even agree with many things he says including the need for creative people to have some other grounding. This is often an issue with high academic performers in physics, chemistry and engineering due to the creativity of their divergent thinking having the potential to make multiple focuses challenging. He is well known but his ideas are not all universally accepted. Previous to his gender stance he was a known but not exceptional academic.
|
Says "the guy" typing that on his cell phone or computer , developed using hard core science, communicated over the Internet (also hard core science), probability with some RF and optical thrown in (also hard core science). And what does it all have in common? All developed by people who couldn't give a care to philosophy that tries to answer questions that most people could not care less about and even if a philosopher comes up with an "answer" 10 other will disagree and 10000 people totally unaware someone was even thinking about it will still go about moving the world forward. Even philosophers debate the death of philosophy and whether it has any meaning let alone value in a world where life's mysteries are one by one decoded and demystified. One thing is true, philosophers don't seem to have intended philosophy to be weaponized as a justification for willful ignorance nor as an excuse for a lack of personal enlightenment and certainly not as a shield to avoid the harsh reality of knowledge.
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-death-of-philosophy/9780231147781
|
Sounds a lot like what's been going on here as of late. I noticed as much in the style and manner of writing of a few recent newcomers. All the best,
|
@nonoise :
Newcomer?? LOL!! The delusional dude is on his 13th username already. If you count his posts under all his usernames, he has more posts than the rest of Audiogon users
|
It is very important to underline and precise that Peterson did not make a "gender stance" at all...His remark which goes around the world was about free speech and the insane Trudeau who want to rule language by law...His rant has nothing to do with gender choices of people...By the way have you read "maps of meanings" his main book ? I dont know but for me no ordinary academic write a so deep book...He is not Einstein, Darwin or Freud or Grothendieck for sure but he is not an ordinary academic... Read his book and come back to speak...i read it 12 years ago... 😁😊
Philosophy importance is not about answers, it is about value, meanings and questions... The way we question ourself and everything else matter more than technological answers...Sorry....
The so called " death of philosophy" emerge way after the Renaissance and after the Romantic Era in the midst of materialism and mechanistic night...Blake called that the industrial age or The "tree of death", the era of Urizen... All that is described in a more easy to understand way in another great poet and also scientist Goethe in his Faust... Then there is no philosophy death, but instead the complete domination of materialism... The disconnection between science and philosophy was pushed by the technological hubris of occidental empire domination... Some philosophers reacted against this nominalism which success is at the source of modern physical science, Charles Sanders Peirce one of the greatest scientist and philosopher in America for example and Husserl in Europe and many others... The "life’s mysteries" are not one by one decoded each day, like an engine or a mechanistic set of riddles, in the opposite, the area of knowledge grow like a surface and the mysteries increase like a volume... The universe is boring and understood "more" each day only by the transhumanist sect who will let the machine do the mind work and park human in box where they "will own nothing and be happy" .... What is understood better each day is that the cosmos is a more vast mystery than we ever dream to think it was...Our little new answers are dwarved by the new questions... Only sleepwalkers take technology at face value, knowledge is not science, and science is not technology... Knowledge is an art and an ethic and a way to conduct our life and our body and senses among the phenomena to understand them without destroying them...It encompasses science and technology not the reverse... Goethe is the last great artist, scientist, and poet, he does not wrote philosophy in a a way a university professor wrote it, like Hegel was, but the legacy of Goethe is urgently needed in transhumanist era more than any other philosopher... Anyway the good news save for the transhumanist sleepwalker is materialism is dead...Alas! A.I. is not a creature of materialism, it is a creature of our imagination, and the risk is that we may put ourself captive in the box of our limited imagination under the domination of a ghost manipulated by who?...
|
| Post removed |
Look at the little busy body we have here. What lengths he goes to when confronted. No wonder he's been ousted by A'gon mods so many times but has this compunction to keep coming back. Quoting something from jerry is good for laughs for anyone who's been here long enough. He's accused me and others of similar things and was on his 3rd membership under a new handle when he stopped posting. Maybe he and deluded are related. All the best, |
If you are making excuses for racism, you need to be looking in the mirror. I found at least 4 people making this accusation of racism of said poster. 1 would be unexpected, 4 is more than a trend. I really start to question mental health with the tin-foil olympics that goes on. I looked at some of the other accounts I am supposedly and analog to. Other than we both have a technical background, there are obvious differences in that technical background. If we are both a single person, then that is an impressive set of capabilities in a single person in which case you probably should sit back, be quiet, and listen. |
Jerry123 😂😂🤭🤭
All of a sudden, Jerry reportedly had a stroke. At the same time you “joined” Audiogon. How convenient. Let me repeat the list of all your usernames in the past: thynamesinnervoice
cindyment
snratio
yesiamjohn
sugabooger
dletch2
audio2design
dannad
heaudio123
audiozenology
atdavid I am sure I am missing some. What a character. Creepy
How humble of you! Clearly you are a specialist in every single subject. Anything and yup, you are the superior being. Everyone should sit back, be quiet and listen. Your words. 🤦♂️🙄. Pathetic. I do envy you for the very powerful Google Machine you have in your possession 😉
|
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. |
@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 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. |
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..
|
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. |
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. |
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 ... |
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: |
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 »
|
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. |
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".... 😁😊
|
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. |
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 ... 😁😊
|
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 🤓
|
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.
|
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...
|
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. |
"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.
|
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... 😁😊
|
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...
|
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?
|
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
|
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.»
|
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… |
