The one thing human perception is not, is accurate. I said it to you alrady but you reverse to this " commom place evidence" accusating me of his negation... Do you think i am so stupid? Dont lend to my words a meaning opposite to a fact no one could contradict being sane ..... A tool for example microscope or a telescope exceed any eye on some power of resolution, i never negate that and no one here save the more idiot will ever negate this....Same observation is valid for ANY tools in ANY field... There is 2 meanings to the word "accurate"... --- Accurate by numbers.... Exactitude FOR SOME CHOSEN PARAMETERS AND FOR SOME CHOSEN DIMENSION for a tool.... In this context the eye is a mere tool... --- Accurate for the encompassing human perception, with many unknown parameters and many unknown dimensions RELATIVE to the chosen complementary tool measuring process...In this context the eye is NOT a mere tool...but the cause and main actor in the recreation of the perceptive experience... Accurate for a microphone response or accurate for hearing are not the same...They could be equivalent but NEVER equal.... If they would be reducible to one another psychoacoustic will not exist... We will be able to replicate all there is to human hearing.... And human hearing will be only a mere tool like any other... But we cannot.... |
Let me rephrase it for you so you understand my point ...
1+1 = 2
1.001 + 1 = 2.001 Let me rephrase it for you so you will understand my point ... f(x) = kx(1-x) It is an iterative process... Nevermind where you are in the n’th stage of the process there always will be a new stage which will enter in the cycles.... Between perceived phenomena and consciousness there is place for unknown or new phenomena to appear... Then eliminating bias is a good procedure in testing.... we must do it.... Cultivating bias is a good procedure in training perception....We must do it.... Correlating the two IS science.... Not one without the other .... It is an iterative process not a static addition or substraction.... "That is what analyzing an electrical signal does. It allows us to determine a change, from a reference, in vastly greater detail than any human can. It is not even close."
No measuring will replace human perception , a tool, so accurate it is, work from some chosen parameter in ONE chosen dimension and cannot replace human experience.... Not only can we build on past work and testing if it is the correct chosen direction for sure, but we can also change direction and create new tool: like a directional wire to satisfy our confirmed perception .... Tools dont compete with human perception they only serve it....The way we decide.... Technology ask for standard practices... Science ask for innovative thinking... The two are not opposite at all.... Nobody is against virtue(measuring) but sometimes evil(creativity) serves a greater good.... |
You’re confusing two different systems. One system is audio reproduction, it’s pure science even when it was wax cylinders doing the recording and playback . The other system is our human auditory system. How each of us " perceives " music is user dependent. Yes and no.... There exist and must exist CORRELATION FEEDBACK ONGOING PROCESS between these 2 system.... And these correlation parameters are not determined only by the known actual law of audio reproduction but can and would be dictated by NEW conditions of experience by the users and new experiments...Psychoacoustic for example will evolve integrating human perception and neurophysiology and physical acoustic phenomena.... Then saying that : We can measure what goes down a wire with great accuracy. Humans can’t. Matters not what happens after. The electrical signal was either recreated properly or not. Is equivalent to saying that the conditions of experience are always the same for all users and for all time... And saying that tools could measure what "goes down a wire with great accuracy" but humans could not, to justify the impossibility or the value of a perceptive experience, is equivalent to the saying that human is ONLY an imperfect deluded measuring tool.... Which is dumb to say the least....Because it is human perceiving consciousness that correlate all POSSIBLE measuring tools....It is human perceiving consciousness that could change the conditions of the experience and create new dimensions or new experience through new parameters and creating new measuring tools to explore new dimensions with new parameters....It is ONLY consiousness that could give meaning and interpret the tool.... Then arguments against the possibility of wires direction and a related new qualitative experience is only a circular vicious circle around the measuring fallacy.... No one can lift itself by the hair....Save perhaps it seems dletch2... 😊 No measuring tool work in a grid of measuring tools without a human perceiving consciousness at the beginning of the grid and at the end....There is NO EXTERNAL reality without any conscious participation, which is anyway the greatest discovery of the XX century called quantum physics... Then technological idolatry is only a blind religious belief in a complete external reality...It is the Baron Munchausen religion....Also the vision of some monotheistic cult where the Earth is given like an EXTERNAL object to exploit for men....Sorry but science has already establish against ANY belief favoring the contrary view the fact of consciousness participation.... There is no absolute objective external reality independant of any consciousness or independant for ALL consciousness...Materialism is dead in the fifth Solvay Conference on Physics; held from 24 to 29 October 1927 and buried after Alan Aspect experiment in 1982.... No engineer or audiophile will ressuscitate it.... Then no reasoning could a priori replace or ridiculize a future proposed experiment based on an alleged perceptive experience like Anton proposed here ....
John Archibald Wheeler, from a transcript of a radio interview on "The Anthropic Universe": Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what’s happening in the distant past why should we need more? Martin Redfern: Many don’t agree with John Wheeler, but if he’s right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.[83]
|
«Simplistic mind can also use sophisticated tool»-Anonymus Smith
😊
|
then I think you’ll like Anna Herman Ahhhhh ! What a voice....I am already in love....Elena is very expressive so much i understand Russian listening her... But Anna has something very rarely heard in his voice colored timbre articulation singing , only the most beautiful voices own that angelic inflexion... By the way i read slowly your site "Contour System"... Very interesting.... |
methinks the basic fallacy isn’t that computers can’t hear but rather that Human minds haven’t found the right measurement methods to program them appropriately. Ultimately AI will lead us to codify hitherto uncodified human sentiments such that computers can reflect them, we are just not there yet and I question whether pure two-dimensional, scalar models will ever appropriafely reflect the complex patterns of acoustics and human hearing. You are right on the spot ... BUT And it is a big BUT, Mimicking perfectly human feeling or perception (Turing Test) is not at all like feeling and perceiving with a real consciousness...There is always something lacking....In the case of conscious being versus non conscious one it is the INTERNAL link manifesting between all conscious being in the universe...They are ALL connected by one source shining through each one of them ... Derived technologically created robots are not....They dont reincarnate like in some famous novel of S-F....They mimic consciousness and can be very intelligent way more than human, but like said the great Italian neuroscientist Tononi intelligence scale and consciousness scale are different, intersect, but dont fuse together and diverge anyway.... Anayway! in this thread this is a debate about wire direction, and some acoustic concept about hearing and sound perception.... Not about transhumanist ideology.... I will refrain myself to go longer on this....Thank for your interesting post anyway..... |
I haven’t listened to these songs for a long time and once again i note how emphatically all his unique intonations are conveyed in the pre-war 78 recordings. No modern recording can do that way, isn’t it strange? Completely outdated shellac beats technological HI-FI in some very important music features. I dont have personal experience of this fact but i really think that some very minute change between these 2 mediums could "percolate" through many scales to deliver audible different quality for the human hearing.... Anyway "sound" is the body and waves are the carrier of the By the way one of my most beloved composer with Bach and Bruckner is Scriabin... I am also in love with Elena Frolova.... |
It’s what we don’t know (scientifically measured) but feel/sense that can make a difference. What we feel in listening must be CORRELATED by concrete change, modification or experiment....Or measures if possible...Our sixth sense is often a response not always the initiator of the experience... We listen perhaps by a magical individual connection but also with for example acoustical and psycho acoustical law we can use and control... The "gist" of the matter is relating feeling and thinking in one perceiving act...Not rejecting one for the other... The war between subjectivist and objectivist is the result of a childish philosophical perspective... i reject each one in his narrow corner or introduce each one to the other for a dialogue....... then correcting your affirmation i will add that it is also what we could learn, what we know that ALSO can make a difference... There is NO magical "tweaks"... There is only controls in the working embeddings dimensions related to ANY audio system... But why some of these "controls device" work sometimes is not always very clear "scientifically"... Anyway even if you cannot measure all there is and even if some phenomenon could not be measured for sure, we must work with the feeling and the thinking process together not one against the other.... |
|
This article is clearer: https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html «(Phys.org)—For the first time, physicists have found that humans can discriminate a sound’s frequency (related to a note’s pitch) and timing (whether a note comes before or after another note) more than 10 times better than the limit imposed by the Fourier uncertainty principle. Not surprisingly, some of the subjects with the best listening precision were musicians, but even non-musicians could exceed the uncertainty limit. The results rule out the majority of auditory processing brain algorithms that have been proposed, since only a few models can match this impressive human performance. The researchers, Jacob Oppenheim and Marcelo Magnasco at Rockefeller University in New York, have published their study on the first direct test of the Fourier uncertainty principle in human hearing in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. The Fourier uncertainty principle states that a time-frequency tradeoff exists for sound signals, so that the shorter the duration of a sound, the larger the spread of different types of frequencies is required to represent the sound. Conversely, sounds with tight clusters of frequencies must have longer durations. The uncertainty principle limits the precision of the simultaneous measurement of the duration and frequency of a sound. To investigate human hearing in this context, the researchers turned to psychophysics, an area of study that uses various techniques to reveal how physical stimuli affect human sensation. Using physics, these techniques can establish tight bounds on the performance of the senses..... The results have implications for how we understand the way that the brain processes sound, a question that has interested scientists for a long time. In the early 1970s, scientists found hints that human hearing could violate the uncertainty principle, but the scientific understanding and technical capabilities were not advanced enough to enable a thorough investigation. As a result, most of today’s sound analysis models are based on old theories that may now be revisited in order to capture the precision of human hearing. "In seminars, I like demonstrating how much information is conveyed in sound by playing the sound from the scene in Casablanca where Ilsa pleads, "Play it once, Sam," Sam feigns ignorance, Ilsa insists," Magnasco said. "You can recognize the text being spoken, but you can also recognize the volume of the utterance, the emotional stance of both speakers, the identity of the speakers including the speaker’s accent (Ingrid’s faint Swedish, though her character is Norwegian, which I am told Norwegians can distinguish; Sam’s AAVE [African American Vernacular English]), the distance to the speaker (Ilsa whispers but she’s closer, Sam loudly feigns ignorance but he’s in the back), the position of the speaker (in your house you know when someone’s calling you from another room, in which room they are!), the orientation of the speaker (looking at you or away from you), an impression of the room (large, small, carpeted). "The issue is that many fields, both basic and commercial, in sound analysis try to reconstruct only one of these, and for that they may use crude models of early hearing that transmit enough information for their purposes. But the problem is that when your analysis is a pipeline, whatever information is lost on a given stage can never be recovered later. So if you try to do very fancy analysis of, let’s say, vocal inflections of a lyric soprano, you just cannot do it with cruder models." By ruling out many of the simpler models of auditory processing, the new results may help guide researchers to identify the true mechanism that underlies human auditory hyperacuity. Understanding this mechanism could have wide-ranging applications in areas such as speech recognition; sound analysis and processing; and radar, sonar, and radio astronomy. "You could use fancier methods in radar or sonar to try to analyze details beyond uncertainty, since you control the pinging waveform; in fact, bats do," Magnasco said. Building on the current results, the researchers are now investigating how human hearing is more finely tuned toward natural sounds, and also studying the temporal factor in hearing.
"Such increases in performance cannot occur in general without some assumptions," Magnasco said. "For instance, if you’re testing accuracy vs. resolution, you need to assume all signals are well separated. We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, as opposed to abstract time-series; this comes under the rubric of ’ecological theories of perception’ in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry. We just tested that subjects do much better in discriminating timing and frequency in the forward version than in the time-reversed version (manuscript submitted). Therefore the nervous system uses specific information on the physics of sound production to extract information from the sensory stream.»
Magnasco is not a "crook" like you alleged for Essien, Magnasco is peer rewiewed and his work go in the SAME direction than Essien... dletch2 this remark of Magnasco goes hand in hand with the experiments of Essien and give the same direction of research than Essien for another reason, the Gabor limit violation by the ears/brain, instead, in the case of Essien, of the revisitation of the monochord experiment linked to the production and perception of pitch... i will repeat the words of Magnasco with uppercase for the important word: « We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, AS OPPOSED TO ABSTRACT TIME SERIES; this comes under the rubric of ’ecological theories of perception’ in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry.» Then retract your word about Essien at least....And admit that his doctorate thesis is not writtent by a "crook".... |
Mahgister, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understand that this does not mean that humans have "magical" properties. dletch2 i am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understand that all my posts in the last 24 hours related NOT to magic but to scientific fact demonstrating the little we know about the limits of humans sense system and the way in which this sense perceptive power is related affect us... Pitch is still tone, as it is a definition and it is continuous, it does not involve attack and decay. What you called a "definition" and by that you means something purely arbitrary or subjective WITHOUT connection to a deeper reality is discontinuous when played on an instrument producing with it his own timbre experience...And this listening experience of pitch is the usual one by musicians.... Then a pitch is not an abstract continuous tone played by a machine....This reduction betrays the acoustical condition of his human experience...pitch always implies decay and attack, or a playing vibrating particulat timbre of an instriment in concrete musical world because it is a human perception....Isolating from his experience its associate frequencies is correct at the condition to keep the baby when you throw the water....The fact that pitch to be distinguish from noise must be associated to some continuous frequency dont means that all there is about pitch is this condition... Instruments can time two waves of the same frequency to way better than 1/4 wavelength. Here also our fundamental different perspective create complete misunderstanding.... Accuracy by a measuring instrument is not accuracy for the listening ears/brain... Reducing the second concept of accuracy to a the narrow technological window of the other tool is good research BUT does not replace investigation in the specific power of the human ears...The human ears use his own tool, non linear one, and many part of the brain and body are sollicited by the act of hearing.... The fact that instruments can time 2 waves better than human refer to a pure numerical concept of accuracy.... The ears do it his own way surprizingly it seems but this ears accuracy serves " an evolutive and semiotic goal " which is completely alien to our own measuring tools.... Then dont let your techological ideology which consist in the downplaying of anything meaningful to be pure "accident" or pure material phenomenon... Or called someone like me who dont reject science but refuse to be materialist a magician like you already did in a pejorative way.... Consciousness is a primal, original, irreductible phenomenon, without which there is no facts, and which itself cannot be reduced to facts.... But you are the audio professionnal not me.... But i speak my tought at the risk of being wrong....I dont think i am wrong here with these general observations...
|
Then what?
We need experiment and we need to discover some individual able to hear this hypothetical change...
But ridiculizing the possibility of sensing this phenomena is not a good point of departure for a scientific journey...
Speculating about this possibility is better and looking for some who experimented it and wanted to be tested a better one for sure...
But a test organized to ridicule someone or debunking him is NOT A TEST....And certainly not a rigorous scientific test created in good faith and by honest curiosity.....
Then "sunday skeptic of the scientism club" or children of James Randi or professional snake oiler hunters are not useful to science here...No more than religious zealot or marketings people.....
It is easy to understand....
A climate of trust only make thinking possible....And discovery possible...
Doubt is a tool not a vocation or a working field.....
Human need beliefs, and need doubts; but human need over all to think and thinking process is alway using these 2 tools simultaneously...
|
Seriously, Some things cannot be measured as accurately as bio sense. Example, a dogs smell is more sensitive than any current instrument. Because it cannot be measured does not mean it is not there.
This is audiogon. You must have confused it with smellogon, the other website. what is the adress of this new site: "smellogon" ? is this is from this site: http://vosshall.rockefeller.edu/assets/file/BushdidScience2014.pdf Or perhaps this one on forgotten abilities: https://www.nature.com/articles/nn1819 Perhaps we must create Smellogon.com ourself and link it to audiogon... Finally this article about polynesian "primitive" navigators about to "see" their routes around islands very afar in the pacific is astounding about the INTERNAL GPS of human and say a lot about underestimating the perception of humans
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/magazine/the-secrets-of-the-wave-pilots.htmlan extract of this article that speak volume about the understimated human perceotive abilities.... :
«Genz
met Alson Kelen and Korent Joel in Majuro in 2005, when Genz was 28. A
soft-spoken, freckled Wisconsinite and former Peace Corps volunteer who
grew up sailing with his father, Genz was then studying for a doctorate
in anthropology at the University of Hawaii. His adviser there, Ben
Finney, was an anthropologist who helped lead the voyage of Hokulea, a
replica Polynesian sailing canoe, from Hawaii to Tahiti and back in
1976; the success of the trip, which involved no modern instrumentation
and was meant to prove the efficacy of indigenous ships and navigational
methods, stirred a resurgence of native Hawaiian language, music, hula
and crafts. Joel and Kelen dreamed of a similar revival for Marshallese
sailing — the only way, they figured, for wave-piloting to endure — and
contacted Finney for guidance. But Finney was nearing retirement, so he
suggested that Genz go in his stead. With their chief’s blessing, Joel
and Kelen offered Genz rare access, with one provision: He would not
learn wave-piloting himself; he would simply document Kelen’s training. Joel
immediately asked Genz to bring scientists to the Marshalls who could
help Joel understand the mechanics of the waves he knew only by feel —
especially one called di lep, or backbone, the foundation of wave-piloting, which (in ri-meto lore) ran between atolls like a road. Joel’s grandfather had taught him to feel the di lep
at the Rongelap reef: He would lie on his back in a canoe, blindfolded,
while the old man dragged him around the coral, letting him experience
how it changed the movement of the waves. But when Joel took Genz out in the Pacific on borrowed yachts and told him they were encountering the di lep,
he couldn’t feel it. Kelen said he couldn’t, either. When
oceanographers from the University of Hawaii came to look for it, their
equipment failed to detect it. The idea of a wave-road between islands,
they told Genz, made no sense. Privately, Genz began to fear that the di lep
was imaginary, that wave-piloting was already extinct. On one research
trip in 2006, when Korent Joel went below deck to take a nap, Genz
changed the yacht’s course. When Joel awoke, Genz kept Joel away from
the GPS device, and to the relief of them both, Joel directed the boat
toward land. Later, he also passed his ri-meto test, judged by his chief, with Genz and Kelen crewing. Worlds
away, Huth, a worrier by nature, had become convinced that preserving
mankind’s ability to way-find without technology was not just an
abstract mental exercise but also a matter of life and death. In 2003,
while kayaking alone in Nantucket Sound, fog descended, and Huth —
spring-loaded and boyish, with a near-photographic memory — found his
way home using local landmarks, the wind and the direction of the
swells. Later, he learned that two young undergraduates, out paddling in
the same fog, had become disoriented and drowned. This prompted him to
begin teaching a class on primitive navigation techniques. When Huth met
Genz at an academic conference in 2012 and described the methodology of
his search for the Higgs boson and dark energy — subtracting dominant
wave signals from a field, until a much subtler signal appears
underneath — Genz told him about the di lep,
and it captured Huth’s imagination. If it was real, and if it really
ran back and forth between islands, its behavior was unknown to physics
and would require a supercomputer to model. That a person might be able
to sense it bodily amid the cacophony generated by other ocean phenomena
was astonishing. Huth began creating possible di lep
simulations in his free time and recruited van Vledder’s help.
Initially, the most puzzling detail of Genz’s translation of Joel’s
description was his claim that the di lep
connected each atoll and island to all 33 others. That would yield 561
paths, far too many for even the most adept wave pilot to memorize. Most
of what we know about ocean waves and currents — including what will
happen to coastlines as climate change leads to higher sea levels (of
special concern to the low-lying Netherlands and Marshall Islands) —
comes from models that use global wind and bathymetry data to simulate
what wave patterns probably look like at a given place and time. Our
understanding of wave mechanics, on which those models are based, is
wildly incomplete. To improve them, experts must constantly check their
assumptions with measurements and observations. Perhaps, Huth and van
Vledder thought, there were di leps in every ocean, invisible roads that no one was seeing because they didn’t know to look.... »
|
More seriously now and perhaps nearer to our debate this is extraordinary: «We’ve all heard of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. That puts a fundamental limit on the accuracy with which position and momentum of a particle can be simultaneously known. The more precision for one, the less for the other. There’s a similar idea in acoustics, called the Fourier Uncertainty Principle. Fourier Analysis, a commonly used mathematical method of deconstructing complex waves into their components, is the basis of this uncertainty principle. Unlike Heisenberg’s, it represents not an intrinsic property of the source, but a limit on the capabilities of linear algorithms to analyze it.
It deals with two properties of sound: frequency (or pitch) and timing. If you read music, you know that pitch is the vertical axis and timing the horizontal axis. According to the Fourier Uncertainty Principle, these two properties cannot be simultaneously determined above a limit, called the Gabor limit. This implies that the better two pitches can be distinguished, the less accurately the time between them can be known, and vice versa.
Tell that to the human brain. In a new paper in Physical Review Letters (free download on arXiv), Jacob N. Oppenheim and Marcello O. Magnasco of Rockefeller University tested human subjects and found “Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle.“ The time-frequency uncertainty principle states that the product of the temporal and frequency extents of a signal cannot be smaller than 1/(4?). We study human ability to simultaneously judge the frequency and the timing of a sound. Our subjects often exceeded the uncertainty limit, sometimes by more than tenfold, mostly through remarkable timing acuity. Our results establish a lower bound for the nonlinearity and complexity of the algorithms employed by our brains in parsing transient sounds, rule out simple “linear filter” models of early auditory processing, and highlight timing acuity as a central feature in auditory object processing. (Emphasis added.)»
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/02/human_hearing_o/ This is the vulgarisation.... The real article is this: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.044301 All this is spectacular example of limitations alleged in the past and overcome.... We dont know what sound IS... We dont understand human hearing .... But science go on enlightening us about deepest and deepest imprevisible discoveries... |
Reality is never what we assumed it is.... Science exist and demonstrate it for us...With new concepts but also new methods of investigation... «Are wind farms harmful to humans? Some believe so, others refute this; this controversial topic makes emotions run high. To give the debate more objectivity, an international team of experts dealt with the fundamentals of hearing in the lower limit range of the audible frequency range (i.e. infrasound), but also in the upper limit range (i.e. ultrasound). The project, which is part of the European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP), was coordinated by the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB). At PTB, not only acoustics experts, but also experts from the fields of biomagnetism (MEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) were involved in the research activities. They have found out that humans can hear sounds lower than had previously been assumed. And the mechanisms of sound perception are much more complex than previously thought.» https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150710123506.htm This is not the vulgarisation above but the real paper : https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174420 All that prove NOTHING for the audible detection of wire direction for sure... But knowing that human can hear 8 hertz sound and above in the higher frequencies and knowing that the neural infrastructure of hearing implicate some area of the brain normally not associated with hearing says a lot.... Then apriori ridiculizing claim or absolute negation about the real limits of hearing in humans is serious... We dont know.... We dont know what hearing IS.... We sont know what a sound IS... We use water in very sophisticated technology and we dont know what water is.... Saying water is H2O is not a complete explanation and certainly not an understanding... We use light in laser technology but we dont know what light is... We study the prime numbes and use them with very complicate and deep mathematical tools but we absolutely dont know what prime numbers are.... Then we must relax and think.... And making stupid joke while pretending we know something is child play... The subject of this thread interest me a lot but i dont have any opinion for or against wire direction... It is an experiment.... at least in thinking....It is interesting.... It is related to deep questions... Idiots beware.... |
It pays to keep an open mind, just not so open your brains fall out.
Sagan very good! and funny.... My brain fall out.... For sure.... My best to you.... |
Now we’re questioning the arrow of time ? It’s good to be skeptical and have an open mind, just remember what Carl Sagan said about open minds. Keep the open mind.... Sagan is not the definitive authority for time tough sorry... What he says by the way? remind me please.... About time read that C.K. Raju... http://ckraju.net/papers/ckr_pendu_1_paper.pdf Or Costa de beauregard if you read french....Oups! english translation... http://www.costa-de-beauregard.com/fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/OCB-1976-5.pdf Sagan is a vulgarisator on TV not on the same level than the three scientists i cited here... They speak from different perspective of the DIFFERENT manifestation of the flow of time.... There is even more recent works about that but i am too lazy to search for... By the way none question the arrow of time.... they investigate WHY there is one....And why there is more about time than the second law of thermodynamics... |
Maybe someone already explained this, but I simply didn’t have the time to look through the whole thread. Due to manufacturing tolerances, a cable isn’t electrically the same from both directions.
The reason is that a cable is a transmission line and can be viewed as a distributed network of resistors, R(z), capacitors, C(z) and inductors, L(z) (and other electrical components like memristors), and where ’z’ is the cable position. But limiting the view to just R, C and L, it’s not hard to see that since a cable is a mechanically constructed device with small variations/tolerances in wire thickness as well as small variations/tolerances in the separation of the two wires, that these variations will cause a z-dependent random change on the incremental value (ie, df(z)/dz) of R(z), C(z) and L(z). Because of this, when flipping the cable around, one will see a different distributed network, though not much different, but nevertheless different.
So maybe those "directional" cables are known to exhibit a more significant electrical difference in one direction than in the other direction due to the manufacturing/design process of them and the manufacturer decided that one direction "sounds better" than the other and put an arrow on the cable? Very astute remarks... In my precedent posts i insisted with Essien and Ansermet about the specific irreductible ability of perceptive consciousness versus measure technological pretense to explain the world of meaning and phenomenan ONLY by some chosen dimensions and parameters... Now i will add a more theoretical physical background inspired by the idea of a great Russian scientist who wrote about TIME and energy and the anisotropy of the cosmos... For Nokolai Kozyrev the DIRECTION in the universe between right and left and between cause to effect or between effect to cause are not EQUAL...and the diffreence is even measurable in his many experiments... Here is the link to the article... http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Kozyrev/paper1a.txt He is not a crackpot either if you look to WIKI... I say that for the possible presence of a sunday "scientism" skeptic club member lost in this thread... Then if the direction between cause and effect or effect to cause are different qualitatively and quantitatively and even measurable for Kozyrev, perhaps the human ears can perceive some microscopic effect "percolating" through smaller scale to them...Even if our actual instrument dont measure them... Then wires can exhibit this difference in quality quantitatively between the origin and the end of a complete circuit .... It is a speculation from me with Kozyrev for sure but..... There is more under the sky than meet the ears or the microphone itself.... This does not preclude the necessity for a test of perception between cables or wire.... «Creating the cosmos is a only way for God to test his own hearing»-Groucho Marx 🤓 |
It is a well bounded case. For sure you are right... I am more interested by the philosophical implications thats all...But i give to you that what you just said is very clear....It is a beginning... |
I’ll buy that but what does it have to do with wire direction? Staying on topic IS a virtue in debate. 😊 i was answering your own post complimenting me thanking you and explaining why you think so about me loll .... I apologize for this post then also.... I will mute the 2 direction of my wired brain for now.... |
How's that?
I explained why just a few post above.... I apologize for speaking too much and i dont want to repeat.... 😊😊😊😊😉😉😉 |
Maghister you are a major step up from geoffkait when it comes to going on and on about nebulous products and solutions. thanks for the appreciation... The reason is simple i sells nothing and my solutions cost nothing....But i must admit i appreciate excentric or unorthodox character ....Geoffkait included... This intellectual challenge: how to improve audio, is not interesting at all if we use money...Anybody can buy a costly amplifier and plug it with the "illusion" sometimes of hi-fi.... Using only brain, basic science only, and peanuts cost homemade device is my way.... |
I pity the fool who actually reads this entire thread thinking they will learn something about wire directionality.
nobody can throw light in that in few post anywhere...
Kudos to maghister though for throwing the intellectual kitchen sink at the problem though . At least there is some interesting things there.
You are generous with me thanks....I speak too much but the subject interested me and not for audiophile reason at all.... I dont need cables....I dont but costly one .... I dont have an opinion about direction but the problem is way more deep than the skeptic would want to admit.... |
One of the best examples of this fact is the taste perception of cilantro. A large portion of the population think it tastes vaguely like parsley, and another portion think it tastes like dish soap. All our senses work at different levels in different people. Its just an opinion, not an argument. Very good observation... But remember that pour sense are determined by our paricular history and biological and spiritual make -up...
Has to do with our DNA. My wife is one who tastes soap, it isn't an opinion.
Yes DNA and history.... |
It's going to take way more words that have been spewed in this thread to-date to solve this one folks. Step it up!
I cannot oppose that... And i am guilty for the number of words... 😊😁 |
I don't really understand what you're saying. Love is an emotion which is strictly the province of the brain the heart has nothing to do with it. People who get heart transplants don't suddenly stop loving their family and start loving the donors family.
Study more... 😊 |
No, you use an fMRI. Love is in the brain not the heart The nervous system cover the entire body heart included... The heart and the brain are separated in space not in their working functions... they act together.... Speakers and room are separated in space (like the heart and brain are separated in the body) not for hearing... |
Clearly, regardless of the scientific advancement, our sensory systems are still better than the best instruments.
No they are not. It’s not even debatable. the concept of "accuracy" has 2 meanings at least: Accuracy means exactitude by the numbers and when we speak of this "accuracy" we speak about a measure executed in SOME selected dimension with SOME selected parameters...NOT for all dimensions and ALL parameters... Accuracy means also the correlation and controls by human thinking process and perception above and around the selected dimension and the chosen parameters.... A microphone DO NOT replace human ears perception....It is a tool that complement it at best.... Then your affirmation is plain non sense or confusion between the 2 meanings of "accuracy".... Choose one.... |
There is a reason drug testing is done double blind, for some reason, I fail to understand, audiophiles can not seem to grasp this. The methodology for blind test is STATISTICAL... It work with big numbers like in drug testing not with few individuals tested... Second the borderline audible change may benefit for their attestation from a "small group" blindtest testing process but this process of testing in "one shot" cannot invalidate once and for all the non-existence of the effects because of this singular test conditions ... Bias are not always also something to be eliminated...A selection of trained subject is necessary...Then the test ask for the elimination of certain bias but the selection of some other bias called "abilities"... Blindtest is a complex matter and almost all people FAIL to understand what is at stake and how.... Then accusing audiophiles means something about you more than about the audiophiles by the way.... |
Researchers making a profit from their work are not likely to share information until it has little remaining value. Sometimes information has strategic value to a government, in that case access is restricted. I refer to this as getting a visit from the "boys in black" should you step across the line. There is definitely considerable information related to sound and conduction that fall into that category Very good observation or experience... It is clear for all to see that there exist 2 kind of science: one open and retarded, the other linked to power and money in advance and not to be found in peer reviewed litterature... We live in 2 worlds.... One world is poor the other is not....No power reside in the first.... The survival of the world is related to the reunification of the world... |
I think that the challenges about wires posed to the tecnological tools by the hypothesis of Anton linked to the specifity and irreductibility of human perception in relation to the limits of the mesuring process when we encounter human consciousness is the TRUE matter of this discussion, not only the protocols of a blindtest for it....
It is the reason why i am interested in this thread...
My 500 bucks audio syystem is complete, no upgrades are necessary, and with my mechanical equalizer working optimally for my ears, any cables upgrade, even positive, at costly price is not in my purchasing view... There is a qualitative treshold in sound experience pleasure... I reach it...And i listen music not sound difference, my hooby is not changing the gear to distract my boredom like some reviewer advocate...
Then it is the correspondence between this human consciousness of the sound and the presence and interruption or potential replacement by the most powerful technologies which interested me...
The only growing religion in the world now is a form of transhumanism for which there is no more place for the uniqueness of the consciousness and his irreductibility to matter and technology....
Then awake yourself to the true subject here and spare us the bad jokea about cables...
By the way i dont have a postive or negative opinion about cable direction "per se"... We need test and even blindtest here if you ever need.... And also more than that we need thinking and this was my point... |
Place theory is what Bekesy worked on with the cochlea, he came up with his traveling wave theory which won the Nobel prize. Yes and he never equate pitch with frequency nor he reduced hearing to fourrier analysis... Anyway if you read my last posts above quoting from the Master Handbook you will understand what i speak about....in the master handbook of acoustic pitch is not described as only frequency or linearly related to frequency.... Reality is way more complex.... Pitch
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/pitch.html#c1 The fact that some tool work with the hypothesis of this reduction dont infirm the question linked to the nature of sound and hearing..... read Ansermet and Essien.... i apologize here because Alas! Ansermet is not translate in english.... The fundamental question is simple: his human consciousness an epiphenomenon or the essential phenomenon... With Essien and Ansermet i think that human consciousness is fundamental and irreducible to quantity, measure, or the brain mechanic ... The qualitative experience of the world is irreductible... But our friend here claim the opposite and i guess you also.... I will recommend to you the books or youtube video of Bernardo Kastrup about consciouness fundamental reality ... materialism is dead long ago.... It is only technology evolution that hide this fact to some... If you are not afraid of big book my philosopher for general knowledge theory is Ernst Cassirer... |
This is just the "suite" of the place theory coming from Helnholtz.... |
Pitch is by definition reducible to frequencies. Pitch is a definition. That does not mean we can’t fool the brain, or distort the auditory system to create a perception of a pitch that does not match the true frequency components. But that is like trying to argue an optical illusion is the real result, not what is actually in the underlying image. WOW! You repeat it....It is very articulate and clear thanks.... i think we will have much to discuss ..... Perhaps i will learn something thanks to you.... But you are wrong i think....Very wrong....But for sure unlike Essien or Ansermet i am not competent in any way to say that.... I say it in a friendly manner in the discussion .... I hope you will understand.... Pitch is NOT a "definition" it is a particular specific perception non linearly reducible to frequencies... Nor for Essien neither for Ansermet...Between a definition and a perception there is an ocean .... Anyway for you we are mystics.... 😊 I am a disciple of Goethe and Husserl....And of Cassirer.... By the way in the master handbook of acoustics they are way more cautious than you: " Because pitch is somewhat different from frequency" MASTER HANDBOOK OF ACOUSTIC if pitch as his own UNIT the "mel" (because of this loudness conventional psychoacoustical treshold of 60 Db used in experiments), and described by this handbook as different from frequencies, how in the world could it be REDUCIBLE to frequencies like you just said? explain please? Oh! i know it is just psychoacoustic studying subjective illusory Auditive illusion of a bunch of humans.... is it not? did i understand you correctly? |
How about we move the discussion into the 20th century.
https://neuro.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/131/2020/12/PDF1.pdf
Thanks for the link..... 😁😊 i already own the masterbook of acoustic tough.... But this is shorter read... «Pitch is a subjective term. It is chiefly a function of frequency, but it is not linearly related to it. Because pitch is somewhat different from frequency, it requires another subjective unit, the mel. Frequency is a physical term measured in hertz. Although a soft 1-kHz signal is still 1 kHz if you increase its level, the pitch of a sound may depend on sound-pressure level. A reference pitch of 1,000 mels is defined as the pitch of a 1-kHz tone with a sound-pressure level of 60 dB.» Master handbook of acoustic p.85 Nothing i read made Essien nor Ansermet ridiculous by the way....Nor obsolete at all like you affirm.... But it is only the begininng of my reading..... By the way my mechanical equalizer distribution and location of tubes and tunable pipes use the loudness level of each of my speaker in a different way to make my 2 ears able to recreate a 3-d holographic soundstage by working with better timing between reflecting and direct waves.... I get the idea arguing with you.... Then who knows ! you will give me an another one.... anyway thanks.... |
my use of the word "denouncing" is not the better word to use but the idea does not change...
For sure pitch is not reducible to frequencies .... But It is what you affirm to me erroneously in one of your post ... |
I wouldn’t be lumping Bekesy in this argument as agreeing with Essien. Békésy cannot agree with a future writer after his death... But he was one of those who prove that there is more than Fourrier analysis to hearing.... His Nobel prize is linked to that.... Are you an authority in acoustic now? Did you read Essien? if so, what does he speak about? 😁😊 BéKÉSY : The Missing Fundamental and Periodicity Detection in Hearing 1972 |
is pitch perception totally reducible to frequencies? you must answer to my question.... You have already claimed that to me i assume your opinion has not changed.... NO ONE has claimed this in over 100 years. This is not news Then why BÉKÉSY feel the urge to denounciate this reduction exactly 50 years ago ? Békésy know what he speak about in hearing theory, his Nobel prize come from his research in this field....This not an authority argument this is a fact that reinforce the perspective of what he said and from which context... He quotes decades if not 100+ year old references Sorry to contradict you he quoted the more recent references in acoustic, i OWN the 500 pages book just published...The book is in my hand... 😊 Ansermet book also.... |
Mahgister, at some point will you communicate the magical connection between direction of a wire and also how the ear works? In this thread anton spoke about a writer in acoustic Essien... I bought the book... You said that this guy is a crook or a fraud... You never even read it... My post was not an appeal to authority... Read it carefully all three say the some thing and go in the same direction... Contradicting what you have claimed: pitch IS frequency nothing more... that is the point of my post...
Nothing that Bekesy or anyone else you mentioned has one iota of relevance to the discussion.
For the link between Essien concept and Anton concept about the direction of wire there is no direct connection.... An indirect one, yes, linked to the fact that human hearing is not explanable with the psychoacoustic of frequencies actual theories for the time being....Then measuring apparatus inspired by these acoustic theory so precise they are perhaps dont measure all that is there, for the listening ears... it is you who use the autorithy card by declaring other like Essien a fraud...And dont pertaining to the discussion... the OP think otherwise... There is no red herring in my post.... The concept defended by anton and his Russian master appeal to the fact also that hearing is not explainable by a Fourrier like generalysed theory... Then unable to answer to these 3 people an articulate answer: Ansermet, Essien, Békésy, you accuse me of using authority, red herrings... 😁😊 this is not a great argument my friend .... Please be fair and respectful of the ARGUMENTS here...It is not a pissing contest.... I want myself to understand and i dont pretend to understand.... Do you yourself understand? if yes, answer directly and not by ACCUSATIONS.... For all these three thinkers there is more in pitch than in Fourrier analysis.... The reason why this is such is explained in Ansermet and in Essien in another perspective.... Then accusing me of being out of the discussion is untrue... Save if you decide yourself unilaterally... The fact that human hearing is not reducible to actual acoustical conceptions is in the center of this discussion... The OP itself think so.... Then answer me: do you go on claiming that pitch and frequencies are the same phenomenon? Békésy claim that the ear dont function like a fourrier analyser at all....Like Essien... like Ansermet... You are right and they are wrong? Or the opposite? and WHY |
I would not waste your time on Essien. He comes across a bit of a fraud. You dont have read Essien and cannot judge it...Sorry... Ok i just verified in the big book of Ernest Ansermet " the foundations of music in human consciousness" P.18 He WARN us about the Helmholtz error pointed by Essien ( who dont cited him and probably dont know the book of Amsermet) the 2 writers say the same thing: ( the translation from french is my own....) «Musical consciousness did not base tonal relations on the relation of a sound and its "harmonics" but on the relation of a sound and other real sounds whose frequencies are to its own in the same relation than the frequency of the "harmonics" from a fundamental sound. The sounds of which we have just compared the structures of durations (fourth, fifth, third, octave scale) nonetheless constitute what we can call "a harmonic series of sounds" which we will therefore be careful not to confuse with the series of "harmonics" of a sound, an error of Helmholtz in which all theorists persevere, not that they confuse a real sound and a harmonic sound, but because, observing the phenomenon from the outside and relating it to the watch, they qualify the sounds of the "harmonic series" in the same way as the "harmonics" of a sound, which makes them miss the exact meaning of the phenomenon for the perceptual consciousness ...» Ansermet P.18 «In prehistoric physics, string tension is the size of the oppositely-directed force exerted on a string regardless of the string’s physical dimensions. On this basis Pythagoras (6th century B.C) established the string ratio theory of musical pitch intervals. Later physics converted the ratios into frequency ratios and created the frequency scale for musical pitch intervals mathematically even though string ratios are not invariant with pitch intervals. These incoherent data constitute the basis of Ohm‘s acoustic law (1843), Helmholtz’s resonance theory (1877) and modern psychoacoustic theories of pitch. In the illusive quest for pitch in frequency analysis of sound, Ohm and Helmholtz have been proved wrong;.... » Essien abstract of " The tension theory of pitch production and perception" Then i dont think that it will be possible to accuse Ansermet to be a fraud...He speak of what he knows best here : musical tonal sounds / versus acoustical sounds... If the 2 Ansermet and Essien say the same thing and formulated the same critic about the psychoacoustic reductive theory of Helmholtz it will be difficult to speak of fraud about the 2 writers who dont know one another... And what say Békésy: «"The validity of Ohm’s law was always considered only as a first approach to a complex problem of frequency analysis. It was always clear that the ear does not react like a simple Fourier frequency analyzer. There is a very large set of experiments that show that Ohm’s law is only a first approach and is not always leading to correct conclusions, even in the field of telephone engineering, where it was so successful." (Békésy, 1972 In 1961, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research on the function of the cochlea in the mammalian hearing organ is Békésy a crook or a fraud also? Then confusing pitch and frequencies is an error.....A bad technological habit....Not an understanding.... But it is only a beginning... To be continued......... |
In my opinion, it resonates with Essien and Ansermet and can explain the importance of long tests. Gestalt psychology was created by disciple and readers of Goethe and readers of Kant corrected by Goethe study...Especially his color theory and his morphology of plants...Which are 2 among the deepest and beautifully ever written books in all history.... Like the "fractal objects" or Euclid geometry.....Books of art and science at the same time.... Where the observer is immersed in the things contemplated and in relation with them in an internal way and not only an external way and where the part always reflect the Whole ....... Gestalt points of concentration are born from Goethe.... And in my opinion Goethe is in the group of the greatest geniuses in history... He founded phenomenology BEFORE Husserl....Among other things... And he successfully wrestle with Newton in color theory.... And he goes beyond Linne and reach Darwin step by himself, whitout succombing to any mechanictic thinking ever...He is too deep to be easily understood in spite of the fact that his thinking and prose are crystal clear contrary for example to Husserl...I read it in translation some german reader can contradict me here... 😁😊 No one could underestimated the only litterary genius on par with Shakespeare and many others in other fields... He is well known for his studies in natural science and at his death this superhuman owned the greatest indivudual samples collection of specimen in natural science.... Reducing him to be a "poet" is ridiculous even if he is on par with Shakespeare or Homer.... |
Yes, аny audible interference in a signal can be measured because мeasuring devices are much more sensitive than hearing. At the same time when you reverse a cable and hear it, there is no interference in the signal that can be heard in some way, this was proved by Self and Co. Hence, in fact, the question of the topic "what do we hear when the wire is reversed?" Very interesting remark....Only Essien has ever adressed this problem if i read it right...But not in the same context than you Anton: electrical design of wire.... |
Once you go much beyond 30 seconds, effectively you are not really comparing two sound anymore, but are comparing factors you have identified (or not) in those sounds, Exactly.... BUT there is not only a short conscious memory span associated to sound like you suggest but a longer memory span associated with the body feeling unconscious memory of musical experience ( called that a learned bias)😁 .... And the body need more time to adjust retrieving what he knows already in some way and say his words...Sound is not music and anyway music is not only sound image but also sound body.... Read Essien and Ansermet for the difference between sound image and sound body ( Essien) or musical consciousness (Ansermet)...The 2 writers cannot be ignorant or only amateurs saying the same thing in a complete different way and from complete different perspective...Read Ansermet curriculum...The 2 writers wrote only one big book after 50 years of research each one in a life dedicated to sound for one and for music the other.... They say the same thing or pointed toward the same direction in spite of their differences Calling them incompetents will not be an argument by itself....For sure i am open to discuss because calling them geniuses will not do the job either, even if they are.... Reality is more complex than the technology of omelette recipe....Particularly music acoustical reality....But i know that you know that, even if we differs in perspective...And i know that you are way more knowledgeable than me in audio by the way....I will accept gladly the discussion because i wanted to learn... We understand anyway each other about the fact that the short and longer time delay in a test will reveal different things... They dont matter for you these things but they matters for some... 😊 Precision: i dont have an opinion about the subject matter of this thread by the way.... I am not competent to express one... I am only interested by the OP dedication, ideas and personal experience and the consequences of this fact if it is proven right...Like i am interested by ideas and knowledge of some here like the poster ,dletch2 , adressed by this post... |
Very good points thanks..... |
Erich Fetzenwhaller
There is no mention of his name on the internet... then? |
I would not waste your time on Essien. I appreciate your input... But we are too different animals to understand ourselves intellectually... This is the bad news... The good news is i like discussing with friends which are in a complete opposite direction... It is with them that l learn the most...Then i appreciate greatly your patience with me....You contributed greatly to my pleasure being here.... I apologize for being hard head and from your perspective "ignorant"... I am ignorant but perhaps a little bit less than what you will be inclined to think... Anyway my best to you.... |
Forgetting for a minute that Penrose has limited to zil knowledge of modern theoretical neuroscience, this is not at all what he claimed. What he claimed, paraphrasing and summarizing, is that the brain can tap into quantum computing. That is still computing. He is misquoted or selectively quoted as saying "not computational", but in full context, more accurately it would be not algorithmic, though many brain and thought processes absolutely are Hameroff is a specialist in neurons microtubules...He works with him for 20 years and more... And ALL computations are algorithmic by definition of a computation...Quantum "computations" are more a controlled physical process first which we will harness second, like a horse, with classical computers for rider... The brain does not tap in an hypothetic quantum cosmic computer for Penrose....You dont know his "orchestrated objective reduction" theory sorry.... I made another point here... Simple to correct you in 5 seconds with WIKI( the uppercase is mine) : « Penrose suggested that objective reduction represents neither randomness nor algorithmic processing but instead a NON-COMPUTABLE influence in spacetime geometry from which mathematical understanding and, by later extension, consciousness derives. [18]You are right it is OFF topic but i could not let this pass free.... By the way there is no best theory of consciousness in neurology circle save the Phi theory of Tononi...which is interesting but way less deep and revolutionary....Anyway none of the 2 are incompatible with one another and what i like with Tononi is the separation between intelligence and conciousness... I think Tononi is right with that relative separation.... 😊 For the direction of the wire i cannot discuss i will let Anton speak for him...I dont experimented with wire direction myself then.... I am interested by Essien more.... |
The brain is effectively a computer, I don’t think that is disputable and pitch, by definition at least is, quite literally, frequency. You can dispute how the brain computes, but still a computer. The brain is not a computer at all and one of the greatest scientist think so with many others.. ( Penrose/Hameroff) and there is others... And you hide some truth here under a wrong statement: Pitch as a human perception CORRELATE to mathematical frequencies... It is a correlation not an identity....Psychoacoustic is based on an ongoing process of correlation between human perceptions and mathematics...But this does not means that this process will end by reduction of the human factor to an equation or an egality....Like the transhumanist credo... Science is NOT faith.... At least correct your sentence if you dont want to correct your understanding... But perhaps you believe that all that is human is reducible to A.I. ? Then you are right.... If this equality express this belief clearly the Essien book is completely wrong....A complete retarded spirit.... If the Brain compute with Fourrier analysis the frequencies "equal" to pitch and if pitch is completely reducible to frequencies and Fourrier analysis this book made absolutely no sense...There is no more need of a human consciousness to perceive and create music phenomena...A pitch which is a semantic phenomenon in music expression is reducible to BITS.... And your favorite theorems in information theory says all there is to say.... 😁😊 Dont bother to read the book , you will not be able to read it at all, like a monotheist cannot read shamans books and undersatanding them... And this Nigerian is without doubt a shaman and you are a monotheist...Is it not? Simple...... 😁😊😊😊 |
There is a fundamental difference in understanding water and using it...
There is a fundamental difference between using light with laser and understanding what is light...
There is a fundamental difference between using electricity and understanding what it is...
There is a fundamental differences between using the prime numbers in cryptography and understanding what they are...
There is a fundamental difference say Ernest Ansermet between using musical sounds and undersatanding what they are....This stay a mystery for him and he was not born in nigeria... 😁 And he does not need any peer review for his book one of the deepest analysis of music ever written to this day....
There is a fundamental difference between using speech ability of A.I. and developing them for internet and understanding what are the "atoms " of language in phonology and how they act on the surface level of language for example....What is language is not a question answered by A.I. technology....
Then i will read the nigerian non peer reviewed book because the artyicle i read was original and clever and surprizing and based on experiments easy to verify by the way....
Then we need only to think to read the book i will read it.... |
I have to repeat: Essien refers to a lot of authoritative opinions, and you just reduce all their thoughts to zero without doubt. Whose words are silly then? Essien if he is right, proves with experiments very simple one by the way, that all the research enebriated by his technological success has never been able to solve the hearing problem because of the false assumptions that the brain is a computer and that pitch is in some way reducible to frequency.... But if there is a mechanical very concrete forgotten factor at the source and production of sound and if the air is only the vector of the sound image not of this sound body, then what is sound? Sound is no more what we think it was...and the ears is not linked to a brain wich would be mainly a computer... I will say no more i just received the book.... In my opinion, doing double or triple-blind tests with something that’s an acquired taste won’t provide scientifically sound results. Wise! This acquired taste is often a new learning habit also whose exercice takes place like you already said yourself, in a controlled room or space or at least a relaxing environment like a long month camp holiday.... Science has almost nothing to do with blindtest...The industrial process has all to do with it....Standardization and controls are the key words related to blindtest with statistic....And this is at best.... After that it is a useless James Randi Show.... |
