Science that explains why we hear differences in cables?
Here are some excerpts from a review of the Silversmith Audio Fidelium speaker cables by Greg Weaver at Enjoy The Music.com. Jeff Smith is their designer. I have not heard these cables, so I don’t have any relevant opinion on their merit. What I find very interesting is the discussion of the scientific model widely used to design cables, and why it may not be adequate to explain what we hear. Yes it’s long, so, to cut to the chase, I pulled out the key paragraph at the top:
“He points out that the waveguide physics model explains very nicely why interconnect, loudspeaker, digital, and power cables do affect sound quality. And further, it can also be used to describe and understand other sonic cable mysteries, like why cables can sound distinctly different after they have been cryogenically treated, or when they are raised off the floor and carpet.”
“One of the first things that stand out in conversation with Jeff about his cables is that he eschews the standard inductance/capacitance/resistance/impedance dance and talks about wave propagation; his designs are based solely upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of electron flow.
While Jeff modestly suggests that he is one of only "a few" cable designers to base his designs upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of the movement, or "flow," of electrons, I can tell you that he is the only one I’ve spoken with in my over four decades exploring audio cables and their design to even mention, let alone champion, this philosophy.
Cable manufacturers tend to focus on what Jeff sees as the more simplified engineering concepts of electron flow, impedance matching, and optimizing inductance and capacitance. By manipulating their physical geometry to control LCR (inductance, capacitance, and resistance) values, they try to achieve what they believe to be the most ideal relationship between those parameters and, therefore, deliver an optimized electron flow. Jeff goes as far as to state that, within the realm of normal cable design, the LRC characteristics of cables will not have any effect on the frequency response.
As this is the very argument that all the cable flat-Earther’s out there use to support their contention that cables can’t possibly affect the sound, it seriously complicates things, almost to the point of impossibility, when trying to explain how and why interconnect, speaker, digital, and power cables have a demonstrably audible effect on a systems resultant sonic tapestry.
He points out that the waveguide physics model explains very nicely why interconnect, loudspeaker, digital, and power cables do affect sound quality. And further, it can also be used to describe and understand other sonic cable mysteries, like why cables can sound distinctly different after they have been cryogenically treated, or when they are raised off the floor and carpet.
As such, his design goal is to control the interaction between the electromagnetic wave and the conductor, effectively minimizing the phase errors caused by that interaction. Jeff states that physics says that the larger the conductor, the greater the phase error, and that error increases as both the number of conductors increase (assuming the same conductor size), and as the radial speed of the electromagnetic wave within the conductor decreases. Following this theory, the optimum cable would have the smallest or thinnest conductors possible, as a single, solid core conductor per polarity, and should be made of metal with the fastest waveform transmission speed possible.
Jeff stresses that it is not important to understand the math so much as it is to understand the concept of electrical energy flow that the math describes. The energy flow in cables is not electrons through the wire, regardless of the more common analogy of water coursing through a pipe. Instead, the energy is transmitted in the dielectric material (air, Teflon, etc.) between the positive and negative conductors as electromagnetic energy, with the wires acting as waveguides. The math shows that it is the dielectric material that determines the speed of that transmission, so the better the dielectric, the closer the transmission speed is to the speed of light.
Though electromagnetic energy also penetrates into and through the metal conductor material, the radial penetration speed is not a high percentage of the speed of light. Rather, it only ranges from about 3 to 60 meters per second over the frequency range of human hearing. That is exceptionally slow!
Jeff adds, "That secondary energy wave is now an error, or memory, wave. The thicker the conductor, the higher the error, as it takes longer for the energy to penetrate. We interpret (hear) the contribution of this error wave (now combined with the original signal) as more bloated and boomy bass, bright and harsh treble, with the loss of dynamics, poor imaging and soundstage, and a lack of transparency and detail.
Perhaps a useful analogy is a listening room with hard, reflective walls, ceilings, and floors and no acoustic treatment. While we hear the primary sound directly from the speakers, we also hear the reflected sound that bounces off all the hard room surfaces before it arrives at our ears. That second soundwave confuses our brains and degrades the overall sound quality, yielding harsh treble and boomy bass, especially if you’re near a wall.
That secondary or error signal produced by the cable (basically) has the same effect. Any thick metal in the chain, including transformers, most binding posts, RCA / XLR connectors, sockets, wire wound inductors, etc., will magnify these errors. However, as a conductor gets smaller, the penetration time decreases, as does the degree of phase error. The logic behind a ribbon or foil conductor is that it is so thin that the penetration time is greatly reduced, yet it also maintains a large enough overall gauge to keep resistance low.”
For those interested, here is more info from the Silversmith site, with links to a highly technical explanation of the waveguide model and it’s relevance to audio cables:
https://silversmithaudio.com/cable-theory/
No thread about the most important matter for any system: acoustic and psycho-acoustic... Hundred threads about cables which are only secondary artefact, that matter yes but which is NOTHING compared to the acoustic impact or even to the vibrations control impact or to the noise floor house problem...
People buy panels and bass traps, costly one, and call that problem solved, then debate about cables till their death... 😊😊😊😊😊
|
Most of what i hear comes not from cables changes or gear changes....I am no more like deluded consumers or deluded sellers warring with each other... Most of what i hear comes from the SPEAKER-ROOM interaction controlled or not... My experience contradict most audio thread where people weight the merit of different piece of gear, ravished by the magical virtue of one chosen piece gear.... Silent about the room.... |
Most people think the sound come FROM their beloved chosen gear... When they dont like the sound they replace the gear and called that an upgrade... Some measure the gear and call that "science", anything not measurable is "magic"... These two different kind of people are deluded, some buy cables to upgrade and others bash them....There is no deep difference here ,they own their own blinders anyway and exist like foe exist for the sake and by the virtual existence of the other neighbouring foe.... I am afraid the truth is too complex for simple mind and too simple for complicated unclear mind : The sound we listen to come MOSTLY from speakers/room/ears interaction...Not FROM the gear directly even if the gear play his own impact on the sound quality.... How do you measure that? No way.... It is a dynamical CIRCUIT in hundredth of seconds between the speakers--->the room-->`the ears--> add a change here in the room treatment or a new Helmholtz resonator for example and listen another time... It is a listening experiment in a CYCLE of experiments.....Even a single straw at the right place with the right diameter may have an effect comparable to an upgrade.... Because a tone is NOT a playing note or chord, nor the timbre could be reduced to a spectrum, you cannot replace ears with a measuring apparatus....And you cannot replace acoustic laws and psycho-acoustic laws with a piece of new gear or a new cable to reach High quality sound.... Is it not simple to understand? |
Clearthinker, I think you are being a bit too harsh on theIf someone insult all a group of people indiscriminately for example : "audiophiles", it is truly wrong, and not very subtle... The reason is simple, nobody can describe this group, composed of too many people with complex experience and history, including musicians and even many engineers....Then insulting all an indefinite group speak more about who is the personn throwing insults than about those who are insulted... Most people audiophiles or not, think that we listen to the sound coming from the audio system...Then they point to the importance of electronic design...It is not wrong at all for sure.... It is a half truth though, it miss the other part of reality: embeddings controls and acoustic especially.... Secondly, you are right about me.... I am an audiophile because of my listening experiments, but i am first a music lover and i think the opposite of the majority of audiophiles: I listen the sound coming from my speakers/room/ears mainly....Not from the gear mainly.... This explain my position concerning the useless obsession to upgrade BEFORE embedding rightfully in their working dimensions, mechanically, electrically ands especially ACOUSTICALLY all the electronic designed pieces of gear....The urge to upgrade is re-inforced by marketing method from the engineering perspective in the audio community... The basic history of electronic design is mature for the last 50 years... It is then easy to buy a good piece of electronic design at low cost...Out of the new hype .... Myself I think against the "objectivist" and the kind of people who vouch ONLY for measurements like the anti-audiophiles that room/ears/speakers acoustic and psycho-acoustic science and ART are more important than electronical measurements of the gear to reach S.Q. nowadays... We are no more at the Marconi era... For example room microphone connected to an electronical equalizer measurement are a secondary tool only an help, not the ONLY way to tune and fine tune a room for the speakers AND our ears at all... That is my experience, not an opinion of an audiophile or the dogma of a non audiophile... My experience is not based on soldering or computer driven dials evaluation, but on listening experiments then on acoustic art and Helmholtz mechanical method... I dont reject measurements, but some of the uses which are promoted in some circle about what is audio and musical experience... I dont reject the necessity and the importance of a very good piece of electrinical engineering design, i only say that nowadays it is easier to purchase one than to LEARN how to LISTEN acoustically speaking and also musically speaking... In one scientific word: Timbre is not spectrum....Physical acoustic science is not psycho-acoustic scence...our ears are the missing and always present link between these 2 in audiophile experience... Or in brief: I always listen WITH my system or any other one , THROUGH the controlled and mechanically and psycho-activated room/speakers, i listen to the the "RECREATED acoustic translation" of a past lived event recorded and which become always an ACTUAL "different" acoustical event in my room or in any room anyway ... Most people think the opposite: They think they listen WITH their uncontrolled and passive room/speakers ,THROUGH their system the "magical" electronical "REPRODUCTION" of a lived PAST event, identical or almost to the original lived event....Because they imagine the recording microphones naively like a true memory not like a string of choices and TRADE-OFF which will modify the original performance anyway.... |
@maghisterInteresting room! He even use Helmhotz resonators, he knows something for sure and the sound could be interesting.... Thanks very much for this....... My deepest respects.... |
@mahgister - guess who just put a pair of solid cherry QRD17 quadratic diffusers in front of his speakers on the listening wall? Reflection and diffusion behind the listener and in front of the speakers play a role which is fundamental to create the listener envelopment acoustical factor (LEV)... I am not surprized at all.... I lived through the same experience..... my best to you rix.... |
The perception of a cable change, for the worst or better, and his evaluation, like the evaluation of a speakers are HEAVILY dependent on the acoustic treatment and control of the room linked to these speakers... Then saying that cable are more important than speaker , even on the same level of importance, make no meaning... All is important yes, but nothing beat the improvement of the speakers/room acoustic wedding... He sells cables, i dont sell anything.... Acoustic is the sleeping princess and all piece of gear are only the 7 working dwarves... |
Then i apologize if sometimes by my lack of the mastery of english language i mistake sarcasm with claim....Then i will say that cables could be miraculously good but they will not replace marvellous speaker nor room acoustic like someone just said erroneously... But he also said that cables are more important than speakers... Is it a sarcasm too? My point is all changes are important, cables included, but their meaning and characteristics CANNOT be assessed WITHOUT acoustic treatment and control over a room related to the specific speakers charracteristics... |
This clip of the blind "batman" Daniel Kish is better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-P2a6Mrjs I will add this one to make my point clearer about seeing sound and music... synesthesia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88s6guf9egs |
I dont want people think i denigrated cable impact here.... My posts were aimed against an exxageration and meaningless hyperbole...Cables cannot be an upgrade exceeding speakers upgrade or room upgrade.... The Silversmith cables though seems to be a real deal and more than good.... Even me i am interested by them and tempted to buy some for my speakers ....I will be able to do so in few years... Now if someone want to know what and which is all the information we miss in the sound when we receive the sound waves coming from our own room acoustic : Listen to "batman", fatality make him in the obligation to learn how to hear....His ears are the same than yours... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a05kgcI9D2Q Now think a second about what i am speaking about : If the acoustic treatment and control in a room are well done, and if the gear is good and well chosen, we are able to HEAR tonal TIMBRE instrument playing of notes microdynamics like if each note was a 3-d object in his space speaking details which we can see and decipher like a human face physionomy.... Anybody could develop his hearing and especially is listening skills to some level...It is a traning of the focused and peripheral attention in their interrelated rythmic playing..... I am not batman nor Toscanini by a large margin...But...... The truth is simple: our hearing are way more powerful tool to decipher information about material oibjects in our surroundings than we are able to dream of...I learn that my way through elementary acoustic behind Helmholtz method...I am a very average guy in musical and audio terms by the way..... Then i will say that cables could be miraculously good but they will not replace marvellous speaker nor room acoustic like someone just said erroneously... |
maghister I’m not reading anything of that because it’s all ridiculous poop unless you eventually come to the same conclusion as mr. “Einstein” @danager. I will not comment... Save to say that someone who claim cables beat not only speakers design but especially acoustic science, if not ignorant, sells cable with the wrong marketing ploy.... Your 40 years of "selling" your cables dont beat acoustic, psycho-acoustic and all speakers designers experience in the world... Your claim is the most ridiculous one i ever encounter here... Huge boner indeed... i apologize but i could not resist after my "pooping"..... 😁😊😊😊 Enjoy your cables.... |
I am not a tech guy nor a scientist... This thing being said... I learn ONE thing... Cables cannot be more important than speakers and amplifiers...And certainly not beat the room... In my experience for most people systems, NOTHING could compare in upgrading power to acoustic mechanical active controls with Hemholtz method and passive conventional material treatment... Thinking otherwise is negating 2 thousand years of acoustic science and thinking...Sound come from the acoustic settings of the original event to be acoustically recreated in your treated and controlled room through and with your ears.... Timbre is NOT reducible to a frequencies spectrum NOR explanable for the times being by frequencies spectrum... The reason is AS deep than simple: Timbre is a subjective perceived event, frequencies spectrum is an objective translation... Your room acoustic CORRECT or DEFORM this original acoustic event translated PARTIALLY by microphones location and choices before the recording process itself.... Acoustic is not electronic engineering.... Cables are conveyor that matter for sure and different from each other....But Acoustic is so powerful i am astounded that so much people never experience that which is evident on all counts... The sound speed cross average room 15 times in fraction of a second and your 2 ears syhthetize all the acoustic information of the recording through your INFORMED room...Which is a complex distributed sound resonant pressure zones... Nobody listen the original recording, everyone listen to this original event through his speakers/room INFORMED relation... Or through the shell chamber of an headphone.....It is the same acoustical event through different rooms uncontrolled or controlled with all the possible scale in between... Ouffff ! Cables are different, yes like amplifiers, speakers, dac, microphones, etc.... Acoustic is the sea where all this boats are floating.... And the laws governing sea are not the law governing the boats...The boats are constructed for the sea not the sea here for the boats.... And by the way psycho-acoustic science is not reducible either to physical acoustic....And psycho acoustic science is more harder subject than only physical acoustic , including also with acoustic itself neurophysiology ,phonology, music, etc ... I apologize but i could not resist.... 😁😊 |
You are right.... Because there are probably not much science in the marketing of cables, some skills yes... And there are probably less science in the professional cable debunker for sure... I never read cable marketting, nor debunkers.... Debate about cables are annoying, and price of cable is often a scam yes... But if someone is not deaf he know almost any change in a system is audible... No super hearing is needed here... Only habit with your system will speak to you about that... I listen... |
Armtwist? LOL I don’t care what anyone thinks or believes. I never write tomes on these threads. Should I count the insults thrown at me by you in just that one post?Sorry but i dont insult by using your own word.... And if you want an example here, some others like you, attacked by mocking him without even being curious and fair, the russian guy who create the Thread about " direction in wiring", one of the most interesting thread created ever here, about experiments, not only in engineering design of a directed wired amplifier but also in psycho- acoustic science experiments, if you had dare to read the official site of this russian engineer... The russion guy tired by your ...... has quit....Put the word you want in the empty interval.... Then saying that you armwrist and armtwist people with your "restricted idea" of engineering or science is a fact not an insult... |
I don’t see any arm twisting to force anyone into believing in "science" , believe whatever you want "science" isn’t interested in beliefs.Precisely the opposite is true....You often armtwist someone with your "positivist" technological conception of science.... 😁😊 The opposite is true because ,willing or not willing, science is an ACTUAL belief consciously opposing to another belief, but WITH the power of a conscious ethical method... Beliefs participate to this "tacit knowledge" which is the main property of scientific kowledge in general...All scientist has biases but their task is to become conscious of these biases... All biases are not negative they could be learned biases not only innate one and they could be positive...Biases are not always there to be eliminated like in a blind test method, biases could be used in a conscious way....We cannot take a simplistic stance here... Then believing is an essential part of what participate in the science activity even if we dont wanted to; the problem dont come from a belief itself, but from our own unconscious embrace of a belief who drive our own reaction without our own conscious participation... A belief is a problem in the exact proportion of our inability to be conscious of it or of his consequences... Science make any belief conscious idea...Science is method not dogma... Tacit knowkledge is the main concept of one of the greatest scientist and philosopher of science : Michael Polaniyi in his book "personal knowledge".... Tacit knowledge is the skill to do something without being aware of it or being able to explain it and it may be linked to intuition, belief, habit, cultural empowerment and programmation, imagination and other implicit "knowing"... History of science is also an history of beliefs of the past but the difference is that the scientist make his implicit belief an explicit experience...Then Ptolemaic belief can be integrated in Copernician belief, and Copernician belief in Keplerian belief, and Keplerian belief in Newton belief, and Newton belief can be integrated in Einstein belief et so on.... «History of science is science itself» Goethe But we can reduce science to technology, and knowledge to power....:Like apprentice sorcerer want to do... But this is no more science, this is scientism, this is a religion, the cult of power hubris, transhumanism is the perfect exemple nowadays... By the way that is perfectly described in the Goethe major work " Faust" ... «Yesterday i understood science but today i dont understand it at all »-Groucho Marx summarizing Max Planck biography 🤓 |
First I need to know what happened. Then I’ll be ready to look at explanations. ReportThe ox pul the cart not the opposite... Generally we cannot know what happened if we dont look very minutely and meticulously at it... And generally we dont look at it because we believe nothing has happened anyway... Speaker cable MAY make a change generally and it is easy to verify in the right conditions... This dont means that we know why .... And this also means that any a priori so called scientific rejection of cables differences means nothing here... Why? Because science is complex and physical acoustic is not electrical engineering and even none of these two together is psycho-acoustic science... In general you cannot deduce of the way a boat disapear on the horizon the fact that earth is round instead of being flat , if you BELIEVE strongly that the earth is flat anyway.... We must want to see or to hear something if we want not only to see and to hear it but if we want in addition to explain it... If i misread your post intention, it is possible, i apologize in advance.... |
For sure raping science discourse for the pleasure to sell cables is an abomination... But claiming the authority of science to negate psycho-acoustic individual experience is not less worst... The use of blind test may be useful but detrimental also by the way... Blind test methods are ONE STEP in a multiple complex processes in science activity and research not a circus... Then debunking systematically is James Randi Science not science.... I suggest to everybody, who think he know already what science is, this book: "Personal knowledge" Michael Polanyi...( one of the greatest thinker by the way in this field) It is a writer but more importantly a scientist who know what science is.... Consult wiki if you dont know him already... Knowing what science is will help many here.... A clue: science is not an industrial planified theoretical and experimental centralized project...In audio or elsewhere...If it was the case pharmaceutical conglomerate for example would be all there is about science in this field.... The actual situation in the world illustrate perfectly why this is not the case at all... 😁😁😁 Michael Polanyi FRS[1] (/poʊˈlænji/; Hungarian: Polányi Mihály; 11 March 1891 – 22 February 1976) was a Hungarian-British[2] polymath, who made important theoretical contributions to physical chemistry, economics, and philosophy. He argued that positivism supplies a false account of knowing, which if taken seriously undermines humanity’s highest achievements. His wide-ranging research in physical science included chemical kinetics, x-ray diffraction, and adsorption of gases. He pioneered the theory of fibre diffraction analysis in 1921, and the dislocation theory of plastic deformation of ductile metals and other materials in 1934. He emigrated to Germany, in 1926 becoming a chemistry professor at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin, and then in 1933 to England, becoming first a chemistry professor, and then a social sciences professor at the University of Manchester. Two of his pupils, and his son John Charles Polanyi won Nobel Prizes in Chemistry. In 1944 Polanyi was elected to the Royal Society. The contributions which Polanyi made to the social sciences include an understanding of tacit knowledge, and the concept of a polycentric spontaneous order to intellectual inquiry were developed in the context of his opposition to central planning. |
I would like to add that the preponderance of the visual and graphic record has not necessary led to greater sophistication with the way the average human being uses and exploits it’s perception of sight, any more or less than it’s perception of sound,I think you underestimated the power of ideation and thinking which is inseparably associated with any perception... The perspective revolution in art and science so deep it was, and it was one of the greatest revolution almost in times with the Copernician revolution changed completely the way the man "perceive" the sky and all phenomena around him... When we see an object we must "recognize him" to see him properly... If not what we perceive dont correspond with all the necessary perspectives of what it is which may be perceived or not... Then this perspectival revolution is one the greatest event in human history, which is something easy to verify in the litterature... To see an object is not to " sense a presence in a way or in another " it is also and mostly to be able to consciously name it because we own the idea and the concept corresponding to it.... Anyway your own post illustrate that perfectly, because you say something which hide one of the greatest event in visual perception without even knowing that you are unconscious of the "meaning" of this event....Think about that... You use the word " perspective" without knowing what is its meaning in history... It is there that the "sophistication" you speak about are...The reason is that the "perspectival event in history is not terminated in his effect and working of the human mind and perception...There is another revolution now in this century but i cannot speak about this new "aperspectival" revolution in this post which manifest itself for example in the creation of a totally new geometry like fractal geometry.... Perspecxtive is associated in mathematic with the projective geometry deep revolution in our perception of space.... Seeing is not only "sensing something" BUT also giving meaning to visual appearence... Then no, there is a great change, contrary to what you just said, in the way the average human being use "consciously" after the the 16th century and exploit consciouly his perception of space...But not for all people at the same times and instantaneously for sure...It is an ongoing evolutive process because all human being are not all at the same spiritual level of perception, they dont live in the same world so to speak . they dont live at the same time... In one word we think like we are able to see, and we see like we are able to think... We hear like we are able to imagine and we imagine after what we are able to hear... Thinking is not only possible passive false fantasy but also ACTIVE imaginative creative power,... Casssirer one time gives the example of an undulated line, like a wave, drawn on a sheet of paper being "a symbolic form", being potentially a sign for a hunter, a wave for a sailor, a script ffor a linguist, a beautiful form for a painter, a religious symbol for a priest, an a line without special meaning for some people... The line could also not even be perceived.... A nothing, as nothing special at all, an error, a stain on a white paper.... Then no, recording the artistic or spiritual expression of the soul in primeval times lead and announce a change in perception .... Perspectival era in history is a "sign" reflecting not only the new way we see and perceive now and from that moment but the way we think... Remember that we think with all our senses and our hands and legs and with our heart and with our body... Thinking is literally like a walking body in an imagined new world....Nothing short.... Writers know that and creative genius like Geothe, Da Vinci or Copernic or Kepler... For sure the direct record of graphic expression of visual "art" is not a DIRECT and merely unique factor of change in the way we see, like you justly said, but it is a factor linked to many others for sure... In the same way the tape recorder is not a direct factor modifying only by itself the way we hear, but it is an indirect factor which participate in an ongoing evolution of the ability to hear and in the way we are able to recognize new perspective so to speak in the "information" linked to what is heard... Human are way more like animals in the superhuman abilities...They could consciously evolved and catch with animals in their own way... A blind woman reading ink sign on a sheet of paper illustrate that our hand are also an "eye".... Think about that.... |
"superhearing" does not exist like an isolated power for the few, save in the mouth of people reading comic book to mock observed facts they dont understand and dont want to understand......Normal hearing is already a super power which we are unconscious of simply, and we all potentially own this power ... Hearing is a complex phenomenon about which we know very little...Not only we dont know what "timbre " is but: Blind people can identify geometrical form of car house and roads, they can perceive some qualitative properties of objects and in some case READ with their hand normally printed with ink characters on a sheet of paper... It is not a super power in a comic book...It is the usual way or the learned way people can develop new experiences... Remote viewing can be learn for example by everyone... It was even studied by US forces and Russia... all this is documentated... It is normal phenomenon pertaining to the only center of perception there is which is consciousness... If you think consciousness could be recreated by A.I. skip my post... 😁😊😊😊😊😊 All that is not written by me to justify the abuse of "science language " to sell cables... It is an answer to those who think science exist like an absolute knowledge religion...Science is a TOOL for wisdom...Goethe think so.... Wisdom is not science, science is not technology, and technology is not knowledge... |
I wrote this in another thread.i have read your post the first time with great pleasure.... And i immediately say that this was a great piece of thinking.... I will rtepeat here the same thing and i thank you for adding to the " perspective" of us all ... Anyway seeing is like hearing a perspective learned by the soul which manifested in a temporary living form we call a body...Cassirer called that a "symbolic form".... If we take for example the " conic perspectival" acquisition at the times of Brunelleschi and Alberti, many books were written about this new pictural tool which reflect a very deep change in the human consciousness... Save for the classic book about perspective in art like Panovsky a disciple of the great Cassirer, the greatest illuminated exposition of the meaning of "perspective" is about to be found in Jean Gebser " the ever present origin"... Perspective is a manifestation of the way the consciousness now link itself to the world... « According to Gebser, the five structures of consciousness we met up with in my November 18, 2020 post Stages Versus Structures: Exploring Jean Gebser, Lesson I (you will find the link is at the bottom of this post)—archaic, magic, mythic, mental, and integral—can be grouped into three larger categories, or three worlds, as he calls them: unperspectival, perspectival, and aperspectival. While the nomenclature may at first feel intimidating, it’s actually quite easy to master if you keep your elementary school art days in mind. Unperspectival is how you drew before you learned about foreground and background, when everything was all just jumbled onto the drawing sheet. Perspectival is the drawing sheet once you’ve learned to arrange it in relationship to that hypothetical point on the horizon. And aperspectival is what ensues once you’ve learned to convey several perspectives simultaneously, as in some of Picasso’s surrealistic artwork where he simultaneously shows you the front side and back side of a person. A heads up: in Gebser the prefix “a” always conveys the meaning of “free from.” Thus an aperspectival view is one that is free from captivity to a single central point of reference. The Unperspectival World embraces the archaic, magic, and mythic structures. The Perspectival World hosts the mental structure. The Aperspectival World is the still-emerging integral structure. Each of these three perspectives is properly called a world because it comprises an entire gestalt, an entire womb of meaning in which we live and move and make our connections. Each has its own distinctive fragrance, ambience, tincture. Each is an authentic pathway of participation, an authentic mode of encountering the cosmos, God, and our own selfhood. Each has its brilliant strengths and its glaring weaknesses. Compositely, they evoke “the width and length and height and depth” of our collective human journey into consciousness.» https://wisdomwaypoints.org/2020/11/unperspectival-perspectival-aperspectival-exploring-jean-gebser-lesson-ii/ Then your post pekri and tought are spot on... Learning to hear is also a consciousness manifestation...It takes time and hearing music for example of Scriabin, Bruckner, Monterverdi, Schoenberg, or Jazz or Persian and Indian music or Chineese etc cannot be instantaneous at all...All of these styles reflect unique perspective on not only music but about consciousness in history... All musical history reflect constraints imposed by consciousness on himself in some "perspective"...This perspective is some take on consciousness by consciousness itself at a moment in time... Then music is not about taste ONLY but about learning.... Only simple mind believe that we know what sound is and musical sound...I own a book about timbre which is written by specialists around the world...No one explain "timbre" experience and perception fully.... Timbre experience is a sonic perception irreducible to Frequencies spectrum... It take more then the actual education at school to learn that... |
