Speaking of cables...
After the hubbub in another thread; I had to go and see for myself.
There's a uh... uh... uh worthwhile thread on Steve Hoffman's forum. Some uh... uh... uh... person reviewed 14 or so different power cords... some almost a thousand dollars. Imaging, soundstage, transparency, the whole nine yards; great reading!
I don't think Acid Orange Juice lost out on much...
After the hubbub in another thread; I had to go and see for myself.
There's a uh... uh... uh worthwhile thread on Steve Hoffman's forum. Some uh... uh... uh... person reviewed 14 or so different power cords... some almost a thousand dollars. Imaging, soundstage, transparency, the whole nine yards; great reading!
I don't think Acid Orange Juice lost out on much...
Isn't it at best a neutral observation? The ear/brain's interpolation applies to all phenomena, debatable or inarguably real (with apologies to the solipsists.) As anatech states, one of those mechanisms is the removal of real, existing stimuli from our field of attention. That instead suggests a mechanism by which if it's a core element of a person's world view, in which they have a strong emotional investment, that an effect without a correlated measurement is an imaginary one, the brain could oblige and keep them from hearing something which is real by filtering it out. I think it's a tougher slog to argue that our ear/brains consistently manufacture false auditory perceptions over long periods as it's difficult to see the evolutionary survival value.
Re: sighted vs. unsighted preferences, it would be more interesting if these test were long term, a test subject, for example, given two pairs of speakers - ugly with superlative measurements and beautiful of lesser performance - and a switch box and listening preferences over an extended period monitored. In the context of this discussion we're talking about people who buy interconnects and use them over extended periods, normally out of sight behind equipment, so I'm not sure how short-term visual preferences apply after leaving the dealer's showroom.
Ask your local engineer for a tour of his radio station. If it's like any at which I've worked since the early eighties you'll find all the rooms interconnected with hundreds of feet of 25-pair unshielded CAT3, driven balanced of course. Usually anyway, I've also seen some pretty poor practices.
Re: sighted vs. unsighted preferences, it would be more interesting if these test were long term, a test subject, for example, given two pairs of speakers - ugly with superlative measurements and beautiful of lesser performance - and a switch box and listening preferences over an extended period monitored. In the context of this discussion we're talking about people who buy interconnects and use them over extended periods, normally out of sight behind equipment, so I'm not sure how short-term visual preferences apply after leaving the dealer's showroom.
Ask your local engineer for a tour of his radio station. If it's like any at which I've worked since the early eighties you'll find all the rooms interconnected with hundreds of feet of 25-pair unshielded CAT3, driven balanced of course. Usually anyway, I've also seen some pretty poor practices.
rdf, the evolutionary argument cuts the other way. Human brains are quite adept at perceiving patterns that aren't there. The survival value is obvious- if we tended to ignore things until they were obvious, we'd be eaten. If we jump at a ghost in the dark that only turns out to be a leaf falling, we've lost nothing. This evolutionary bias is exactly why we need controlled experiments to come to firm conclusions about drug efficacy, paranormal abilities, and, yes, audibility.
quasi said:
In many cases, the buzz has nothing to do with shielding but rather with chassis leakage currents stemming from the use of AC power supplies.
se
Sy, a more general point might be made along the lines of your thought that the ability of the brain to *actually* distinguish real from not must be at a very high level for evolution to work. I mean, I'm just now looking out the front window of my house and can see not a single person running down the street away from something fictional.
RDF,
An interesting point; that the duration of the tests might influence the perceptions.
Any opinion on this? What if the subjects of the tests were made to listen to a constant stream of new and unfamiiliar music?
Just a thought...
An interesting point; that the duration of the tests might influence the perceptions.
Any opinion on this? What if the subjects of the tests were made to listen to a constant stream of new and unfamiiliar music?
Just a thought...
rdf said:
It actually does happen. A well known example of this is the way that the human sensory system reacts to the localisation of novel or unlearned sounds. Play a sudden sound to any human being and they imediately look in the direction the sound is coming from. Obvious, I hear you say. But this gets more subtle. Play that sound from an angle 45 degrees up in the air, and the person doesn't look up! They ignore the vertical aspect of the sound. The only time we instinctively look up is when we know the sound, such as aircraft noise or birdsong. It is hypothesised that we do this because any predators of early humans were unlikely to be above us, as animals large enough to attack humans usually are ground based, so it would give a faster response to any threat.
Tom, note the popularity of the Rorschach Test. And the crowds of thousands who gather to see the appearance of the Virgin Mary on a taco.
Just when it's getting really interesting, I'm running late for the dentist. My point is it cuts both ways and therefore doesn't present a strong case to either, though I would prefer "predator/enemy" to "ghost". It's statistically safe to say no one is constantly aware of the sound of their own breathing, of the rustling of their clothes or their feet against the floor. The brain puts these items on a strong "ignore list", so it seems shutting things out is also a fundamental operating mode, for lack of a better term. If we're discussing long term survival capabilities I'ld be happy if pedestrians heard oncoming vehicles over the cell phone or grocery list.
Pinkmouse, it seems to me the brain is responding, in that circumstance, to the possibility that the sound was created by a land-based source. I seriously doubt the brain didn't notice the apparent 45 degree localisation. I mean, really, evolution selects that which works, and if a more accurate perception of things external gives a species an evolutionary edge, which to my reasoning it must, then, as per my previous post, the brain's ability to accurately perceive must be at a very high pitch.
Well, if there's a gene which controls that, we should see it predoninate over the next century or two, eh?
Point well-taken on "predator/enemy" rather than "ghost." Coincidently, I had to run into my son's room a few hours ago when he was sure that the shadows on the wall were monsters.
rdf said:
Eventually, if it has survival benefits, we might. However, we could use the existing perception bias of humans to do the same thing. Just make all vehicle engines have the same tonality as the crying of a baby. Not very macho though, to have your V8 sounding like a sixth-month old with a wet nappy! 😉
pinkmouse said:
Tell that to my Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Uncle Grok who was killed by a sabre tooth tiger that pounced on him from a tree.
se
...within the constraints that "which works" is genetically and/or biologically accessible. That's why we don't have x-ray vision, poisonous fangs or claws, or a spare set of gills in case we fall in the water.
If my car sounded like a baby crying, I couldn't drive. I would be as far away from roads and cars as possible!
-Chris
-Chris
SY said:
Yes, of course, we have what we have, and what we have, including our ears, must operate at a high pitch in discerning real from unreal or we would have gone the way of Steve Eddy's great great etc uncle.
serengetiplains said:
But with a major bias towards counting unreal things as real, otherwise novel stimuli could well lead to harm, rather than the safer flee response
I absolutely refuse to draw any conclusions here between Steve's genetic lineage and deafness...
😉
pinkmouse said:
Not a bias toward counting unreal as real, because that just gets you eaten by an organism that perceives reality better, but a bias toward discerning---correctly---whether a sound is unfamiliar or familiar. Now, think through the implications of that for audio.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.