|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.177.28.171
In Reply to: RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) posted by edbk on May 30, 2011 at 07:06:47
>> “The bunch of crystals making me feel uncomfortable actually have nothing to do with acoustics at all since they are in a seperate room and I actually feel uncomfortable being in close proximity to the whole lot.” <<
Can we stay with that for the moment. I would also suggest that if you were listening to music in the same room as the bunch of crystals, then you would experience the sound as being worse (something like it being ‘harsh, shouty and aggressive’).
>> “However since they effect how I feel (nautious) unrelated to a musical signal they might actually just effect my person without having any effect on the actual musical signal.” <<
Consider the effect not DIRECTLY on you but them altering the environment which you are in and then you reacting to the changes in that environment i.e “An effect once removed”
Can you ‘handle’ that concept if I take it further ?
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
Follow Ups:
"Can we stay with that for the moment. I would also suggest that if you were listening to music in the same room as the bunch of crystals, then you would experience the sound as being worse (something like it being ‘harsh, shouty and aggressive’)."
Yes I tried that, it causes a big midrange suckout.
"Consider the effect not DIRECTLY on you but them altering the environment which you are in and then you reacting to the changes in that environment i.e “An effect once removed”
Can you ‘handle’ that concept if I take it further ?"
Please do..
The reason why I asked if YOU could ‘handle’ that concept before I took it any further is that sometimes I can easily detect when someone else is just casually taking part in a discussion merely for the sake of it, and at other times not. In this occasion I felt genuine interest in the subject but was not absolutely sure.
Part One.
Staying away from audio matters for the moment for background purposes.
Let us look at the human being (or rather, let us first look at Nature and evolution).
Let us look at the concept of evolution programming us (and most other creatures) to read/sense/monitor our environment every millisecond of every second of every minute of every hour of every day of our lives. To stay safe, ‘readings’ have to be done so regularly, each different ‘reading’ creating a memory of that ‘reading’ and each new reading/memory compared with the previous reading/memory to make sure that no changes have taken place or to judge what changes have taken place.
To spell it out more using a hypothetical example and an ‘early creature’.
The ‘creature’ is at the edge of a clearing – with a tree on the left, a rock in front and a bush on the right. The ‘creature’ takes a ‘reading’ of that scene at 10.56. Everything is still, no changes are happening. That ‘reading’ is committed to memory timed at 10.56. At 10.57 another ‘reading’ is taken, that new ‘reading’ is committed to memory timed at 10.57 but, at the same time, it is compared with the previous (10.56) memory and the conclusion from comparing the latest reading with the previous ‘reading’ is that nothing is changing. The same thing happens at 10.58. And also at 10.59. Each new ‘reading’ compared with the previous (timed) memories. However, at 11.00 when the latest ‘reading’ is taken and compared with the previous memories, a change is registered – something has changed at the edge of the clearing between the tree and the rock. The creature is immediately alerted and prepared for flight, fight or freeze. Each subsequent ‘reading/memory’ is compared with each previous reading/memory so that the creature is now able to ‘track’ whatever had caused the change !! Is it moving to the right, is it moving to the left, is it staying parallel, is it moving away, is it moving forward, or is it staying stationary ? The creature will STAY under tension until the danger has gone away !! The creature, programmed, by evolution, will stay under tension (on the alert), continually comparing each new reading/memory with the previous memories until such time as it can ‘sign off it’s environment as safe’.
But, the important thing is that there had to have been “stationary” (stable) ‘readings’ (at 10.56, 10.57, 10.58 10.59) for the creature to have been able to KNOW (become aware) that something had changed at 11.00 !!!!! It is that COMPARISON with all the different ‘readings’ - (timed) memories i.e memories in chronological order - which is the important thing.
Nature has developed, over millions of years, numerous techniques to be used as “Watch out, there’s danger about” signals. But, also, Nature has developed numerous techniques to be used as “It’s OK, you can relax now, the danger has gone away” signals, because Nature cannot have creatures left ‘under tension, on the alert’ unnecessarily because that would be too wasteful of precious energy !!!! There has to be a signal (or signals) which are used in Nature meaning ‘it’s OK, you can relax now’. So, as well as being ‘programmed’ to read/sense the environment for signs of danger, creatures (and us) are ‘programmed’ to be searching the environment for signals of reassurance !! It would appear that Nature has used various techniques (including chemicals) for both purposes.
To be continued.
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
Say the discovery of fire some 500 000 years ago. Early man could use fire to cover his back in the darkeness of the night to prevent those feral feline carnivores from sneaking up behind him. The fire extends his night vision.
However fire completely overcomes the sense of smell. In addition a roaring fire crackles a lot eliminating a great deal of the sense of hearing.
Considering the most evolutionists consider 50 000 years the time needed for genetic change, a natural evolutionary drift, I would submit that mankind has consciously made a shift to the visual realm being predominant.
Indeed reading This is Your brain on Music by Levitin, the most common survival reflex is the startle reflex when it comes to the auditory realm. That is hardly the case when it comes to listening to music, however. Levitin advances the theory that music lays the foundation for communication an important aspect of civilization.
Current fMRI studies show that the brain recognizes pitch first and then subdivides the signal into separate areas of the brain for more detailed analysis, the cortex, amygdala, and the cerebellum. However, current brain tracking indicates the auditory circuit then cues the visual circuits to engage. I would say that your explanation is far from complete and needs to incorporate some of the latest brain scan date.
stu
> > “Current fMRI studies show that the brain recognizes pitch first and then subdivides the signal into separate areas of the brain for more detailed analysis, the cortex, amygdala, and the cerebellum. However, current brain tracking indicates the auditory circuit then cues the visual circuits to engage. I would say that your explanation is far from complete and needs to incorporate some of the latest brain scan date.” < <
OF COURSE my explanation is far from complete. NO explanation is ever complete !!!!!!!!!! I merely explain my concepts in the best way I know how. But no brain scans I have seen show how the latest “reading/sensing” (memory) is being checked against previous memories – which is one of the crucial points I was attempting to make. THAT is the basis of the survival mechanism – whether it is sight, hearing, taste, touch or smell. And which, I might add, has been the basis for survival long before sight, hearing, taste, touch or smell ever existed !! Whatever tiny memory such as bacteria or viruses possess, they are still mainly able to survive different environments and replicate and evolve !!
Of course the auditory circuit will cue the visual circuits to engage – “the existing memories have to be checked out and compared against the latest memory for the best “picture of the environment” to be built by the brain – that is the point I have been trying to make. But the process of ‘checking existing memory details against new happenings’ existed long before the evolution of the hearing and sight senses as we now know them. As far as I am aware, the hearing system which exists now evolved from an original jaw bone (and from whatever function that jaw bone had) and I firmly believe that as soon as the sense of sight evolved, sight proved SO successful from a survival point of view that Nature allowed it more priority in the evolutionary stakes. So, obviously, ‘sight memories’ will be accessed even though it could be sounds which are being heard.
I don’t think one can start at any given point in evolution and say that that is the start of the present state of evolution because at whatever point one would wish to start from, there has to have been ‘something’ already existing for any new stages of evolution to build from. AND, those earlier stages must have been successful in whatever they did because they had survived to that point!!!!
> > “Indeed reading This is Your brain on Music by Levitin, the most common survival reflex is the startle reflex when it comes to the auditory realm. That is hardly the case when it comes to listening to music, however. Levitin advances the theory that music lays the foundation for communication an important aspect of civilization.” < <
The “startle” reflex IS exactly what I was attempting to get over. But, you can only have the “startle” reflex if, previous to that event which caused the ‘startle’, there had been ‘readings/sensings (and subsequent memories) of stability’ (i.e. nothing to create a “startle”). If you don’t like the term ‘stability’, then how about a ‘state of equilibrium’, or ‘a stationary pattern’, or a ‘state of ease’, or a ‘state of peace’ or a ‘state of stillness’? It is the “COMPARISON” between a ‘state of stillness’ and ‘something then causing a startle’ which creates the survival reflex. If there were continuous ‘crackling of twigs’, or continuous ‘shrieks of danger’, then all creatures would be ‘on the alert’ (under tension) continuously and would remain under tension until signals of ‘reassurance’ were sensed. If no signals of reassurance were sensed, then the creature would still remain under tension i.e. not able to ‘sign off their environment as safe’ THIS is the point I was attempting to make – that in the modern environment there is now no longer a ‘state of stillness’ so we are now under various degrees of ‘tension’ –(i.e. not able to ‘sign off our environment as safe’) and that ‘tension’ is not conducive to fully resolving the wealth of information contained in the music being presented to us by the Hi Fi equipment.
In the early 1950s, our own household had electric light, a radio, a one bar electric fire and an electric toaster. Nothing else electric !! Just look at what people have NOW, in their households in 2011. I am sure that you and I would agree that the mass of electromagnetic energy, the RF energy, the microwave energy etc around today, in the modern environment, is not conducive for fully appreciating the complexities of music. Where you and I part company is that you want all that to be having an effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment !! And to give that as the explanation why improvements in the music can be heard from such various so called “tweaks”.
I am fully aware that some electromagnetism, some RF, CAN affect the audio signal, but when similar (sometimes identical) improvements in the music can be experienced from such as different chemicals, from different colours, from different crystals, from different materials etc, and from considerable distances from any audio or electronic equipment, then surely one has to stretch ones thinking further than “an effect on the audio signal”???
If Nature used specific chemicals in the past as danger signals, why can’t we be sensitive to those same chemicals now ? If, for example, we are just sitting reading a book, then we might not register the effect of such a chemical being introduced into our environment (or alternatively, removed from our environment) but if we are doing something intensive like listening to and following an intricate piece of music, then “an effect” could be registered !! - increased tension (worse sound), lessened tension (better sound).
The “startle” result when there is a sudden improvement in the sound is a look of amazement or a smile and the “startle” result when there is a deterioration in the sound is a cringe. The cringe is the working memory ‘shouting, kicking and screaming’ because the standard has suddenly gone below what it has been used to (i.e. what is in it’s memory). I am sure that you are aware of this, only you believe that it is always the audio signal which must have been affected !!
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
some of them more recent advances in molecular neurology. Take Crick's The Amazing Hypothesis, for example. Although he concentrates on the visual aspect of the brain, much of what he writes about involves hearing. in fact he points out that the startle reflex goes to the visual location portion of the cortex, usually making the subject turn towards the sound source to identify and place the noise.
The synaptic connections go from electrical in the nerve cell, to chemical between nerve cells within the synaptic cleft, and that chemical process is primarily triggered by glutamates although those fascinating neuro transmitters like dopamine are also very important. So now I understand you frame is attributing the advances in sonics due to the chemicals in plastics affecting those neural transmitters?
And you likewise deny the possible affects of all those RF producing electronics? It is nice to see you finally admit that the world of electronics has created an RF nightmare, but you likewise seem to mired in your world of the 50's. Modern transistors, in particular are specifically designed to have very high frequency response, primarily because many are specifically engineered for RF work, particularly in computerized applications. They are unusually prone to picking up RF, especially when compared to the tubed type amplification devices or even early transistors ( the 2N3055 comes to mind here).
Chemical nature of smell is interesting because it is the only sense that bypasses the LGN portion of the brain. However, we don't really smell our stereo, and, as a matter of fact, you will notice a great deal of our auditory vocabulary employs visual terms.
Stu
> > “It is nice to see you finally admit that the world of electronics has created an RF nightmare,” < <
Please DO NOT misrepresent what I say !! For over 30 years, Peter and I have been saying that the modern environment is A MESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not FINALLY (in your words) admitting an “RF nightmare”.
> > “Modern transistors, in particular are specifically designed to have very high frequency response, primarily because many are specifically engineered for RF work, particularly in computerized applications. They are unusually prone to picking up RF, especially when compared to the tubed type amplification devices or even early transistors ( the 2N3055 comes to mind here).” < <
What has any effect (or no effect) from RF on certain components in an audio chain got to do with such as the (reported by you) effect of a sugar cube on the sound ?
I don’t challenge what can be ACTUAL effects on components and the audio signal caused by RF interference, electromagnetism etc. You suddenly want to bring into the discussion some effect on a component (i.e an effect on the audio signal) when the general discussion (and possible disagreement) has been around “numerous other things in the listening environment having an effect on the sound” – like a sugar cube - coated or not !!
It was you who introduced the sugar cube (and lumps of rock sugar) and their effect on the sound (good and bad) into the discussions.
> > “Surprisingly a reshaped sugar cube (spherical) proved to be overall superior to the above two, having a slight upper bass hump but good dynamics and a fairly even frequency response. Lumps of rock sugar sounded terrible, BTW. However, a cubical sugar cube also sounded very bad so a lot may have to do with the actual physical configuration of the crystal structure itself.” < <
> > “Coating the sugar cube was predictable to me to be inferior sounding. I went ahead simply to confirm my prediction.” < <
YES, lumps of rock sugar DO have an effect on the sound as do lumps of rock salt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is WHY and HOW they affect the sound which is what is crucial to the whole issue.
Let me attempt to outline the ‘nitty, gritty’ basics.
1) IF improvements in the sound can be observed by doing certain things in the environment, then PRIOR to doing those things, there must have been adverse conditions in the environment and that there ARE some things which can be done to alleviate those adverse conditions. Pure logic !!!!
2) Some people do not believe (or do not want to believe) that there is ANYTHING adverse in their listening environment which can possibly have any effect on THEIR sound.
3) Most of the time it is not possible to have any meaningful discussion with such people because they will usually not have actually tried anything which could be regarded as unusual (i.e regarded as ‘way out’) and therefore will not have observed changes in their sound taking place !! Or they fully believe that they are hearing everything which their equipment is capable of producing and that only a change of actual audio equipment would provide further improvements.
4) For the people who HAVE observed changes taking place , then it is a matter of trying to work out what is having an effect on what, to create the changes in the sound being experienced!!
5) If the sound has got worse, then what has made it worse and why ? If the sound has got better, then what adverse effect has been alleviated and how ?
THIS (5) is the point where you and I take some different paths.
> > “So now according to your dictates and pronouncements, we are to eliminate all plastics, all capacitors, all batteries, all magnets. Yeah by eliminating all electronics in a room I'm sure the silence will be exquisite. Just how do we eliminate the Earth's magnetic field, BTW, or perhaps you have a means of treating the planet.” < <
That statement is facetious !! It is facetious because of course all plastics, all capacitors, all batteries, all magnets etc cannot be eliminated from the modern environment!!!!! It is facetious because, by saying it, you imply I don’t know such basic things !!!!
We cannot eliminate such things from the modern environment but we CAN go to some lengths to alleviate the problems caused by them. But first you have to gain an understanding as to WHY they are a cause of problems regarding sound and then HOW to go about alleviating the problems.
> > “For example, I have never claimed the dielectric of a table lamp cord will affect the sound of your stereo components.” < <
But you HAVE stated that static, present on a passive power cord on a passive table lamp, (not connected to the AC supply) just sitting passively on a table, and positioned metres and metres away from any Hi FI equipment could be a problem for “sound” and, as you are always associating any changes to the ‘sound’ as being from ‘something affecting the audio signal’, then believing that static present on a passive power cord of a passive table lamp can affect the sound implies that it must be affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio system.
You saying that static (anywhere in the room) could be a problem for sound took place during a previous discussion on problems caused by static. After you had claimed that static can be a problem regarding ‘sound’ I introduced into the discussion the Nordost chemical. Nordost claim that applying the Nordost chemical to the label side of a CD, to the labels of a vinyl record, to the outer insulation of cables (including power cables) one can obtain an improvement in the sound.
Their explanation is that their chemical is ‘alleviating problems caused by static’. Knowing you want every change in the sound to “be an effect on the audio signal” I described how one can apply the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of a passive power cord of a passive table lamp, sitting passively on a table, metres and metres away from any Hi Fi equipment and one will gain an identical improvement in the sound to the improvement gained by applying the very same Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of cables which are physically associated with the Hi Fi equipment.
Using those observations, I asked, therefore, if you still believed that any “static” problem on the passive power cord on the table lamp, metres and metres away from any Hi Fi equipment could possibly have any effect on the actual audio signal travelling through the audio equipment and you replied YES – static anywhere in the environment can be a problem for ‘sound’ !!!!!!!!! THAT is why I keep bringing up the example of a passive cable on a passive table lamp, sitting passively on a table, metres and metres away from any audio equipment !!!!!!
Because :-
You can achieve an improvement in the sound by applying a specific chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE power cord (one not connected to the AC power supply, just dangling passively from a table lamp), sitting passively on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal.
Because you can achieve an improvement in the sound by changing the colour of the insulation on a PASSIVE power cord just dangling from a table lamp, on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal.
Because you can achieve an improvement in the sound by tying a REEf Knot in the passive power cord of a table lamp, on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal.
Because you can put that passive power cord of a table lamp, on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal through the freezing/slow defrost procedure and achieve an improvement in the sound !!!!!!!!!!!
Because you can have identical improvements in the sound by doing the things I have just described – i.e identical to the improvements you would experience if the same things were done to cables which are actively carrying an audio signal. THIS has to be explained - which I don’t think can be explained by such things “having an effect on the audio signal”.
> > “So now I understand you frame is attributing the advances in sonics due to the chemicals in plastics affecting those neural transmitters?” < <
I am not suggesting that the chemicals in plastics DIRECTLY affect the neural transmitters. Please don’t (again) misquote my words. What I suggest is that the very presence of certain chemicals, in the environment, can cause a reaction in us (human beings) and it is the subsequent REACTION which alters the sound !!
Throughout evolution, Nature has used certain chemicals as ‘danger signals’ and other chemicals as ‘reassuring signals’ (beneficial chemicals ?)
Human beings can be reacting to the presence of RF in their environment but the RF does not have to actually be DIRECTLY penetrating their brain to present a problem!!
Human beings can be reacting to the presence of certain chemicals in their environment but those chemicals do not have to be having a DIRECT effect on the chemicals carrying information in the brain to present a problem.
Human beings can be reacting to the presence of certain polarities in their environment but those polarities do not have to be having a DIRECT effect on their brain to present a problem.
All you seem to wish to see associated with the different chemical mixtures used in plastic insulation materials is their dielectric effect !! And for that dielectric effect to then be affecting the audio signal travelling through the cable.
Surely, given what chemicals Nature has used for signaling ‘danger’, there is more than a slight possibility that some, (or even many) of the following chemicals (mixtures of chemicals used in the plastic insulation of cables) may be still “sensed”, in that (danger) role, by us (human beings)?
Chemicals such as Bextrene., P.V.C., polythene, polyethylene, polystyrene, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyalkene, P.T.F.E, Teflon. To then add other chemical mixtures found in both audio equipment and the listening environment :- acrylic, nylon, polyester, vinyl, polycarbonate, Perspex, BAF, glues (adhesives), paints, lacquers and so on !!
Ditto colours. Because different colours are more than mere visual colours, they are also different frequencies !!
To give one brief example. Scientists at the Applied Physics department at the University of Bonn have discovered that when a leaf or a stem is sliced or damaged, the plant signals pain (or perhaps dismay –to use the scientists own words !!!) by releasing the gas ethylene over it’s entire surface. The scientific team also thinks plants warn each other about approaching danger. That the “alarm signal” is a chemical message.
And, it is also known that when a tobacco plant is attacked by the tobacco leaf virus, it warns the other healthy tobacco plants !!!
I would suggest that you look at the possibility of chemicals such as ethylene based ones, used in the plastic insulation materials of so many audio and AC power cables, as being behind 30 years of “the cable controversy” – i.e. reports of different audio cables (including different AC power cables) sounding different when no measurements of changes in the audio signal can be produced.
I would make the suggestion that such as the Nordost chemical which they claim to be dealing with static that they, Nordost, may, quite possibly, have actually “stumbled on” one of Nature’s “reassuring” chemicals, which when applied to the outer insulation of cables – anywhere in the listening room – could be alleviating to some extent the problem caused by “danger” chemicals being used in the making of the plastic insulation. Which, incidentally, (as is well known) was our own experience some 30 years ago !!!!!!!!!
Let me make myself clear – YET AGAIN. I am not saying that there is nothing in the environment which can ‘affect the audio signal’ or which can ‘affect the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room’. I am saying that not EVERYTHING which changes the sound can be attributed to changing the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment or attributed to changing the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room. I am saying that there is another dimension worth looking at – a reaction or reactions, by the human being, to what is going on in the modern environment!!
Quite a few people respond to that concept with “Oh, in that case, MRI scans should be able to show what might be taking place in the brain.” i.e. one should be able to ‘measure’ what is going on.
MRI scans may show which areas of the brain are activated when listening to the music of Dvorak’s New World. But, no MRI scans will SHOW the following differences in the sound when, after listening to Dvorak’s New World on the Sunday, then carrying out some ‘tweaks’, then listening to the same Dvorak’s New World on the Monday and hearing such improvements in the same music as :-
> > “Reduction of stridency to upper midrange and lower treble bands, a minimization of the "glare" - This is clearly discernable with bronze instruments like cymbals, which were at once rendered with a more "creamy" voice, and had more focus.
While the lowest registers are not any deeper, they are clearly more defined. Picking or fingering of strings in bass runs becomes much more apparent and discernable, allowing a greater ease in following complex bass lines and seemingly faster rise times, with clearer decay and fall off.
More "space" between instruments, and greater "air" around them, a more focused soundstage, with greater specificity to images. Staging is typically slightly wider, deeper, and taller, with heightened "illumination" of the rear left and right corners of the soundstage. The result is an overall perspective that is more honest, more faithful to reality, with better focus and more realistically sized.” < <
I can describe bringing the electric kettle power lead from the kitchen into the listening room and laying it on the floor. The sound of Dvorak’s New World will be observed as being ‘worse’. You would suggest that the electric kettle power lead might be acting as an aerial, receiving RF and that it why the sound is worse.
> > “All lengths of wire act as an antenna. Bob Fulton in the 80's manufactured cables of usual lengths because he claimed that the standard one meter length of an interconnect just happens to conform to the length of a car antenna, making it an ideal antenna for RF.
As any wire acts as an antenna, whether terminated or not, an since power cords are not coaxial, there is a certain amount of charge which two parallel wires running side by side can store as capacitance.” < <
I get the impression that if you attached one of your crystals to that particular passive kettle power cord and could no longer describe the sound as ‘worse’, that you would explain that result as :- The crystal was absorbing (or deflecting) the RF, therefore preventing the cable from acting as an aerial, therefore reducing any adverse effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio system.
However, you can have exactly the same electric kettle power cord in exactly the same position on the floor and apply a certain chemical to the outer insulation of that power cord and the sound will no longer be described as ‘worse’. And YET, the cable would STILL BE ACTING as an aerial, so the sound SHOULD still be worse (as per your reasoning) !!!!!!!!!!!!! But it isn’t !!!!!!
Ditto changing the colour of it’s insulation. Ditto putting the electric kettle power cord through the freezing/slow defrost procedure. The same power cord, in the same position will still be acting as an aerial (as per your reasoning) so the sound should be worse!!! But it isn’t !!!
> > “Chemical nature of smell is interesting because it is the only sense that bypasses the LGN portion of the brain. However, we don't really smell our stereo, and, as a matter of fact, you will notice a great deal of our auditory vocabulary employs visual terms.” < <
Who is claiming that we can ONLY detect chemicals by smell ????????????
Since when did Nature need a creature (or plants) to have the sense of smell in order to detect “danger” signals (or reassuring signals) ?
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
are very speculative and have allowed virtually no verifuication in life.
Pray tell, how does the smell of teflon, invented by accident in the 30's IIRC, have anything to deal with the smell of danger. Surely primitive man did not have plastics when evolution dealt us the sense of smell.
Why is smell subjugated to the sense of sight?
Also please do not confuse your statements of observation with mine. There are many disagreements I have with your statements of things affecting sound ( say your freezing of photographs, for example). Again you make many statements but offer little in terms of verifiable causality. At least present a hypothesis that may be tested and also take into possible accounting other explanations.
Stu
"Your arguements (sic) are very speculative and have allowed virtually no verifuication (sic) in life. Pray tell, how does the smell of teflon, invented by accident in the 30's IIRC, have anything to deal with the smell of danger (?) Surely primitive man did not have plastics when evolution dealt us the sense of smell."
Perhaps it's like the smell of burning insulation or the smell of natural gas from the unlit gas stove. Man has always learned to adapt to new dangers. Like the sound of screeching brakes of an approaching automobile or the whistle of an approaching train at a railroad crossing or the color of a traffic light. Do you have to be struck by a train to understand that the whistle means danger? Of course not.
"Why is smell subjugated to the sense of sight?"
Simple, because sight was more important than smell to primitive man for pinpointing the location and direction and speed of a potential predator. Sight was also more important than sound for locating predators, which is why man's sense of hearing developed after his sense of vision. Follow?
"Also please do not confuse your statements of observation with mine. There are many disagreements I have with your statements of things affecting sound ( say your freezing of photographs, for example). Again you make many statements but offer little in terms of verifiable causality. At least present a hypothesis that may be tested and also take into possible accounting other explanations."
"Verifiable causality?" Love it when you pretend to talk like an expert. Of course, you could verify the freezing of photos by actually trying the experiment. But that would be too, uh, obvious.
Early man would have been in a great deal of trouble when it rained, since wood is impossible to light when it's wet. So all the predators would have had to do for supper is wait for a rainy night. Predators were not born yesterday. Fortunately for early man, his keen sense of hearing allowed him to detect the approaching predators in the inky black of night, their distance, speed and direction.
Edits: 06/14/11
"To be continued."
I cant wait for you to connect the actual dots :)
Visual readings are out but it seems you're taking this to a whole different level anyway..
Part Two.
We now come to the human being, getting ready to settle down to listen to some music.
Of course the human being will physically GLANCE around, checking for danger, for intruders, for predators. And when they SEE nothing untoward, they consider that the environment is safe enough and that they should be able to now relax enough to listen to the music. That everything in the environment is SEEN to be still (stationary – nothing untoward happening) – so let the music commence.
But, we are STILL programmed, by evolution, to be reading/sensing/monitoring our environment every millisecond of every second of every minute of every hour !! And, we still require the readings to be of a stationary nature before we can “sign off our environment as safe”. My concept (from our discoveries) is that we cannot do that now – we cannot now ‘sign off our modern environment as safe’ because things ‘are NO LONGER stationary’ in the modern environment. And Nature dictates that whilstever we cannot ‘sign off our environment as safe’, then we must remain under tension until we can !!!!!
Let us look at just ONE thing in the modern environment - the AC power supply. Not even considering, for this example, additional energy such as electromagnetism from other sources, RF energy and Microwave energy etc !!!!
The last time I talked about the AC power pulsating away, Enophile reacted to my use of the word “pulsating”. He said that he had been standing next to such a cable and had not FELT any ‘pulsating’ from it !!
The AC power supply is going through it’s full cycle 50 to 60 times per second – so – what words would people like me TO use ??? Pulsating ? Changing? Fluctuating ? Moving? Alternating ? - YOU choose !!!
Whichever word you choose, it is still NOT stationary !!! So, in the modern environment, we will never now be able to read/sense/ a stationary state – so that means that we will not be able to ‘sign off our environment as safe’ and if we cannot do that, then Nature dictates that we remain under tension until we can. So, what ‘stress’ chemicals might that state of affairs be producing in the brain ? Could such ‘stress’ chemicals be actually interfering with the electro-chemicals (positive and negative ions) which carry the audio information of (say) Dvorak’s New World along the auditory nerve to the working memory – because it is the information which reaches the working memory, to be identified by the working memory which is the ACTUAL sound – i.e the final information to be received by and resolved by the working memory so that it can present the best ‘sound picture’ to the brain. It can, therefore, cease to be exactly the earlier information presented into the room by the audio equipment and loudspeakers and then carried by the acoustic air pressure waves which then arrived at the ear drum !!!!!!
Now, all is not lost.
Much of our discoveries point to the concept that as well as Nature requiring us to read//sense/monitor our environment for danger, predators, intruders, - every millisecond of every second etc - Nature also requires us to monitor our environment for signs of ‘reassurance’.
If you can superimpose, on offending objects/areas within the modern environment, some of the techniques which have been used by Nature to denote “reassurance”, then you can lessen the adverse effects of problem areas within the modern environment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Which, in turn, will lessen the tension (stress chemicals produced in the brain ???), which in turn will reduce any effect on the electro-chemicals carrying the complex musical information along the auditory nerve, which in turn will allow the working memory to resolve far more of the complexity contained within the music and so present a better ‘sound picture’ to the brain !!!
Which, in my opinion, is WHAT people have been doing, with so many of the various and different ‘tweaks’ – without realising it !!
Hence the IDENTICAL descriptions of the improvements in the sound:-
The following words have been cut and pasted from something recently written by Greg Weaver in PFO but these words so clearly mirror other people’s descriptions and experiences from various and completely different ‘tweaks’ that, with apologies to Greg, I just had to use them. These words are as clearly descriptive as Shakespeare’s were and, if need be, I would feel the same necessity to have to use Shakespeare’s descriptive words.!!!
> > every sound seems to blossom more fully.
reduction of stridency to upper midrange and lower treble bands, a minimization of the "glare" - This is clearly discernable with bronze instruments like cymbals, which were at once rendered with a more "creamy" voice, and had more focus.
While the lowest registers are not any deeper, they are clearly more defined. Picking or fingering of strings in bass runs becomes much more apparent and discernable, allowing a greater ease in following complex bass lines and seemingly faster rise times, with clearer decay and fall off.
more "space" between instruments, and greater "air" around them, a more focused soundstage, with greater specificity to images. Staging is typically slightly wider, deeper, and taller, with heightened "illumination" of the rear left and right corners of the soundstage. The result is an overall perspective that is more honest, more faithful to reality, with better focus and more realistically sized.” < <
Such identical descriptions have been given by different people, listening in different listening rooms, using different audio equipment, listening to different music and applying/using different types of ‘tweaks’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t think it is as simple a case of ‘tension on, tension off’. I think there will be varying degrees of tension and therefore different concentrations of ‘stress chemicals’ being produced.
Let us say that (hypothetically) in an untreated listening environment there is created (say) 50 units of stress. ‘Treat’ or install or position or add certain things which can mimic some of Nature’s ‘reassuring’ signals, then the 50 units of stress could be reduced to (say) 40 units of stress. And the person will feel better and the sound will be better. It is the human person being able to COMPARE a situation (different ‘readings’ taken of the environment) with now 40 units of stress against the previous 50 units of stress which is the crucial thing. ‘Treat’ more things in the environment, install more (beneficial) things, position more (beneficial) things, add more (beneficial) things and the stress units can be reduced further to (say) 30 units of stress. And so on !!!!!!!
Remove all those (beneficial) things and back comes the level to 50 units of stress and the sound will now be worse !!
What I have suggested does not negate people’s experiences with such as crystals (or many other ‘tweaks’) in the room. The crystals could still (as has been suggested) be reacting to such as the RF energy, but that reaction changing the ENVIRONMENT which we are constantly ‘reading/monitoring’ and NOT actually changing the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment !!!!
The concept I have put forward better explains how some ‘tweak’ or other or some ‘crystal’ or other can have an ‘effect on the sound’ even though positioned many metres away from any audio or electronic equipment !!
Monitoring our environment is not only concerned with ‘seeing’ what is going on. The necessity to ‘read/monitor’ the environment was established, by Nature, long before the usual senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch) as we know them now evolved !!
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
That is a very interesting view. Maybe thats why geoffkait likes white cables ;)
Anyway really interesting, I'm gonna ponder a bit on how to try improving my listening experience from this point of view and see if I can make some progress out of it.
has more to do with the dye lots. The color of natural plastics is a milky translucent color. Every other color including clear involves chemical additives. It is these additives which affect the electrical properties of the insulation. In general the lighter colors are more benign, Black very often involves the addition of carbon, which is slightly conductive, and thus transforms the insulator into a terrible conductor.
This was pointed out to me by designer Stan warren in the very early 90s.
Stu
All of PS Audio's (Stan Warren's company) cables seem to have black jackets. Oh, well, must be one of those "do as I say, not as I do" things. LOL
Let me guess, you have black cables too, am I right? LOL
Stan Warren left PS Audio in the mid or late 80's. The current PS Audio has really nothing to do with Stan Warren, although that may not be obvious to a "theoretical P\physicist".
And nope, All my components utilize non black insulation, although I do have many black generic power cords lying around. My last major sound room even had the in wall romex utilizing non black insulation.
But as a "theoretical physicist", I really admire your great scientific acumen in attributing the white of the teflon tape wrap you used in treating a sound improvement and in ignoring any other possible factors, particularly those factors electromagnetic.
That was some schooling you must have gotten to become a theoretical physicist of that caliber.
Stu
I did not offer an explanation why white cables sound best, but nice of you to offer something as "obvious" as electromagnetism. Just like a good little wannbe scientist.
I had recognized, from the experience you have had with the bunch of crystals, that you might be able to consider another way of looking at people’s experiences.
You see, it was one similar experience which confirmed to us that we should look ‘out of the box’ to try to find an explanation for a particular experience we had 30 years ago and this approach has been extremely helpful in finding explanations for many other listening experiences
We had spoiled our sound by applying a chemical to a stain on a coffee table in the centre of the listening room. We had no explanation as to why that had changed the sound but Peter realized that he could not carry on with his serious listening experiments with that table still in the room, so the table was banished to the garage. But, it had been such an unusual and unexpected experience that we could not forget it or dismiss it. It was a few months later that I just happened to be reading an article – an article on plants - and in this article it mentioned that when a certain plant was under stress, it produced the chemical ABC – and chemical ABC was one of the ingredients in the chemical we had used on the table !!!!! Here was a chemical we had used now being referred to as one of Nature’s “Stress chemicals”. When I read this article out to Peter, he suddenly said “I wonder if it had been us (human beings) who had ‘sensed’ this ‘stress chemical’ in our environment and had gone under tension ourselves – so making the sound worse.
He decided to investigate further and did what all good experimenters do, he searched every drawer, every cupboard, every shelf and tried every chemical he could get his hands on on the very same spot on the coffee table. Some chemicals were not as bad as chemical ABC but none of them brought the sound back to being good UNTIL he found chemical XYZ. After applying that chemical XYZ, the sound was now much better and Peter judged that the sound was now better than he had ever had it before.
A lot of this background story was told by Greg Weaver in his April 1999 article “Itty-Bitty UK Foil” in the internet magazine SoundStage.
From our original experiences with chemicals (and their effect of changing the sound) Peter began to look far more seriously at just what is involved and used in audio and the listening environment.
JUST looking at the list of chemical mixtures used in the various insulation materials of cables (interconnects and AC power), one can seriously consider “Are these a serious contender as an explanation as to why various cables CAN ‘sound’ different ?”
Chemicals such as Bextrene., P.V.C., polythene, polyethylene, polystyrene, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyalkene, P.T.F.E, Teflon. To then add other chemical mixtures found in both audio equipment and the listening environment :- acrylic, nylon, polyester, vinyl, polycarbonate, Perspex, BAF, glues (adhesives), paints, lacquers and so on !!
A few other investigators have ‘found’ good sounding chemicals and lacquers but the effect of these chemicals (on the sound) is always attributed as “ having a dielectric effect”, as “an aid to dealing with static” or as “an aid to dealing with resonances”. !! Even when applied to things metres and metres away from anything remotely associated with audio equipment or with the audio signal !!
You mention the colour white for a cable insulation as a good sounding colour. Colours are extremely important regarding sound but colours are more than what one can see visually !! If the scientists are correct, then each colour is of a different frequency. If the scientists are correct, then when you can see a specific colour, then that means that all the frequencies except one have been absorbed by the object, leaving the one frequency not absorbed !! I ask seriously.
Are we (human beings) far more sensitive to such frequencies associated with colours than has previously been realized ?
Over the past 30 years we have become more and more aware of just how sensitive human beings, are to all that is going on in our environment than many people are fully appreciative of.
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: