As a scientist, you must surely know that there are many things left un-explained.
The art of "selling" is far more defined. 😀
Its when the sellers try to cross into the science field, that "farce" occurs.
ie Bybee, May Belt etc.
If they are going to call on their idea of science to market their products, they should surely be able to meet scientific expectations of proof...
Last edited:
Hi,
Kali nichta.
Salas, what can I say, he?
No Greek keyboard layout to help me out but I know you see the point.
@Curly Woods: Just about anyone on this forum can accuse me of forwarding "evidence" based on my own emperical listenig tests.
Relax, take a step back and hope that within a reasonable lapse of time you may well have "proof".
Cheers, 😉
Kali nichta.
Salas, what can I say, he?
No Greek keyboard layout to help me out but I know you see the point.
@Curly Woods: Just about anyone on this forum can accuse me of forwarding "evidence" based on my own emperical listenig tests.
Relax, take a step back and hope that within a reasonable lapse of time you may well have "proof".
Cheers, 😉
I have lived with this for many years Frank. All that I ask is that people try to be open minded and not lock themselves out of learning that science and art can be mixed with great effect, if one allows them to coexist.
Hi Michael,
It seems as though we have similar interests, I'd been selling high end audio, plus mid fi for many years. In those great early years in audio, back when discoveries were being made and equipment would damage a wood floor, there was a huge amount of sound difference between components. This was a time before we could measure anything really significant, compared to what we can "see" today.
On the other hand, I was lucky enough to run a high end audio service center. We had warranty contracts for a great number of the nicer products out there.
The truth of the matter is sobering. We would often have a customer come in who wanted the "mod of the week" performed on their equipment. Frequently, it was discovered that the equipment they brought in was not operating properly. So, we call and explain. The deal was always, listen to it first in a repaired condition before going further with the modifications you want. Well, almost every single one was blown away at how poorly their equipment had been performing. Some were even in those groups that tour around to critique each other's systems. None of them caught on to the substandard equipment. Anyway, after the repair, very few wished to continue with the planned changes. Many were very, very embarrassed also.
What does this tell you? Human beings are terrible judges of sound quality, and are easily swayed by what we think must be true. We are designed to recognize patterns in sound, and direction. Why? To figure out if a sound meant danger, and where it was coming from. We can hear more critically, but our perception is governed by what the brain has decided what we will hear. The only thing you can depend on are the readings given by really good test equipment and a proper interpretation of those "numbers".
These days, I can confirm what I hear with test equipment. By the same token, I can confirm the fault is gone with that same test equipment. Things are nothing like they were in the 80's. We know more, we measure better and these things do correlate with what we hear.
So, I have to say that from what I've read so far in your posts, you have to allow measurements to co-exist with what you hear. You need both to design good sounding equipment, and you certainly should never ignore any performance data when choosing an audio component. We will assume that you are looking at good brands and that their numbers are realistic and true.
BTW, much that is sold as being of superior design and quality of manufacture is actually poorly made and poorly designed. The worst lies tend to happen at the higher price points. So what you may think is a highly engineered piece may be worse than the discount stuff. At least the discount stuff normally does not burn all on it's own!
-Chris
It seems as though we have similar interests, I'd been selling high end audio, plus mid fi for many years. In those great early years in audio, back when discoveries were being made and equipment would damage a wood floor, there was a huge amount of sound difference between components. This was a time before we could measure anything really significant, compared to what we can "see" today.
On the other hand, I was lucky enough to run a high end audio service center. We had warranty contracts for a great number of the nicer products out there.
The truth of the matter is sobering. We would often have a customer come in who wanted the "mod of the week" performed on their equipment. Frequently, it was discovered that the equipment they brought in was not operating properly. So, we call and explain. The deal was always, listen to it first in a repaired condition before going further with the modifications you want. Well, almost every single one was blown away at how poorly their equipment had been performing. Some were even in those groups that tour around to critique each other's systems. None of them caught on to the substandard equipment. Anyway, after the repair, very few wished to continue with the planned changes. Many were very, very embarrassed also.
What does this tell you? Human beings are terrible judges of sound quality, and are easily swayed by what we think must be true. We are designed to recognize patterns in sound, and direction. Why? To figure out if a sound meant danger, and where it was coming from. We can hear more critically, but our perception is governed by what the brain has decided what we will hear. The only thing you can depend on are the readings given by really good test equipment and a proper interpretation of those "numbers".
These days, I can confirm what I hear with test equipment. By the same token, I can confirm the fault is gone with that same test equipment. Things are nothing like they were in the 80's. We know more, we measure better and these things do correlate with what we hear.
So, I have to say that from what I've read so far in your posts, you have to allow measurements to co-exist with what you hear. You need both to design good sounding equipment, and you certainly should never ignore any performance data when choosing an audio component. We will assume that you are looking at good brands and that their numbers are realistic and true.
BTW, much that is sold as being of superior design and quality of manufacture is actually poorly made and poorly designed. The worst lies tend to happen at the higher price points. So what you may think is a highly engineered piece may be worse than the discount stuff. At least the discount stuff normally does not burn all on it's own!
-Chris
Just got back and read the last 4 pages.
Didnt miss much. Forgot what we were talking about till Andy mentioned it again, Bybee. And whats this May Belt? I think Im developing a fascination for these psuedo scientific audio phenomenon (trouble believing any of it But trying to stay open minded). And while I have the ear of the scientists: Has any one heard about the Maxwell effect (come with 2 pages of maxwells equations)? Or this electron quantum tunneling noise? And whats this magnetic field smoother or something. Any truth to any of it? Some truth but effects so small there ridiculous?
Didnt miss much. Forgot what we were talking about till Andy mentioned it again, Bybee. And whats this May Belt? I think Im developing a fascination for these psuedo scientific audio phenomenon (trouble believing any of it But trying to stay open minded). And while I have the ear of the scientists: Has any one heard about the Maxwell effect (come with 2 pages of maxwells equations)? Or this electron quantum tunneling noise? And whats this magnetic field smoother or something. Any truth to any of it? Some truth but effects so small there ridiculous?
I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?
Here is my input; I hope the cat 5 cable and or either of the net do not reduce my intent beyond comprention. In some ways electrical thinking or modeling has been reduced to few variables to explain the observations. In many cases the observations are embellished to support feelings or expenditures, in short made up. The existing scientific models fall short of supporting or refutidating the the claims. E=IR is not enough. Perhaps enhance R and call it impedance and by some complex algebra, little i’s and j’s for capacitance or inductance. Toss in skin effect or other variables as you like we still do not have a complete model to explain the electrical differences between say silver and 5 9’s copper conductors. Although not constructed of straight wires audio transformers wound from silver vs. copper there are measurable differences between them. Now consider our brains, baggage and golden ears are not reliable or accurate enough to be usable test equipment. At best we are stuck with double blind tests where no one can agree on a format.
There has been a technological breakthrough that is allowing scientist to complete a unified theory of relativity. The resolution of the scanning electron microscope has been improved with the hope of actually seeing the electron and the other basic blocks of matter. They have found success. Corporate USA has sold the rights to LEGO.
The improved SEM has been fitted with a camera that can stop time and capture still photographs of the flow of charged particles. Electrons have been determined to only flow in the envelope of a vacuum tube and that it is positively charged holes that flow in silicon semi conductors and metallic conductors. Electrons are much faster and agile due to the size and shape differences between electrons and holes. The size shape and sluggish behavior depends on the brand of the semiconductor. The dollar value of the metallic conductor copper, silver and in this order corresponds to more energetic hole behavior. The SEM with time stopping imagery has an optional audible output that is usable by the double blind.
DT
Here is my input; I hope the cat 5 cable and or either of the net do not reduce my intent beyond comprention. In some ways electrical thinking or modeling has been reduced to few variables to explain the observations. In many cases the observations are embellished to support feelings or expenditures, in short made up. The existing scientific models fall short of supporting or refutidating the the claims. E=IR is not enough. Perhaps enhance R and call it impedance and by some complex algebra, little i’s and j’s for capacitance or inductance. Toss in skin effect or other variables as you like we still do not have a complete model to explain the electrical differences between say silver and 5 9’s copper conductors. Although not constructed of straight wires audio transformers wound from silver vs. copper there are measurable differences between them. Now consider our brains, baggage and golden ears are not reliable or accurate enough to be usable test equipment. At best we are stuck with double blind tests where no one can agree on a format.
There has been a technological breakthrough that is allowing scientist to complete a unified theory of relativity. The resolution of the scanning electron microscope has been improved with the hope of actually seeing the electron and the other basic blocks of matter. They have found success. Corporate USA has sold the rights to LEGO.
The improved SEM has been fitted with a camera that can stop time and capture still photographs of the flow of charged particles. Electrons have been determined to only flow in the envelope of a vacuum tube and that it is positively charged holes that flow in silicon semi conductors and metallic conductors. Electrons are much faster and agile due to the size and shape differences between electrons and holes. The size shape and sluggish behavior depends on the brand of the semiconductor. The dollar value of the metallic conductor copper, silver and in this order corresponds to more energetic hole behavior. The SEM with time stopping imagery has an optional audible output that is usable by the double blind.
DT
Funny how cable threads always deteriorate into mud slinging and name calling isn't it?
Seriously, I used to get all steamed up in this type of debate but now I don't care. Nicely made high quality cables with well machined plugs are way 'better' in terms of pride of ownership, attractiveness, wank factor etc. Well made cables are superior electrically to poorly made ones. I cannot hear the difference between $2 cables and $1000 cables, but I know which ones I like better.
I make all my own cables so I can make anything I want to try, test and utilise.
It's the same as the nice chrome wheels and the paint can exhaust pipes- they complete the car (system). It's what makes you happy that counts.
Seriously, I used to get all steamed up in this type of debate but now I don't care. Nicely made high quality cables with well machined plugs are way 'better' in terms of pride of ownership, attractiveness, wank factor etc. Well made cables are superior electrically to poorly made ones. I cannot hear the difference between $2 cables and $1000 cables, but I know which ones I like better.
I make all my own cables so I can make anything I want to try, test and utilise.
It's the same as the nice chrome wheels and the paint can exhaust pipes- they complete the car (system). It's what makes you happy that counts.
No problem Frank, I'll sort that one out for you 🙂
Just pay your GP a visit, and have your hearing measured frequently, over a couple of years. After some time, you will see, that even what you heard last year, is not the same as what you heard yesterday.
Magura 🙂
After more then 550 pages Sayre's law has proved it self.
"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue."
Claus
"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue."
Claus
Probably not, but it does suggest that a close reading of Diana Deutsch's work would be in order.
Definetely not.... actually.
As for the rest of your post, yes, reading about many things is good and productive. We all do some reading I believe,our priorities however might be different.
Listening and understanding music, is a different thing all together.
Last edited by a moderator:
But that only covers the hardware. You also have to consider the firmware and software, which is why I suggested Deutsch's work. Even if ears respond identically to the impressed waves, people's brains process that data in a different way.
Sure, and Deutsch has sure made valuable research in the software/firmware department.
What I was trying to say, is that already at the hardware level, we differ enough to make it hard to claim that any two persons hear the same, but in theory it could be possible to find two identical sets of ears.
If you bring the software and firmware into the equation, all claims of any two persons hearing the same, will be impossible to back up.
Magura 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.