douglas_schroeder2,988 posts04-23-2021 7:15amAnd nobody who is so chintzy that they won't spend any money on better wires is going to admit they might make a difference.
We have some serious problems with attitudes and methodology in this community. :(
And nobody with limited financial resources who spent a significant amount of disposable money on something that makes no difference is going to go out of their way to show they wasted money. You are correct, we have serious problems with attitudes and methodologies, starting with the attitude of infallibility, followed by using methodologies that never test that infallibility. Glad you noticed. |
@mahgister
"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." It reminds me of the story of the origin of the musical temperament. For the sake of convenience, they sacrifice the purity of the tone and gradually accustom everyone to the fact that it sounds normal. "In musical tuning, a temperament is a tuning system that slightly compromises the pure intervals of just intonation to meet other requirements. Tempering is the process of altering the size of an interval by making it narrower or wider than pure". wiki |
We have some serious problems with attitudes and methodology in this community. :(
Your attitude of more money = better is a problem in modern audio components and your previous comment on your methodology is comical. So for once I agree with you. |
And nobody who is so chintzy that they won't spend any money on better wires is going to admit they might make a difference.
We have some serious problems with attitudes and methodology in this community. :(
|
nobody who spends that much on wires is going to admit they make zero difference.
period.
|
If there is a shift, a skewing, imbalance tonally, dynamically, etc. then further exploration/discussion is necessary. Yes, you either have some contacts you need to clean, you plugged the directionally shielded interconnect in wrong (unlikely), you need to get rid of those silly cables with the overpriced RC tone control built in, return those Tellurium speaker cables, because who thought a cable whose parameters shift big just by moving them was a good idea, or have someone make the change for you, because odds are you are imagining it. Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is the most likely. |
@dougschroeder
people hate it when you come on here and say stuff that just makes sense but creates work
people here want to sit on their behinds and type endlessly and argue
so please stop |
Meanwhile, for those who want to actually build better audio systems, try my Imbalanced System Test, wherein you take the "directional" wires and for half the system turn them around the wrong way. Listen. If there is a shift, a skewing, imbalance tonally, dynamically, etc. then further exploration/discussion is necessary.
If, however, there is no noticeable difference, then you have demonstrated in your system with those cables that it fails what I call my Law of Efficacy. It's a worthless "improvement", and directionality with those wires is negligible.
That is how one goes about actually improving audio systems. It's really not so hard, and it doesn't take dozens of philosophical posts, and it doesn't take concern that there is no way to resolve the issue.
There was a time when audiophilia was eminently sensible. It's not anymore - as an be seen here. :( |
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... |
|
Place theory is what Bekesy worked on with the cochlea, he came up with his traveling wave theory which won the Nobel prize. |
This is just the "suite" of the place theory coming from Helnholtz.... |
I'll stick with the Britannica. That's deep enough for me. The ear actually functions as a type of Fourier analysis device, with the mechanism of the inner ear converting mechanical waves into electrical impulses that describe the intensity of the sound as a function of frequency. Ohm’s law of hearing is a statement of the fact that the perception of the tone of a sound is a function of the amplitudes of the harmonics and not of the phase relationships between them. This is consistent with the place theory of hearing, which correlates the observed pitch with the position along the basilar membrane of the inner ear that is stimulated by the corresponding frequency. https://www.britannica.com/science/sound-physics/The-ear-as-spectrum-analyzer |
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? |
For sure pitch is not reducible to frequencies .... But It is what you affirm to me erroneously in one of your post ... 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. |
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 ... |
Then why BÉKÉSY feel the urge to denounciate this reduction exactly 50 years ago ? He did not even denounce Ohm, he said it was always obvious Ohm was not the be all and end all. Seebeck showed that 170 years ago. Bekesy was not "denouncing" , he was just making a statement. How about we move the discussion into the 20th century. https://neuro.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/131/2020/12/PDF1.pdfFrom Wikipedia, essentially why he got the Nobel, "Békésy concluded from these observations that by exciting different locations on the basilar membrane different sound wave frequencies excite different nerve fibers that lead from the cochlea to the brain. He theorized that, due to its placement along the cochlea, each sensory cell ( hair cell) responds maximally to a specific frequency of sound (the so-called tonotopy). Békésy later developed a mechanical model of the cochlea, which confirmed the concept of frequency dispersion by the basilar membrane in the mammalian cochlea." You will note nothing in there about what happens after ear, and how far we have progress when you look at the article I linked. |
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 |
I wouldn't be lumping Bekesy in this argument as agreeing with Essien. I would need to see the reference where this quote of Bekesy came from. From what little I understand Bekesy is being used out of context here was always clear that the ear does not react like a simple Fourier frequency
analyzer. |
Absolutely nothing.
Nope, NASA never cared about the directionality of cabling...
Except when the Gorilla tried to put the round end into the square end. |
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.... |
The ear, again, is a bunch of receptor behind band-pass filters effectively. That is the sensor. That says nothing about the processing behind it, whether there is crosstalk, etc.
Békésy claim that the ear dont function like a fourrier analyser at all....Like Essien... like Ansermet...
NO ONE has claimed this in over 100 years. This is not news. Essien has brought exactly 0 to the argument. Heck, if people listened to him, we would be going backwards. He proudly bleats that he has discovered something new. For him maybe. He quotes decades if not 100+ year old references to justify his bleating, meanwhile ignoring decades and decades of deep work into how human hearing works. He is an artist, trying to tell a rocket scientist how propulsion works, using feelings. |
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 |
Mahgister, at some point will you communicate the magical connection between direction of a wire and also how the ear works? Nothing that Bekesy or anyone else you mentioned has one iota of relevance to the discussion. You have wrapped up a red herring, a causal fallacy, an appeal to authority all into a few posts.
To respond to your post, Ohm's law (not a scientific law by current definition), is not completely incorrect. The fundamental sensor of the ear is a bunch of detectors with effectively bandpass filters in front of them. The result could be considered similar to a Fourier transform. This "law" was put forth 40 years before we even knew what neurons were. Ohms conclusions were grossly simplistic, lacking knowledge of so many aspects of the brain, the ear, the mechanics of the ear, neurons, neural connections, or the brain in general ..... all of which has no relevance to the direction of a wire. This is all a red herring as it speaks nothing to audibility, only that the ear/brain is an imperfect instrument. |
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......... |
Do you doubt the accuracy of the measurements taken by Self or... I haven't seen any measurements at least not in the link in your original post. |
What do we hear when we change the direction of a wire? Nobody seems to know for sure. It’s a rhetorical question obviously, but I can definitely see people rolling their eyes if that will do. |
@Mahgister, I will probably never read all of these Gestalt dedicated books you suggested, much less understand them at your level. But I believe your inspired words, thank you for explanation.
|
@djones51
IMO bias is the most likely reason.
Do you doubt the accuracy of the measurements taken by Self or...? |
I don’t know of any tests done on audible effects of wire direction. In my very limited unscientific use I’ve never noticed any difference in RCA or speaker cable direction. XLR only goes one way and I have no desire to take the connections off and reverse them . All I use now is XLR AES3 connections. My system is all active and digital. Thanks! The structure of the wire was excluded by Self. Then only bias? IMO bias is the most likely reason. |
Sorry, dletch2 you didn't reference that article by Self, the OP did. |
@djones51
Without controlled testing we don't really know if the difference is
caused by the structure of the wire or bias of the listener. Thanks! The structure of the wire was excluded by Self. Then only bias? |
djones513,810 posts04-22-2021 1:44pmIt's what Self wrote in the article you referenced.
https://www.backtomusic.ru/audio-engineering/theory/science-and-subjectivism
Well that certainly takes my impression of him down a few notches. It is not a difficult concept. Cables are effectively a bunch of capacitors, resistors, and inductors in a series/parallel arrangement, just like any other circuit. The function from input to output is not the same as output to input, at AC frequencies. It is at DC. |
Without controlled testing we don't really know if the difference is caused by the structure of the wire or bias of the listener. In determining if something is real and repeatable every parameter needs to be accounted for. |
@djones51
What we hear when cables are reversed ? Same as when they aren't. Thank you for your direct opinion, I appreciate it. But hypothetically, if we assume that this difference exists for others, what do you think could be the reason for it? |
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.... |
|
Uuh ooh aah
we have the ‘scientists’ disagreeing. Maybe we are finally getting somewhere... Fat Chance!
Maybe we should get them to debate the conductivity aspects of molecular lattice structures in crystals next.... |
Audio signals are AC. Cables cannot be directional any more than 2 + 2 can equal 5. @djones51, I would not hang your hat on this specific statement (made by Self?). It is simply not true, though perhaps even many engineers believe it. Cables cannot be directional at DC. They can and are directional at AC frequencies, however, at audio frequencies, that directional component would be far below audibility. |
@mahgister
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...
Mahgister, what do you think about Gestalt philosophy? "Gestalt theories of perception are based on human nature being inclined to understand objects as an entire structure rather than the sum of its parts." "This is in contrast to investigations developed at the beginning of the 20th century, based on traditional scientific methodology, which divided the object of study into a set of elements that could be analyzed separately with the objective of reducing the complexity of this object. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychologyIn my opinion, it resonates with Essien and Ansermet and can explain the importance of long tests. |
I'll agree with Douglas Self Cables are directional, and pass audio better in one direction than the other.”
Audio signals are AC. Cables cannot be directional any more than 2 + 2 can equal 5. Anyone prepared to believe this nonsense won’t be capable of designing amplifiers, so there seems no point in further comment. What we hear when cables are reversed ? Same as when they aren't. |
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.... |
djones513,807 posts
04-21-2021 10:14pm
If interference is bad enough in a signal to be heard it can be measured.
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?" |
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... |
The point here is that wires and other anomalies cannot be evaluated in quick tests. A quick test aims to detect small changes in the FR and distortion factor as accurately as possible, and this is where its advantages end. Long tests (a few minutes and more) evaluate everything else, revealing those little subjective things that turn sounds into music. Listen as long as you want. It make no difference. Except the longer you listen, the harder it will be to identify a difference. If you wish to hamper yourself that way, that is your choice. I would suggest doing both. A quick test aims to detect small changes in the FR and distortion factor as accurately as possible No, this is not correct. Switching times are typically short because our echoic memory is very short (<5 seconds), and our working memory is also very short, i.e. <30 seconds, and comparisons using these memories are far higher resolution than any other memory imprint. 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, hence why the reliability of detection of changes drops. |
Very good points thanks..... |
@arthur1260
Evolution taught our brain what's relevant and what not. We moved to a new apartment, near train tracks, first few days/weeks were a bit unusual but we got used to it, now we can sleep through the night, though the trains are still going on time.
I can easily imagine that originally our ears (and maybe bodies) are capable of picking up a much wider frequency spectrum than the current science considers de facto, but due to our planet getting noisier our brains just filter things out in the conscious domain (as proven by scientists). It could be that our brains go into a different state (alpha or theta) while listening to music, it widens the acceptance of frequencies which enables our brain to sense or perceive something different. And that could be the point where traditional science fails to answer, especially if it starts with the well-known and accepted theorem that humans' audible spectrum is 20hz to 20khz. Traffic noise perception is a good analogy! The adaptation of hearing is used in subjective tests, when it is necessary to separate changes in the frequency response (FR) from more subtle moments. For example, when we evaluate the sound of two different speakers, we are faced with a difference in the FR and coloration at the same time, but by default we attribute everything to the FR. The adaptation of hearing helps to separate these two sensations - for some reason, a person clearly feels changes in FR only for a short period of time after their occurrence, and all this time the attention is involuntarily focused on the FR, and the rest of the moments remain in the background unnoticed. After some time (for everyone in different ways), the perception adjusts to the new conditions and you stop feeling the tonal imbalance at all, from this moment the consciousness begins to confidently fix all the other aspects of the music. It's like walking into a dark room from bright light and having to wait for the eye to adjust to the dark. The point here is that wires and other anomalies cannot be evaluated in quick tests. A quick test aims to detect small changes in the FR and distortion factor as accurately as possible, and this is where its advantages end. Long tests (a few minutes and more) evaluate everything else, revealing those little subjective things that turn sounds into music. |
My mechanic actually is a good psychologist. That guy figures you out in one sentence. I am so happy that he happens to be great mechanic, too. |
Erich Fetzenwhaller, a brilliant --- physicist --- who also understood the inner workings, failings, and weaknesses of the --- human mind ---. My mechanic thinks he is a pretty good psychologist too, and epidemiologist too. It is a good thing he is a mechanic. |
