Being bloody weary of those who claim, in various ways, that people who listen are imagining things/deluded/whatever, I have suggested some realistic mechanisms whereby some people might actually be more able in a realistic, biological sense, to hear things that others cannot.
Yet another possibility:
The current issue of Scientific American has a brief report on a protein called nAChR, found in the inner ear. This protein limits the ability of the hairs in the inner ear to respond to sound. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have genetically engineered mice to produce more nAChR and found that such mice could not hear 'soft sounds.' (And, interestingly, sustained less damage when exposed to loud sounds.)
Given that it's readily demonstrable that everybody has different levels of every other protein in their bodies, it would beggar belief if nAChR did not vary from one individual to another as well. Slight--not major--differences could easily be a mechanism by which some listeners might perceive more subtle things than others. Conversely, people with higher levels of nAChR--thereby having less sensitive hearing--might conclude that such things didn't exist.
The researchers are interested in the possibility of increasing nAChR as a temporary protective mechanism for high-volume concert goers; this being a replacement for ear plugs. I'd be interested in finding out if there's a known nAChR antagonist that one could take to temporarily increase hearing acuity for an evening of listening. Nowhere near the market potential, I know, but it would be fascinating, nonetheless.
Grey
Yet another possibility:
The current issue of Scientific American has a brief report on a protein called nAChR, found in the inner ear. This protein limits the ability of the hairs in the inner ear to respond to sound. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have genetically engineered mice to produce more nAChR and found that such mice could not hear 'soft sounds.' (And, interestingly, sustained less damage when exposed to loud sounds.)
Given that it's readily demonstrable that everybody has different levels of every other protein in their bodies, it would beggar belief if nAChR did not vary from one individual to another as well. Slight--not major--differences could easily be a mechanism by which some listeners might perceive more subtle things than others. Conversely, people with higher levels of nAChR--thereby having less sensitive hearing--might conclude that such things didn't exist.
The researchers are interested in the possibility of increasing nAChR as a temporary protective mechanism for high-volume concert goers; this being a replacement for ear plugs. I'd be interested in finding out if there's a known nAChR antagonist that one could take to temporarily increase hearing acuity for an evening of listening. Nowhere near the market potential, I know, but it would be fascinating, nonetheless.
Grey
tomtt said:
This is really funny, when I visited Temecula tasting meant full pours and NO spit buckets were provided. Not finishing was taken as an insult, the wine OTOH was.
Re: Re: Myhrrhleine
I consider myself more open minded than most. I frequently find those of the more subjectivist bent to reject out of hand anything that sounds like reductionist scientific reasoning.
"new info does not match my belief.
right or wrong... reject !"
myhrrhleine said:
I consider myself more open minded than most. I frequently find those of the more subjectivist bent to reject out of hand anything that sounds like reductionist scientific reasoning.
"new info does not match my belief.
right or wrong... reject !"
Grey,
Your words makes sense, however, I doubt whether sensible argument will convince the mockers. It was said enough above.
Your words makes sense, however, I doubt whether sensible argument will convince the mockers. It was said enough above.
GRollins said:
We discussed the possibility of auditory-savantism before. I have personally witnessed people multiplying two 10 digit numbers in their heads. Unusual mental capabilities do exist, this does not mean that this capability is available to anyone with training. The audio industry can safely ignore these anomolies just like the calculator industry can assume most peoiple need a "little" help.
Some people have better hearing than others. It is not merely what an auditory sweep or tone test will tell you.
I got my HP35 in 1972, come to think about it, and my HP65 in 1974, and my HP 41 in 1984.
Sure beats a slide rule, at my side for more than 10 years.
I got my HP35 in 1972, come to think about it, and my HP65 in 1974, and my HP 41 in 1984.
Sure beats a slide rule, at my side for more than 10 years.
I prefer the argument that some people have better listening ability than others. This, however, does not preclude also that some are delusional.
Hi Grey,
May I ask if you use the following products?
Speaker wire lifts, Green markers for CDs, Films applied to your CDs, green LEDs inside your CD player, Magnets for the outside of your speaker enclosures, bricks to sit on your gear, Wire burn in CDs, Anti-magnetic or charge removing CD's for your system, really expensive IEC power cords, Polarized interconnects (can't call them patch cords, now can we?) and probably many more items I can't think of right now.
One man's word is not good enough to convince the thinking people of an effect that can not be reproduced. What you need to be able to do is back your statements up. Using known physics would really help here. Attempting to rely on previously unknown laws of physics (especially if they contradict known laws) will probably drive away your best thinking allies. The non-thinking crowd will of course smile and follow.
You are one of the few that gets annoyed when normal investigative questioning is going on. It's always the same thing with you. Believe! Believe! I've seen the truth, the light, the knowledge! Follow me to audio nirvana!
None of this should threaten you Grey, the truth will always prevail. Fiction only lightens the wallets of those who don't think. Understand that what you think you hear may heavily influenced by a subconscious suggestion. Now that is a proved fact.
Have a nice day. 🙂
-Chris
Edit:
Hi pooge,
Completely agree, but you did it with far less words.
Probably about as tired as people may get of listening to you rant about what you hear trumping proved facts (with reproducible data).
May I ask if you use the following products?
Speaker wire lifts, Green markers for CDs, Films applied to your CDs, green LEDs inside your CD player, Magnets for the outside of your speaker enclosures, bricks to sit on your gear, Wire burn in CDs, Anti-magnetic or charge removing CD's for your system, really expensive IEC power cords, Polarized interconnects (can't call them patch cords, now can we?) and probably many more items I can't think of right now.
One man's word is not good enough to convince the thinking people of an effect that can not be reproduced. What you need to be able to do is back your statements up. Using known physics would really help here. Attempting to rely on previously unknown laws of physics (especially if they contradict known laws) will probably drive away your best thinking allies. The non-thinking crowd will of course smile and follow.
You are one of the few that gets annoyed when normal investigative questioning is going on. It's always the same thing with you. Believe! Believe! I've seen the truth, the light, the knowledge! Follow me to audio nirvana!
None of this should threaten you Grey, the truth will always prevail. Fiction only lightens the wallets of those who don't think. Understand that what you think you hear may heavily influenced by a subconscious suggestion. Now that is a proved fact.
Have a nice day. 🙂
-Chris
Edit:
Hi pooge,
Completely agree, but you did it with far less words.
anatech said:
No in all cases.
I'm not even sure what you mean by some of them: Polarized interconnects? Whuzzat? Guess I'll have to find a "guru" somewhere to explain that one to me. Nor have I heard of green LEDs inside the CD player--I'm assuming that you mean something other than the playback head, yes?
Incidentally, the power cord thing (I use whatever came with the units I bought) is a pretty easy item to start with. There was a thread once upon a time wherein someone not unlike you was crying foul about special power cords. He went on at length about this, that, and the other...all the usual fol-de-rol about deluded sheep following somebody-or-other. I let him work himself into a righteous state, whereupon he claimed to have ninety-nine jillion dollars worth of test equipment and he'd prove that there was nothing to it and so forth. So I suggested about a half-dozen things to look for, the most obvious of which being the capacitance and/or inductance of the fancy cables acting as a low pass filter, hence knocking out RF and/or digital nasties fed into the house AC. Bless his widdle heart, he never replied. Hasn't been heard from since, in fact. The thing is, you see, if he (and you) put half as much energy into actually thinking things through as you do into mockery, you might just come up with something testable. Perish the thought. Bad me for even suggesting the idea.
In my case, I just whomped up some external LC filters out of stuff I had on hand. Cheap and very effective. Thank goodness for junk boxes.
Please note two things:
1) I'm not saying anything pro or con as to whether the big cables have any audible benefits above and beyond the (potential--it would depend on the design of the cable) filtering action. I cannot because I have not listened to them. Unless and until I listen to things the only intellectually honest position is to say that I have no opinion.
2) I am not defending the pricing of said cables. There are two questions, not one. The first is, "Does it make an audible difference?" The second is, "Do you feel that the difference (presumed good--if it's bad, then the idea is a non-starter except to prove that AC power cords can make a difference) is worth the asking price?" Or--this being DIY--what can you make one for?
Oh, and a disclaimer...I may install cable lifting gizmos. Why? 'Cuz we've got a Roomba, and the poor thing can't crawl over cables (quad-amped and don't forget the hoses for the water cooling) and I'd like to have it do my listening room. It'll have to go underneath. Now, obviously, some people think they make a difference, so I'll probably listen before and after. I've got a full woodworking shop, so I can make them out of something nice (got lotsa scraps of cool woods) for zero money; just the time involved. Unfortunately, time is still a problem, so although we've had the Roomba for a month or two, I haven't had an opportunity to make anything.
Sorry, Chris, but you're barking up the wrong tree...yet again...
...And I'm still waiting for that list of posts, fella...
There's this scene in The Road to El Dorado where one of the guys is fussing at the other; says something to the effect of, "You know that little voice in your head that tells you when to stop? You don't have one!" You've charged right off the edge of a half-dozen cliffs recently with eyes tightly shut. Don't you have a little voice that tells you to at least slow down?
Grey
P.S.: The backstory: Chris/anatech initiated e-mail contact with me recently and said increasingly outrageous things. Accused me of being a member of diyhifi and several other completely off the wall weirdities that left me shaking my head. Will someone who has dual citizenship here and at diyhifi please verify for Chris that I'm not a member there? Worse comes to worst, ask Jocko. Jeez. I mean, there's reality, and there's...well...I'm not sure where some of the things he said came from. It got pretty surreal.
Note the assumptions he made in the post above. It's difficult to converse with someone who's got that sort of thing going on in his noggin. Frankly, I found the whole thing rather distasteful.
Grey, we have to avoid antagonizing these people. To be sure, they can insult us, but they are the villagers and we are the 'nails who stick out'. This is not a tweeks and mods thread, but I find little wrong with tweeks and mods, personally, it is just that I don't bother much, as I am not that fussy with my audio system.
Why these things are brought up here, just shows an accumulated opinion against what you and I found interesting. It is best to tread lightly.
Why these things are brought up here, just shows an accumulated opinion against what you and I found interesting. It is best to tread lightly.
SY said:
Of course. The scientific method, which many here seem to like to pin their flag to (even trying to grasp at referent power by associating with Feynman! Geez) but don't seem to practice it, is based on skepticism until proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The method whereby a hypothesis is accepted as true (with innocent Bambi eyes wide open) without proper scrutiny is not scientific. It is more akin to religion. Wishful thinking. Bambis are the prey of unscrupulous marketeers.
There is no conflict between being scientific in approach and being open to new ideas. For goodness sake, history surely proves this beyond any doubt.
IME the scrappy audio industry relies on BS to survive. The innocent get suckered all the time.
It is not my job in life to 'sucker' anyone. In fact, I am probably doing myself a disservice just talking openly here about controversial subjects. Most of my friends and associates find no reason to defend or explain their actions here.
I personally work with what I find improves audio quality, and I don't pass judgement on what I have not personally tried and lived with.
If you think that you have caught me in a 'lie' about what we discuss here, please inform me openly or by e-mail what it is about. I would truly be interested.
I personally work with what I find improves audio quality, and I don't pass judgement on what I have not personally tried and lived with.
If you think that you have caught me in a 'lie' about what we discuss here, please inform me openly or by e-mail what it is about. I would truly be interested.
Jaques Benveniste
"Subsequent investigations have not supported Benveniste's findings. His reputation was damaged, but he refused to retract his controversial article. He began to fund his research himself as his external sources of funding were withdrawn. In 1997, he founded the company DigiBio to "develop and commercialise applications of Digital Biology."
People believe what they want to believe, even in the face of objective evidence to the contrary. Not good for their reputations.
"Subsequent investigations have not supported Benveniste's findings. His reputation was damaged, but he refused to retract his controversial article. He began to fund his research himself as his external sources of funding were withdrawn. In 1997, he founded the company DigiBio to "develop and commercialise applications of Digital Biology."
People believe what they want to believe, even in the face of objective evidence to the contrary. Not good for their reputations.
Re: Re: Re: Myhrrhleine
Along with everyone else.
Of course, as you know, being open-minded is only a virtue if one is also appropriately discerning about what ideas one chooses to accept. Like you do. Otherwise, being open-minded is simply being gullible.
scott wurcer said:
Along with everyone else.
Of course, as you know, being open-minded is only a virtue if one is also appropriately discerning about what ideas one chooses to accept. Like you do. Otherwise, being open-minded is simply being gullible.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.