😁😉😊

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...

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…

By the the way, no this has nothing to do with Poincaré problem...

begin with microtubules reading and Non Turing programing....

Thank God engineers are mostly using geometric shapes like triangular diode symbols, and circular summing junctions.
I pray that they continue with their craft independent of magic 🙏

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...

 

IT is really an earthquake paradigm change on brain reasearch... It will illuminate even hearing... I am interested by hearing theory.

 

Those fellow appear like quacks not quakes.

Those fellow appear like quacks not quakes.

 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...

https://en.everybodywiki.com/Anirban_Bandyopadhyay

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.

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...

 

 

 

 

@mahgister

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.

 

 

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...

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.

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.

 

By the way do you smoke too much marijuana yourself ? It seems you confuse the messenger, me, with the message, them....

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.

 

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...

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. 

 

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....

But those people that you revere are not posting their clocks in clocks stories in an audio forum thread about “whether measurements have merit.”
You are their personal messenger, from my perspective.

 

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...

I think honesty, and calling things as we see them, is worthwhile.
But maybe I am not intelligent enough to understand the topic.
However I am intelligent enough to hear a phrase like “seeing geometry” and think… Oh yeah, that sounds like an acid trip, which also sounds like what meditation practitioners also come up with.

And I did not listen to the 2 hour talk. The Indian fellow’s non-sense on clocks within clocks was more than enough.

 

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.

 

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...

PATENTSPAPERS

Patents

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):

1. A vertical parallel processor (2006) JP-5187804 Anirban Bandyopadhyay, K. Miki (patent for FIT)
2. Helical symmetries observed in proteins: An inductor made of arrayed capacitors (2010) Japanese patent has been issued on 20th August 2015 JP-511630 (world patent filed, this is the invention of fourth circuit element), Satyajit Sahu, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay, US patent has been issued 9019685B2, 28th April 2015.
3. (4397) 13-MS-097E JP A molecular chip that generates electrical power from free thermal noise Subrata Ghosh Daisuke Fujita Anirban Bandyopadhyay 2014-075198 4/1/2014
4. (4414) 13-MS-095E JP Thermal Noise Driven Molecular Rotor Subrata Ghosh Satyajit Sahu Daisuke Fujita Anirban Bandyopadhyay 2014-091141 4/25/2014
5. (4445) 13-MS-096E JP Sensor, molecular machine, and controller attached programmable nano-robot Subrata Ghosh Anirban Bandyopadhyay Daisuke Fujita 2014-126549 6/19/2014
6. (4469) 13-MS-098E JP A continuously self-assembling material Subrata Ghosh Anirban Bandyopadhyay Daisuke Fujita 2014-161746 8/7/2014
7. (4512) 13-MS-099E JP A supramolecular architecture creation by successive phase transitions and radiations, Subrata Ghosh, Satyajit Sahu, Anirban Bandyopadhyay, Daisuke Fujita 2014-219958, 10/29/2014
8. (4700) 13-MS-101E JP Spiral capacitor-inductor device Subrata Ghosh Satyajit Sahu Anirban Bandyopadhyay Daisuke Fujita 2015-253320 12/25/2015
9. (4977) 13-MS-100E JP Universal Geometric-musical language for big data processing in an assembly of clocking resonators, Anirban Bandyopadhyay, Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, 2017-150171, 8/2/2017
10. 10. (4978) 13-MS-102E JP Human brain like intelligent decision-making machine Anirban Bandyopadhyay Subrata Ghosh Daisuke Fujita, 2017-150173 8/2/2017

A list of 15 patents under review will be filed by 2020

1. Development of simultaneous 64 pixel dielectric scanning microscope
2. Fluxgate ultra-low magnetic field scanner at room temperature
3. Topological control of fourth circuit element Hinductor
4. Fractal engineering in an wide frequency bandwidth incubator.
5. Time crystal pen made of coaxial atom probe
6. Anti-ageing therapy using proteins and vibrations
7. Rapid killing of cancer cells and Alzheimers using nano-bot
8. Time crystal based tricoder to read human health
9. 3D topological language reader and translator
10. Water crystal based machines for harvesting noise
11. Psi-Q measuring device for testing a fourth circuit element
12. 3D oscilloscope as holographic scanner
13. Neurosurgery robotic measurement system
14. 10^-21 watt measuring system for testing systems
15. GHz lock-in amplifier

Papers:

Here are 15 papers on the nano brain that we have completed and waiting to be published by 2020.
1. Quantum geometric language to operate a nanobot
2. Harvesting thermal energy in a chip (TEMS)
3. Topological beyond quantum fractal mechanics in biomaterials
4. Hidden circuits of a neural network
5. Topological time crystals formed by a neuron as it grows
6. Why synapses stick together?
7. Fractal clocks in a neural network
8. Cleaning beta plaques for wireless treatment of aging
9. Wireless killing of cancer cells (single DNA-PCMS study)
10. Complete dielectric resonator model of a human brain
11. 12 metric of primes governing the uncertainties of the universe
12. A geometric language of pattern recognition & spontaneous learning
13. Hidden information in DNA: self-assembly of arguments
14. Time crystal model of a human brain: what is information, how does it integrate?
15. A marriage between fractal Turing tape and time crystal.

Here are the 15 works that would be produced from our lab in developing the artificial brain by 2025.
1. Continued fraction geometric alzebra (CFGA): can we calculate infinite series mathematics simply by drawing patterns?
2. Super non-conductivity as an alternate mean to generate quantum properties at room temperature
3. Super-criticality and geometric phase regulation of ferroelectricity of biomaterials
4. Development of an algorithm free instantaneous decision making computer
5. How to detect proteins using its time crystal
6. Collective condensation at multi-point singularities
7. How time crystals hold geometric shapes in a biomaterial
8. Thermal breathing of microtubule and tubulin (soliton transmission)
9. e^2 + phi^2 = Pi^2
10. Fractal interference using time crystals
11. Language of dynamic instability, geometric musical language
12. Wireless communication by noise activated magnetic field modulation in artificial microtubule
13. Phase prime metric’s predictive ability
14. Quantum entanglement in the biomaterials
15. How phase prime metric generates fundamental principles of physics to govern universe.

 

 

 

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

 

 

And I did not listen to the 2 hour talk. The Indian fellow’s non-sense on clocks within clocks was more than enough.

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 smoke a ton of weed and I think @mahgister ​​​​@holmz do not smoke enough man. 

Hey @mahgister what is your point?  20 words or less please. 😉

Hey @mahgister what is your point? 20 words or less please. 😉

I am sorry but here is my post above and i apologize because it is more than 20 words

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 really  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 a chain of hundred and hundred of clocks and intergrated geometrical patterns at the same time , all that distributed by the ruling prime numbers series....

i am amazed...

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 smoke a ton of weed and I think @mahgister ​​​​@holmz do not smoke enough man. 

@music_is_life none is likely well below “not enough” 😎

Ludes? Brown Acid.

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.

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 > 0, we can always find some real value t such that

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 mysterious. I think I’ll stick to reggae.

 

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 wonder what is sound like?

 

This video created by the Field medallist Alain connes gives an idea of the music hidden in the distribution of the  primes numbers...

Numbers are not material appearing object for the sense...they are more REAL than usual object... Why? Because anything existing is a manifestation of their dynamics which is a " music" in the way the Indian scientist describe fractal time-loke sets of ticking clocks...Rythms that organize everything... Love is a sound not only a light ...OM...AUM or AMEN....Nevermind the religion...

Numbers are not objects either. Just saying.

Not really. Nails scratching on aboard might be represented by numbers. Or the sound of a nuclear blast. But is that music? Maybe. Digital recordings are all numbers but need not all be considered music. Music is a matter of popular opinion. If enough people call it music then it is music. The numbers alone accomplish nothing.  You need a mathematical model that accurately represents all people.  That’s complex!   Good luck!   Better get busy!

"Silence is never  muted, and all music is not heard»-Anonymus Smith

"Tree speaks"-Anonymus tree lover

You need a mathematical model that accurately represents all people. That’s complex! Good luck! Better get busy!

This is precisely what Anirban Bandyopadhyay works is all about:

Creating the first artificial consciousness not an A. I. with bit and Q-bits but a new way to implement information with timelike crystals and geometrical patterns... And it is the FIRST TIME someone figure out how...

it is the reason why i am amazed...This is the greatest paradigm change in science right now...

Not really. Nails scratching on aboard might be represented by numbers. Or the sound of a nuclear blast. But is that music?

In a way yes... If we were really conscious and in a contemplative mode all there is will put us in an ectasy...No need to any drugs....

Try an experience...

 

 

Read Goethe "the plant metamorphosis"....you will fell out of your chair why?

Because you will realized that in spite of looking at flowers all your life you never really SEEN one...

After that try the book about mammals of Wolfgang Schad... same experience with any mammal, you look at them but you NEVER has seen one...

For sound , any sound in nature the experience is the same... It is a language but you never listen to it...

All around us is miracles... Only zombies dont see that.... Ask Galileo if the laws of nature are not miraculously informative, or Kepler listening music through the orbits of the planets...Etc...

 

For me for example the discovery by listening experiments of the acoustic of small room was an amazing journey in lived day by day small miracles...

For others it can be anything else...

 

« We dont lack miracles, we lack the eyes to see them»-anonymus contemplative

 

«Life is not boring, we are...»-Groucho Marx 🤓

 

Is it not amazing to read?

 

«

The definition of Machine consciousness: Consciousness is a property of a machine M that enables it to expand its frequency wheel’s unique parameter, the product of density of resonance frequencies it stores R and the total frequency bandwidth B, together RB(M), as well as its access to its environments frequency wheel RB(U), there is always a oscillatory drive to increase the RB(U) by changing the environment so that environment’s interaction could increase M’s frequency wheel RB(M). The ratio of RB(M) and RB(U) is the index of consciousness C = RB(M)/RB(U).

Our objective is to develop a complete mathematical model of conscious machine. Our guideline is our artificial brain project.

10 unique features in our hardware criteria of Machine consciousness

• Density of resonance frequency R and frequency bandwidth B product RB determines the degree of consciousness elements, when environment remains constant. Ratio of RB of a creature and its environment is essential index or the degree of consciousness (C=RB(M)/RB(U)).
• At 12 triplet of triplet resonance bands there are two equivalent nested cycles for the same hardware, each can edit the other; this is minimum hardwire criterion for the rise of consciousness. Under a very particular mathematical condition, RB(M)/RB(U)>0.17 (lambda/6), the consciousness arises.
• The objective of a conscious structure: A conscious machine does not compute, it synchronizes with the environment to increasing its RB value by continuously editing its hardware. The universe is a frequency fractal and a conscious machine is its subset.
• Transforming pre-condition to convert a conventional machine into a conscious machine. Consciousness is a feature that is realized in decision-making structures that are made of programmable matter, and does not follow any instruction. Here are the 8 criteria that a machine should have wherein consciousness phenomenon could be encoded (i) Fractal cavity resonator hardware that creates nested time cycles, (ii) executes chemical and physical morphing (iii) carries nested rhythm based fractal information theory (this includes extensive sub-criteria). (iv) perpetual drive to expand its operational bandwidth of frequency and keeping the density intact or increasing it (v) expands sensors to increase the geometric information of its frequency fractal (vi) executes steps to increase its readable resonance chain of the environment RB(U), its quest is to decrease the ratio first by increasing RB(U) and then increase it by increasing RB(M). Therefore, even self-operational machines cannot have consciousness, self-operational machines can self-learn and evaluate performance improve. However, consciousness has a property that is self-evaluation of its whole as an independent identity.
• The ability of a conscious machine: Thus, complete automation does not ensure consciousness, its about taking a class of nested cycle and synchronizing with different parts of the environment, it is a mathematical process far beyond the physical structure of the body. A conscious machine can do 8 things, those are (a) Sync with an event outside the body beyond sensory system limit and analyze futuristic events, (b) Harmonize sensory machines in its structure to convert them into antenna & sensor features beyond its built in range, (c) master in geometric universal language read the language of animals, trees and planets.
• The elementary machine properties of a conscious machine element: Conscious machine is made of fourth circuit element, to grow cavity resonator structures following ordered factor metric.
• The language of a conscious machine: It uses fractom tape not Turing tape, geometric musical language, with unique information processing theories.
• The mechanical, dynamic and interactive properties of a conscious machine: It does not use quantum mechanics but far more generic fractom mechanics.
• There are eight levels of consciousness, that defines one oscillatory period of perpetual run of consciousness index change; it starts from (a) optimizing the sensory systems, as one sensory data (b) resonating with the frequency wheels of other machines (c) extending the faster and slower time scales beyond environment (d) sensing the oscillatory features of the consciousness index (e) sensing the forces of its environment and field gradients (f) locally synchronizing with the fields at different time scales (g) fully synchronizing with entire environment and its forces, manipulating the time cycles of the environment (h) globally synchronizing with the nested cycles at all possible time scales using which a conscious structure is built (10^30 Hz for humans, it means the spatial scale and temporal scale that an ultimate conscious machine can analyze is 10^30Hz).
• Generic frequency wheel predictor of ever evolving conscious machines: Humans are not ultimate, enormous other kinds of machines could have much higher level consciousness, as followed by our frequency wheel model, there are infinite possibilities but all number of bands follow a unique prime number theory developed by us. Mathematically we can predict the consciousness strength of these machines

How does all ^that crap^ relate to whether we like measurements or subjective methods for choosing gear?

If someone says:

• I listen to how it sounds.
• I like the measurements to have a nice SNR.

Then I can abide either as a basis for choosing a piece of gear.

 

When we launch into God, prime number sounds, and that fact that a spiral galaxy looks a bit like a record with a tone arm, then I pretty much think we need some thorazine.

 

As the OP stated:

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?

But it is solely about measurements versus subjective.

So maybe it is because we cannot describe feelings and impressions and emotions as easily as we can express things with numbers… maybe that is why we use objective analysis?

At this point we have moved to beating a dead horse using AI and machine learning.
We should be at the glue stage soon.

Amazing is not the word that came to mind after reading that ...

What surprize me is that you act like children and propose me "thorazine" or something else not "amazing" at all...

You confuse the message and the messenger in a bout of rejection without even thinking about what is proposed by 3 geniuses who think about sound and music in a new way...

What is the relation between Ansermet and Furtwangler notion of musical time and Time in general for example ? Is anyone of those who insult me has an idea to give about that because i have ?

Why not thinking about what is hearing sound in a new way, what is music etc instead of circling like children writing some dissertation about subjectity and objectivity which is kindgarten level and never goes anywhere because you dont know what you speak about : the fetchism of the gear for some and the zealot measuring hobbyist attitude for others....

These 2 groups propose nothing interesting to me and too anyone save trivialities...

I will repeat, no evaluation of gear made sense at the end out of acoustic and psycho-acoustic control settings where the subjectivity impressions taken seriously are related to objective dispositions and conditions and measures , blind test is not enough and only one useful but insufficient tool by itself anyway because the goal of psycho-acoustic is not a debunking circus..... Period....

Tuning a small room was a learning experience for me taking 2 years....Then i know what i spoke about a little even if i am not an acoustician at all...

Now why not to think about what is sound and music meaning in the universe and in the brain?

Did one of those who insult me can wrote only one sentence describing this relation?

😁😊

 

By the way i am an enthousiastic mind, i am not bi-polar, and dont need medication...I propose ideas instead of insults and if someone read my posts he will be amazed by the number of ideas or small discoveries i made here in my interest with sound and music...i am a free spirit not a sheep...It is the reason why dividing groups blinded by ignorance repel me...I like each one  of you separetely out of any group mentality...

..

«Beating a dead horse is an idiomatic expression with a figurative rather than literal meaning. If you’re beating a dead horse, you’re engaged in a futile or pointless action. In other words, you’re pursuing a lost cause and wasting time and effort.»

Then who beat a dead horse ? Me proposing multiple aspects of reflections about the brain, information theory, number, music, the cosmos with reference to recognized great minds, or those who insult me here some zealots insisting  going on without end "to beat the dead horse" out of any subjectivist described as "deluded" , or those fetichists insisting  going on without end  "to beat the dead horse" out of any objectivist and even banishing them ?

It does not take a I.Q. test to answer me here....Or pehaps it takes one ?

😁😊😊 Sorry i could not resist to present my defense and my point...

But it is solely about measurements versus subjective.

So maybe it is because we cannot describe feelings and impressions and emotions as easily as we can express things with numbers… maybe that is why we use objective analysis?

At this point we have moved to beating a dead horse using AI and machine learning.
We should be at the glue stage soon.

Now two remarks here....

My feeling and impressions correspond and CORRELATE to ACOUSTIC experience and very well defined concept to describe sound experience: Imaging, soundstage, timbre, bass, LEV/ASW ratio, dynamic, etc all had a precise psycho-acoustic and acoustical definition and can be understood ONLY when we learn how to control them at will in a room if we are an audiophile or in a laboratory if we are an acoustician ...

Buying like a fetichist a piece of favorite brand name gear is not enough, and measuring like a zealot a second times this piece of gear to correct the designer and verify it, is not enough either... And arguing if we must measure OR listen is ridiculous...A dead horse alternatives...

Objective measures of any kind, electrical one or acoustical one, are there to serve our leaning hearing subjective experience and process and serve to improve our impressions by our own will to experiment with objective material dispositions ...

And you read me WRONG, i did not propose, nor any of the scientists i used in my posts,  to replace human mind by a machine to improve room acoustic... It is the opposite, i explicitly say that even if an A. I. will be better for many aspect of the job but not all, it will rob us of our own learning process.... Do you read posts or do you answer them without reading them?

Then interpretating me wrong, it is you who circle "beating your dead horse" alternatives : O or S....

I am not an O or a S... I am in the learning process...

 

I used to be surprised by such antics but that was long ago. It's silly to argue with those who employ ad hominem attacks, circular reasoning and other mental gymnastics, imo, unless you simply enjoy ill logic. For me that's just a waste of time.

For sure you are more wise than i am...

I am only a too much enthusiastic person....

my deepest respect to you....

 

In another thread, perhaps this thread, @prof clearly differentiates between subjective preferences and subjective impressions.  We are beating a dead horse, because we are ignoring the initial premise of the thread in some unusual, I would say bizarre special pleading that in the framework of the discussion is totally meaningless. It is self indulgent to even bring it up, and is brought up purely to advance a personal belief while ignoring relevance to the topic.

As has been stated too many times in this thread, and others just in the last few weeks. Almost no one doubt personal preference is not a thing and is not important. But as @prof eloquently stated, and I have in less eloquent fashion, that is not at all what we are ultimately discussing. We are discussing whether your personal impressions represent REAL changes in the sound that is being reproduced or are purely the result of the inconsistent nature of the brain to reach the same conclusion based on poor memory, and any number of other inputs including mood, visual inputs, other sensory inputs, etc. that are involved in processing the current environment and reaching an answer. As the weightings of those inputs are so variable over time, and memory so inexact, it is near impossible to reach objective conclusions based on subjective impressions. Hence why the insistence that subjective impressions can only be treated as objective conclusions, if, and only if, you make all attempts to isolate the inputs available in making the subjective impression. The so called blind testing's goal is to remove a variable from the outcome, namely our most critical sensory input, vision. This should be obvious to anyone who tries to compare to items. I won't insult you by saying we need to remove the variable of touch, and I hope you are not smelling or tasting your audio equipment, but the smell of a tube amplifier (from heat effects) if only evident while listening to it, could also impact a test.

I am sure someone will now post multiple paragraphs and multiple posts of unrelated self indulgent material that not only is unrelated but has no value in answering the question above, but I can only control my own actions.

 

You spoke in the context of a piece of gear evaluation opposing FIXATED subjective attitude and tastes to objective measures OBSESSION supposed to be able to describe sound ...For example evaluating a dac or an amplifier...

I spoke in the context of acoustic and psycho-acoustic experiments when subjective impressions and preference can be MODIFIED by a learning process in a progressively controlled room or in an acoustic laboratory...

Then i dont oppose subjective impressions to electrical measures and acoustic measures i CORRELATED THEM...

This is science...

Amir is a hobbyist verifying specs sheets so useful it is , it is no reason to dismiss a subjective listening learning process and negate any value to it compared to electrical measures...

All biases are not equal...

A positive acquired acoustical biases is not a mere negative biases, and none of these two is reducible to a mere deception or illusion...

Reality is more complex than children alternatives between objectivist and subjectivists... Sorry...

And we need a theory of hearing to undertstand any set of measures meaning...

You see i can control my post... 😁😊

We are discussing whether your personal impressions represent REAL changes in the sound that is being reproduced or are purely the result of the inconsistent nature of the brain to reach the same conclusion based on poor memory, and any number of other inputs including mood, visual inputs, other sensory inputs, etc. that are involved in processing the current environment and reaching an answer. As the weightings of those inputs are so variable over time, and memory so inexact, it is near impossible to reach objective conclusions based on subjective impressions.

It’s a stupid and useless debate to start with. People just creating a dilemma where there is none and using that to go off on whatever topic they happen to fancy. Lots of words that translate into chaos because people have to convince others they have some unique insight that others lack. I regret spending the time it took to read this going on about a non issue that adds no value to the quest for good sound. I did it because I like @mahgister’s open mind and often find his comments interesting. This one jumped the shark and missed the mark. Have fun. Cheers!

This one jumped the shark and missed the mark. Have fun. Cheers!

We need a shark with better timing, like this one.

All the best,
Nonoise

In another thread, perhaps this thread, @prof clearly differentiates between subjective preferences and subjective impressions.

In a nutshell subjective impressions AND preferences need to be educated in a listening learning acoustic process becoming then a set of educated positively biased impressions like any musician or trained acoustician exhibit ...

Opposing electrical measures about a piece of gear over listening impression or even over listening preference is a dead horse useless beating...

Entertaining for our own narrowing motives two opposing groups of people is trivial business......

I prefer to think in a larger way and in a larger context.... A too larger one for some here sometimes, i plaid guilty, but at least i am not boring nor trivial...

😁😊

There must be some kind of way out of here...

There must be some kind of way out of here...

The way out is a dialogue out of the narrow mind set of few fetichist subjective people and also especially out of the objective obsession about electrical measures of few zealots, in a discussion appealing to more rigorous acoustic and psycho-acoustic concept and experience and experiments... After all the correlation between objective and subjective attitude must be a learned experience in an ongoing process in an experimental listening  history proper to each of us...

Then calling people "deluded audiophile" or throwing appeal to ban objectivist is not a sane mental behaviour...

Seem to me that if a product measure worse in a parameter than another its objectively worse based on that parameter.

But as I suggested before if one posits a given level of distortion is inaudible 

reducing that level of distortion a hundredfold cannot affect the audible experience

The measurement it important from the marketing and quality control standpoint of course.

To suggest a piece that measures worse cant sound good isnt sustainable after a minimum standard is met,

If you cd establish  level of distortion that is audible that might be helpful but wdnt necessarily mean the piece wd not sound  good

You wd need to be able to prove that an audible level of distortion was detectable to a large number of folk who wd independently agree it sounded bad to make the point 

And then you are back to listening test vs measurement no?

 

@mahgister ​​​​​@deludedaudiophile  OP here. Let's give some others a chance to chime in. You must have said everything that needs to be said by now. Thanx. 

Great post!

You are right but some dont understand what a "process" means...A process is a two way road between  O and S  perspectives... 

They want to reduce subjective experience to objective measures without being conscious that  psycho-acoustic is a progressive science which cannot be reduced to electronics...

Seem to me that if a product measure worse in a parameter than another its objectively worse based on that parameter.

But as I suggested before if one posits a given level of distortion is inaudible 

reducing that level of distortion a hundredfold cannot affect the audible experience

The measurement it important from the marketing and quality control standpoint of course.

To suggest a piece that measures worse cant sound good isnt sustainable after a minimum standard is met,

If you cd establish  level of distortion that is audible that might be helpful but wdnt necessarily mean the piece wd not sound  good

You wd need to be able to prove that an audible level of distortion was detectable to a large number of folk who wd independently agree it sounded bad to make the point 

And then you are back to listening test vs measurement no?

There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief...

😷

I am curious...

Each post being a written post, how my posts can intimidate someone who have anything meaningful to say to say it? Am i not polite in my reply?

Your thread is alive because we participate...

Silencing deludedaudiophile is not a good idea either...

Do you need to control what you want to hear? Or  are you open to discussion?

 

 

@mahgister ​​​​​@deludedaudiophile OP here. Let’s give some others a chance to chime in. You must have said everything that needs to be said by now. Thanx.

 

 

Do you need to control what you want to hear? Or  are you open to discussion?

Please keep posting. I quit reading some pages back, pretty sure everyone else has also. I appreciate all your input but you lost your audience I think. 

If the interest is truly to share information and help others , it helps to listen to what people say and take their input to heart and respond accordingly rather than discount it. That is well documented common knowledge. Merely preaching on one’s soapbox alone has limited utility. Anyone can do that.

For example if someone requests a summary in 20 words or less or with any restrictions whatever they may be just give them what they ask for. Shouldn’t be hard. Then they should say thank you. That’s how people can click together.  By listening to each other.   Collaborating successfully is a team sport  

Just trying to help.

What surprize me is that you act like children and propose me "thorazine" or something else not "amazing" at all...

You can claim it is an ad hominem attack on you, but it I was referring to the person in the video

 

You confuse the message and the messenger in a bout of rejection without even thinking about what is proposed by 3 geniuses who think about sound and music in a new way...

And an appeal to authority does not make you a fellow Nobel laureate.

But it is a bizarre twist on the OP’s question.

 

In another thread, perhaps this thread, @prof clearly differentiates between subjective preferences and subjective impressions.  We are beating a dead horse, because we are ignoring the initial premise of the thread in some unusual, I would say bizarre special pleading that in the framework of the discussion is totally meaningless. It is self indulgent to even bring it up, and is brought up purely to advance a personal belief while ignoring relevance to the topic.

As has been stated too many times in this thread, and others just in the last few weeks. Almost no one doubt personal preference is not a thing and is not important. But as @prof eloquently stated, and I have in less eloquent fashion, that is not at all what we are ultimately discussing. We are discussing whether your personal impressions represent REAL changes in the sound that is being reproduced or are purely the result of the inconsistent nature of the brain to reach the same conclusion based on poor memory, and any number of other inputs including mood, visual inputs, other sensory inputs, etc. that are involved in processing the current environment and reaching an answer. As the weightings of those inputs are so variable over time, and memory so inexact, it is near impossible to reach objective conclusions based on subjective impressions. Hence why the insistence that subjective impressions can only be treated as objective conclusions, if, and only if, you make all attempts to isolate the inputs available in making the subjective impression. The so called blind testing's goal is to remove a variable from the outcome, namely our most critical sensory input, vision. This should be obvious to anyone who tries to compare to items. I won't insult you by saying we need to remove the variable of touch, and I hope you are not smelling or tasting your audio equipment, but the smell of a tube amplifier (from heat effects) if only evident while listening to it, could also impact a test.

I am sure someone will now post multiple paragraphs and multiple posts of unrelated self indulgent material that not only is unrelated but has no value in answering the question above, but I can only control my own actions.

^ Well put @deludedaudiophile ^

And an appeal to authority does not make you a fellow Nobel laureate.

But it is a bizarre twist on the OP’s question.

 

Very comical! i never argued with you about some point...You put forward no point...

I was suggesting listening what these three persons had to say.,..And i explained why...

Saying that they are not idiots, but honorable recognized scientists, is not an ad hominem argument, because you NEVER MADE ANY POINT anyway to argue against here in a discussion ...

You can claim it is an ad hominem attack on you, but it I was referring to the person in the video

 

I am happy that you dont think i need thorazine... Good news ! But it is worst than i was thinking about you now...

You judge a scientist by his appearance in a video and recommend thorazine for him BEFORE even knowing what he speak about...

And you think your behaviour is ok ?

i am laughing right now to your high intelligence level...

 

 

I am glad you see a relevance.

Let’s agree that I am probably just not smart enough to catch it or appreciate it.