dletch281 posts
04-20-2021 7:47pm
A very weak conclusion, not at all supported by evidence in the paper which is mainly just a bunch of ramblings to support statements/conclusions attributed in general and specifically that are not even factual.
I must admire his conclusion which does not even recognize that he could be wrong, which, without establishing any evolutionary influence for music negates his conclusion. Frankly, the whole work basically implies that everyone has a super simplistic view when pretty obviously we understand there are complex mechanisms right from physical detection up to interpretation. The whole thing is a mess. Definitely, everything you said can be applied to your own message, especially "does not even recognize that he could be wrong". Essien refers to a lot of authoritative opinions, and you just reduce all their thoughts to zero without any doubt. Essien's main contribution is that he discovered the unsolvable problems in understanding of sound and explained what they are: "(In our perception) the instruments do not mix together and produce one instrument, and the singers are seen as separate individuals, different from the instruments. In like manner, when the singers sing accompanied by the instruments, the ear sees them as separate entities; they do not mix in the ear and produce one sound quality... At the acoustic level, however, all the vibrations issuing from the different instruments and human singers mix to form the chaotic acoustic jumble "a meaningless jumble (Hirsch & Watson)" and establish the well-known production/perception paradox—the most defiant challenge to hearing scientists to untangle the cobweb and explain hearing by psychoacoustic procedures." This is indeed an unsolvable problem, and within the framework of modern knowledge, sound can be described and investigated only partially, its part, related to the most subtle perception, remains behind the scenes. |
nationalbar13 posts
04-20-2021 8:47pm
Far more important than cable directionality is cable channel. Once interconnects or speaker cables are burned in, there is a definite bias and significant difference between right or left channels. For example, if speaker cables were burned in by continuous playing of large orchestral music, the right channel cable will sound superior with lower frequencies whereas the left channel cable will sound strikingly better with mid and higher frequencies. This effect does not occur if cables were burned in by using mono recordings. Never heard of such a thing, very interesting. Thanks! |
Essien’s main contribution is that he discovered the unsolvable problems in understanding of sound and explained what they are: I ordered the book immediately... The reason is this is a so important unsolved problem that the writer is garbage or a genius... I opted for genius because his reflection remind me of the controversy between Newton and Goethe.... Goethe founded the neurophysiology of perception and the phenomenology of perception against the metaphysical corpuscular theory of Newton and his reduction of the color phenomena to a general mathematical theory of optic... In the same way against the acoustical physical mathematical physical theory of sound, Essien with many experiments argue for a forgotten mechanical invariant that could explain pitch perception, which is not explained nor explanable by the reduction of pitch to a pure mathematical Fourrier analysis...He called his theory the body-image theory of sound... Anyway nobody understand what sound is and how it is perceived, this is a beginning ....This fact is in all the serious litterature about sound.... We can use sound and mathematically use it in technology but understanding a phenomenon is not using it.... Then all engineer think they understand sound for sure especially with the Helmholtz Fourrier box tools...No problem.... But technology is NOT science.... I dont know if Essien is a genius or a deluded acoustician but i know for sure that Ansermet is right and is a genius and explain very well why pitch is not reducible to mathematical acoustic .... Then..... If i had not read Ansermet analysis 30 years ago i will had never bought Essien book.... The very deep connection to speech production and perception are for me the most important fact... If Essien is right the relation between phonology and linguistic are completely changed ....And anyway Ansermet, the great maestro author of perhaps the most important book about music , criticized rigourously the reduction of the musical sound and pitch to a pure acoustical mathematical approach and even had inversed the mathematical concept of logarythm creating a new qualitative concept more apt to describe the nature of the phenomenon .... Ansermet was lacking what is in Essien, and Essien dont know the deep philosophical analysis of Ansermet.... The 2 are complementary and need one another....Ansermet was one of the great maestro but a philosopher of the highest order.... It is evident that Essien book is pure garbage for some because apparently it contradict all of what is "known" but in fact redirect completely the sound hearing theory if his experiments made sense...The survival of Essien through the academic system and the final obtention of his doctorate in spite of his complete unorthodox theory speak volume...It takes him very long to succeed... I bet for it and will read the book .... I am certain that our friend here CANNOT think positively about something apparently so contradictory with what all he has learned... It is a redirection of the european musical theorizing in rethinking the pythagorean paradigm with a new mechanical invariant linked to pitch perception that will illuminate the sound phenomenon... I am excited.... I was waiting for this book without even knowing it.... Or all the book is garbage.... There is no other alternative: garbage book or genius.... I will see... |
glennewdick
An AC signal on a wire is still going both directions so how/why do you hear a difference?
This is the question that we are discussing - how and why. So far, neither is clear. |
@mahgister
Goethe founded the neurophysiology of perception and the phenomenology of perception against the metaphysical corpuscular theory of Newton and his reduction of the color phenomena to a general mathematical theory of optic...
In the same way against the acoustical physical mathematical physical theory of sound, Essien with many experiments argue for a forgotten mechanical invariant that could explain pitch perception, which is not explained nor explanable by the reduction of pitch to a pure mathematical Fourrier analysis... I think that somewhere here is the explanation of how people perceive music and why the measurements do not coincide with the subtle perception, even in a rough approximation. |
I think that somewhere here is the explanation of how people perceive music and why the measurements do not coincide with the subtle perception, even in a rough approximation. You are right on the spot... I read the first article and orderred the book immediately.... I have a great intuition for books... My job for almost 40 years was advising students in all fields about reading method which could help them in their works... I was waiting for this book without knowing it and cannot thank you enough for the article.... It is you who put the link here.... The deep enigma of language is also connected to the way we perceived sound speech... And the modern approach in structural phonology has exhausted his fecundity....We need to understand the relation between sound speech and musical sound to solve the enigma... This is why i am excited.... |
dletch2105 posts
04-20-2021 9:27pm
@glennewdick
Never figured out how you all can hear directionality in a wire for an AC signal.
A wire can only be directional for AC signals. It cannot be directional for DC. You have it backwards. I am not saying there will be anything audible, only that you must have AC for it to be directional. This is not actually true. The preferred direction can be determined in every circuit of an amplifier, see the article for details. |
@dletch2
This is not an advocacy for expensive power cables, but there are many ways the harmonics in the AC to get into the signal. Whether they do or not is a different question. The most obvious one is via the power supply, especially in a low feedback amplifier. Primary power supply harmonic is 120Hz, but with all the linear supplies, there are harmonics at many multiples of that frequency, certainly up to several KHz. Those big transformers audiophiles love get rid much of the really high frequencies.
Those high current peaks from the power amplifiers generate harmonic noise on the AC line that can get into other power supplies.
Those high current peaks can generate higher frequency EMI that can get into signal lines (at least a justification for shielding). Your logical chain doesn't have a logical end. If some objective interference enters the signal circuit and can be detected by ear, it should be easily measured. But we know that such interference cannot be measured even with the most accurate electrical measuring devices, see the article by Douglas Self. That 60Hz buzzing is not always just 60Hz. It is only something that happens 60 times a second. There can be rich harmonic content in that 60Hz buzz. Now that take 60Hz and harmonics and modulate a music signal with it. Now you have stuff all over the place.
There's not much logic in this explanation either. Аny audible modulations and harmonics that power cable can cause will still be multiples of 60 Hz, which is a periodic interference. If such interference gets into the signal circuit, it is simply superimposed on the sound of music without changing the timbre, dynamics, or anything else that we can notice by ear when replacing the power cable. So we need some better explanation for power cables. I don't see a lot of justification for the cost or claims about most high end power cords. Most of these power cord / cable designers have little knowledge of electronics which is evident in their claims. It works because their customers do not either. Vicious circle.
agree |
rodman999994,955 posts
04-20-2021 9:52pm
Again: no one can possibly know whether ANY given changes will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves. Anyone that knows anything about the sciences (Physics, in particular), realizes that something like 96% of what makes up/controls this universe, remains a mystery. Since the dawn of humanity; we've seen, heard, felt and otherwise witnessed phenomena, that none of the best minds could explain, UNTIL they developed a science or measurement, that could explain it. The Naysayer Church wants you to trust their antiquated science (1800’s electrical theory) and faith-based, religious doctrine, BLINDLY ("Trust ME!" = their credo). Theories have never proven or disproven anything. It’s testing and experimentation that proves or disproves theories. IF you’re interested in improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and the audacity to trust your own senses: TRY whatever piques your interest/curiosity, FOR YOURSELF. The faith-based, Naysayer Church HATES it when THAT happens! I wish I can express my thoughts as you do. Thank you for your comment. |
By the way, the taste of tea, as well as wine, depends on the dishes from which you drink them. The same wine from different glasses can make such a different impression that it can be confused with different wine. Anyone noticed this?
cheers to all)
|
@OP
Well, how do you think Riedel has established themselves at the forefront of wineglass design? The shape of the bowl, the height of the glass, the angle of the sides and the size of the opening.
All designed to deliver maximum satisfaction from a particular type of wine. Sugar, alcohol, tannins all factor into how the flavour travels through your mouth/nose.
So yeah, the shape of the glass matters |
I listened to instructions and am having Harney & Sons decaffeinated Ceylon tea with a bit of fig and orange marmelade. I think I will have to up the marmelade as I cannot even guess it is in. |
I would say Riedel established themselves mainly through effective marketing and business penetration strategy. They have not created anything that did not exist before. Even the stemless glass was common in Portuguese wine drinking, though traditionally clay, which many believe enhances the bouquet, which honestly don't know if it is true or not. I have been told it does, so now I am susceptible to bias. I just like the feel in my hand.
Harney and Sons is my other go to for decaf. I think I may prefer Barry's. Like music, the preference changes. |
anton_stepichev OP55 posts04-21-2021 3:49am
Your logical chain doesn’t have a logical end. If some objective interference enters the signal circuit and can be detected by ear, it should be easily measured. But we know that such interference cannot be measured even with the most accurate electrical measuring devices, see the article by Douglas Self.
I will simply point out that YOU said, it, not me. I don’t insist on blind testing because I like typing. I insist on it because humans are biased and no, their anecdotal evidence cannot be trusted and in this case should not be trusted as it is so easy to make the evidence far more reliable. However, I will also point to my other point about cable designers almost as a rule having no clue how electronics works, and even many "good" designers of electronics lack EMI experience. Hence they may not know the conditions required to generate measurable differences (if possible). That 60Hz buzzing is not always just 60Hz. It is only something that happens 60 times a second. There can be rich harmonic content in that 60Hz buzz. Now that take 60Hz and harmonics and modulate a music signal with it. Now you have stuff all over the place.
There’s not much logic in this explanation either. Аny audible modulations and harmonics that power cable can cause will still be multiples of 60 Hz, which is a periodic interference. If such interference gets into the signal circuit, it is simply superimposed on the sound of music without changing the timbre, dynamics, or anything else that we can notice by ear when replacing the power cable. So we need some better explanation for power cables.
Your statement and conclusions are wrong. They will not only be harmonics of 60Hz, but also harmonics of the modulation of 60Hz and the audio signal (if they exist, and really more 120Hz). However, any comments about "dynamics" are questionable and likely not backed up factually, again to this blind testing thing. A wire can only be directional for AC signals. It cannot be directional for DC. You have it backwards. I am not saying there will be anything audible, only that you must have AC for it to be directional. This is absolutely true. A wire can only be directional for AC signals. It cannot be directional for pure DC. Giving me links to people with a poor fundamental understanding of the science does not change that answer. |
@dletch2
Clearly you have a deep and profound understanding of wine, wine making and how the process of drinking it works.
They make a glass for pretty much every kind of wine and some spirits.
Because of my varied previous life, career and interests, I have had the good fortune of travelling to many wine regions. I also have many friends who are winemakers/vineyard owners - both in North America and in Italy. We would spend our summers on a vineyard in Tuscany.
Riedel was the groundbreaker in wine glass design. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for lo-fi wineglasses, as are commonly used everywhere. Table wines... But, if a special vintage is to be enjoyed to its fullest, the appropriate glass enhances the experience especially when paired with the "right" meal.
Synergy. Kind of like audio systems. Lo-fi systems that have their time and place when filling a room with sound is the purpose. But when listening is to be a "lose yourself in the moment, meditative experience", subtleties matter.
The law of diminishing returns applies to a system just as it applies to anything else
|
Essien's main contribution is that he discovered the unsolvable problems in understanding of sound and explained what they are:
"(In our perception) the instruments do not mix together and produce one instrument, and the singers are seen as separate individuals, different from the instruments. In like manner, when the singers sing accompanied by the instruments, the ear sees them as separate entities; they do not mix in the ear and produce one sound quality... At the acoustic level, however, all the vibrations issuing from the different instruments and human singers mix to form the chaotic acoustic jumble "a meaningless jumble (Hirsch & Watson)" and establish the well-known production/perception paradox—the most defiant challenge to hearing scientists to untangle the cobweb and explain hearing by psychoacoustic procedures."
This is indeed an unsolvable problem, and within the framework of modern knowledge, sound can be described and investigated only partially, its part, related to the most subtle perception, remains behind the scenes. No, some guy (Essien) who is not an expert on psychoacoustics, neural acoustics, neural processing, etc. stated that he discovered the unsolvable problem, that no one else thought of as unsolvable, and assigned himself as the expert (without peer review). When I read the things he writes, like that paragraph above, it just sounds really silly to me. There are other words that come to mind, and none of them are remotely kind because, what he wrote is silly. Let me giving you two really simple, common, every day examples to show how silly what he wrote is: "OKAY GOOGLE" "ALEXA" I can have my Echo playing music rather loudly, yet the Echo can still pick out ALEXA out of that chaotic acoustic jumble. Similarly, I can have my music rather loud, and my Google Home picks out "OKAY GOOGLE" from that chaotic acoustic jumble. Essien writes about sound like the brain does not even exist. How am I supposed to take that seriously. Good thing Amazon and Google figured out the production/perception paradox. |
Frankly, it is akin to a creationist trying to justify a 6,000 year old Earth using mysticism while ignoring everything inconvenient to the argument. |
These voice activated devices are truly amazing.
Now, if you have a radio on, at voice level volume, with a talk radio station on, and you have two people having a conversation in the room while you say "Hey Alexa", it’ll activate, no doubt. Now try to ask it something with the all that ambient playing, theres going to be a bunch of "Sorry, I didn’t understand that"...
|
Riedel was the groundbreaker in wine glass design. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for lo-fi wineglasses, as are commonly used everywhere. Table wines... But, if a special vintage is to be enjoyed to its fullest, the appropriate glass enhances the experience especially when paired with the "right" meal. I was not questioning whether a wine glass can modify our taste perception (it modifies the bouquet which modifies the taste), but whether Riedel is truly the one that started this [evidence of happening earlier] or even that what Riedel designates as the correct varietal glass, really are the correct ones for that variety. Pedantic? Perhaps, but I don't equate wine stemware to low-fi or hi-fi. I would equate it more to the acoustics of the room. We got a set of Zalto glasses as a gift. I understand these are near the penultimate for varietal stemware. I do really like them, but I think we are now at the level of boutique cables. People claim they are better because they are told they are, just like my cheap clay cups. |
"We got a set of Zalto glasses as a gift. I understand these are near the penultimate for varietal stemware. I do really like them, but I think we are now at the level of boutique cables. People claim they are better because they are told they are, just like my cheap clay cups."
Clay is great, just difficult to wash... May color the taste with a bit of "earthiness" I fear. Not sure thats the point of terroir.
Guess I'm an open minded sceptic. All i know for sure, is if I haven't experienced it, I've just imagined it. And as I have an active imagination, its not something I like to have run amok - usually brings me somewhere unpleasant. So, I like to try things before I pass judgement on what something does/is supposed to do.
|
@dletch2
Those high current peaks can generate higher frequency EMI that can get into signal lines (at least a justification for shielding).
@OP
Your logical chain doesn't have a logical end. If some objective interference enters the signal circuit and can be detected by ear, it should be easily measured. But we know that such interference cannot be measured
@dletch2
I will simply point out that YOU said, it, not me. I don’t insist on blind testing because I like typing. I insist on it because humans are biased and no, their anecdotal evidence cannot be trusted and in this case should not be trusted as it is so easy to make the evidence far more reliable.
Let me remind you of the question that you moved out of: If some objective interference enters the signal circuit and can be detected by ear, it should be easily measured. But we know that such interference cannot be measured in any serviceable amp. How can this be explained? |
@OP
Аny audible modulations and harmonics that power cable can cause will still be multiples of 60 Hz, which is a periodic interference. If such interference gets into the signal circuit, it is simply superimposed on the sound of music without changing the timbre, dynamics, or anything else that we can notice by ear when replacing the power cable. So we need some better explanation for power cables.
@dletch2
Your statement and conclusions are wrong. They will not only be harmonics of 60Hz, but also harmonics of the modulation of 60Hz and the audio signal (if they exist, and really more 120Hz). However, any comments about "dynamics" are questionable and likely not backed up factually, again to this blind testing thing.
I would like to hear some confirmation of your point of view. Please explain what does "modulation of 60Hz and the audio signal" mean, and how this mysterious action differs from the usual addition of signals (mix), which usually occurs in the signal circuit. |
Let me remind you of the question that you moved out of: If some objective interference enters the signal circuit and can be detected by ear, it should be easily measured. But we know that such interference cannot be measured in any serviceable amp. How can this be explained? You keep insisting there is a demonstrably audible difference that cannot be detected by instruments. This simply is not true. Neither that the differences have been demonstrated in anything other than ad-hoc fashion (i.e. at least blind), nor that in that same situation no one could measure a difference. |
Please explain what does "modulation of 60Hz and the audio signal" mean, and how this mysterious action differs from the usual addition of signals (mix), which usually occurs in the signal circuit. That means 60Hz power, 1000Hz signal you could get 1120, 880, but also any mixed multiple of either. |
@dletch2
No, some guy (Essien) who is not an expert on psychoacoustics, neural acoustics, neural processing, etc. stated that he discovered the unsolvable problem, that no one else thought of as unsolvable, and assigned himself as the expert (without peer review). When I read the things he writes, like that paragraph above, it just sounds really silly to me. There are other words that come to mind, and none of them are remotely kind because, what he wrote is silly.
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? |
audition__audioI dont understand the concern of those like dletch2 for the rest of us deluded souls. There are two possible explanations. Some are overcome with religious fervor - they are driven by fundamentalist evangelical belief, i.e. "blind faith." The others simply come here to argue. Both get what they seek.
|
Hi, I really enjoy reading the comments in this thread, but as noob here I felt intimidated to answer. I was thinking of this story about wine, when suddenly people started posting about wine and Riedel glasses, so I felt empowered :)
While reading this thread, something seemed off in my system, as I've been playing around, experimenting, as a noob audiophile would do. Then I checked my interconnects, Van Den Hul 102something, and they were plugged in the other way around. There's a sticker where the earth is, that should go to the source, yes, a grounded reason :)
Felt better after reversing.
My good friend and I had a favorite wine bar downtown Budapest, and we went there quite often, tasted almost everything on the menu bar the most expensive ones. They served by the glass, exclusively in matched Riedel glasses. One day I got a French wine, way above our usual budget, we drank it at home (from my friend's Riedel glasses) then went down to our favorite bar and ordered our favorite wine. It tasted way worse than we remembered. The first time I tasted wine I wanted to spit it out it tasted so bad. It's an acquired taste that gets more refined the more you taste. Unfortunately, once you taste good wine it's difficult to drink lesser ones, though possible, they don't give you the same satisfaction. I think something similar is happening when listening to music. As I kept replacing components, putting on acoustic panels, I kept hearing more and more details, but also more and more flaws. I believe the more accustomed you get to a certain level the more you realize what's wrong or what's missing, with other words, the more transparent the system and the more used your brain is to a certain quality, detail level, the easier is to spot problems. When I first installed my 4k total worth of gear I was amazed at how splendid the sound was. After a few weeks, it started to sound wrong. I started to notice the room reacting, the standing waves, the whole cacophony. One by one I replaced everything with stuff costing 5x or 10x, and I noticed the difference. I even went back to changing components to make sure I wasn't a total tool.
When we go to sleep our ears and still hear the noises around us but our brain has a clever filter/firewall that enables us to sleep. It blocks the familiar noises so we can relax. However, if there's a siren blowing we will wake up, as we know that's the sign of danger. Sirens have been around for a few hundred years or less. 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.
In my opinion, doing double or triple-blind tests with something that's an acquired taste won't provide scientifically sound results. I think if we really wanted to have a successful test we would need a huge group of people participating in a 3-month boot camp, listening to the same systems and songs until they start harboring suicidal thoughts, and maybe after that it could prove something, though probably just barely and it would raise more questions than it answers.
Going deeper in psychology, who we are is based on our DNA, our experiences in life starting from being in the womb, growing up, becoming aware, spending time learning things that interest us, and deciding we don't want to change anymore, what we know is a fact and we're fine with that. Or maybe we do and then we question everything, starting from the very first experiences to the directions of cables.
|
@OPLet me remind you of the question that you moved out of: If some objective interference enters the signal circuit and can be detected by ear, it should be easily measured. But we know that such interference cannot be measured in any serviceable amp. How can this be explained? @dletch2
You keep insisting there is a demonstrably audible difference that cannot be detected by instruments. This simply is not true. Neither that the differences have been demonstrated in anything other than ad-hoc fashion (i.e. at least blind), nor that in that same situation no one could measure a difference.
@dletch2, You are engaged in demagoguery and do not help to understand the topic at all. Very sorry. But I’m still waiting for the answer to the question if you want to continue the discussion. |
Hi, I really enjoy reading the comments in this thread, but as noob here I felt intimidated to answer.
Welcome... By the way your post is interesting, wise and truthful.... Thanks.... |
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.... |
If interference is bad enough in a signal to be heard it can be measured. Where did you get the idea it couldn't? |
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. Now we're questioning audible range of human ears? |
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? I reduce Essien, who again is not an expert on psycoacoustics, neural acoustics, neural processing, or really from what I can tell any relevant field that would make his, what is effectively an opinion, matter. I gave you my example, "OK GOOGLE", and "ALEXA", that shows that even a relatively simple processor can pull voice, out of a cocophony of sounds. The authoritative opinions you refer to, really are not. They are fringe, and/or quite old. |
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.... |
false assumptions that the brain is a computer and that pitch is in some way reducible to frequency.... 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. 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.
In my opinion, doing double or triple-blind tests with something that's an acquired taste won't provide scientifically sound results. There have been many many tests w.r.t. the range of hearing. There had been some evidence of "perception" w.r.t. higher frequencies. I think that was pretty much debunked, or at least was not easily repeated. It really does not matter either way to this argument. W.r.t. blind testing, no one is testing "taste". They are testing ability to identify a difference. Any difference. In fact, if you have a particular taste you are fond of, then that should provide even stronger ability to detect in a blind test. @dletch2
You keep insisting there is a demonstrably audible difference that cannot be detected by instruments. This simply is not true. Neither that the differences have been demonstrated in anything other than ad-hoc fashion (i.e. at least blind), nor that in that same situation no one could measure a difference.
@dletch2, You are engaged in demagoguery and do not help to understand the topic at all. Very sorry. But I’m still waiting for the answer to the question if you want to continue the discussion.
Then you are engaging in false witness as there is nothing in my post that is not a simple statement of fact. If you can't demonstrate the ability to detect a power cable change, or anything for that matter, in a blind listening condition, i.e. one where you don't know the nature of the change, then the reporting of being able to detect it is effectively void. There is no reason for anyone to take your word for it that you heard a difference. To the second part of my statement, I challenge you to present a valid observation (i.e. a blind test) where both there was a statistically valid ability to detect the change, and where a qualified person (i.e. someone with some solid engineering background) was unable to measure any differences. |
|
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...... 😁😊😊😊 |
dletch2... I challenge you to present a valid
observation (i.e. a blind test) ... Once again you insist that only a blind test represents a "valid observation." That's absurd, but I guess it suits your need to continue an argument.
|
I was reading an article about a month ago saying the brain is more like a network than a single computer.
Sorry a bit off topic.
|
I observed a UFO last night, I'll verify it was a valid UFO. |
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... 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. Of course, this is just a mental exercise, outside his area of expertise, and for all the brilliance, many brilliant people make leaps outside and inside their expertise that turn out to be colossally wrong. We shall see, but at the base, he did not say "not a computer", in fact he specifically references quantum computing. This is a topic for another thread, and really quite meaningless within the scope of the topic, and pure diversion, as it matters not how the brain works, it only matters the outcome, that outcome being whether you can audibly discern the direction of wire. |
Sorry for not using quotes, there's too much, I will try to just write my thoughts.
If we accept the theory that homo sapiens emerged around 300.000 years ago, and Hertz came up with his theory about 120 years ago and was officially accepted/adopted ~60 years ago, it's quite a young theory compared to mankind. And if everything we scientifically know and measure is based on such a young theory there could potentially be things we don't yet know or understand. As every generation thought they knew everything there is to know and proven wrong time after time, we could experience the same, maybe in our lifetime. It's more like a thought-provoking exercise, not an assumption nor stating facts.
Regarding the acquired taste concept, I believe it's true to wine, food sound, and other things. It's the phenomenon that you don't know what you don't know. I didn't know what was hidden in music while I was listening on simple headphones or speakers in a room full of reflections.
As I started to optimize, get more resolution, more clarity, got rid of some reflections, I started to hear things that were not there before. If some soundwaves cancel each other out you might not perceive them. If some equipment colours the sound, or simply doesn't have the capability to transmit it to your ears, you won't know about it. But once you hear it once you will miss it if it's not there anymore. Same as with food or wine, or with driving a fast car. When you go from 50hp to 150hp you feel the wow effect, then you get used to it and you will miss the power if it's not there. Once you taste really amazing food, you will miss it when you go back to salt and pepper. If you try really amazing wine you will notice the difference when drinking a simple wine, even though it might please you just as much. But to know what you don't know you need to experience it first. So maybe, there is something science cannot explain but you can feel it, once the environment is prepared to reveal it, when your system and listening room and your own experience reaches that point, maybe the direction of a cable can make a difference. Maybe science did not discover everything there is to discover. It usually starts from the point that is considered and accepted as the non-disputable truth, then works from there. But there many theories which someday might be challenged, it's all relative in the end :)
I think a blind test using one's own equipment if the person is open-minded, self-aware, and critical, could work, it would also imply using a wire which is built exactly the same, except the actual direction, meaning no ground on one side of the connectors and no special electronics etc., that obviously skew the results, just simple soldered connectors. |
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.... |
I would not waste your time on Essien. He comes across a bit of a fraud. I don't think we can use classical definitions for computer or computing any more. We haven't been doing that since the days of genetic algorithms and certainly not with quantum computing and even an analog computer would be hard to consider purely algorithmic, with the answer dependent on the error band, and those predate digital. |
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.... |
I am not sure about glasses, but I will recommend Laboratorio Pesaro tableware (and more). I have Saint Tropez. |
dletch2"I would not waste your time on Essien. He comes across a bit of a fraud."
You are certainly trying to "carve out" a space for yourself as the group's leading evangelist and decider of truths you should check out the work of
Erich Fetzenwhaller, a brilliant physicist who also understood the inner workings, failings, and weaknesses of the human mind.
. |
Erich Fetzenwhaller
There is no mention of his name on the internet... then? |
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. |
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. |
