He said there was a difference and that you could hear the difference. How much more direct could it be?
Nope, That would be an inaccurate point.
The ear is completely passive. It sends EVERYTHING to the brain for processing. The brain then has another 100 or so variables it uses (along with that minor signal from the ear) to make conclusions. Yes, the signal from the ear is just one of the many variables the brain uses in making conclusions.
Some of the major variables used by the brain are expectation bias, imagination/exageration levels and obfuscation level
If you have done properly controlled listening tests you would ultimately understand all of this because its easily shown in 100,000 studies how the brain makes conclusions.
Have you ever performed a properly controlled listening test? if you have not what other expertise do you have on this topic?
Thanks. I do.
(Am I the only person to sometimes be baffled by the unspoken innuendo that is posted here (or not!). If you think there's a huge difference between old and new CD players, for example, don't just 'nudge nudge, wink wink', but tell us why. Quantify it. Because otherwise, some of us may not believe you have anything to back up your assertions).
Really? Please cite your references for your statements that the ear is a passive device!Nope, That would be an inaccurate point.
The ear is completely passive. It sends EVERYTHING to the brain for processing. The brain then has another 100 or so variables it uses (along with that minor signal from the ear) to make conclusions. Yes, the signal from the ear is just one of the many variables the brain uses in making conclusions.
Some of the major variables used by the brain are expectation bias, imagination/exageration levels and obfuscation level
If you have done properly controlled listening tests you would ultimately understand all of this because its easily shown in 100,000 studies how the brain makes conclusions.
Have you ever performed a properly controlled listening test? if you have not what other expertise do you have on this topic?
Then have a look into models of the ear - look up the mechanics of mammalian cochlea!
You have to understand the definition of active vs passive. The ear is an incredible mechanical device it does not make a single decision/conclusion.
Maybe you should post your definition of active because to me active simply means processing power.
Please free feel to post all those controlled listening tests that have given you the proper foundation for making conclusions about audio
I would recommend this as a starter
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2011/03/harman-how-to-listen-listener-training.html
Last edited:
Would Cochlear preamplifier qualify? Would actively adjusting the response of a system qualify? I said that it seemed to be an active non-linear system!You have to understand the definition of active vs passive. The ear is an incredible mechanical device it does not make a single decision/conclusion.
Maybe you should post your definition of active because to me active simply means processing power.
Please free feel to post all those controlled listening tests that have given you the proper foundation for making conclusions about audio
I would recommend this as a starter
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Harman's "How to Listen" Listener Training Software Now Available as Beta
Who said I was making conclusions? I'm investigating the alternatives with an open mind. Something we could all do well to try!
Last edited:
I've answered your questions- there's no reason to stoop to personal attacks. Better to read, study, and experiment, a better use of your energy.
IMO, you have really different definitions of passive and active so its just a circle jerk in terms of debating it.
I really a moot point too because all that matters is the conculsions people make. So where the signal from the ear is processed??
Oh so now the ear isn't a "completely passive device" as you categorically stated but it doesn't matter, anyway? You fail to also understand that processing power is in muscles & nerves & cationic molecular channels & the ability of molecules to change shape & to contract fibres - all of this can change the linear passive response into a active non-linear response.
You now just want to ignore any modification to the sound that the ear performs? So now you wish to say that all that matters is the conclusions that people make? Don't wish to defend your initial bullishness about the model for the ear?
My point again is that there is a big difference in how we look at audio if we treat the ear as simply a passive linear transducer Vs if we recognise it has some active non-linear characteristics.
Last edited:
I beg to disagree. Use your energy to dig up, read, and understand the literature.
jkeny, I'm satisfied with your explanation. The TV analogy helped greatly - perhaps not a "detailed" understanding of optic sensory input but rather an adequate or appropriate one. As so with hearing input. I took your original statement quite literally so I'm glad I brought it to attention.
My model has been the same from the start. If there is a language barrier, maybe some Guinness or two in the way so be it.
Im a fan of both Dublin and Guinness The ear is passive = It does not process the signal at all internally.
Its only a difference in our discussion because You NEED the ear to be active so that you can continue to ignore the real discussion about how the brain will process all information it has (including the signal from the ear).
Anyways, several others have indicated that this is just trolling. My point stands as a logical point of view, OCD/Highly imaginative audiophiles not withstanding.
obfuscate away....
Thank you for saying so, Sofaspud
Yes, not treating the ear as a passive microphone that simply passes signals to the brain would be a step towards a better understanding this little hobby of ours. I don't know why the entrenched posturing of so many - it simply makes logical sense to me?
There is another thing I did not find mentioned in this thread, which I think speaks in favour of CD: it is not just about dynamic range, frequency response and the absence of artifacts where digital shines.
It is plain and simple that there are waveforms that cannot be reproduced by a moving stylus or any other electromagnetic transducer such as dynamic microphones. They don't do square waves, whereas digital does. It requires a bit of mind gymnastics to visualize this, but I will do my best to start you going (if you were not yet aware of this).
As with dynamic microphones, the output of a pick up stylus is proportional to the speed with wich it moves a magnet throug a coil (or the other way around). In other words, where the deflection of the cutting stylus is at its maximum, the output of a pick up element is at its minimum. At the top of a sine wave, the element does not generate any output. At zero crossings, the element produces its maximum output.
Now, if you would try to reproduce a square wave with a pick up element, what you get is a series of spikes going up and down; pick up elements don't do DC air pressure. Or, in other words, the pick-up element gives you the first derivative the signal. All information will still be preserved, except that you will loose the constant. A constant sine tone will still come out the way it looked, it will just have moved by 90 degrees. However, the shape of any real live music signal will be severly different from the shape that was put on the tracks, since it can be seen as a set of sine waves of different frequencies that all individually shift by 90 degrees.
A digital signal, on the other hand, can reproduce pretty much any shape you want, with only the rise time being a limiting factor.
So, from a technical point of view, what would you prefer: a system that is capable of reproducing faithfully the shape of any signal you throw at it, or one that provides you with the first derivative of the signal, severely modifying the shape of complex wave forms?
The answer appears simple, but it is actually not that obvious without looking at the rest of the chain, mainly the loudspeaker system. Any loudspeaker driver does exactly the same as the electromagnetic pick up element: it creates maximum SPL when the signal changes most, and has no acoustic output when the signal reaches its maximum or minimum (idealized transducer). To provide an analogy with the wet film process: the pick up element produces a negative, which is subsequently changed into a positive by the electromagnetic transducer. So, if wave shape preservation were our goal, perhaps LP would be better, looking at the entire chain including loudspeakers? Short and simple, no.
First, idealized transducers don't exist in real life; they all have mass, causing the signal to run ahead of the cone movement. What probably comes closest is a electrostatic transducer. So, theoretically, if we want to preserve wave shape through the chain, LP played back on electrostats might be the best solution? Wrong for two reasons: 1) LP cannot reproduce all wave forms (no square waves) 2) our own sound processing system doesn't look at wave form, but at spectral content.
A few more lines on that. The ear transforms sound from the time domain into the frequency domain. What enters the brain is litteraly a flat cable of neurons, each connected to inner hair cells in the cochlea. The speed with which these inner hair cells fire, corresponds to the level within the frequency band they are tuned to. In other words, the ear performs a Fourrier transform on incoming sound, and presents the brain with a spectral picture. Phase transitions are also detected by the inner hair cells, and passed on for further processing by the brain. From the mere fact that LP can sound similar to CD, whereas the effect these two technologies have on wave shape is very different, we learn an important lesson: phase preservation is irrelevant in the perception of timbre. Only in interaural processing, phase plays a role, but that is a different story all together.
So, since CD can more faithfully reproduce wave shapes than LP, it is better in that respect, and since there are speakers that can recreate square waves, this is not just theory. However, because of the way the ear and brain work, the relevance of this is marginal at best. But if you can have it, why not, and you can't have it with LP.
It is plain and simple that there are waveforms that cannot be reproduced by a moving stylus or any other electromagnetic transducer such as dynamic microphones. They don't do square waves, whereas digital does. It requires a bit of mind gymnastics to visualize this, but I will do my best to start you going (if you were not yet aware of this).
As with dynamic microphones, the output of a pick up stylus is proportional to the speed with wich it moves a magnet throug a coil (or the other way around). In other words, where the deflection of the cutting stylus is at its maximum, the output of a pick up element is at its minimum. At the top of a sine wave, the element does not generate any output. At zero crossings, the element produces its maximum output.
Now, if you would try to reproduce a square wave with a pick up element, what you get is a series of spikes going up and down; pick up elements don't do DC air pressure. Or, in other words, the pick-up element gives you the first derivative the signal. All information will still be preserved, except that you will loose the constant. A constant sine tone will still come out the way it looked, it will just have moved by 90 degrees. However, the shape of any real live music signal will be severly different from the shape that was put on the tracks, since it can be seen as a set of sine waves of different frequencies that all individually shift by 90 degrees.
A digital signal, on the other hand, can reproduce pretty much any shape you want, with only the rise time being a limiting factor.
So, from a technical point of view, what would you prefer: a system that is capable of reproducing faithfully the shape of any signal you throw at it, or one that provides you with the first derivative of the signal, severely modifying the shape of complex wave forms?
The answer appears simple, but it is actually not that obvious without looking at the rest of the chain, mainly the loudspeaker system. Any loudspeaker driver does exactly the same as the electromagnetic pick up element: it creates maximum SPL when the signal changes most, and has no acoustic output when the signal reaches its maximum or minimum (idealized transducer). To provide an analogy with the wet film process: the pick up element produces a negative, which is subsequently changed into a positive by the electromagnetic transducer. So, if wave shape preservation were our goal, perhaps LP would be better, looking at the entire chain including loudspeakers? Short and simple, no.
First, idealized transducers don't exist in real life; they all have mass, causing the signal to run ahead of the cone movement. What probably comes closest is a electrostatic transducer. So, theoretically, if we want to preserve wave shape through the chain, LP played back on electrostats might be the best solution? Wrong for two reasons: 1) LP cannot reproduce all wave forms (no square waves) 2) our own sound processing system doesn't look at wave form, but at spectral content.
A few more lines on that. The ear transforms sound from the time domain into the frequency domain. What enters the brain is litteraly a flat cable of neurons, each connected to inner hair cells in the cochlea. The speed with which these inner hair cells fire, corresponds to the level within the frequency band they are tuned to. In other words, the ear performs a Fourrier transform on incoming sound, and presents the brain with a spectral picture. Phase transitions are also detected by the inner hair cells, and passed on for further processing by the brain. From the mere fact that LP can sound similar to CD, whereas the effect these two technologies have on wave shape is very different, we learn an important lesson: phase preservation is irrelevant in the perception of timbre. Only in interaural processing, phase plays a role, but that is a different story all together.
So, since CD can more faithfully reproduce wave shapes than LP, it is better in that respect, and since there are speakers that can recreate square waves, this is not just theory. However, because of the way the ear and brain work, the relevance of this is marginal at best. But if you can have it, why not, and you can't have it with LP.
It changes the signal, therefore it processes it. I'm afraid you are incorrect!My model has been the same from the start. If there is a language barrier, maybe some Guinness or two in the way so be it.
The ear is passive = It does not process the signal at all internally.
I never said I wanted to ignore the brains processing of the signal - this is your delusion, not mine!
OK, so you have now gone through the full gamut of reasons to ignore me - "what are my credential", "what blind tests have I done", I'm soaked in Guinness & now I'm a troll. Nice defense!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.