great post !
I feel in agreement with all you just said...
Only a remark:
If someone says "I can hear things our most sensitive instruments can’t measure" then it requires more justification than their say-so
For sure you are right...
But we must not forgot that sound/music is not about only a certain measured level of some aspect of some information resolution in some scale defining what is possible or impossible to perceive...
Hearing a sound is also in the brain/body a work of not only psychological but of a biological "interpretation" linked to the non linear architecture of the ears design and work...The ear is tuned to catch some complex information package prepared to be interpretated by the ears by the nature of his design and not reducible to a mere Fourier based model of hearing only ...
Some sound are produced by a consciousness for another prepared consciousness and are not perceived even if they can be recorded because they cannot be interpreted...(dolphin language for example or arachneid "music" concept on their extension web body) For example what is the meaning and information weight of silence in a musical sentence or in a speech discourse or what is the information weight of the silence separating the onset of two specific sound and what is the impact on the interpreted threshold of perception ?
Then reducing all hearing possiblities to a scale frequencies or some measured sound level or even time level perception pre-supposed possibilities is forgotting that sound are most of the time in nature and speech a complex package of information that the ears is prepared to interpret and we must remember that some aspect of sounds are there only for the human ears to be perceived; bat ears will interpret sound differently or cat and a microphone coupled to another tool will not described what all there is to be perceived but will onbly recorded some chosen aspects etc ...
Our measuring apparatus can and must be designed with a hearing theory adequately tuned with the actual working of the hearing system to be able to analyse and detect some phenomena natural for the human ears but no so for some measuring protocols or for cats and bats......We dont know all there is to know about hearing plain and simple...
Then the correlation between objective installation and subjective experience is an ONGOING process which is not finished but always in his course..
it is also the reason why we all must learn to listen and why all audiophile must study acoustic and why most serious audio engineer study psycho-acoustic which is a field in progress...
|
The free will theorem is also interesting by his implication if free will exist..
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/free-will-theorem/#:~:text=This%20theorem%20states%20that%20if%20the%20human%20experimenters,universe%20up%20to%20the%20moment%20of%20the%20experiment.
Anirban Bandyopadhyay concept of "conscious machine" illustrate how the possibility of free will is programmedin the design of the cosmos itself which is a conscious machine like our body is...
The difference between A.I. with bits and Q-bits and non Turing conscious machine based on a geometrical/primenumbers language expressing and controlling an indefinite chain of synchronizing clocks at all scales is enormous... The difference between a soul and a conscious machine another thing completely... I cannot enter in it here and describe those three kind of being...
In a word an A.I. lived in an external relation to a corner of one universe... A conscious machine is integrated potentially and actually to one universe and is internally related to its totality ... A soul inhabit more than one universe and more than one body...
|
I don’t really believe we have free will nor is there an overarching design but that’s a different discussion.
I can assure you that Anirban Bandyopadhyay who " came to limelight for inventing nanobrain[4], in 2008, built a 16 Duroquinone molecule-based brain-like computer[5] that looks like a wheel or sliced neuroglia[6] acts like a brain for nanomachines." do not speculate about an overarching design in belief scpeculation...
he designed all parts of his nanobots with the guiding principles of an overarching design on integrated clocks spanning from the atoms to the solar system and beyond... ... Then this is not belief but experimental science...
For free will it is an experience not a belief only, like consciousness is an experience not only a belief...
It is an experience in the way a chosen ethical motive can power our action to a freely chosen adopted goal ...For example a hunger strike to protest violence like the late south African leader Mandela did...It is a free spirit here...Impossible to break his free will...
|
All reality are linked to assumptions, because a reality is a complex set of dimensional phenomena which we perceived only a part relating to our own assumptions..
an exemple:
we assume that fires burns no ?
yes we assume and fires burn us...
But suppose someone assume other thing ?
listen this video carefully... Dont go with your reflex this is impossible like unicorn orbiting Mars...
it is 46 minutes but is anything save boring... 😁😊
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj7iqdj1wT8&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_CGFyisehOpLvbpDhdIe_ld&index=179&t=1s
|
Crick like any Nobel prize is a human being which words may be improved...
I never say that because Alain Connes is a field medallist he must be right, i say that he is perhaps serious and we must try to understand him...
We will try with Crick description and complete it with Anirban Bandyopadhyay description of what is the scales interlocking clocks from the atoms to the brain and beyonfdto the solar system and to the galaxies...Lofe is a universal presence in the cosmos not a soup in an exceptional pound anymore like some Nobel claims in the past...
And if we meditate about the way these inlerlocking clocks are working, an increasing chain of time-like fractals crystals integrated in one anither by rythms and frequencies, wee will have perhaps a clearer ideas than the old Crick an up to date science view about what id a conscious machine like our body...
and perhaps we will understand in a better way what isfree will and why any atom has free will... Because it is part of the cosmos design...
read a book i cannot resume this here...
|
I know I’m conscious, we understand consciousness exists.
It is the good point...
But consciousness is a word also not only an experience and it is related as word or concept to all these others words which are also experience...
Then we must specify our "assumptions" to point to our experience and to the facts...We cannot speak without assumption...
This is the reason why Husserl described the experience he called suspension of all assumptions or beliefs , he stay silent to do so...
Speaking without assumption is the definition of "unicorn orbiting mars"....it is called poetry...
But beware poetry is not a meaningless activity ... It is a very deep dimension in thinking where language is born, call it music and metaphors....Each word even the more prosaic one hide a metaphor...
Music speak without assumptions like God speak....They are self sustaining realities...
This is why music is so powerful....More powerful than mathematics itself which is ultimately music anyway for Alain Connes or for Anirban Bandyopadhyay....
|
And because you know you the difference between consciousness , soul, spirit and God, you certainly know that consciousness is not a fact but an experience, like soul, spirit and God are...
And because you are the only one to speak without any assumption you will teach us what a unicorn orbiting mars is and is not ?
The good point is you begin like me with consciousness...
The bad point is you think consciousness is a fact distinct from soul, spirit or God..
Sorry but consciousness is an interpreted experience, and the " knowing act "that is always a concrete meaningful charged intentionality is precisely the basis of phenomenology...
Then consciousness yes is different from soul, spirit, God, but if we can distinguish them we cannot separe them completely in safe drawers...Like separated words in a dictionary for example...
This is why we speak always with assumptions which we know about, or of which we are unconscious about...
The only thing we can do is becoming conscious of the meaning of our assumptions in our discourse and in our thinking...And we can try to stay coherent with our own assumptions without circling our own brain like a unicorn orbiting mars...It is called keeping an open mind...
Negating these assumptions presence and presenting our opinion like a truth without assumptions is meaningless, thinking about the assumptions behind our opinions is the beginning of thinking...
The only people who talk without assumptions are fundamentalist citing the scripture which is the absolute truth, needing not any assumptions, because coming directly from God...The only thing they assume is the fact that God speak without assumptions through them...
I can assure you that for them their experience is real as yours and has nothing to do at first sight with unicorn orbiting mars...
Yes, it’s possible to talk without assumptions. Consciousness isnt an assumption, saying consciousness is spirt or soul or a part of some God or the other is.
«There is no unicorn orbiting mars, mars is a unicorn »-Groucho Marx 🤓
|
I forgot to say that Whitehead rejection of the Cartesian bifurcation meet Cassirer deep symbolic forms concept coming from Goethean semiotic ( and not merely from Kant like many people erroneously think, because Cassirer meditated Goethe all his life and he used Goethe "dynamic seeing" of form to correct the self enclosed Kant so to speak)...
The meaning of meaning for Whitehead and Cassirer are symbolic forms what Goethe creating mammal and plant morphology called an archetypal phenomenon...
Goethe method in mammal morphology boogle the mind and is described in this 1,300 pages books with 1,500 figures..
Wolfgang Schad ...
http://www.adonispress.org/threefoldness.php
This morphological approach need a transformation of the observer itself, because the attention must be mobilized...
This phenomenology of the meaning of form and of the correlative form’s meaning is an antidote to a purely mechanical conception of molecular biology...
Anyway molecular biology is now discovered to be more like "music" than mechanistic...
Pure materialism is dead... But some dont have received the news...
|
Planck believe God created the universe and the universe is a thinking entity so what ! You will reject Quantum mechanics because Planck creator of the field believe in God?
Do you think your argument so to speak is rational? Or perhaps look like a circle ?
«I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.»-MaxPlanck
To me the biggest problem with talks from people like Arthur M Young is they begin their argument with assumptions. His first assumption is humans have a spirt, the second ESP exists. It’s like discussing God with a priest, I might as well be discussing unicorns or Tea Pots orbiting Mars.
« Is it possible to talk without assumption? My wife believe she did all the time..»-Groucho Marx 🤓
|
By the way, Descartes was not a skeptic, despite the game he plays with his "method of systematic doubt" in, for instance, the first Meditation.
Very important point...Because many sceptic debunking circles act like believers without even knowing that they are believers...
The doubt method is never itself subject to doubt by them , and instead of a suspension of belief, their doubt is only an expression of a belief in the non value of any belief...
Which is the opposite way Descartes use his doubt method and the opposite way Husserl in his Cartesian meditation use Descartes to reveal the deep intentionality of meaning itself...The Method of Husserl is called : epochè...
Each phenomenon is then perceived for a consciousness as a meaning not as a fact...
The usual sceptic reject the meaning with the associated fact which are believed rightfully or not to be wrong... They throw the baby with the muddy waters... An error Descartes and Husserl dont commit...
What cannot be rejected and what must be true is the meaning of meaning itself...An experience of the conscious intentionality itself...
What is interesting is the way Arthur Young depict the meaning of meaning in a pragmatic way to be an angle... The great thinker and scientist Charles Sanders Peirce, rejecting nominalism, will create a complete new field of science and philosophy called " semiotic" , where the meaning of meaning will be described as a sign... But Arthur Young is way simpler to understand than ALL writers i spoke about...
For Young all meaning is an angle, for Descartes all meaning is an "i am" moment, for Husserl all meaning is a consciouness act, for Anirban Bandyopadhyay all meaning is music, even time is music and for Alain Connes too numbers are music and not the reverse...
Now what is the relation between, meaning, sign , angle, numbers, music, time, and consciousness: in Anirban model all that is a system of nested clocks which express the way we synchronized ourself with all that exist... It is "a conscious machine", the living body in a conscious universe...
I will not go beyond here to speak about the soul... And about the way our soul is not reducible to the living body, no more than the cosmos is reducible to the physical unique universe we live in for the time being...
|
You forgot to add the width of the room or the width of the headphones shell to your equation...Each one of our ear "think" by itself about the room in our brain so to speak...
In my world my room is a part of my brain, and not only my brain is in the room but the room is in my brain...
it is a nested meaningful world! and here the angle between all waves means a lot...
I can state with a fairly high degree of certainty that the stereo separation of my audiophile headphones is the width of my head.
« All angle is an hour so what! This is a mere watch»-Groucho Marx 🤓
|
Great post!
By prof and you...
I will only add that there exist a simple illuminating way to relate all basic meaning in the symbolic subjective world and in the objective world, this description of the meaning of meaning for Arthur M. Young is an angle....
Then we can understand the very general basis on which we can relate consciouness subjective phenomena and objective science basic concept...
His philosophy is related to the description by Anirban Bandyopadhyay of what is a conscious machine, it is an organism that can synchronize itself with the universe and with meaning in the same acting moment and Young theory predate the Indian model by decades...But way simpler to understand ....
Arthur M. Young is the inventor of the Bell helicopter...
Meaning is an angle for Young and for Anirban Bandyopadhyay ....
These two thinkers ideas are directly related to the subjective/objective rabbit hole so to speak...
This video in two parts will amaze you by its simplicity and depth...His books are very good...
|
What can i say?
What you care for means zip
Nothing...
But your vision is so simplistic about organism and their meaning i cannot say anything to you...
You are a doctor, do your understand the meaning of mammal morphology? if you understand that, how can you think that all biological form are accident waiting to be integrated by a machine?
I bet you know NOTHING about the meaning of morphology , save to be an insignificant appearance...
Morphology is like acoustic, you learn it with your body and seeing intention not with the electrical equalizer manual or with memorized organic chemistry formulas...
An A. I. can replace you as a doctor, i bet you dont even know why you are not replaceable by a machine. ? Some people are so deluded...They dont know themselves and why they exist...
We are here on Earth to grow, not to be integrated in a machine...
Try Dostoievsky : very short novel, an absolute masterpiece, you will learn something...
"The dream of a ridicule man"
Your attitude illustrate the superficial thinking in America in particular where the transhumanist cult is very rooted.., Are you not ashamed to be associated to a cult which is not even over scientology level in intellectual term ?
Try Dostoievsky, you can claim that i am an idiot, i am perhaps one why not ? but Doistoievsky is not an idiot...
Argue with a giant....
Or stay in your ridiculous hole...And instead of beginning a post by insulting me think...
Whatever feeling we have will be transferred to machines with the ability to remember every syllable they ever heard. In the end humans will not have the ability to counter it. Fighting nature is a losing battle all we can do is destroy it.
|
I dont contest
" that our ability to test electrical signals is sufficient to indicate whether a difference will cause an audibly detected change."
This is trivial... I contest the belief that electrical signals technology is all there is to know about human hearing and ordinary human experience...
You dont seem to catch this subtle difference, so eager to accuse everyone to be deluded by his perception... Perception so deceiving it is for each of us ask to be trained, and anyway hearing cannot be even understood till this day....Why then disregarding any subjective impressions ?
Do you think that the fact that two electrically identical amplifier measured the same must sound the same is the ultime audio fact? It is trivial...
But what is not trivial is the way each one of us will interpret these same electrical signals in different psycho-acoustic conditions, acoustic circonstances and environment....
Objective and subjective attitude is a two way road...And this circulating correlation is the basis of psycho acoustic, not electrical theory by itself...
Zealot are not better than fetichist....
My two ears dont live in a blueprint electronical design but in my room... There is Two kind of CORRELATED science here....We cannot erase one science for the other... We must learn how to hear, not subordinate our hearing to specs sheets...
|
Corollary to your post, just because we don’t know everything about electricity, does not mean we don’t know enough for audio :-) I see that as a frequent justification in these forums for all kinds of what I consider ridiculousness.
A better corollary will be that just because we know everything that we can know about electricity, this does not means we know all there is to know about audio matter and experience :)
I see that as a frequent justification by some for all kind of what i consider arrogant ignorance in some audiophile forums by some, ignorance in psycho-acoustic and hearing science where subjective experience is studied seriously and taken seriously not only in his limitations but for his possibilities and performances like with trained musicians...
Is it not extraordinary that we must remember to some that audio is not mere electronical design but also acoustic experience and control in psycho-acoustic science personal and collective history ?
|
Thanks for this very clear and enligtening post prof about the necessary CORRELATION ...
My deepest respect...
|
I can't help but think this discussion is softly approaching something of a eugenics direction - which has some historical significance in the development of some exceptionally significant mathematical and statistical methods.
I choose to not partake. Thankyou for clarifying the answer to my question.
Well said....
|
It is only a non sequiter to you, and perhaps others, but not to me since I can see a logical progression. In order to be of some productivity, to someone, i.e. in order to keep up, people will need to accept human/machine integration. At the bottom end of the economic pole, will be those who for economic reasons must accept the government supplied augmentations. For those with the resources, they will be able to buy the best available. The divide between the haves and have nots will hence grow, from purely economic, to intelligence, effective life span, etc.
It will get ugly before it gets better.
I am afraid that you are right...
But unlike you i am not optimist at all for the transhumanist program of integration with artificial intelligence, it is a hellish world, worse than Huxley and Orwell combined...
i am anti-integration, i dont speak about medical prosthetics here, i spoke about the sociological cult that wanted to change the rooting of the human body in nature...I dont even consider the hierarchical power pyramid which this demonic ideology could and would produce...
|
Machine/ human integration with what kind of machine?
An A.I. ?
I just distinguish and separate in the above post conventional "artificial intelligence" using Bits and Q-bits and statistical methods in the general Turing paradigm with "conscious machine" as defined by Anirban Bandyopadhyay in a non Turing context of machine design ...
The integration with A.I. is a monstruous business who cut the rooted human of his link with Nature...This is doomed to begin with...This is Frankenstein business passed some limits, like entertain transhumanists cultists...
Interacting with "conscious" machine is completely different business...Because conscious machine are autonomous individuality even if artificial one...We will interact with them WITHOUT integrating with them...They are not a tool like A.I. but a new species of being...This conscious machine contrary to the integration with A.I. will not uproot humans from Nature...
And like i said we can mathematically distinguish the three beings: artificial intelligence is not rooted at all in a universe, it is limited to a " mathematically prepared" corner of this universe and interact in an external way with this universe...
A "concious machine" is rooted in one universe, by definition of his autoprogammed learning sets of time-like fractals set of clocks, it synchronize with a universe internally...
But this synchronization, unlike human spirit, make the machine captive of this universe and identical at the end with it, like my body is part of this universe...My body is a kind of "conscious machine" in a way i am not, as human...
Reality is so complex that monism and dualism are true at the same time at different ontological level...
Because "conscious machine" cannot live simultaneously in many universes and reincarnate at will...Unlike human spirit consciousness , which advanced medical science research reveal now that it probably survive the death of the body then survive even the death of this universe....
i will stop here to not annoy some...
|
Great post thanks...
Your reflection complete mine...
|
We are the ancestors, the makers of machines, machines that can exist under circumstances we can not. One day they will rule the universe and like billions of species before us we will become extinct.
I dont think so....i dont like Yuval Noah Harari philosophy at all...
Humans are spirit not only conscious machine....We are rooted in more than one uinverse...A conscious machine is rooted in only one universe...And A. I. is not rooted at all in a universe but create his own artificial corner in a universe...These distinctions correspond to precise MATHEMATICAL distinctions by the way not my impressions...
And evolving in a machine/hybrid cage is not a progress at all...
Even a conscious machine, which is not to be confused with the actual A.I. which is not conscious, even a conscious machine by definition of what is a conscious machine, and i proposed a scientist, the only one on earth that give a definition of a concious machine in another thread, even by this first definition of a conscious machine, we can see WHY this conscious machine will be prisoner and captive in ONE UNIVERSE... Human spirit is not...
I will not explain here save if you want an answer... I dont like to be insulted...i like to discuss...
An A.I. work with bits and Q-bits and statistical mathematical learning... Conscious machine as defined for the first time by Anirban Bandyopadhyay do not.operate like any Turing machine improved by quantum computation..They need another language invented by Anirvan and described by him and his team...This new language reproduce the brain/body/cosmos language... This was even anticipated by a great mathematician the late Charles Muses before Anirban idea in his book about the chronotopology of time...
https://www.amazon.ca/-/fr/Charles-Muses/dp/157898727X
@mijostyn - pretty much a given that we will evolve to a human/machine hybrid. I don’t see any other way for us to progress.
|
All my audio journey confirm to me that you are right...
But a good room is an acoustically minimally if not optimally controlled room...
Most untouched living room are not "good room", it is why people unable to control their subjective impression with objective acoustic installation think to upgrade by unsatisfaction even if they will not say it openly...Acoustic impotency is not a good adviser....
And yes it takes only average very basic good gear to reach heaven because there is a minimal S.Q. threshold that can satisfy any music lover even if the system he own is not the best there is..
I would argue it takes only average equipment in a good room.
|
i am not a subjectivist nor an objectivist.....Because this is a confused division by a confusing crowd...
By the way i like prof balanced post above ....
So I know how to play nice with the "objectivists" (which I often mingle with over on the ASR forum, for example). HOWEVER, I do find that the objectivist approach can start to become too dry, too reductive. Everything comes to us through subjectivity, and much of human interaction involves our attempt at describing "what it’s like," and we are often successful enough in this to arrive at useful intersubjective agreement.
It is very important to not confuse 2 things here:
The engineering aspect of the relation Subjective/objective correlation...
The psycho-acoustic aspect of this correlation...
The fact that some piece of gear, for example an amplifier, can be designed in a very well controlled way, in relation to human perceptive characteristical abilities, has been very well advocated and explained here by atmasphere... He say that all aspect of human perceptive qualitative impressions can be theoretically related to some protocols in the designing process itself, then by a precise set of measures... I dont have any reason to doubt it...He is a very competent designer and he even said that Alas! this optimal set of measures that can be used for a rightful evaluation of a piece of gear is not always there.... I dont doubt that either...
Then if we pick a piece of gear it is useful to consult or buy from a designer who knows what he speak about.... But in most case the customer is in the obligation to pick by listenings because all optimal and possible measures that will guide the choice are not there or even not used...
Then picking a piece of gear is sometimes a listening experiment event because there is no other choice... And anyway those able to interpret the right set of ELECTRCAL measures are not always around...(but keep in mind that electrical measure are not acoustical measures)
Then in this case, attributing a quality to a piece of gear, is explanabable objectively by the designer or by the subjective impression of the customer, and the two can and could be correlated if the customer impression is not an illusion or a deceptive impression...
But all change in audio experience are not a "color" associated to a piece of gear, merely subjectively, or objectively, or by their correlation...
There exist also the psycho-acoustic aspect of the objective/subjective correlation....
When a recording engineer take a PERSPECTIVE on an acoustic musical event, he practise his ART with a set of trade-off choices which will be conveyed by the analog/digital chain of the audio system with the least possible distortion from this CHOSEN informed acoustic perspective....The gear system ONLY convey the chosen information to the speakers/room... there is not a UNIQUE original event, but as many that there is listeners in the Hall or microphones...
What do we have here?
We have a chosen acoustic perspective of a lived event conveyed by the gear, in a digital or in an analog form, but which will be TRANSLATED in another acoustic perspective which is a specific small room with his own acoustic set of conditions...
Then It is not a small change which is subjectively and objectively analysed and interpreted here like the change associated with a piece of gear , but an enormous set of possible acoustic choices and changes which will affect the acoustic translation of the recording event in the room and by the room acoustic complexities...
There is NO REPRODUCTION here, like high fidelity marketing trumpet it, there is an acoustic TRANSLATION....In your room also like for the recording engineer there is a trade -off set of choices which are related to your gear choices and your listening history and acoustic set of controls or the lack of....
Electrical engineering accuracy is not synonym of acoustic accuracy...
Sound transparency is an engineering concept which do not have the same meaning as acoustic transparency... like engineering electrical accuracy is not acoustic accuracy....
Then in this debate promoting blind test, which is only a single tool among all other psycho-acoustic tool to separate impressions in three groups: positive biases, negative biases, and illusion, blind test is not always practical in a single case and is not meaningful anyway in the general case... Why?
Because subjective impression and subjective impression in psycho-acoustic condition must be correlated at the end and not merely separated by a blind test ...
Then all this debate subjective/objective is generally superficial and confuse the engineering concepts of sound with the psycho-acoustical concept and the acoustical concept of sound....
In a word: there is no reproduction of sound at the end but an acoustical translation...
The original lived musical event does not exist ideally to be reproduced, it is an imperfect acoustic perspective chosen by a recording engineer waiting to be translated acoustically in your room...
The recording engineer has his TASTE AND TAKE on the event and you have your own ACOUSTIC TAKE AND TASTE in your small room...
Reducing this translation to a reproduction problem between two pieces of gear, a dac and an amplifier is BESIDE the main problem...
Any piece of gear must be well design so as to be able to reproduce a signal or translate it from analog to digital or vice versa in an accurate engineering way....
But your listenings experiments in your room are acoustical and psycho-acoustical experience....
In conclusion :
Every audiophile must learn OBJECTIVELY by basic acoustic to control his impressions...
Every audio designer must learn psycho-acoustic to understand human SUBJECTIVE impressions and learn the way to control them by his design ....
Confusing these two different perspective is arguing in the wind...And entertaining useless agressive arguments between gear fetichist and electrical measures zealots...
|
Great post to read!
Thanks...
😊
|
I am somewhat different from most who post here as I import and wholesale gear to professional engineers who record for a living. Measurements play a role in confirming what you think you hear or pointing out what you didn't hear. Most who’ve been in the business full time know that they hear things they cannot measure and vice versa. Understanding these limitations of measurement AND the limitation of your hearing is the key. Neither will be right all the time and a mix of both usually is best.
Brad
Lone Mountain/ATC USA
Great post to read...
Your experience is confirmed by what i knew reading psycho- acoustic articles...
|
you’re a lost cause :-)
But the " lost cause" indeed appreciate you very much for your wit....
|
@mahgister your condescending wording followed by a apologetic approach happens all to often.
My post happened to be a quirky attempt at humor but you missed the mark. The key words on my toggle switch "trivial pursuit." A trivial pursuit is something for which ones takes an interest but is ultimately inconsequential.
Your focus was on "flat" and it lead from there. Not every post is an argument which needs to be in some form or fashion clarified.
Is it clear?
You are right and i apologize...
I cannot change my poor mastery of the english language subtleties nor my passionate temper...
But i can sincerely apologize when someone is right...
i hope that this count in my credit...
Because i like to discuss too much and i am afraid this will not be my last apology...
With my deepest respect...
And gratitude for your forgiving ....I cannot negate that i am sometimes condescending and you dont merit that at all...
By the way with rational people i like to be corrected if i am wrong... Truth matter more than anything else in the world...On par with love and freedom his two sisters...
Anyway perhaps my exemple will set a direction for those who never apologize?
😁😊
|
I give up. Mahgister, how you can think I’m "attacking" you is a mystery. I did not "equate" you with teo_audio; if anything, I was contrasting the two of you. The point about the dubiousness of the "objective" is the only point of contact here, and that’s a point with a deep and noble pedigree. In any case, do you not recall the several exchanges we’ve had in the past year about Goethe, Kant, Nietzsche...? Does my recognition that you cherish Goethe constitute an "attack" on you?!
Sorry. This isn’t a philosophy forum. I’ll restrain myself in the future.
I apologize i misread the "tone" of your post...
My only excuse is that i am a bit sensible this week, i have been harassed for few days now the first time here even in my mailbox by a not very amicable dude...
This explain partially my fast reaction...My english understanding of subtles implicit meaning in the syntax and word choices is sometimes defective too...
Please dont be hurted by my "tone" in my reply to your post...
Here we dont see the emotional context...
And please dont restrain yourself in the future because of me, i will be very sad if you do so...I like discussion ....
I respect you completely and sincerely apologize...
My deepest respect to you...
I wish you the best from my heart....
I am really sorry....
|
Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective preference, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices? Or is there some middle ground here that I’m failing to see?
Now i will answer to your asking question as OP...in very few words because you dont like my post it seems... 😊😊
Read about psycho-acoustic, and you will discover the middle ground position, the deeper one that you are failing to see and read Henri Bortoft books on Goethe if you want to understand Goethe and his link to the actual deep debates in psycho-acoustic science ...
Explaining it will be too long post to be appreciated here .... 😊😊😊😊
In simpler word: you cannot assess and describe a change in sound if you dont know what acoustical cues are and which acoustical factors are at play in the change...Electronical design measures so good they are to give us good basic gear are not enough to give us good sound...We need psycho-acoustic education and a mimimal controls over the system/room/ears related parameters...I called that listenings experiments...They implied objective measures and objective disposition of content in the room and subjective learning training experiments...
Speaking of "colors" without knowing what "timbre" is in psycho-acoustic, being an objectivist or a subjectivist nevermind which one, will not help....
Colors are not something deceptive, or the result of an unbalanced piece of gear added to a flat neutral more well designed other piece of gear, they are usual perceived phenomena called "timbre" perception in a room...The gear system is there, the more neutral possible, to acoustically translate the recorded acoustic information from the lived event to your uncontrolled or controlled room...
|
First, do not confuse my posts with teo-audio...Answer each one of us separetely we are not a GROUP save in your head perhaps...
Second, when Goethe was speaking about "every glance is a theorizing act" remember that he spoke about a totally grounded incarnated act from the onlooker BODY and MIND united not from a theorizing position outside the world...Goethe is an embodied mind philosopher BEFORE this philosophical position exist in science ( he read Spinoza and like it more than Kant)...I only insisted in my post about this embodied mind position of Goethe , which do not negate that every glance is a theorizing act but pointed to his body grounded origin ... It is the meaning of this deep maxim of Goethe : "history of science is science"... This is phenomenology before Husserl...Any theorizing act must be grounded in history and in the body....
Third if you teach philosophy you know how to read? no?
This is my post and this is yours side by side ... I say the samething as you in different words...
my post :
«
The external part of consciousness is our own body, the internal part of our consciouness appear to us or is reflected as the external world through our body....Think about colors and sound sensation and perception and judgement...
Objectivity is not an individual thought experiment "of a monkey in a meat body" but first and last a COLLECTIVE thought experiment...
It is the reason why science need, democray, freedom, and education to replenish itself from individual freedom and creativity...
If not, science will be impossible task...Objectivity is not an "illusion" it is a "meaning" focusing intentionality operated by a consciousness...Behind objectivity there is also an ETHICAL challenge...
Science is in no way reducible to technology...»
your post :
We don’t experience the world itself, we experience a certain kind of sense input from the world which we process in our brains in a certain way. Different sorts of animals will experience the "same" reality differently. But there are, of course, features of our experiencing mechanism that we all share in common, if we are humans. That’s why we all agree that it’s "true" that 2+3=5 and that a straight line is the shortest path between two points. That shared reality is what we call "objective." It’s really more like subjectively universal.
My post in no way contradict yours...
Then why attacking me with NO ARGUMENT save amalgamating my post with another poster ? my post is a correction and an answer to teo_audio post, which correction go in the same direction as you... Then why mixing me with teo-audio in your rant?
If you dont like me say i dont like you... But dont twist my argumentation linking it to another poster perspective , it is ridiculous...And dont try to use Goethe against me you will loose the argument...
Be ethical ...
I adress each poster individually and specifically... Try the same...
|
We never listen to a SINGLE component...
We listen to a chain of events on different scale...
Then the set of measures which can make good design sound good exist yes, i never contested that, but nobody listen to an amplifier disconnected from a room /house/ system and without his own ears biases...
Then .....
The matter under discussion here is the objective/subjective rabbit hole...
It is a rabbit hole when subjectivist and objectivist are alone each one on their side...Not so much when we try to understand why two equal measured design components can be identified different indeed by listening alone, it is then a psycho-acoustic problem not a mere electronical problem...
It can be deceptive illusion yes, or it can be a more subtle perception linked to other factors than the measured design itself , which factors that this well measured design dont encompass or dont control... Than this question is way more complex than your simplistic alternatives yes or no, which is a challenge you tailor made to subjectivist hard core audiophiles here to put them in a corner...But i am not one of them...Neither a measuring zealots negating hearing experiments value .... Measuring the right things is way more complex that usually think anyway but being a scientist you know that already and better than me...
I understand that you dont like my observations but they are related to the matter of this thread anyway...
But i agree about my too numerous use of many words and i apologize.... But it is an another matter...
Stop to reduce psycho-acoustic problems to tool design or to amplifier design only... 😁😊
My deepest respect for you....In spite of my annoying posts...
More paragraphs. More ignoring the singular issue which is not even in the least bit complex. Either the two equal measuring components can be identified as different through listening alone or not. Stop complicating a ham sandwich. This is not a philosophical question
|
The measurement does not exist alone...
It exist with all other actual, and others possible measurements...
I never say that audiophile can rival any measuring apparatus in his precise realm
of application...
I only say that objective measures and subjective appreciation must always be CORRELATED... It is the basic of psycho-acoustic...
Sound perception is a complex phenomenon measurable only in a complex array of measuring experiments and not reducible to them even today...Because we dont have a universal accepted theory of hearing but many one with their complete sets of unsolved problems...
And any acoustician know that it is sometimes more easy and more fast to use their ears to assess an acoustic situation than to measure...Then acoustic learning bias have a value which cannot be dismiss in favor of mere tools only for many reasons...
Ears and measures are not enemies they are allied...
I am not a pure subjectivist audiophile nor an Amir disciple...
And philosophy can help to understand why technology cannot replace science, nor our measures tools replacing the ears/brain way of "measuring" for now in the actual state of our many hearing theories...
I am a promotor of listening experiments at home to learn basic acoustic fact and experience... It is not science, even if based on some science, it is a playful art and the only way to learn how to listen by the way with musical training...Then i dont promote gear brand name like many audiophiles , i promoted acoustic listening experiments...
The only question that remains is can audiophile detect changes that measurements say do not exist. That is a yes/no question.
Sorry but your simplification is perhaps good when we face a specific technological problem in design to solve but in science complex situation are not always reducible to what our tool ask for...
For the time being some human listener can assess and evaluate complex acoustic situation which we only begin to discover few years ago...( my article on limit of usinbg only Fourier analysis to explain hearing for example)
Then dismissing the value of subjective experience is simplistic psycho-acoustically speaking...
I dont speak here about the design of amplifier and the measures that make them good design with a predictible potential good S.Q. i dont negate atmasphere psycho-acoustically informed thesis about measurements at all...
I spoke about a larger perspective including also psycho-acoustic which cannot be reduced to narrower and goal oriented technological objective attitude nor reduced to a mere and anecdotal subjective taste and stance......
Being a scientist you dont like philosophy perhaps, but being a philosopher i dont like technological short-cut when we face a complex problem.... 😁😊
|
if someone doubt Goethe scientific value, read this:
Dennis SEPPER, as the sober historian of science close reading Newton’s 1672 letter and Goethe’s Contributions to Optics, concluded:
‘I have come to believe that Goethe has an ampler conception of science than Newton, that he has a sounder notion of what an empirical methodology requires and a firmer grasp on the epistemological and philosophical issues involved…2’
|
’objectivity’ does not really exist.
the only thing that exists is a subjective reality experience.
Your claim is not false for sure but is not right either...
Why? because objectivity is not a "fact" and subjectivity is not a "fact" either, subjectivity is more fundamental than facts, objectivity is more fundamental than fact too, but objectivity and subjectivity are an internal and correlated external and internal consciousness process...This process which work also between the collective and the free individual exist...
The external part of consciousness is our own body, the internal part of our consciouness appear to us or is reflected as the external world through our body....Think about colors and sound sensation and perception and judgement...
Objectivity is not an individual thought experiment "of a monkey in a meat body" but first and last a COLLECTIVE thought experiment...
It is the reason why science need, democray, freedom, and education to replenish itself from individual freedom and creativity...
If not science will be impossible task...Objectivity is not an "illusion" it is a "meaning" focussing intentionality operated by a consciousness...Behind objectivity there is also an ETHICAL challenge...
Science is in no way reducible to technology... In technology we go from parts to parts in an hypothetical theoretical prepared "whole" an external conditioned whole, a map which reduce diversities to external unity as a tool ....
Science dont go from the parts to hypothetical whole ONLY through a theoretical map , but MAINLY must go from the internal whole perceived to the parts without an a priori map replacing the territory so to speak but with an onlooking internal gaze amplifying the diversities potentially there in the unity or in the perceived internal whole manifested in external indexes...It is a perception yoga intividual training, a self free educating ongoing process in consciousness...
Individual creator replenish the collective view by this spiritual creativity and self control...Not corporations and universties...
»History of science is science» Goethe
The collective knowledge possession is not science by itself , it is only the basis on which some individual able to see the parts and the diversities coming from the whole like Faraday or Goethe will describe it without prematurely theorizing it and reducing diversities to an artificial map or a mere tool ... After these pioneering geniuses others will theorize it rightfully at the right time in history and will create the basis of new technology without destroying or reducing the science to this set of tools...
But the fundamental moment of creativity in science is an individual one not a collective technological one...
Like the physicist Bohm student and Goethe student Henri Bortoft put it:
«This is the dynamical thinking of the participant mode of consciousness, instead of the static thinking of the onlooker consciousness. This way of seeing turns the one and the many inside-out. Instead of many different ones that are the same, we now see one which is becoming itself in many different ways. What we have here is self-difference instead of self-sameness; each is the very same one, but differently, instead of each of the different ones being the same. We now have difference within unity, instead of a unity that excludes difference. Furthermore, it is concrete instead of abstract. So instead of “unity in multiplicity” we have “multiplicity in unity,” which is the unity of the living source.»
https://www.natureinstitute.org/article/henri-bortoft/the-form-of-wholeness
«Faraday shared with Goethe more than merely an experimental approach. Just as Goethe made no attempt to theorize about the “hidden” nature of light, so Faraday declined to speculate about the “real” nature of electric currents and magnets. Instead, they both aimed to develop appropriate concepts for formulating phenomenological regularities and, in the process, emphasized the establishment of experimental links between simple and complex phenomena. These methodological similarities were noted by Hermann von Helmholtz in an 1881 lecture on Faraday, in which he stressed Faraday’s aim to express only “observable and observed facts, most carefully avoiding any interference of hypothetical elements,” and explicitly noted the similarity between Faraday’s and Goethe’s
approaches.16»
Exploratory Experimentation: Goethe, Land, and Color Theory by Neil Ribe and Friedrich Steinle
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1506750
|
"Flat" response is an engineering measured ideal for designing good pieces of gear...
No piece of gear is perceived to be "flat" by specific ears in a specific normal room IN THE SAME EXACT WAY by all people...
Because nobody hear the same way, and the ratio noise/signals thresholds change with age, heredity, hearing history, acquired biases and acoustic environment etc...
Then a small room acoustic must be paired to the gear and tuned to complement individual biased ears of the owner IDEALLY...
A.I. will do it in the few years to come and adapt any system/room to specific ears of an owner...Like an headphone with the Smyth realizer for a specfic head and ears...But the A.I. will do it for a room/system/ears...
We can do it mechanically with Helmholtz method and some basic psycho-acoustic, if not optimally for sure like an A.I. will do it, in a satisfying way with a relative success... 😁😊
Anyway it is the best way to learn a bit about acoustic factors...
The Stereo I currently own has a custom built 3 position toggle switch … the far left position reads objective, far right subjective, and what we call “flat” (smack dab middle) trivial pursuit :-)
Still working on my patent for mass market … until then
|
Think of it as tasting wine. One can measure acidity, sweetness, color, transparency, viscosity, alcohol % and more, and a spectrum analysis can define all its components with great accuracy.
But no one can persuade you how it tastes. It’s only you who can judge that ... and only after you tasted it, not after studying the measurement results.
Good analogy....
What if they give you two glasses of the same wine and tell you they are different or put different labels on them. You then go on to describe how those two glasses are different when they are exactly the same.
Yes you are right about inducing biases, but the way to become a musician for example is to learn how to listen then educating your biases or replacing them, or making it more difficult to be fooled by an external inducement of some biases...O even posted an article about the way a trainedc musician can evaluate chords trespassing Gabor limit...
Anyway this possible conditioning of biases does not logically imply that subjective evaluation would be always deceptive attitude in all cases at all times and on all counts... Saying the opposite will be a sophism...
And yes market conditioning FOCUS on the GEAR objectively with measures and subjectively with "tasting appeal" to the subject...
Acoustic cues and factors are not focussed mainly on the gear but on the space-time environment and on the subjectivity valuable evaluation and their limits...
All acoustic factors are objectively reproducible and under will control in psycho-acoustic experiments...No taste here, perception biases can be evaluated and measured in controlled conditions.... In my audio room or in a more rigorously controlled audio laboratory...
I see purely arrogance and ignorance at issue on both sides. In other words we are dealing with people and people don’t like change or being wrong.
I think the same, the people who focus on gear tasting or in only measuring specs to pick the gear, are blind to the necessary acoustic and psycho-acoustic correlation between their perceptive experiences and the environment and the gear potential optimal working...
And they are more easily fooled by their biases or "tastes" because they dont have any objective control on their biases or tastes like a means and tool to test them, and here i dont speak mainly about blind tests but more importantly about acoustic and psycho- acoustic listenings experiments in their room...... Acoustic factors are not mere equations, they are living events that must be intregrated by the ears body ...Acoustic is also an ART of listening ....
|
Anyway, the time is already here where A.I. will manage acoustic perfectly and his link to the gear system and vice versa...Way "better" than any human acoustician...
It is already here in art and design, suppressing artists jobs on the net and in life , and in medecine with corporate global empire suppressing the doctors freedom and the natural way to disease control towards a complete technological domination...For the better on some counts but for the worst either..
Some will call that a progress, and it is in many ways a progress...
It is also the human soul which is at stake...It is an evolutive boundary here...
History emerge from evolution in the natural world with the creation of the symbolic/virtual world ( language), and history NOW enter anew in the sleeping evolution river with the merging and erasure of the natural word, his assimilation into a new symbolic/virtual world ( computations) ... It is an evolutive jump an end of history but unlike Fukuyama anticipated it... Global totalitarian mechanical state...
Why A.I. represent is not only a progress but a danger and a challenge?
Because in art it is not the artificial perfection of the A.I. crafsmamship that is the more precious, but the meaningful imperfection of the humam eye and hand...
Imperfection is the door to the history of human consciousness through art history...Machine art will have no history only some dates void of meaning referering only to new mathematical power...Spirit dont exist in this world...
The choice is freedom/soul/nature/ versus technological idolatry... And more and more people have already lost their mind in this idolatry...
We will miss imperfection tomorrow because only imperfection is the peak and the apex of the soul and spirit not machine perfection which is the most empty perfection possible...
Our technology is too advanced for our mind state in this earth civilization on the brink of nuclear war right now...we are unbalanced...We dont even cherish freedom over confort, and there is no manifestation at all in the world right now against the nuclear war at the corner... Sleepwalkers accuses each others...Anyway....
The A.I. for example would have created a better acoustic room than my actual one which is, so astounding it was for me, anyway an imperfect one for sure...
But what i would have lost with this A.I. work at my place doing all the job ?
I would have lost the essential: my fun creative journey for 2 years in acoustic tuning and i would have lost what i gained in the journey: an integrated body/ ears sound/music experience and knowledge...
I would have lost my creativity and my soul....
I choose imperfection at the end because there is only love where there is also imperfection...And without love knowledge dont maintain meaning...
Machine cannot be creative, they play on their perfect computerized " prepared" ground and nowwhere else...They reduce the territory to a map more "real" than the territory itself...
The goal of the perfect A.I. is an earth without inferior useless life organisms and the entire earth minerals will become his dead immortal body floating in space ...
All science fiction writers anticipated it long ago, like Orwell and Huxley anticipated the "actual ministry of truth" that some illiterated zombies wanted to create right now...
No protests ... We sleep....And buy computers...And we wait for a war...
|
Without measurements there is no acoustic treatment well done...
Without measurements there is no mechanical room tuning controls...
Why?
Because the BALANCE between reflective/absorbing /diffusive surfaces is the KEY... but it is not enough, even the location is important...
And in the mechanical control side of acoustic, how someone could tune many, many , resonators without adjusting size volume, neck/mouth cross ratio? and critical locations?
Measurements are mandatory in acoustic...
How to make them ?
You can apply EQ.
But no EQ. will be able to do the COMPLETE job right...
I chose at no cost to make it by ears like someone tune a piano, in fun times months long experiments...
It worked more than great... Cost me nothing but it take a dedicated room for me...And much time...Much....But you can do minimal experiments in a living room and take care of the esthetical aspect, which i did not do... My basic materials were cheap and anyway i am creative but not crafty at all... 😁😊
Now there is acoustic but there is basic psycho-acoustic measures also...
I also used measures of distance here, locations of diffusers and resonators with a foldable treated wood screen behind my position.... Psycho-acoustic help us to correlate in timing the front/back/lateral reflections with the first frontwave coming from speaker A and from speaker B for ear A and ear B...
All this is impossible without measures experiments...
This is the bad news...
The good news is it is way more easy to do it with your ears in ongoing listening experiments...Nothing is more fun than learning...
A small room is a complex set of geometry, size, topological factors, and specific acoustic properties content materials distributed in the room ...I dont own a program able to compute all this for my human ears and in place of them... Acoustician have learned to use their ears and measures...In small room acoustic reverberation time will not be used like in a great hall...We must tame them for postive effect... All which i talk about you can search on the internet and study basic...
Why?
Because learning acoustic by ears will help you to learn HOW to listen and WHAT to listen to...
The concept of "listener envelopment and sound saurce width ratio, for example, will no more be a "chinese" concept or the deceptive illusion it is for some ignorant, if you read only about it without experimenting with it...
Acoustic is easy and complex, easy if you go slowly, complex because it will take a long time with experiments...
But trust me the results and the fun exceed any non necessary short satisfaction related to an upgrade....If your gear choice is good to begin with for sure...
There is another aspects of measurements that is more difficult to understand for ordinary customers: electronic measurements...
Here there is arguing without end...
For sure the designer measurements are essentials for pairing components, but there is no way that electrical measurements all by themselves can predict good sound...It can predict only a POSSIBLE good sound, because the designer know his art of trade-off... Some...
A good component must be paired with other components and not only that his full potential cannot be experienced in a bad room either or other non synergetical components...
Then measuring components to VERIFY design sheets is good...Like Amir do...
Promoting the idea that this is enough to know if a component will sound good is ignorance...This is what some few of his zealots do...
Then listening without measurements is ludicrous, and taking ONLY one species of measurements, electrical one, without taking the other acoustic and psycho-acoustic measurements is ludicrous too...
I know what i know by experiments... And reading acoustic basic, and applying it...
|
More food for thoughts here:
Intro to the article
"A Critique of the Critical Cochlea: Hopf—a Bifurcation—Is Better Than None"
A. J. Hudspeth, Frank Jülicher,2 and Pascal Martin3
«The sense of hearing achieves its striking sensitivity, frequency selectivity, and dynamic range through an active process mediated by the inner ear’s mechanoreceptive hair cells. Although the active process renders hearing highly nonlinear and produces a wealth of complex behaviors, these various characteristics may be understood as consequences of a simple phenomenon: the Hopf bifurcation. Any critical oscillator operating near this dynamic instability manifests the properties demonstrated for hearing: amplification with a specific form of compressive nonlinearity and frequency tuning whose sharpness depends on the degree of amplification. Critical oscillation also explains spontaneous otoacoustic emissions as well as the spectrum and level dependence of the ear’s distortion products. Although this has not been realized, several valuable theories of cochlear function have achieved their success by incorporating critical oscillators.
The technical specifications of the human ear are remarkable. We can hear sounds that evoke mechanical vibrations of magnitudes comparable to those produced by thermal noise (de Vries 1948; Sivian and White 1933). Hearing is so sharply tuned to specific frequencies that trained musicians can distinguish tones differing in frequency by only 0.1% (Spiegel and Watson 1984). Finally, our ears can process sounds over a range of amplitudes encompassing six orders of magnitude, which corresponds to a trillionfold range in stimulus power (Knudsen 1923).
These striking characteristics of our hearing emerge because the ear is not a passive sensory receptor, but possesses an active process that augments audition in three ways (reviewed in Hudspeth 2008; Manley 2000, 2001). First, amplification renders hearing several hundred times as sensitive as would be expected for a passive system. The active process next exhibits tuning that sharpens our frequency discrimination. Finally, a compressive nonlinearity ensures that inputs spanning an enormous range of sound-pressure levels are systematically encoded by a modest range of mechanical vibrations and in turn of receptor potentials and nerve-fiber firing rates. The active process additionally exhibits the striking epiphenomenon of spontaneous otoacoustic emission, the production of sound by an ear in the absence of external stimulation. Although considerable attention has been devoted to these properties in mammalian and especially human hearing, the four defining features of the active process are equally characteristic of nonmammalian tetrapods (reviewed in Manley 2001).»
conclusion of the article :
«Despite the power of critical oscillation to explain many cochlear phenomena, the idea has provoked some skepticism in the decade since its introduction. The principal objections seem to stem from consideration of engineering principles. The design of electrical circuits customarily emphasizes linearity: for the reproduction of music and other sounds, as well as in the amplification, transmission, and storage of time sequences in general, every effort is made to minimize distortions arising from nonlinearity of the apparatus. Although the proposal of critical oscillation inevitably introduces nonlinearity into our understanding of the ear’s operation, that choice is thrust on us: mammalian hearing is highly nonlinear, so much so that attention has been directed specifically to the sense’s essential nonlinearity.
A second common goal of engineering is stability: whenever possible, it is desirable that apparatus be immune from spontaneous oscillation and other instabilities. The ear’s behavior offers us little choice but to accept the presence of oscillators within the cochlea, given that spontaneous otoacoustic emissions are ubiquitous. Even though these oscillators operate individually at the brink of instability, however, the mammalian cochlea as a whole is generally stable and reliable. Evolution plays by rules different from those of the best engineers: the least sliver of selective advantage trumps the esthetic and practical considerations of circuit design. The evidence discussed throughout this review suggests that the positive qualities of a critical oscillator–including amplification, frequency tuning, and compressive nonlinearity–have led to the selection of an active process operating at a Hopf bifurcation.»
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944685/
Overemphasis under the characters in the text is mine... 😁😊
|
Stochastic resonance requires bi-stable (or multi-stable), essentially it requires an analog to quantization, pun intended.
This is not an argument AGAINST anything i said from the beginning of this thread..
It is a common place fact...We need also to translate quantization into anolog way...So what?
My argument are that the hearing system is deeply non linear, brain included... Which make it able to do a very refine analysis of way more powerful resolution than science tought of possible before...
And brain hearing dont work like any tool we have...Because sound recognition is also based on some semantic evolutively acquired filters and not only pure physical constrainsts...These interpretative filters are distributed in the "music" of the electrical field itself directing the neurons...
My argument is there is no way we can replace listening experiments by our electronical tools numbers in audio ...
Psycho-acoustic is based on the CORRELATION between a subjective perceiver and an OBJECTIVE installation with a sets of measures...The important word here is not objective but correlation....And this correlation is two way yes, but the subjective element is the fundamental one...
It is precisely the object studies of psycho-acoustic to understand WHY "accurate" in an objective way differ from "accurate" in a subjective way for example studying the acquired semantic filtering biases of musician and their superioir ability to perceive sounds...
It is precisely becsause of the non linear structure of the hearing systemnot only of the cochlea that science study the way to analyse the signal/noise ratio on different scale and for different "semantic" aspects of the working brain...In some case noise become signals and more signals noise...
Then some few zealots in ASR claiming that a dac is reducible to some electrical measures whitout the need to listen to it to KNOW it is ridiculous...Like those who reject any measures set a priori...
«
In a sense, once established, the field imposes itself on the neurons like the conductor of an orchestra in which each neuron is a single musician, says Dimitris Pinotsis, the study’s lead and corresponding author. Even if the musicians change, the conductor still coordinates whomever is in the chairs to produce the same result.
“This ensures that the brain can still function even if some neurons die,” says Pinotsis, an associate professor at University of London and a research affiliate in the Picower Institute. “The field ensures the same output of the ensemble of neurons is achieved even after individual parts change. The brain does not need individual neurons, just the conductor, the electric field, to be the same.”»
https://news.mit.edu/2022/neurons-are-fickle-electric-fields-are-more-reliable-information-0401
|
I had to Google about 10 minutes to form an appropriate response as there were some items I was unsure of.
I am glad to be less "deluded" than the crowd...if you must think for answering me... 😊
Which brings me back to how I should have started this thread and why I do not read your posts. Is there any point you are trying to make, because so far, you have not made one.
To give credit, you are attempting to relate experience to scientific principles even if, in my opinion, your attempts appear misguided. Far too many posts come across as a call to magic.
Thanks for your appreciation ...
But there is a paradox here: you answered some other posters which are easy to contradict or correct but for me you say "you dont have to read my post" ? and yet i make you work net search to understand what i spoke about? 😁😊
Anyway.... My point is simple .... Evaluation of gear by some selected sets of measures make sense ONLY in some hearing theory context...
I put an article on my post who contrast the big difference between passive linear mesuring tools and active non linear tools like the hearing system...
Now for your argument here about bi-stability....
Do you know a characteristic of a system where stochastic resonance will work? It must be bistable. Your leap of faith in another thread wrt non-linearity in hearing and DAC operation, missed that the researchers in the papers you linked highlighted the non-linearities in the physical nature of the cochlear. It would appear the bistable element in hearing would be neurons that relates to stochastic resonance. That would mean they have an element of quantization, making them digital in some fashion, not analog. Digital has fundamental non-linearity due to quantization too. Do you have anything that reveals limits of quantization of human hearing? If not, I have to assume it would relate to minimum hearing thresholds.
The non linear nature of the hearing ability are not only in the physical structure of the cochlea but in the brain itself...Neurons are not the ultimate processing levels units at all.... Microtubules are...
And decisions dont imply necessarily only bi-stable structure but also resonant multi stable living rythmic multi processing parallel structures...
Rythm and resonance with and between multi stable parallel processing units are more fundamental than the old model of binary linear digital processing of neurons gates a bi-stable processing which anyway emerge from them at one level not the opposite ...
First read Penrose-Hameroff and also this guy Anirban Bandyopadhyay :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYX9c10ECAE
He want to create an artificial brain with time crystals technology...With "music" or hierarchical rythmic structures in parallel processing not bi-stable digital structure...
https://www.routledge.com/Nanobrain-The-Making-of-an-Artificial-Brain-from-a-Time-Crystal/Bandyopadhyay/p/book/9781439875490
And meditate this news:
https://news.mit.edu/2022/neurons-are-fickle-electric-fields-are-more-reliable-information-0401
«In a sense, once established, the (electrical) field imposes itself on the neurons like the conductor of an orchestra in which each neuron is a single musician, says Dimitris Pinotsis»
|
Science is history of science nothing else say Goethe...
Hearing is UNKNOWN territory because hearing is very intimately linked to all the relation between the brain and the body more than even the visual system ...
The greatest error in this ASR ideology is thinking that a piece of gear has a sound quality by the virtue of some partial measures set out of any listening experiments and out of any room and out of any link to the other gear parts...
Some ASR disciples are as deluded as are some audiophiles...Perhaps more because listening is the basis of psycho-acoustic , not electrical measures...
Some like deludedaudiophile use the concept "accurate" and "noise" in a confused way...They conflated the two possible meanings of the word "accurate" for a non linear detection system like the ears or for a linear tool detection system and they confused the two ways the ratio signals/noise can work for a linear detection system and for a non linear detection system...
Then calling audiophiles in MASS to be deluded is too much... Many ASR disciples are not less deluded...
No one own science....
The method by which scientist can study the way introduction of noise can help non linear detection system is called: stochastic resonance method...
The way the cochlea is non linearly structured make it able to use an Hopf bifurcation tool analysis inherent in the small fibers cells of the internal ears...
The ears are not a PASSIVE detector system but an ACTIVE non linear one able to amplify ...Then is ability to resolve information exceed many hundredth of times any passive system...
|
Now a question?
for deludeaudiophile...
HOW non linear detection ears/brain structured system can use noise in a way an ordinary electrical detection instrument could not?
The answer to this is the beginning of explanation about the way some very simple devices i created for myself worked in improving the sound experience in my room...
😁😊
|
You are right but with an important remark:
One group subordinate hearing eliminating the subjective perceiver to electrical measures , the other group CAN or MAY read a specs sheets but subordinate this measures to the subjective perceiver impressions...To interpret any measures we must do it FROM A PRECISE hearing theory...
In psycho-acoustic which is the science studying perception of sound the objective installation and set of measures are there to serve and study the perceiver impression not to erase it at the end and declare it an artewfact or a deceptive illusion like you said....
Then one group is, if not as deluded than the other, some Amir disciples, perhaps more... Why ? We dont understand human hearing which is a highly non linear phenomenon , with the actual Method inherited from Helmholtz and Fourier....
Then yes you are right the two groups must respect one another, but calling audiophiles "deluded" will not help.... Which is the more "deluded" group at the light of true science in the working not dogmatic science, guess which one? Those who despise the most the opposing group...
Listening experiments are the only personal way to learn how to listen, and anyway is the basis of psycho-acoustic...Not electrical design tools used in the wrong theoretical context...
The human ears is trained in nature recognition sound environment, timing transients are very important in this context and detected and interpreted by our highly non linear cochlea/brain tools...
Then all our dacs for example specs sheets are based on wrong hearing theory reducing all hearing phenomenon to Fourrier method......
«Science is the history of science» Goethe
it is not me who say that but these 2 mathematical physicists :
Jacob N. Oppenheim and Marcelo Magnasco of the Laboratory of Mathematical Physics at Rockefeller University have conducted experiments indicating that the human brain does not use the Fourier transform when resolving a cacophony of noise into individual sounds and voices.
While the Gabor limit associated with the Fourier transform stipulates that you can’t simultaneously determine a sound’s frequency and duration, the 12 musicians subjected to Oppenheim and Magnasco’s battery of tests beat the limit by as much as a factor of 13.
The Fourier transform cannot, therefore, fully explain the machinations of the human brain. "The actual algorithm employed by our brains is still shrouded in mystery," says Magnasco.
|
"gear brand name tasting fetichists" and "alleged objective measuring tools fetichists" are only that : gear fetichist ot tool fetichist....
We must develop our listening abilities with a systematic CORRELATIVE set of listenings experiments between objective dispositions and devices and subjective evaluation this is called : acoustic and psycho-acoustic science...
Opposing objective measures and subjective evaluation is child play...negating the importance of one over the other child play too...
|
