I didn't watch the video but I fully agree with this. The way we perceive sound varies. How we form our own opinions or feelings about the sound when we hear it varies too.
When you are only interested in parameters of the equipment, measurements make perfect sense. No problem with that. However, measurents cant tell you how people will react to the sound. Some may like it some may hate it. We are all unique individuals. We are all different.
I can't tell whether a system will sound good to my ears just because of the graphs and numbers. I have to listen to it to know if I enjoy listening or not.
recap of Schumann frequency for improving the SQ,
All commercial audiophile Schumann frequency generators including eBay DIY types of which there are a great many and of course the various Acoustic Revive models from RR 77 to RR 777 and RR 888 operate by generating an electromagnetic wave 7.83 Hz.
Since the real natural Schumann frequency wave has a wavelength of approximately 25,000 miles how do the audiophile devices generate the 7.83 Hz wave?
The binaural beats versions of the Schumann frequency available on YouTube generate acoustic 7.83 Hz signal. They do this by beating two higher frequencies together such that the difference is exactly 7.83 Hz. The sound is not very loud for any of the YouTube vids. You cannot hear the two higher beat frequencies whilst music is playing and you can‘t hear the 7.83 Hz acoustic Schumann wave at all, even if no music is playing. You can however feel the 7.83 Hz if you are holding the iPad or iPhone.
So, we have several mysteries here. but the biggest one of all is how the Schumann frequency improves SQ. More precisely how the acoustic version of the wave improves SQ. All the various Schumann frequency videos on YouTube, the ones I’ve tried, do not produce the same results, which is a mystery in itself.
All commercial audiophile Schumann frequency generators including eBay DIY types of which there are a great many and of course the various Acoustic Revive models from RR 77 to RR 777 and RR 888 operate by generating an electromagnetic wave 7.83 Hz.
Since the real natural Schumann frequency wave has a wavelength of approximately 25,000 miles how do the audiophile devices generate the 7.83 Hz wave?
The binaural beats versions of the Schumann frequency available on YouTube generate acoustic 7.83 Hz signal. They do this by beating two higher frequencies together such that the difference is exactly 7.83 Hz. The sound is not very loud for any of the YouTube vids. You cannot hear the two higher beat frequencies whilst music is playing and you can‘t hear the 7.83 Hz acoustic Schumann wave at all, even if no music is playing. You can however feel the 7.83 Hz if you are holding the iPad or iPhone.
So, we have several mysteries here. but the biggest one of all is how the Schumann frequency improves SQ. More precisely how the acoustic version of the wave improves SQ. All the various Schumann frequency videos on YouTube, the ones I’ve tried, do not produce the same results, which is a mystery in itself.
Last edited:
Although I don't personally own the ls3/5a my uncle do and he pairs wit with a holiday tube amp. Go to his house to listen to it from time to time.
It's just sounds so good to my ears all these years. I love them. No doubt not everyone likes them, but as long as I like the sound, does it matter what others think about them?
@geoffkait
Youtube videos are lossy compressed, so you don't know what you're getting.
If the 7.85Hz EM field generators do make music sound better, its likely directly affecting the brain's perception of music, rather than affecting the music reproduction and room acoustics system. Its also possible that EM pulse generators with a pulse repetition frequency around 7.5Hz could produce radiated EMI/RFI that then affects reproduction equipment. Some experimental work and or measurements might be needed to say much more.
EDIT: The devices I found do not appear to generate a LF sine wave. If they did, maybe there could be a local EM nearfield that doesn't couple well into the characteristic impedance of free space. What some of the generators appear to do is generate short pulses that repeat at 7.85Hz. Very different thing from a sine wave. Also, your brain might be more easily affected by radiated pulses. In particular, the brain would make a better antenna for the much shorter wavelength of short duration pulses.
Youtube videos are lossy compressed, so you don't know what you're getting.
If the 7.85Hz EM field generators do make music sound better, its likely directly affecting the brain's perception of music, rather than affecting the music reproduction and room acoustics system. Its also possible that EM pulse generators with a pulse repetition frequency around 7.5Hz could produce radiated EMI/RFI that then affects reproduction equipment. Some experimental work and or measurements might be needed to say much more.
EDIT: The devices I found do not appear to generate a LF sine wave. If they did, maybe there could be a local EM nearfield that doesn't couple well into the characteristic impedance of free space. What some of the generators appear to do is generate short pulses that repeat at 7.85Hz. Very different thing from a sine wave. Also, your brain might be more easily affected by radiated pulses. In particular, the brain would make a better antenna for the much shorter wavelength of short duration pulses.
Last edited:
and as long as you accept that you are talking personal preferences rather than the one truth that's fine and there should be no arguments.
Yes, I do accept those are entirely my own options, my own perception. I also accept that what applies to me does not apply to others.
The biggest mystery is whether it makes any difference at all, for which I have seen nothing other than the odd anecdote...
@geoffkait
Youtube videos are lossy compressed, so you don't know what you're getting.
If the 7.85Hz EM field generators do make music sound better, its likely directly affecting the brain's perception of music, rather than affecting the music reproduction and room acoustics system. Its also possible that EM pulse generators with a pulse repetition frequency around 7.5Hz could produce radiated EMI/RFI that then affects reproduction equipment. Some experimental work and or measurements might be needed to say much more.
Youtube videos are lossy compressed, so you don't know what you're getting.
If the 7.85Hz EM field generators do make music sound better, its likely directly affecting the brain's perception of music, rather than affecting the music reproduction and room acoustics system. Its also possible that EM pulse generators with a pulse repetition frequency around 7.5Hz could produce radiated EMI/RFI that then affects reproduction equipment. Some experimental work and or measurements might be needed to say much more.
It’s pretty obvious 7.83 Hz electromagnetic wave is not (repeat not) a radio frequency. Just as obvious, the acoustic 7.83 Hz wave cannot be a radio frequency either. So much for that theory.
Not necessarily so. Ever here if ELF radio? Submarine underwater radio communications (data rate is extremely slow)?
https://pages.hep.wisc.edu/~prepost/ELF.pdf
So it depends on the definition of 'radio wave' you want to use.
Also, if you go back at look at the edit to #1248, it explains more about pulsed generators. The theory is not necessarily implausible. If the generators do anything to affect how music sounds then there must be some physical explanation that probably isn't too hard to figure out.
Last edited:
The electromagnetic spectrum is very wide, but not everything in the electromagnetic spectrum is radio frequencies. For example colors. Or x rays. ELF at about 75 Hz is an exception that proves the rule. I’ll let you know if I get any signals back from submerged submarines.
Last edited:
Simply a matter of definition. Radio wave can casually be used synonymously with electromagnetic wave (e.g. light is nothing more than a very high frequency radio wave, same thing for radiated heat; its all the same thing -- electromagnetic radiation; we just have different names for it).
but the discussion gets interesting when wave/particle duality comes into play. I've not seen any analysis where TV frequencies are more easily treated as particles.
It seems highly unlikely the Schumann frequency acoustic version is involved with your particular debate, @ mark4w.
Its highly likely that it has nothing to do with Schumann. The brain is sensitive to frequencies in the range of around 4Hz to 7.5Hz. Humans make a good antenna for short enough pulses. Put those two facts together and the puzzle starts to get less mysterious.
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._tasks/link/0c9605263ccfb11228000000/download
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._tasks/link/0c9605263ccfb11228000000/download
Last edited:
True. Do we need to go there? Some of it may get into things that science is still working on.
https://undark.org/2019/03/08/baggott-quantum-gravity/#:~:text=JB: Loop quantum gravity is,vibrational patterns in these strings.
We don't need to go there, but worth pointing out that for Electromagnetism science still can't say what is going on, just that there is a paradigm that fits what the problem is you are working on.
Already mentioned I’ve been examining many other “very low acoustic frequencies“ including the ones you mentioned, but also many others. I can report they do nothing for the SQ. Who knows what they do, maybe if you’re into meditation. My only interest here regarding Schumann is it’s effects on SQ, which imo are very significant. This is big. Big big.
Also, you can probably forget ELF frequencies, since they are almost never actually used, maybe for system testing. Also you can forget gravity waves, LIGO type very low frequency waves Since their amplitude is on the order of a proton diameter. Solar flares probably do affect sound quality but that’s for another discussion.
Also, you can probably forget ELF frequencies, since they are almost never actually used, maybe for system testing. Also you can forget gravity waves, LIGO type very low frequency waves Since their amplitude is on the order of a proton diameter. Solar flares probably do affect sound quality but that’s for another discussion.
Last edited:
Geoff, some people think music sounds better if they smoke pot. At least they don't fool themselves into calling it Shumann pot.
Anyway, what I have suggested should testable and falsifiable. For one interesting question, do so-called pulsed Shumann generators make live acoustic music sound better? Say you have someone who can perform acoustic music well come into your room with the stereo turned off (or a room with no stereo, only a generator), and then suppose you have the person perform. While that's happening, turn on and off the generator. Any effect on the sound?
Anyway, what I have suggested should testable and falsifiable. For one interesting question, do so-called pulsed Shumann generators make live acoustic music sound better? Say you have someone who can perform acoustic music well come into your room with the stereo turned off (or a room with no stereo, only a generator), and then suppose you have the person perform. While that's happening, turn on and off the generator. Any effect on the sound?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.