Any two given people (take your pick) are as likely to hear something - anything - exactly the same as they are to have the same fingerprints.
Stirring Up Trouble
Part I
Stirring up trouble. Not usually a hard thing to do on this site. But my last attempt fell flat, probably because it was tucked into the end of a post about interconnects. So I’m going to try again and do so more explicitly.
Audio is fun, in part, because of the “discussions” it gives rise to. Is Nap Eyes “inspired” by the Velvet Underground or is just stealing from them? (Lots of talk about transparency and imaging on this forum. I would argue that nothing does that better than the Velvets first record. From the first notes, I’m taken back to the Factory in the mid-60s. There’s Andy in the corner, I see everything through lava lamp lighting, and Edie and all her gorgeous acolytes are dancing are dancing on risers with those great haircuts, the white boots, and all of the great eye make-up. Only downside: if I found myself in that scene, I’m sure that I’d shoot heroin. Maybe not such a downside, after all.
This should also probably be parenthetical but the evidence is awfully strong that Dylan wrote “Rolling Stone” about Edie Sedgwick. Fact: She was an uptown girl, family had a lot of money, she went to the best school but she only got juiced in it. Fact: Warhol spurned in a terrible way. One minute she was glamour girl #1, the next she was out on the street. Her family had tired of her and weren’t interested in sending her to some spa/rehab for the 43rd time. Not yet fact but the evidence is awfully damning: Bob and Edie had a little thing, a short affair while Bob was married to Sarah. Listen to the song in that light and a few things click into place.
But back to audio. The battles that rage here are legion. I just found a new one when I considered getting sorbothane pads for my electronics. Not knowing the first thing about the subject, I was surprised that trench warfare was well underway and that feelings had hardened on both sides. Can you hear hi-res? Do Ethernet sound different? The 100 Years War over cables. Sure, it’s fun to argue about trivia, even very expensive trivia. But the language used and the grudges held don’t seem like fun.
At heart, all of the combatants in these battles share one assumption: An objective sound exists. Somewhere, at some time, a source is emitting sound waves. And because this sound is objective, we are all supposed to experience the sound in the same way. One either gets it or he doesn’t. Either the angels sing to you or they don’t. What, you’re showing me another chart that shows that what goes in to one end of the cable comes out at the other end in exactly the same way whether it’s lamp cord or Nordost. Been there, heard the story, seen the chart. But I trust my ears and my ears tell me that the sound is different.
And so we come to a stand-off. From these positions, there cannot be any worthwhile discussion, we can’t find a new way forward. Luckily for us all, science doesn’t work that way.
The first thing science would do is look at the assumption that underlies the whole issue: that objectively exists in the world of acoustics and Observer #1 (Tom) hears the same thing as Observer #2 (Bill).
The scientist, strangely wearing a shirt covered with vertical black and white stripes and a black baseball cap runs into the listening room or cafe or lab, blows a whistle and throws a yellow handkerchief at the two listeners. “Penalty! Unlawful assumption.” (The handkerchief contains a heavy rubber weight and strikes Bill in the eye. Bill is able to continue but the next day he learns that he has a torn cornea.) The scientist runs outside to an unknown destination, leaving a lot of dazed onlookers.
But with just those few words, much of what we understand about acoustics tumbles to the ground. Tom and Bill both got their hearing checked recently. They are the same age, about the same size, and neither has any history of hearing problems. They are standing right next to each other in front of a pair of Wilson Alexandria’s supported by electronics of the same excellence and the Nordost cables that were recently swapped in. But Tom and Bill don’t agree on what they are hearing. “Listen carefully,” says Tom, who has long argued that cables make a difference. “The difference is subtle. But don’t you hear a little more definition in the bass? A sense of more air, more space in the midrange?” Bill, always a cable skeptic, looks at Tom like he’s from Mars. “You’re crazy,” he says.
So who’s right? Perhaps more importantly, what would the current state of acoustic science and brain science say is right?
Happily, they both are. The explanation has been a part of both fields for decades. Two observers simply do not experience sound in the same way. (Pretty much everything I’m going to say from this point on can be found in the references below. But those aren’t particularly special articles. It’s more that they came up high on the Google list. Please, bring more literature into the debate.
We can make music and be pretty confident in what we’re doing. We can make a machine that produces a steady 200 Hertz note. Might not sell too well but doing that is well within the range of our technology. Beethoven’s Fifth has many more variables but we know how to reproduce it.
The same is not true at the other end of the equation. We can be almost certain that Tom and Bill will not hear the same thing as each other. Possibly the single note but almost certainly not the symphony. Those sounds are not objective. Different observers will heat those sounds differently. It’s possible that their will be a different observation made by every individual on earth.
As I make my attempt at an explanation, here’s where you need someone smarter than me. Here’s where I urge you to read the cited material.
We all hear different things because we are all so different in so many ways. The shape of our ears are different from each other, as are the internal mechanism of hearing: aural canal, ear drum, cochlea, all that other stuff you learned about in sixth grade bio. Some sound reaches us as vibrations through our skulls, and all of our skulls are thicker or thinner at different parts of our head. Oy gevalt, and the brain hasn’t even gotten involved yet.
As with most functions of the brain, an auditory signal is processed in many different parts of our brain. There is no “hearing center” that lights up when the 1,375,492 second of the ninth symphony is played. A new constellation of lights—a very short lived one—is created with each sound.
Sounds like a lotta work? The brain agrees. So it tries to make its job easier. One thing it does is try to spot patterns. Once it has kind of a code a new constellation isn’t created with each sound. Even more importantly, this code lets the brain make predictions. Instead of inventing the wheel with every note, the code takes care of much of what has already happened and is likely to happen plus it can predict what new touches will be added. That means that if the brain has its way, we will, to quote the title to one of the cited works, “We Hear What We Expect To Hear.”
This tendency is pushed aside when a major new sound enters the scene. We may expect to hear the left turn signal make its usual clicking noise if we indicate a turn but if the result is a blaring noise and tires squealing, the brain will ignore it’s preference for patterns. The difference between speaker cables, if any, is many multiples less loud and dramatic. If Bill is a cable skeptic who expects all the cables to sound the same, that’s what he gets. The same way that Tom, who is expecting not just different but better, gets just what he’s expecting. Neither is right, neither is wrong. Both are human.
The bottom line is that something that we would call sound or music doesn’t exist until a sound wave travels through out physically different aural systems, our neurons with their biases and ways of working, rides neurotransmitters across the synapses. Only when this is done does the brain produce something that we can recognize as music. Our brains are very good at appreciating music and making sure that, at any given moment, our collection of eardrums, skull vibrations, neurons, and chemicals produce a sound that we perceive as awful close to the note that was played and intended by the musicians to sound a certain way. But there’s just so much stuff, so many steps, that inevitably each of us puts our own special stamp on it. That’s how Tom and Bill can both be right. They expected to hear something different and, voila, so they did.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210108120110.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_music
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819010/
https://www.cognifit.com/science/cognitive-skills/auditory-perception
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-auditory/
Stirring up trouble. Not usually a hard thing to do on this site. But my last attempt fell flat, probably because it was tucked into the end of a post about interconnects. So I’m going to try again and do so more explicitly.
Audio is fun, in part, because of the “discussions” it gives rise to. Is Nap Eyes “inspired” by the Velvet Underground or is just stealing from them? (Lots of talk about transparency and imaging on this forum. I would argue that nothing does that better than the Velvets first record. From the first notes, I’m taken back to the Factory in the mid-60s. There’s Andy in the corner, I see everything through lava lamp lighting, and Edie and all her gorgeous acolytes are dancing are dancing on risers with those great haircuts, the white boots, and all of the great eye make-up. Only downside: if I found myself in that scene, I’m sure that I’d shoot heroin. Maybe not such a downside, after all.
This should also probably be parenthetical but the evidence is awfully strong that Dylan wrote “Rolling Stone” about Edie Sedgwick. Fact: She was an uptown girl, family had a lot of money, she went to the best school but she only got juiced in it. Fact: Warhol spurned in a terrible way. One minute she was glamour girl #1, the next she was out on the street. Her family had tired of her and weren’t interested in sending her to some spa/rehab for the 43rd time. Not yet fact but the evidence is awfully damning: Bob and Edie had a little thing, a short affair while Bob was married to Sarah. Listen to the song in that light and a few things click into place.
But back to audio. The battles that rage here are legion. I just found a new one when I considered getting sorbothane pads for my electronics. Not knowing the first thing about the subject, I was surprised that trench warfare was well underway and that feelings had hardened on both sides. Can you hear hi-res? Do Ethernet sound different? The 100 Years War over cables. Sure, it’s fun to argue about trivia, even very expensive trivia. But the language used and the grudges held don’t seem like fun.
At heart, all of the combatants in these battles share one assumption: An objective sound exists. Somewhere, at some time, a source is emitting sound waves. And because this sound is objective, we are all supposed to experience the sound in the same way. One either gets it or he doesn’t. Either the angels sing to you or they don’t. What, you’re showing me another chart that shows that what goes in to one end of the cable comes out at the other end in exactly the same way whether it’s lamp cord or Nordost. Been there, heard the story, seen the chart. But I trust my ears and my ears tell me that the sound is different.
And so we come to a stand-off. From these positions, there cannot be any worthwhile discussion, we can’t find a new way forward. Luckily for us all, science doesn’t work that way.
The first thing science would do is look at the assumption that underlies the whole issue: that objectively exists in the world of acoustics and Observer #1 (Tom) hears the same thing as Observer #2 (Bill).
The scientist, strangely wearing a shirt covered with vertical black and white stripes and a black baseball cap runs into the listening room or cafe or lab, blows a whistle and throws a yellow handkerchief at the two listeners. “Penalty! Unlawful assumption.” (The handkerchief contains a heavy rubber weight and strikes Bill in the eye. Bill is able to continue but the next day he learns that he has a torn cornea.) The scientist runs outside to an unknown destination, leaving a lot of dazed onlookers.
But with just those few words, much of what we understand about acoustics tumbles to the ground. Tom and Bill both got their hearing checked recently. They are the same age, about the same size, and neither has any history of hearing problems. They are standing right next to each other in front of a pair of Wilson Alexandria’s supported by electronics of the same excellence and the Nordost cables that were recently swapped in. But Tom and Bill don’t agree on what they are hearing. “Listen carefully,” says Tom, who has long argued that cables make a difference. “The difference is subtle. But don’t you hear a little more definition in the bass? A sense of more air, more space in the midrange?” Bill, always a cable skeptic, looks at Tom like he’s from Mars. “You’re crazy,” he says.
So who’s right? Perhaps more importantly, what would the current state of acoustic science and brain science say is right?
Happily, they both are. The explanation has been a part of both fields for decades. Two observers simply do not experience sound in the same way. (Pretty much everything I’m going to say from this point on can be found in the references below. But those aren’t particularly special articles. It’s more that they came up high on the Google list. Please, bring more literature into the debate.
We can make music and be pretty confident in what we’re doing. We can make a machine that produces a steady 200 Hertz note. Might not sell too well but doing that is well within the range of our technology. Beethoven’s Fifth has many more variables but we know how to reproduce it.
The same is not true at the other end of the equation. We can be almost certain that Tom and Bill will not hear the same thing as each other. Possibly the single note but almost certainly not the symphony. Those sounds are not objective. Different observers will heat those sounds differently. It’s possible that their will be a different observation made by every individual on earth.
As I make my attempt at an explanation, here’s where you need someone smarter than me. Here’s where I urge you to read the cited material.
We all hear different things because we are all so different in so many ways. The shape of our ears are different from each other, as are the internal mechanism of hearing: aural canal, ear drum, cochlea, all that other stuff you learned about in sixth grade bio. Some sound reaches us as vibrations through our skulls, and all of our skulls are thicker or thinner at different parts of our head. Oy gevalt, and the brain hasn’t even gotten involved yet.
As with most functions of the brain, an auditory signal is processed in many different parts of our brain. There is no “hearing center” that lights up when the 1,375,492 second of the ninth symphony is played. A new constellation of lights—a very short lived one—is created with each sound.
Sounds like a lotta work? The brain agrees. So it tries to make its job easier. One thing it does is try to spot patterns. Once it has kind of a code a new constellation isn’t created with each sound. Even more importantly, this code lets the brain make predictions. Instead of inventing the wheel with every note, the code takes care of much of what has already happened and is likely to happen plus it can predict what new touches will be added. That means that if the brain has its way, we will, to quote the title to one of the cited works, “We Hear What We Expect To Hear.”
This tendency is pushed aside when a major new sound enters the scene. We may expect to hear the left turn signal make its usual clicking noise if we indicate a turn but if the result is a blaring noise and tires squealing, the brain will ignore it’s preference for patterns. The difference between speaker cables, if any, is many multiples less loud and dramatic. If Bill is a cable skeptic who expects all the cables to sound the same, that’s what he gets. The same way that Tom, who is expecting not just different but better, gets just what he’s expecting. Neither is right, neither is wrong. Both are human.
The bottom line is that something that we would call sound or music doesn’t exist until a sound wave travels through out physically different aural systems, our neurons with their biases and ways of working, rides neurotransmitters across the synapses. Only when this is done does the brain produce something that we can recognize as music. Our brains are very good at appreciating music and making sure that, at any given moment, our collection of eardrums, skull vibrations, neurons, and chemicals produce a sound that we perceive as awful close to the note that was played and intended by the musicians to sound a certain way. But there’s just so much stuff, so many steps, that inevitably each of us puts our own special stamp on it. That’s how Tom and Bill can both be right. They expected to hear something different and, voila, so they did.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210108120110.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_music
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819010/
https://www.cognifit.com/science/cognitive-skills/auditory-perception
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-auditory/
71 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
Just for fun, you might want to know how you "hear" that sax or guitar. Just think how much fun you would have reciting this to someone admiring your gear. However do take a look at the 3rd paragraph up from the bottom. Taken from an article by Davies and Surgano The auditory pathway conveys the special sense of hearing. Information travels from the receptors in the organ of Corti of the inner ear (cochlear hair cells) to the central nervous system, carried by the vestibulocochlear nerve (CN VIII). This pathway ultimately reaches the primary auditory cortex for conscious perception. In addition, unconscious processing of auditory information occurs in parallel. In this article, we will discuss the anatomy of the auditory pathway – its components, anatomical course, and relevant anatomical landmarks Components of the Auditory Pathway The auditory pathway is complex in that divergence and convergence of information happens at different stages. There are two main components of the auditory pathway:
The spiral ganglion houses the cell bodies of the first order neurons (ganglion refers to a collection of cell bodies outside the central nervous system). These neurones receive information from hair cells in the Organ of Corti and travel within the osseous spiral lamina. Their central axons form the main component of the cochlear nerve. The vestibular nerve joins the cochlear nerve entering the internal acoustic meatus, and from this point onward they are collectively called vestibulocochlear nerve. This proximity is clinically relevant since lesions to this nerve will usually produce symptoms in both the auditory and vestibular components. The nerve enters the cranium through the internal acoustic meatus and travels a short distance (around 1 cm) to enter the brainstem at the cerebellopontine angle. For more information on the vestibulocochlear nerve, its anatomical course and function please read this article. The first order neurons synapse at the ipsilateral cochlear nuclei. By OpenStax College [CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia CommonsFig 2 – The spiral ganglion houses the cell bodies of the first order neurones in the auditory pathway. Cochlear NucleiFibres from the cochlear nerve bifurcate and information is sent to the cochlear nuclei on each side of the brainstem:
From the dorsal cochlear nucleus, most fibres cross the midline and ascend in the contralateral lateral lemniscus. Other fibres ascend in the ipsilateral lateral lemniscus. From the ventral cochlear nucleus, some fibres also ascend in the lateral lemniscus bilaterally. However, most fibres from the ventral cochlear nucleus decussate to the contralateral superior olivary nuclei in a region known as the trapezoid body. Although the ventral cochlear nuclei neurons decussate at the trapezoid body, some fibres synapse at the ipsilateral superior olivary nucleus. The superior olivary nucleus is located just next to the trapezoid body. It also projects upwards through the lateral lemniscus. In summary, in both the dorsal and ventral nuclei, some fibres decussate while others do not. For that reason, information from both ears travels bilaterally in each lateral lemniscus. This is important because supranuclear lesions (i.e. above the level of the cochlear nucleus) will not lead to serious hearing impairment. Therefore, hearing problems can be conductive or sensorineural but are rarely central. Adobe Stock, Licensed to TeachMeSeries LtdFig 3 – Information from each cochlear nucleus is transmitted bilaterally. Inferior Colliculus and Medial Geniculate Bodyfibres ascending through the lateral lemniscus from both cochlear nuclei and from the superior olivary nuclei arrive at the inferior colliculus, where all these fibres carrying auditory information converge. These fibres project to the ipsilateral medial geniculate body (MGB) in the thalamus (recall that vision is relayed on the lateral geniculate body). The MGB does not act as a simple relay centre: it has reciprocal connections with the auditory cortex and mediates refinement of the incoming information. Projections from the medial geniculate body proceed then to the primary auditory cortex. Note: A good way to remember what information passes through each geniculate body is that music goes to medial and light goes to lateral. Primary Auditory CortexThe primary auditory cortex (A1) is located in the superior temporal gyrus, right under the lateral fissure. The primary auditory cortex is organized tonotopically, although its organisation is complex, and the details are beyond the scope of this article. Non-Lemniscal PathwaysThese are pathways that do not lead to primary auditory cortex. They involve multisensory integration, reflexes, attention, and emotional responses. |
Excellent discussion. Should end a lot of highly contentious arguments. Some people like the smell of gasoline! MC's video almost had me hypnotized. I thought they were going to ask me to join a cult at the end. My only comment is there are SOME universal truths about audio equipment and music that are not debatable. That is what I like to find out about here on AG. |
The thing with me is that I don’t trust my ears, or most any other of my faculties. When someone says, “We hear differently”, I assume that it is that some hear better than others. I listen to music on a system that the owner raves about, and I just don’t hear it. Not that it sounds bad, just not inspiring. I think the fault must be in me, that I just don’t perceive as well and lack the ability others possess to discern the exquisite from the pretty-good. Sometimes I’m not impressed with the sound at first, but after listening for a hour or more the sound seems to improve, that it “grows on me”. Maybe my hearing apparatus needs to “burn in” before I can hear well? A former in-law was a long-term heroin addict. I asked him what the high was like, that people would risk their lives and their serenity to use it. He told me to imagine that I had floated up toward the ceiling and felt the most beautiful feeling I had ever experienced, a feeling so wonderful that I wouldn’t ever want to live a minute not feeling that way. I was even more certain that I would never try heroin, as I never want to use anything that is stronger than my ability to control it. No regrets on that decision. Not curious at all. |
If Dylan and Edie Sedgwick had a "thing," then the song very well could be about her. It could also be about Bob himself from what I've read. Or, his muse could be a composite of people. One thing's for sure. Unlike the identity of Deep Throat, I doubt that BD will ever reveal what or who he had in mind when he wrote that iconic song that always sits atop Rolling Stones' list of the best rock songs of all time. |
| Post removed |
MC, do you believe that if you cite a YouTube video in one of your over 8,000 posts, that someone who reads that post will attach enough importance to it that he will not only watch the video in its entirety but with enough concentration to remember individual lines? Let me put this in terms you might better understand. https://youtu.be/tFfTludf0SU?t=25 |
| Post removed |
Well, I’d never heard of Alan Watts. Wikipedia to the rescue! He sounds like a typical product of the English boarding school system - independent free-thinker, popular in his peer group of others with similar backgrounds, serial adulterer, poor father to many children, ego-centricity that drives them to persuade others to share that trait even to a cosmic scale (!), has fun with drugs until one of them (alcohol usually, as in this case) kills them prematurely. Some psychologists might say they were constantly seeking the love of their mother that they felt was denied them when they were sent away to board at school at an age when boys need that love the most. Thank heavens though for them and their forbearance of their pain, because this is a description also of many great leaders, scientists, Nobel prize winners, certain members of certain royal families, and many of my best friends. |
MC, do you believe that if you cite a YouTube video in one of your over 8,000 posts, that someone who reads that post will attach enough importance to it that he will not only watch the video in its entirety but with enough concentration to remember individual lines? You certainly don’t lack for a healthy sense of self. |
Mijostyn— ”That’s an odd comment about a post endorsing heroin use from a user who claims to be a medical doctor.” Can that be me that you’re talking about? The heroin track (pun intended) that has developed here has taken me completely by surprise. I can’t remember mentioning anything to do with heroin or even hinting at it. (Although I sure as hell not about to reread that post to see if I’m wrong.) As for claiming to be a doctor—c’est moi? MC— I’m not about to argue about preferring the strength of the Watts quote as compared to any of mine. Plus, I suspect Watts had a koan thing going on that I certainly lacked. As set forth above, the two quotes are obviously very close. Truth be told, I didn’t watch the YouTube piece. For better or worse, it’s not uncommon for me to prefer reading something at my own pace rather than watching a video unfold at its own, usually much more leisurely, pace. As soon as I saw the sunrise breaking through the drifting clouds and heard the New Age-y music, I knew that I wouldn’t be sticking around for that video. MC, I say this out of concern, not to be critical, but do you realize that you can be a rather prickly sort? You don’t strike me as a young man. God knows that there ain’t much good about getting old but one of the few advantages is that you lose the strident voice of youth in favor of a more philosophical, tolerant take on the world. When I was a sophomore in college, I knew absolutely everything there was to know. I remember taking Anthropology 101 and, soon enough, I was preaching cultural relativism to my parents and condemning their judgments against headhunting or some other kind of society. As I get older, I realize how much there is that I don’t—and never will—know. Meanwhile, my 17-year old son is just starting to come into his own as a know-it-all and risking grave bodily harm in the process. In short, I guess that I’m offering the unsolicited advice to take things a little easier and suffer fools a little more gladly. You’ll live longer. |
It's genetic. Taste, smell, hearing, etc all can be traced back to a molecular level ultimately derived from DNA. I discovered this when my wife ate some native Washington berry that no one here would ever eat, or even consider edible! She thought it was just fine. This was so far outside the norm I decided to look into it. Turns out there are taste receptors that vary widely not only individual to individual but across populations. Probably a lot of the variety of regional cuisines is due to this. If anyone has bothered to study it yet, don't know. Found what I was looking for and moved on. |
@paul6001 First of all I commend you for your writing skills. The manner in which you deviate from the original point yet keep it relevant is refreshing. As the husband of a PhD in neurophysiology I can also tell you that you are correct that your sample listeners would perceive sound differently. We are all individuals and we develop pathway patterns in our brains based on our life experiences. One of the things my wife does is to help people change those patterns to improve cognitive function. One example would be epilepsy but rewiring our brains can be used for a multitude of purposes. It can even be used for peak performance such as improving your golf swing or hitting a baseball. It should come as no surprise that we all hear differently, which is why for some, lamp cord works! That's why I don't get too worked up over cables. I have decent quality cables in my system and I believe it sounds pretty darned good. Others may argue. What it boils down to is, if it sounds good to you then who is anyone else to tell you otherwise. Enjoy the music! |
Alan Watts will reset your clock, re-orient your thinking, and blow your mind with..... the truth. https://youtu.be/PfIYGaslVnA?t=87 |
What is this about? Does it involve cables? it involves poorly understood aspects of human perception - vision, hearing, smell, and touch. This may well be somehow tied to the cables direction perception. Why not? The percentage of those who hear the direction of the cables is approximately equal to the percentage of synesthetics. |
a good example on how our perceptions may differ: Synesthesia or synaesthesia is a perceptual phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia |
mijostyn
Paul, its ok. Not all of us have ADHD.That's an odd comment about a post endorsing heroin use from a user who claims to be a medical doctor. @tomcy6 nailed it. tomcy6 That would be OK if the addicts didn’t destroy the lives of their families and anyone else close to them. If they didn’t rob and steal and mug and cheat innocent people whom they don’t even know. If young children didn’t get caught in their crossfire and killed. If the cartels who supply the heroin weren’t violent predators who kill anyone who gets in their way and destroy the societies they live in. If it weren’t for those nagging little realities, then sure, shoot up all you want. |
Very interesting coincidence as just tonight my wife and I had another couple over for some adult beverages outside by a nice warm fire. The topic of heroin use and recent related crime came up. I made the statement that I’d like to try heroin once to see what the fuss was over. I just find it hard to conceive of any substance making you feel so good that you willingly risk your life every time you use it as there’s no “standardized” dose or quality, and overdose deaths are common. Which is why I won’t try it. In my past I was a cop for 25 years and had the opportunity to speak with a heroin addict at length once. At a point in the conversation I made the statement that I once got a morphine injection hours after I had elbow surgery, and while it felt great, I just didn’t get the allure, there was no, “ok, now I get it,” moment. He said there’s no comparison between the two. So who knows, the word of a longtime addict, though gainfully employed, is worth what? Especially after being narcaned (sp?) back to life by the FD an hour previous to our conversation. Still makes ya wonder... |
But I confess that his immediate relevance to this discussion escapes me. A little help, anyone? You said: sound or music doesn’t exist until a sound wave travels through out physically different aural systems, our neurons with their biases and ways of working, rides neurotransmitters across the synapses. Watts said: "It's your ear drum that evokes noise out of the air." Do you seriously not realize these are the exact same thing? Only difference (besides Watts being infinitely more lyrical) you are limited to looking at just the one small facet, sound. Watts is saying not only sound, we bring the whole universe into being. Listen again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FELdBsixGg&t=110s |
In pursuing any dragon, one ought to expect a certain amount of burns. Jimho, the same seems to apply to audio equipment and the personal pursuit of perfection. We go with this, or that, until we experience what we expect it to be. The guy next to you thinks you're insane....or just wrong. *L* It's amazing to me that we concur as much as we do....*shrug* People Are your best entertainment, or a relentless bane on existence. I know I am....*L* |
This summary is much easier to read. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-01/tud-whw010821.php?fbclid=IwAR275RtkQTvQoYcJSyzuI14b7... |
But the upside can’t be ignored. Watch Trainspotting, which portrays the scourgey part of the scourge as painfully as any movie I know. But the main character says, “Why do you think we devote our lives to it? We’re not idiots. Imagine the best orgasm you’ve ever had, multiply by 10,000, and you still don’t have any idea.” That would be OK if the addicts didn’t destroy the lives of their families and anyone else close to them. If they didn’t rob and steal and mug and cheat innocent people whom they don’t even know. If young children didn’t get caught in their crossfire and killed. If the cartels who supply the heroin weren’t violent predators who kill anyone who gets in their way and destroy the societies they live in. If it weren’t for those nagging little realities, then sure, shoot up all you want. |
Measurements are nearly meaningless to me, I trust my ears. Not to tell me what is right or wrong, but whether a perceived difference is an improvement or a detriment. But most importantly I trust my ears to tell me what I like and if I do, I don't care what it measures or whether that opinion is in harmony with anyone else's, not even some professional reviewer's. My ears tell me I have assembled a very good audio system that lets me enjoy my music. I've never heard a measurement that made me want to dance. |
If MC says that I’m close to speaking the truth as expounded by a genius level zen master, is that a good thing? On first cut, this Watts guy is interesting. Will have to do a little more reading before I can say anything intelligent. But I confess that his immediate relevance to this discussion escapes me. A little help, anyone? I saw the danger but I was not trying to open a subjective/objective wormhole. Foucault and Derrida have done quite enough damage there. I was merely trying to explain how/where a sound is created, nothing more. God knows that post is too long and you have my most sincere apologies. About halfway through, I could see that I was getting in too deep. But I made the questionable choice of pushing through instead of letting the post idie the death that may have been the more honorable way out. |
