A few years ago whilst playing my electric guitar it intrigued me how the ‘spring reverb’ effect was accomplished. Turns out, the electrical signal is fed through a long, slinky type spring and the resultant effect is to produce echoes and distortions to the original signal. It’s basically extended michrophony, and in audio amps this ‘problem’ has been known about for year and tackled in a variety of ways - damping on capacitors, honeycombe chassis, isolation tables etc etc. After all, electrical signals are just vibrational energy, which can be affected by other vibrational energies, be they acoustic or mechanical. So, I set out to produce a complete audio system where one of the major considerations was the removal of any external vibrational energy to the system. Loudspeakers, Amplifiers, Stand, components were all treated as a possible source of extraneous vibrations and treated accordingly. Using a TV analogy, the aim was to produce a black playing surface.
I have been happily listening to the system for the past year or so, very pleased with the results, until a few weeks ago. My partner used to listen to CD’s but my system is all analogue, and her CD collection is vast and contains items not available on vinyl. We fetched her Marantz player from storage and set it up, but something was wrong. My ears a fairly good, my partner’s are too (her son is a concert pianist) but she is not a hi-fi aficionado, she just likes listening to music. After about 20 seconds of the first track we both looked at each other and said ‘eeewwhhh’. Digital hash was the best description, a really abrasive edge to the music, very prominent. We couldn’t listen anymore. I put a valve buffer after the CD player, which improved things, but still there was an uncomfortable edginess. Case solved – my system is so ‘clean’ you can hear the digital hash.
Lol. If only life were that simple. The thing is, with any experiment, there has to be a constant reference point and in this case, that would be the listeners’ ears. But that is also not strictly true, because it is the perception of the sound that must be constant. I am sure all of you have noticed the psychoacoustic effects of certain drugs, how they can let you hear things differently. It is a well documented phenomenon. But we were not on drugs. In actual fact we were off drugs. Which one? Morphine. Morphine has been linked to phsycoacoustic phenomenon, particularly in respect of our response to audible stimuli.
Yep, becoming Vegan may have totally messed up my acoustic terms of reference. It could be the system though
(You did know that milk contains morphine?)
I have been happily listening to the system for the past year or so, very pleased with the results, until a few weeks ago. My partner used to listen to CD’s but my system is all analogue, and her CD collection is vast and contains items not available on vinyl. We fetched her Marantz player from storage and set it up, but something was wrong. My ears a fairly good, my partner’s are too (her son is a concert pianist) but she is not a hi-fi aficionado, she just likes listening to music. After about 20 seconds of the first track we both looked at each other and said ‘eeewwhhh’. Digital hash was the best description, a really abrasive edge to the music, very prominent. We couldn’t listen anymore. I put a valve buffer after the CD player, which improved things, but still there was an uncomfortable edginess. Case solved – my system is so ‘clean’ you can hear the digital hash.
Lol. If only life were that simple. The thing is, with any experiment, there has to be a constant reference point and in this case, that would be the listeners’ ears. But that is also not strictly true, because it is the perception of the sound that must be constant. I am sure all of you have noticed the psychoacoustic effects of certain drugs, how they can let you hear things differently. It is a well documented phenomenon. But we were not on drugs. In actual fact we were off drugs. Which one? Morphine. Morphine has been linked to phsycoacoustic phenomenon, particularly in respect of our response to audible stimuli.
Yep, becoming Vegan may have totally messed up my acoustic terms of reference. It could be the system though
(You did know that milk contains morphine?)
When CDs first came out my brother-in-law (used to analogue) found them harsh to listen to. I built him a little HF shelf. I can't remember the details but I think it dropped signals above a few kHz by a few dB. He was then happy. His CD player now had a rolled-off HF like his analogue stuff. Nothing whatsoever to do with "digital hash". Everything to do with what we are used to hearing. Now he is used to CDs (and has got rid of his turntable) he doesn't need the shelf, and would probably find analogue too muffled.
Did you know that ASDA has started selling Vinyl? Have you been into HMV recently and looked at the amount of Vinyl they have, and the amount they are are selling? have you seen the demographics of the purchasers? Do you think all these people are deluded? You stick with you shelf theory, because that is what you understand.
You told a story and deduced something from it. I told a different story and deduced something different from it. You then use the word "deluded" (which I did not use) and appear to accuse me of ignorance.
If you are in the habit of insulting anyone who's views differ from yours then you might find DIYaudio is a site which creates too much stress for you. If you seek affirmation rather than fact-based discussion then there are audio sites which specialise in this.
If you are in the habit of insulting anyone who's views differ from yours then you might find DIYaudio is a site which creates too much stress for you. If you seek affirmation rather than fact-based discussion then there are audio sites which specialise in this.
OK I'll bite. Some people's digestive system is not capable of fully breaking down milk proteins and one of the partially broken down proteins just happens to fit the opioid receptors.
So for a small percentage of the population milk can have an effect like taking an opiate. This is not the same as "milk contains morphine"
Tony.
Yes it does. Milk contains Morphine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6267691
Why Cheese is Like "Dairy Crack": Because It's Got Morphine In It
and lots more.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6267691
Why Cheese is Like "Dairy Crack": Because It's Got Morphine In It
and lots more.
That is in milk - the levels (obviously) are much higher in concentrated forms ie cheese. I am surprised your research didn't show that.
So you agree then - dairy products contain morphine?
So you agree then - dairy products contain morphine?
Definitely
There is no such thing that will match/suit everything... the new bought marantz DAC does not fit your setup.
I have faced the situation like yours alot lately. Changing amplifier parameters ,speakers or the room ITSELF could cure all the "wrongness".
'
IMO its not that simple at all... 😀 Living regular office like life is alot easier compared to constracting and analyzing amplifiers and squeezing out all the necessary details we are after.
Speaking of drugs, then under this configuration one cannot value sound at all....
Only in so far that it is non-zero.
One would have to consume 100 million litres of milk to get enough morphine for one recreational dose.
As I said: homeopathic levels of concentration/dilution.
You are right, room acoustics has a far greater affect on the sound quality than any messing about with topologies.
So 1 liter of milk can contain up to 500 nanograms of morphine.
Minimum effective dose (for a "morphine naive" subject, meaning somebody who has never ever been taken it under any form) is:
so 1 liter of milk contains, worst case:
500ng/20mg=0.000025 of the minimum medically effective dose.
Or expressed as a percentage: 0.0025% of minimum effective dose.
You can really get a high (or low) under those conditions 😉
Or to put it in an even more practical way, you need to drink 40000 liters of milk to get stoned.
Sorry, you said cheese, let´s see if that is easier:
given the conventional 5:1 ratio (1 kg of cheese = 5 liters of milk) you´d "only" need to eat 8 tons of cheese to get a high.
Dear number7 , if the sound difference levels you mention are comparable to the morphine example you posted , don´t be surprised that your opinions are not taken too seriously.
As of your supposed "digital hash" , we are talking some 44kHz sampling frequency (I´d LOVE to see a sensitivity graph of your ears at that frequency 😉 ) , which is further attenuated by digital filters cascaded with speaker rolloff at that frequency (which also add extra 20dB or more) , so we end up with "hash" tens of dB *below* the threshold of audition.
Of course, you can always hide behind the traditional : "but I swear I hear that" ....................... 😉
Minimum effective dose (for a "morphine naive" subject, meaning somebody who has never ever been taken it under any form) is:
(I don´t think you´ll inject milk)
so 1 liter of milk contains, worst case:
500ng/20mg=0.000025 of the minimum medically effective dose.
Or expressed as a percentage: 0.0025% of minimum effective dose.
You can really get a high (or low) under those conditions 😉
Or to put it in an even more practical way, you need to drink 40000 liters of milk to get stoned.
Sorry, you said cheese, let´s see if that is easier:
given the conventional 5:1 ratio (1 kg of cheese = 5 liters of milk) you´d "only" need to eat 8 tons of cheese to get a high.
Dear number7 , if the sound difference levels you mention are comparable to the morphine example you posted , don´t be surprised that your opinions are not taken too seriously.
As of your supposed "digital hash" , we are talking some 44kHz sampling frequency (I´d LOVE to see a sensitivity graph of your ears at that frequency 😉 ) , which is further attenuated by digital filters cascaded with speaker rolloff at that frequency (which also add extra 20dB or more) , so we end up with "hash" tens of dB *below* the threshold of audition.
Of course, you can always hide behind the traditional : "but I swear I hear that" ....................... 😉
Last edited:
Firstly, hard cheese, which is predominant, contains 10 litres of milk per Kg, not 5 as you stated. If you are going to quote figures, make sure they are correct, otherwise people may think you are a politician.
Secondly, there is a cumulative effect, and if you need further evidence, speak / look on forums at those who have tried to give up cheese - it is one of the most addictive products on the market. Why do you think that is? The taste?
Thirldly, do your research into the medically known effects of opioids on the brain - we know so little about the brain in general, and I know even less. To dismiss an observed reaction based on not knowing anything is trite at best. I am not saying there is a direct correlation, hence the original post was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I do believe there is so much more to learn about the brain, stimuli and the effects of digital technology. We are analogue beings (though the scientists are at loggerheads - they can't decide if the brain is analogue or digital - yes, they know that little)
Try opening your mind to things which are not possible (you may have to come off the dairy first 🙂)
I think that just about sums it up.number7 said:
I suspect if you look hard enough you can find just about any substance in milk, or water, or air. However, when we say "X contains Y" the usual convention is that X at least contains sufficient amounts of Y to have some consequence. Twice an insignificant amount is still insignificant, and hard cheese only predominates in some markets. To claim that cheese is "one of the most addictive products on the market" is a bit silly; what about coffee, tea, alcohol?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.