I can assume, it is the same as in my tests, on human beings that react on sounds unconsciously, as if they were real. When such reactions happen it is odd to judge, were they biased or not.
The cows could not be easily biased. They just respond to what they hear. That is actually most of us, if given a chance.
the cows don't care. They are reacting to change - any change - and don't give a damn about sound quality however its measured.
You get the same effect with cows when you change the milking time, the vacuum pump's motor, the order that you put them into the bails...
Again - you have to apply controls for a test to be valid, and you have to understand what the subject is reacting to.
You get the same effect with cows when you change the milking time, the vacuum pump's motor, the order that you put them into the bails...
Again - you have to apply controls for a test to be valid, and you have to understand what the subject is reacting to.
Why are you so sure? Did you ask them?
More reasonable answer would be, the more artificial sound is, the more stressful it is for animals.
It is obvious. But you can't say that they react on presence or absence of tubes in the radio receiver.
Maybe cows like hum? Or real IFTs rather than a ceramic filter? It would be interesting, in the UK, to try a DAB radio - that might make their udders dry up altogether!
I don't need to ask them. I come from New Zealand. 😀 We have the largest dairy business in the world here and two universities devoted to studies in the area. I have lived and worked on dairy farms and drive past dairy farms daily. The link between calm, relaxed cattle and milk production is well understood here as it is in most dairy communities, and the causes of anxiety in cattle are similarly well understood.
No sound is artificial. All sound is real. 🙄
Correct - they are reacting to a sudden change in their environment. The cause of the difference is irrelevant to them since they lack the intellectual capacity to understand it.
OK, Aard, I guess we can chew the cud a bit more 🙂
You are very sure about your statements - got any statistically relevant studies to support those statements?
From what was described the milk yield went down when the radio was changed to SS, are you saying the cows noticed a sudden change in their environment & you are supporting the claimant's viewpoint? The claimant then said that the milk yield went back up when the radio was changed back to tube based - again was this something the cows sensed as a sudden change? People need to know!
You are very sure about your statements - got any statistically relevant studies to support those statements?
From what was described the milk yield went down when the radio was changed to SS, are you saying the cows noticed a sudden change in their environment & you are supporting the claimant's viewpoint? The claimant then said that the milk yield went back up when the radio was changed back to tube based - again was this something the cows sensed as a sudden change? People need to know!
Hey - Eire is a pretty fair hand at the dairy thing - surely you can comment more deeply!
Nah - haven't got research to hand on the milking shed environmental factors that influence milk production, but plenty has been done, and lots of statistical analysis. Also lots of anecdotal stuff backed by the daily production sheets.
The cows MAY have reacted for either, or a combination of, at least two reasons - the first is the sudden change, the second some aversion to the tone of the different radio. Hard to know or separate after the fact.
We know that cows being milked do not like change - even a change of clothing worn by a farm hand can influence their mood - so my pick is just the gross difference between the old tubby, tube radio sound and a thinner, ss radio sound upset them. Not necessarily the sound itself, but the change to an unfamiliar sound.
It could have been a difference in the sound itself - there may have been harmonics that the ss radio produced that were upsetting for the animals.
Pretty certain they weren't making a judgement on it tho' - again, the lack of intellectual capacity thing (theirs, not mine)!
I suspect we are far OT now. Better moooove along.
Nah - haven't got research to hand on the milking shed environmental factors that influence milk production, but plenty has been done, and lots of statistical analysis. Also lots of anecdotal stuff backed by the daily production sheets.
The cows MAY have reacted for either, or a combination of, at least two reasons - the first is the sudden change, the second some aversion to the tone of the different radio. Hard to know or separate after the fact.
We know that cows being milked do not like change - even a change of clothing worn by a farm hand can influence their mood - so my pick is just the gross difference between the old tubby, tube radio sound and a thinner, ss radio sound upset them. Not necessarily the sound itself, but the change to an unfamiliar sound.
It could have been a difference in the sound itself - there may have been harmonics that the ss radio produced that were upsetting for the animals.
Pretty certain they weren't making a judgement on it tho' - again, the lack of intellectual capacity thing (theirs, not mine)!
I suspect we are far OT now. Better moooove along.
As always, you prefer your own interpretations to observed facts. Facts are, we know only about reaction on change from tube radio to transistor radio, and back from transistor radio to tube radio. How long do you think they need to get used to transistor radio, in order to prove that any change, including from transistor radio to tube radio, causes the same effect?
Of course I prefer my interpretations. You prefer yours. Thats the nature of discourse and conjecture on a subject that is ultimately unimportant (unless you own a herd of dairy cows)😉
I do note I have given a number of possible causes including combinations of factors. I prefer one of them since the information I am aware of backs that as more likely.
Dunno about the time line for "normalisation" as regards a move from valve to ss radios and its impact on milk production in dairy cows. Could be an interesting line of research for someone...
I do note I have given a number of possible causes including combinations of factors. I prefer one of them since the information I am aware of backs that as more likely.
Dunno about the time line for "normalisation" as regards a move from valve to ss radios and its impact on milk production in dairy cows. Could be an interesting line of research for someone...
Dunno about the time line for "normalisation" as regards a move from valve to ss radios and its impact on milk production in dairy cows. Could be an interesting line of research for someone...
Right. And if John Curl is with me, we may start working on getting some research grants. 😉
However, Green Peace should not suspect that we are torturing animals in our experiments. We have to search for what animals love
I think that you have a good idea, Wavebourn. I have hand milked cows, and lived on a dairy farm, for a couple of months, many years ago. I think the cows noticed something that 'disturbed' them, more than just change.
Guys, the cow thing is way ott! Hearsay evidence casually presented.
With moderator approval, I would like to post a poll: should a designer use measurements and listening when designing and building audio equipment? Yes or No?
Mods - would that be ok?
Fran
With moderator approval, I would like to post a poll: should a designer use measurements and listening when designing and building audio equipment? Yes or No?
Mods - would that be ok?
Fran
Irrelevant question. I, as a designer, measure. But I want to measure RIGHT things. Measurements of THD and frequency response were obsoleted half of century ago. It is not a problem absolutely to design and manufacture in specs of less than 0.01% THD and +/- 0.1 dB 20 Hz-20 KHz.
Measurement of thresholds of conscious recognition is not a problem. It had been done in the previous century.
If you want to discuss this kind of measurements, you are free to start a new topic.
We need to know how to measure things that are beyond thresholds of conscious recognition. We need to measure in respect to sensory perception that is subconscious, on the level "True orchestra" VS "Wrong orchestra, rather sound reproduction".
And if animals can be used for measurements instead of electric tools, why not? We reproduce sounds for senses. We don't reproduce electrical signals! We are not electricians!
Do you hear me now?
Wavebourn is right, and he shows the instincts of a true scientist. It is the 'unusual' that can give us clues as to what is really important in audio design.
Wavebourn, this is far more basic than that. There are plenty here who seem to think that measurements are all that is needed... Listening impressions play little or no part in building or designing.
So much so, that some here seems to think that you shouldn't even suggest a modification unless you have objective evidence - the subjective is considered derisory.
On the subject of cows - it seems this is even more demanding than the ABX tests......
So much so, that some here seems to think that you shouldn't even suggest a modification unless you have objective evidence - the subjective is considered derisory.
On the subject of cows - it seems this is even more demanding than the ABX tests......
I always suggest "modifications" that I objectively understand would lead to better subjective perception. Otherwise it would be shamanism, instead of design. However, shamans also have own objective explanations of subjective things...
For people who has lack of real experience such discussions are useless: anyway they can't get any real experience such a way. Like, learning to ride bicycle in online discussion. It's better to start measure and listen, and search for correlations between measurements and perceptions. This is the only way to heights of mastership.
I do that. Since the time, when being a kid I bought my first AVOhm-meter. 😉
And it is not harder to do than to discuss in online forum, whether we should do that, or not. 🙄
I would argue that human ears (functional ones, with standard frequency range) are perfectly calibrated and that all electronics and measuring devices only strive to match the accuracy. The eardrum typically moves only one billionth to one millionth of an inch.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.