John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 903 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st January 2011, 08:13 AM   #9021
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 96
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by janneman View Post

If we port this to audio, and someone reports that with, say, bybees he perceives, say a 'blacker background', he actually does! Even if physically, objectively, there is NO change whatsoever to the sound.
Just a seemingly minor correction - here it would be better to put 'NO change whatsoever (as far as we can tell) to the vibrations (or signal)' - sound being what he's hearing but the vibrations/signal being the stimulus that results in the sound via the perceptual process.

Quote:
Going even further, that means that buying snake oil actually can give you a perceptible improvement and therefor is money well spend, even if there is NO physical effect on the sound as such.
Interesting, ain't it?
Yes, very. Have you seen the video of the McGurk effect on YouTube yet? The one from BBC's Horizon program is worth checking out. Same aural signal, different visual stimulus -> different sound.
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 10:10 AM   #9022
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by janneman View Post
There was an interesting workshop at the AES on why audible diferences that can be heard 'sighted' often disappear when switching to 'blind' testing.
I will not bore you with all the details (the full writeup will be in my AES report for audioXpress) but there's one point of interest.

Neurological research has shown that when you drink, say, classic coke, the SAME brain perception areas are active, in the same way, as when you drink zero coke but EXPECT to drink classic coke. Called "neurological modulation" of the perception. So far nothing new, we all know about these things.

BUT, what is interesting is that it is not a matter of fooling yourself or deluding yourself, no, you actually perceive that SAME taste as if you were drinking classic, even if in reality you drink zero!

If we port this to audio, and someone reports that with, say, bybees he perceives, say a 'blacker background', he actually does! Even if physically, objectively, there is NO change whatsoever to the sound.

Going even further, that means that buying snake oil actually can give you a perceptible improvement and therefor is money well spend, even if there is NO physical effect on the sound as such.
Interesting, ain't it?

jan didden
why not buy a paper weight for a fraction of the price and have someone else tell you that it makes a big improvement

regards
david
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 10:15 AM   #9023
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
Just a seemingly minor correction - here it would be better to put 'NO change whatsoever (as far as we can tell) to the vibrations (or signal)' - sound being what he's hearing but the vibrations/signal being the stimulus that results in the sound via the perceptual process.



Yes, very. Have you seen the video of the McGurk effect on YouTube yet? The one from BBC's Horizon program is worth checking out. Same aural signal, different visual stimulus -> different sound.
Quite - agree to both.

jan didden
__________________
I won't make the tactical error to try to dislodge with rational arguments a conviction that is beyond reason - Daniel Dennett
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 10:21 AM   #9024
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor White View Post
why not buy a paper weight for a fraction of the price and have someone else tell you that it makes a big improvement

regards
david
That would work if you would be convinced that paperweights have that effect. The normal approach would be to a) present the paper weight not as a paper weight but in either a mystical or a highly technical form/shape (both seem to be convincing); b) have a very respected guru present a very enthousiastic story about the effect and c) put one or more zeros behind the price.

This last point is important as it d) helps convince the customer he gets something special, e) helps pay for the special packaging as well as for the guru and f) helps you make a bundle.

Edit: if this sounds negative its not on purpose. In the above scenario EVERYONE wins, including the customer.

Sometimes life really IS simple.

jan didden
__________________
I won't make the tactical error to try to dislodge with rational arguments a conviction that is beyond reason - Daniel Dennett
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7!

Last edited by jan.didden; 21st January 2011 at 10:24 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 10:22 AM   #9025
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 96
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor White View Post
why not buy a paper weight for a fraction of the price and have someone else tell you that it makes a big improvement
It would surely matter who the 'someone else' was who told you. Given JC's cult following perhaps an ex-cathedra pronouncement could be delivered by him for a suitably fat fee?

<edit> OK, Jan you beat me by 1min
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler

Last edited by abraxalito; 21st January 2011 at 10:24 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 10:57 AM   #9026
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Technically the topic is the Blowtorch preamplifier, which to my knowledge didn't use Bybee putrifiers.
Sorry, I seem to be suffering from thread confusion!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 11:14 AM   #9027
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
About three or four years ago, a professor of electrical engineering I think somewhere at the University of California wrote a book about electrical noise that was considered startling at the time. Can't remember the name of the book or the professor.

His assertion backed by considerable documentation was that as electrical noise decreases, the ability of humans to discern subtle details whether in audio or video signals improves but counterintuitively only up to a point. As noise diminishes further, the ability to discern subtle details actually decreases. Therefore to get the subjectively sharpest image say from a video camera, a small amout of noise actually helps and is necessary.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 11:18 AM   #9028
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 96
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Sounds like it could have been Bart Kosko. This book perhaps ?

Noise: Amazon.co.uk: Bart Kosko: Books
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 11:23 AM   #9029
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundminded View Post
About three or four years ago, a professor of electrical engineering I think somewhere at the University of California wrote a book about electrical noise that was considered startling at the time. Can't remember the name of the book or the professor.

His assertion backed by considerable documentation was that as electrical noise decreases, the ability of humans to discern subtle details whether in audio or video signals improves but counterintuitively only up to a point. As noise diminishes further, the ability to discern subtle details actually decreases. Therefore to get the subjectively sharpest image say from a video camera, a small amout of noise actually helps and is necessary.
I think it depends on whether the noise is correlated. Dithering comes to mind.
I also remember a study by IRCAM, the French perception institute, that in a situation where one tone was masking another tone, adding a third not related tone UNmasked the originally masked tone. IOW You hear a tone, add another one and you hear three tones.
Perception is very complex and ignored at your peril!

jan didden
__________________
I won't make the tactical error to try to dislodge with rational arguments a conviction that is beyond reason - Daniel Dennett
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7!

Last edited by jan.didden; 21st January 2011 at 11:24 AM. Reason: sp
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 11:40 AM   #9030
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 96
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundminded View Post
His assertion backed by considerable documentation was that as electrical noise decreases, the ability of humans to discern subtle details whether in audio or video signals improves but counterintuitively only up to a point. As noise diminishes further, the ability to discern subtle details actually decreases. Therefore to get the subjectively sharpest image say from a video camera, a small amout of noise actually helps and is necessary.
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~cgseife/PRL01186.pdf
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2