O.K. then, more acutely and accurately. Also, what conclusion?
Stephen Pinker notwithstanding, how the brain has evolved as specifically as you'd like to think is strictly hypothetical. Sure, you can see how much certain regions of the brain have evolved by comparing fossil crania, but no one can really say that at some time in the distant past an old relative who responded to imaginary sounds had a better chance of survival than one who responded only to actual sounds. If this were true, wouldn't the world's population be dominated by paranoid schizophrenics? 🙂
A snapping twig sound, whether made by a sabre-toothed tiger, a squirrel or an old girlfriend is still a snapping twig sound and not something that is imaginary. Although the caveman is presented with three different threat levels, only one is life-threatening. Evolution is not served by running away from noises inside the head but by analysis of a real threat.
To carry your hypotheses one step further, wouldn't someone who responded constantly to sounds that didn't actually occur become complacent and get eaten up the first time he decided to put out of his mind a noise actually made by a predator? These ideas make for interesting dinner party conversation, but let's not be so certain of something for which there will probably never be any substantial proof.
John
I'm saying that any ordinary cable can be improved by better shielding and loading techniques. Cost is an important factor in cable engineering for "pro" equipment, but based on my own experience with listening to professional applications (mostly P.A. and movie theaters), accurate and high quality sound aren't.
John
Hi John,
Well, loading techniques are not the job of the cable. In this case, are we talking about a power cable?
Shielding is a normal construction technique these days. You can thank the use of computer switching power supplies for existence of the now common shielded power cable. I would classify this as a well engineered, common cable.
Now, if you consider speaker wire, there are normally long runs involved in PA or theater work. That will force a larger gage wire to be used. A plain 12 ga "zip cord" style is common, but the last PA application I installed had to use a shielded cable in a round jacket. Expensive stuff and I used 8,000 ~ 9,000 ft of that stuff. But, even in industrial applications, the goal is to move a signal from one place to another with minimal changes to that signal. That means accurate and high quality, within reason. You sure aren't going to see anything with a polarized dielectric via and electrical charge. Nothing exotic will fly unless is delivers a real solution to a real problem.
You would be surprised to see how important fidelity and high sound quality really is in a movie theater.
-Chris
Well, loading techniques are not the job of the cable. In this case, are we talking about a power cable?
Shielding is a normal construction technique these days. You can thank the use of computer switching power supplies for existence of the now common shielded power cable. I would classify this as a well engineered, common cable.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here John. Cost is always an important factor in PA applications, or pro sound. If the cable requires a design feature for an application, they still look at cost vs performance. This is more a factor with speaker wire and signal cables than power cables. Generally, whatever the unit comes with is used. That is unless the equipment is replacing another piece. If that is the case, the original power cable will probably be used rather than trying to grab the old one for replacement.
Now, if you consider speaker wire, there are normally long runs involved in PA or theater work. That will force a larger gage wire to be used. A plain 12 ga "zip cord" style is common, but the last PA application I installed had to use a shielded cable in a round jacket. Expensive stuff and I used 8,000 ~ 9,000 ft of that stuff. But, even in industrial applications, the goal is to move a signal from one place to another with minimal changes to that signal. That means accurate and high quality, within reason. You sure aren't going to see anything with a polarized dielectric via and electrical charge. Nothing exotic will fly unless is delivers a real solution to a real problem.
You would be surprised to see how important fidelity and high sound quality really is in a movie theater.
-Chris
John, you seem to think that all research into neurological evolution and development is fossil-based. It isn't. Pinker is probably the top guy in the field (my good friend Michael Ramscar might disagree) and perhaps you should try reading and understanding his stuff. Anyone fooled by an optical or aural illusion (the descending scale one is my favorite) or by a skilled conjurer has had a perfect demonstration of how the brain's processing can easily give "wrong" results.
Now, why would someone like VTL use a trick power cord? Maybe because they are trying to SELL equipment and their target audience reads Stereophile and are ignorant of superposition?
Now, why would someone like VTL use a trick power cord? Maybe because they are trying to SELL equipment and their target audience reads Stereophile and are ignorant of superposition?
Point me to his volume that discusses specifically how hearing a sound that never existed works out to be an evolutionary advantage and I'll take a look. Evolutionary psychology is only based on any number of hypotheses that are debated and discussed by experts in the field until some sort of consensus is reached. There is little or no hard evidence extant that contributes to the exact certainty of these ideas any more than there exists evidence as to the exact coloring of dinosaurs.
Then why do so many movie theaters have sound systems that are just awful? No, the goal there is loud noises and effects, not accurate reproduction.
John
Effscts is the key word in movie theater systems but home theater systems too.In most cases with systems like these,a gun shot sounds like a cannonade,and just can't find a word for how a punch in the face sounds.
Re: Pinker and Ramscar, interesting reading though their primary concern appears to be language. I don't disagree with you, however the blade cuts both ways. Quickly browsing some of their on-line papers, for example, from the Abstract for Ramscar's "No representation without taxation: The costs and benefits of learning to conceptualize the environment":
If I read that correctly, always concentrating on the forest comes at the cost of blinding one to the trees. It's an argument I've made here before, the mind has an innate ability to discard perception of stimulus, not just 'create' false perceptions. Ramscar's comment appears to have significant relevance in the context of this discussion, not on the side many would like.
If I read that correctly, always concentrating on the forest comes at the cost of blinding one to the trees. It's an argument I've made here before, the mind has an innate ability to discard perception of stimulus, not just 'create' false perceptions. Ramscar's comment appears to have significant relevance in the context of this discussion, not on the side many would like.
Hi rdf,
So true!
Hi John,
In a movie theater, the main goal is to create a homogeneous sound field. This is more important than what you might consider to be accurate. What they need to do is create an illusion of a sound source moving. You can't do that if the sound changes it's character between speakers. Not well anyway.
In truth, there are many examples of theaters that are not set up properly, and many that are.
For movie watching, once you get beyond a certain minimum level of sound quality, it takes someone who listens to sound alone to hear problems with fidelity. To be honest with you, I get caught up in the movie (intended) and will not notice anything but a glaring sound problem. That falls under "entertain me".
-Chris
So true!
Hi John,
In a movie theater, the main goal is to create a homogeneous sound field. This is more important than what you might consider to be accurate. What they need to do is create an illusion of a sound source moving. You can't do that if the sound changes it's character between speakers. Not well anyway.
In truth, there are many examples of theaters that are not set up properly, and many that are.
For movie watching, once you get beyond a certain minimum level of sound quality, it takes someone who listens to sound alone to hear problems with fidelity. To be honest with you, I get caught up in the movie (intended) and will not notice anything but a glaring sound problem. That falls under "entertain me".
-Chris
You got it backward once again. Congratulations!
Exactly! Did you see the card trick video link I posted a few months back? A hilarious and telling example of just this notion.
It took a couple minutes to recall but yes, I liked that one. Doesn't it suggest though the possibility of real auditory differences being masked by poor experimental protocols? Distraction in the form of peer/group/performance pressure, overtly stated experimenter beliefs setting result expectation, unfamiliar base sound, all effectively rising to the level of misdirection. They're the usual quibbles I've had with many of Meyer's BAS demonstrations for example. Not, again, to say power cords matter. Superstitions I can deal with easier than bad science.
Of course.
I don't see that Moran's experiments had misdirection, but more important to me than the results of any single experiment is the total lack of even ONE positive outcome in ANY properly controlled auditory test of ANY of the magic stuff like power cords. Not one. Ever. In over 30 years of superstition in audio.
Well, finally!
The discussion have reached the topic of the physiology of hearing. Where it should have started, we only come to now.
The sensitivity of hearing has been confused with analytical properties of hearing, and it needed a derailment from the 'groove' to at least show that there is life outside the groove.
As has been indicated, our forebears were extremely sensitive to 'hear' noises that they have learned had to do with their continued existence. There was not much chance to teach the subject of 'wrong conclusions' - those with that experience did not normally live to tell the tale.
Point: They did not stop to analise whether the noise - a twig cracking, a roar, the grating of stones - were the exact replica of previous experiences; was it sounding a little distorted, missing something at the top - maybe this was not a real lion ..... That would have developed an awareness of fidelity in its earliest form, ergo, the ability to differentiate or analise in a way relevant here.
An excellent and most timely introduction of the right information. Now if many (including myself as revision) would take time out to read that and similar.
Thus, perhaps a summation of the realist's view might be:
1. Most of those enthusing about "trust your ears" did not nearly have knowledge of how hearing worked. For that they may be excused, but for the fact that how often were others with some of the relevant knowledge simply dismissed/ignored. "I have made up my mind; don't confuse me with facts."
2. The trusting of hearing to exclusion of its limitations was often felt as an inverted slap in the face, while it was never an indication of limitation of some (i.e. derogatory) or meant to be. It was a totally natural phenomenon, which ALL of us possess ... and mercifully so. If hearing was not very compensatory (up to a factor of 1000/1! ), life would have been unbearable.
3. Overlooked, possibly as a result of feared or experienced personal injury, was the fact that our senses are ALL capable of 'misleading'. (Sensing, as in the hot-water - cold-water school experiment?) The ill-logic of singling out hearing as superior, while it was processed by the same brain in the same way as other senses, was miraculously overlooked.
[If I may, an illustration from my police-reservist experiences on the subject of gathering eye-witness reports of an incident: All really were present and capable of such a report. But read the same afterwards, and one wonders if they had been present at the same scene and at the same time!]
4. Also repetition: Science does not know everything, but it knows certain things. Not all facts are subject to improvement just because of possible development. It would be rather difficult to improve on the fact [3 + 5 = 8] with any futuristic development.
Sincerely and respectfully intended: It does irk somewhat that the minority supporting blank hearing superiority, expects the rest of us to accept their (admittedly honest) experiences as dogma instead of individual, despite majority proof to the opposite. (How much more insistant would they have been, had they had greater support!) But those of us working with established facts are not allowed that prerogative despite our 'greater' support? How slanted can this playfield be - one would need to wear spikes to stay upright!
Despite a few wobbles, this thread has gone further to explain reality than most I have read. May it succeed in clearing the scene to some.
The discussion have reached the topic of the physiology of hearing. Where it should have started, we only come to now.
The sensitivity of hearing has been confused with analytical properties of hearing, and it needed a derailment from the 'groove' to at least show that there is life outside the groove.
As has been indicated, our forebears were extremely sensitive to 'hear' noises that they have learned had to do with their continued existence. There was not much chance to teach the subject of 'wrong conclusions' - those with that experience did not normally live to tell the tale.
Point: They did not stop to analise whether the noise - a twig cracking, a roar, the grating of stones - were the exact replica of previous experiences; was it sounding a little distorted, missing something at the top - maybe this was not a real lion ..... That would have developed an awareness of fidelity in its earliest form, ergo, the ability to differentiate or analise in a way relevant here.
Wavebourn said:
An excellent and most timely introduction of the right information. Now if many (including myself as revision) would take time out to read that and similar.
Thus, perhaps a summation of the realist's view might be:
1. Most of those enthusing about "trust your ears" did not nearly have knowledge of how hearing worked. For that they may be excused, but for the fact that how often were others with some of the relevant knowledge simply dismissed/ignored. "I have made up my mind; don't confuse me with facts."
2. The trusting of hearing to exclusion of its limitations was often felt as an inverted slap in the face, while it was never an indication of limitation of some (i.e. derogatory) or meant to be. It was a totally natural phenomenon, which ALL of us possess ... and mercifully so. If hearing was not very compensatory (up to a factor of 1000/1! ), life would have been unbearable.
3. Overlooked, possibly as a result of feared or experienced personal injury, was the fact that our senses are ALL capable of 'misleading'. (Sensing, as in the hot-water - cold-water school experiment?) The ill-logic of singling out hearing as superior, while it was processed by the same brain in the same way as other senses, was miraculously overlooked.
[If I may, an illustration from my police-reservist experiences on the subject of gathering eye-witness reports of an incident: All really were present and capable of such a report. But read the same afterwards, and one wonders if they had been present at the same scene and at the same time!]
4. Also repetition: Science does not know everything, but it knows certain things. Not all facts are subject to improvement just because of possible development. It would be rather difficult to improve on the fact [3 + 5 = 8] with any futuristic development.
Sincerely and respectfully intended: It does irk somewhat that the minority supporting blank hearing superiority, expects the rest of us to accept their (admittedly honest) experiences as dogma instead of individual, despite majority proof to the opposite. (How much more insistant would they have been, had they had greater support!) But those of us working with established facts are not allowed that prerogative despite our 'greater' support? How slanted can this playfield be - one would need to wear spikes to stay upright!
Despite a few wobbles, this thread has gone further to explain reality than most I have read. May it succeed in clearing the scene to some.
You know SY, this arguments usually leads to: this proves not that that they are evidence for the nonexistence of a phenomenon, but rather that controlled - i.e. blind tests - are simply not applicable to audio or that all, and I repeat ALL controlled tests - have been done wrong because they could not verify subjective impressions.
I recall a few discussions here, bringing up the selfsame argument.
As a skeptic you cannot argue against the impression of subjective superior capabilities, even if they are only true in the mind of the person holding such believes.
Therefore my statement as to non overlapping magisteria.
You cannot defeat beliefs with evidence, even when belief makes statements as to physical, testable phenomena.
The culprit for failing any controlled test is always the stress, the equipment, the procedure etc.
See JREF...you know...
It had other problems. From the Sensible Sound technical analysis of the Yamaha DVD-S1500 used for (presumably) a third of the results:
While an SACD might have been in the tray - and experience teaches me not to believe reported sampling/bit rates, confirm the actual audio content with a spectrum analyzer - it's questionable whether the player's output approached SACD spec.
When it comes to cable, for me they rise in importance in proportion to the amount of time neurotically focused on a single system configuration. Once the focus shifts to changing drivers, bias or topology, cables take a distant back seat.
audio-kraut, let's put that to the test. Suggest some experiments. Don't bother with Meyer's BAS stuff, let's discuss some solid, academic work and keep the personality second-guessing in the drawer. Up to it?
I, and I take it Sy, were talking about presentation to AES, work on forums i.e. various German forums, hydrogene audio, secrets of home theatre, various other forums, were none of the tests were able to confirm the claims of audibility of the in most cases "cable conscious" testees.
In all cases I know of, the test subjects agreed to the protocol, and only after having seen their results (at chance) found suddenly all manner of flaws in the procedure.
I still contend: if someone claims that cable have any audible influence, it is not up to those skeptical to verify this claim, it is up to those making the statement as to the existence of such phenom.
If they cannot do that - their claims are equal as to the existence of the supernatural. No evidence, therefore not interesting.
I am actually totally disinterested other than the claims of auditory superiority that gets always stated, as they mirror similar claims of "wonders" in other areas, be it in the transcendental domain, claims as to extraordinary powers, extraterrestrials etc.
Same old, same old.
All talk and no evidence whatsoever.
audio-kraut said:
Wise words, even if sad. (I agree with your whole post, but wanted to single the above out.)
Made me think of the following:
The 'post bottom line' of one of our contributors: 'Conclusion without examination is prejudice" - or words to that effect.
And famous mystery writer Dick Francis: "Entrenched beliefs cannot be altered by facts".
But then ..... many of us on 'our way up' through tech. or varsity, had to do that - why could we change (apart from having to give the prescribed answer in the exam paper)?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.