|
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: Yawn... back to morphic resonance, posted by unclestu on August 04, 2010 at 17:49:19
[quote] "I do not dispute that that there are influences on the human body, but Robert Becker, Candace Pert, and the work of many other molecular biologists suggest other influences." [/quote]
Of course Robert Becker (his book "The Body Electric") is correct. Of course there will be 'electrical' influences both on the body from outside and inside the body itself. No one is disputing that !!!!!!!
But as well as Sheldrake, other scientists are also having to 'go down the thought path' of 'linkage' !!!
Bohm's Book "Thought as a system" - the whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process.
From the Cambridge physiologist Horace Barlow:-
[quote] "a type of computer model, programmed by past experience and continuously updated by new sense data from millisecond to millisecond, are running inside the skull of every swimming fish, every galloping horse, every echo-ranging bat." [/quote]
[quote] "The websites of Sheldrake seem to be down, and the general scientific community has largely discounted his theories. Now as a theory, it means there insufficient proof of the workings of his ideas. If others can find other causalities for certain effects attributed to morphic resonances, I am inclined to believe those causalities which at least can be measured and either denied or proven." [/quote]
THAT is some statement of yours, unclestu - that "the general scientific community has largely discounted his theories. Now as a theory, it means there insufficient proof of the workings of his ideas." You KNOW this how ???? I thought that 'as a theory' it is still being considered and efforts are continually going on to find repeatable evidence of such !! From what I know of science, theories are picked up, considered, put down, put on a shelf (NOT discarded or discounted) picked up again when something new happens, put down again until someone else finds something to ressurect the theory again - and so on 'creeps the petty pace from day to day' (Shakespeare not me) !!!!!!!!
[quote] "If others can find other causalities for certain effects attributed to morphic resonances, I am inclined to believe those causalities which at least can be measured and either denied or proven." [/quote]
Those OTHER causalities (which you are inclined to believe and which you say can be measured) I would definitely be interested in knowing of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as I am aware, much of the 'thinking' is STILL in the air. Because the Genes and DNA code for PROTEINS, the scientists are stuck on the subject of "What governs behaviour and communications ?" A common, universal memory to be 'tapped into' ?? Rather like the worldwide radio broadcasts being 'out there' i.e not IN each radio but available to be 'tapped into' if required !!! Providing the necessary circuitry is in place within the radio !!
They (the scientists) are even debating as to where memory actually resides !!! Within the brain or outside the brain ?? Again, these OTHER causalities (which can be measured) which you refer to I would be very interested to know about !!!!!!!!!!
If such knowledge IS already in place, (as you are suggesting) then just WHY are so many STILL searching ??????????????
Regards,
May Belt.
Follow Ups:
is that it lends itself to changes as proof arrives or is created.
That being said, the ability to channel Morphic resonances, means that the person doing the channeling has more than just an understanding, but a means to manipulate that morphic resonance. Now the ability to manipulate means that more than a theory has been arrived at, particularly since Sheldrake claims that it is inherent in every part and parcel on the planet, if not the universe.
If you and Geoff have the means to manipulate morphic resonance, to the exclusion of any other possible causalities, that goes far beyond what Sheldrake has claimed so far.
Your position is that you have achieved the manipulation of the resonance. Others have not achieved such manipulation, at least not without excluding possibly other effects. You and Geoff are claiming that the causalities I have claimed creating such influences are wrong and impossible to exist. But yet there is no other explanation other than an unproven theory which both of you forward.
Again, my point to the great scientist that Geoff claims himself to be, is that where is the proof? For the diarrhea of words he writes about this he presents no proof that morphic resonances exist to the exclusion of any other possible variable. He patently ignores his writings on this forum, often amending statements already written in order to make it seem like he had stated something prior.
Some scientist.
I do not dispute that certain sonic effects do exist from certain tweaks. I certainly do not claim anything supernatural as being the cause, however, and I have done experimentation in placement and application which are consonant with the more mundane explanation.
If the mundane explanation takes away the mystery of audio, so be it. But then I have nothing to really sell ( although, unlike Geoff, a product I made actually made the Stereophile's recommended components list in Feb 1991, along with a review).
Stu
[quote] "The beauty of science is that it lends itself to changes as proof arrives or is created. [/quote]
The beauty of science (of Nature) is that it can exist for a long, long time before ANY proof arrives but a subject can be EXPLORED and EXPLORED long before any proof can be created !!!!!!!!!!
Such as - The beneficial effect of certain plants was known about and used - without any scientific knowledge or PROOF - for thousands and thousands of years !! Nature had developed certain techniques - LONG before science (and scientists) ever came along !!
[quote] "particularly since Sheldrake claims that it is inherent in every part and parcel on the planet, if not the universe." [/quote]
NOT only Sheldrake !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your quote. Unclestu !!!! [quote] "Yawn... back to morphic resonance," [/quote]
Your BOREDOM with the subject of 'morphic resonance' illustrates your outlook regarding science in general.
Thank goodness others are not so easily bored !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I quote from Sheldrake's own book :-
[quote] The unsolved problems of biology summarized were unsolved in 1981, and they are still unsolved today. The questions discussed this book remain completely open. The debate continues. [/quote]
Quote from David Bohm (the eminent Quantum Physicist) during a conversation between David Bohm and Sheldrake:-
[quote] "One of the early interpretations of the quantum theory I developed was in terms of a particle moving in a field - the quantum potential . Now the quantum potential had many of the properties ascribed to morphogenetic fields and chreodes, that is, it guided the particle in some way. Now the interesting thing is that the quantum potential energy had the same effect regardless of it's intensity, so that even far away it may produce a tremendous effect; this effect does not follow an inverse square law. Only the form of the potential has an effect, and not it's amplitude or it's magnitude. So we compared this to a ship being guided by radar; the radar is carrying form or information from all around. It doesn't, within it's limits, depend on how strong the radiowave is. So we could say that in that sense the quantum potential is acting as a formative field on the movement of the electrons........ So there would be a wholeness about the system such that the formative field could not be attributed to that particle alone; it can be attributed only to the whole, and something happening to faraway particles can affect the formative field of other particles........ So I think that if you attempt to understand what quantum mechanics means by such a model you get quite a strong analogy to a formative field." [/quote]
So, unclestu, words such as "morphogenetic fields"., "formative fields"., "the wholeness of a system"., "this effect does not follow an inverse square law" used by an eminent scientist !!!.
Things you do not seem to be interested in with your "YAWN" !!!!!
More from David Bohm on his vision of a world of "unbroken wholeness":-
[quote] "The universe was a vast dynamic cobweb of energy exchange, with a basic substructure containing all possible versions of all possible forms of matter. Nature was not blind and mechanistic, but open-ended, intelligent and purposeful, making use of a cohesive learning feedback process of information being fed back and forth between organisms and their environment. Its unifying mechanism was not a fortunate mistake but information which had been encoded and transmitted everywhere at once.
David Bohm has postulated that all information was present in some invisible domain, or higher reality (the implicate order) but active information could be called up, like a fire brigade, at time of need.
Still YAWNING, unclestu ??? Still believing that "the general scientific community has largely discounted Sheldrake's (and other's) theories. ??????????
[quote] "If you and Geoff have the means to manipulate morphic resonance, to the exclusion of any other possible causalities" [/quote]
What Peter and I have said, from the very beginning, is that when we discovered that some things which are identical appeared to be 'linked' and appeared to 'know the existence of each other', the only concept we could find which could 'best' explain that phenomenon was the concept of 'morphic resonance' being put forward by Rupert Sheldrake !!! When we recommended certain procedures and techniques to our customers we knew that they, being intelligent people, would want some sort of explanation as to WHY we were asking them to do certain unusual techniques.
The more we followed the concept of 'things which are identical being linked' the more progress we made !!! I can't repeat enough. Peter had ALREADY been down all the conventional theory paths - the very paths you, unclestu, are going down to find explanations of your own.
[quote] "You and Geoff are claiming that the causalities I have claimed creating such influences are wrong and impossible to exist. But yet there is no other explanation other than an unproven theory which both of you forward." [/quote]
AGAIN, you are putting words into my mouth that are not there and never will be !!!
I have NEVER said that any causalities you have claimed are WRONG and IMPOSSIBLE to exist. I KNOW about how some things can affect the audio signal travelling through an audio system, I KNOW about how some things can affect the acoustic air pressure waves in the room !! I KNOW such things exist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO NOT put words into my mouth which are NOT there !!!!! DO NOT assign ignorance to me.
You talk about unproven theories of ours. But, sir, some of the theories of YOURS are just as unproven !! They are theories put forward because you (and others) can find no other theories !! So, they are put forward as the only possible explanation !!!! What I am saying is that they are NOT the only possible explanation
Let me give you two examples.
1) The Nordost chemical ECO 3. I have been down this path before with you.
Nordost claim that applying their chemical to such as the outer insulation of cables ( and gaining an improvement in the sound) is because their chemical 'is dealing with the problem of static'. When I described to you that one can apply this chemical to the outer insulation of such as an AC power cable of a table lamp, with the power cable not connected to the AC supply (just dangling passively from the table lamp) and the table lamp situated some 20 or more feet away from any audio equipment and audio signal and gain an improvement in the sound, I challenged the explanation being put forward that 'any problem of static' on THAT cable could be adversely affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment 20 or more feet away. That applying the Nordost chemical to THAT particular cable (and supposedly 'dealing with any static') could not be explained from a conventional 'static' explanation. Your reply was "Of course it could be explained from 'conventional static theory'" So, unclestu, where is YOUR proof that 'static' on a PASSIVE AC power cable, NOT connected into the AC power supply and situated some 20 or more feet away from any audio signal, could be having an adverse effect on that audio signal so that 'dealing with that static' with a chemical can then reduce or eliminate the adverse effect on the audio signal ???
Whereas, from our own work and discoveries we suggest that what such as Nordost have discovered is one of Nature's techniques - a technique of providing a 'reassuring signal' (It's OK, the danger has gone away) - in this instance with a chemical. That Nature had been providing such techniques for millions of years, long before words, hearing, sight etc ever evolved.
When I challenged the explanation of 'static' being put forward you kept insisting that there IS SUCH A THING AS STATIC as though I am so stupid as not to know that there is such a thing as static. But, unclestu, what your approach seems to be is that because there IS such as thing as static, then THAT MUST BE the explanation - because there IS such a conventional thing as static !!!!
[quote] "If others can find other causalities for certain effects attributed to morphic resonances, I am inclined to believe those causalities which at least can be measured and either denied or proven." [/quote]
So, Unclestu, you believe that applying the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE AC power cable (not connected into the AC power supply, and situated some 20 or more feet from any audio signal) and gaining an improvement in the sound can be PROVEN by measurements ?? Do you HAVE this PROOF, or is it as you say "you are INCLINED to believe" ???? Surely an 'inclination' to believe is SURELY what you rail against all the time - with your demands for PROOF ??????????????
Either we are on a 'path of discovery' or all is already known ??
Have you also experimented with Dieter Ennemoser's C.37 lacquer in areas where the explanation for the improvement in the sound could not possibly be about 'resonances' or 'vibrations' ??????????????
2) Carol Clark of Positive Feedback Online did the experiment we describe of writing 'beneficial messages' with our Red 'x' Pen and gained improvements in the sound. She did the experiments sighted but her husband David Clark heard identical improvements in the sound 'unsighted' !!! I would not be so stupid to claim that Carol's experiences as PROOF but what I seriously say is that one possible explanation (a strong possibility) is within Sheldrake's concept of 'morphic resonance' !!! That words and their meaning 'resonate' and are 'linked' - and the more the words (and their meaning) are used, the stronger will be their 'resonance' (and their 'linkage')!!
Back to Bohm's "Thought as a system" - the whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process. !!!!!!!!!
[quote] "I do not dispute that certain sonic effects do exist from certain tweaks. I certainly do not claim anything supernatural as being the cause, however, and I have done experimentation in placement and application which are consonant with the more mundane explanation." [/quote]
I strongly suspect that the experiments you HAVE done are consonant with mundane explanations - what I DO suggest however is that you have not done identical experiments but in areas which could not possibly be consonant with mundane explanations and yet gained identical improvements in the sound !! If you HAD done such experiments, you would not be so insistent that EVERYTHING can be explained from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories.
I repeat Sheldrake's own words again :-
[quote] The unsolved problems of biology summarized were unsolved in 1981, and they are still unsolved today. The questions discussed this book remain completely open. The debate continues. [/quote]
The debate continues - at least continues with SOME people !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt.
Now, May, wouldn't a static conductive fluid automatically wick away a certain amount of EMI/RFI? A piece of copper foil or even aluminum foil wrapped around a wooden table leg can do the same thing. Now, can you show that this conductive property has nothing to do with your morphic resonances? Again, if you can show me that this effect can be totally isolated from the conductive properties but duplicated by something like pure water, ph of 7, then we're talking.
So adding a lacquer with carbon added ( a slightly conductive element, IIRC) and coating IC's or cones can not affect the mechanical resonance? or is it just possible that the slight conductivity may possibly have an influence?
One line of a green felt pen on the back of CD also makes a difference, but I wouldn't claim morphic resonance as a cause. You could write almost anything on the back of a CD and hear a difference and words need not be "beneficial". In fact very early on, I played around with drawing geometric shapes, before I even heard of your website.
Similarly Combak and Harmonix marketed some plastic stickers (green ones, IIRC) that you were supposed to place in the corners of your room and midway along the upper walls, similar in application to some of your recommendations, but no word of morphic resonances were ever mentioned
But I digress here, because I believe it is you who are putting words into my mouth. When I state that using your rainbow foil in a book outside my sound room had no effect, I believe the experiment is consonant with my conclusions, and, as a matter of fact, support it. I hear no difference with freezing my photographs either. While it does not support your thesis, I have no thesis about such effects, having not heard any effect ( I do have a -100 lab freezer also, BTW).
It is interesting also that I have said that the color of wire insulation makes a sonic difference, but I do not attribute that to morphic resonances, merely to dye lot contamination. Mundane, perhaps but easier to investigate and to verify.
Stu
[quote] "Now, May, wouldn't a static conductive fluid automatically wick away a certain amount of EMI/RFI? A piece of copper foil or even aluminum foil wrapped around a wooden table leg can do the same thing. Now, can you show that this conductive property has nothing to do with your morphic resonances?" [/quote]
Can I address some of your reply systematically ?
I have never said that "morphic resonance" EXPLAINS EVERYTHING happening in audio. I have said that "morphic resonance" (or other scientist's theories of 'linkage') is one strong explanation for the effect of writing words (language, communication) and for being able to 'treat' certain areas such as bar codes, Brand names (i.e things which will have 'linkage' if there is such a thing as 'linkage with identical things') and for being able to use certain words.
Regarding my reference to Nordost's static conductive fluid. YOU, sir, were the one who (previously) claimed that IF a problem of static could be eliminated on a passive cable 20 plus feet away from any audio system, then it COULD affect the audio signal travelling through that audio system, because (you claimed) the static which had originally been on the outer insulation of the cable 20 plus feet away from any audio equipment or wiring COULD HAVE BEEN adversely affecting the audio signal !! I had never mentioned anything to do with "morphic resonance" in that particular respect. I don't mention "morphic resonance" as being associated with everything to do with audio matters !!!!!!!!!!!!
To my understanding of static (within audio), claiming that eliminating static from the outer insulation of a cable 20 plus feet away from any audio equipment or wiring can affect the audio signal so that it can give the improvements in the sound which people have described seems a far more NON plausible explanation than an explanation that the particular chemical used could be one of the 'reassuring' communication techniques which Nature uses !! And which WE (human beings) could be sensitive to !! Hence, wherever you apply it in the room, it will have it's beneficial (reassuring) effect !!! Nothing to do with 'an effect on the audio signal'. IF static, present on a cable 20 plus feet away from audio equipment and wiring, COULD have an adverse effect on the audio signal, then surely there would be measurements to support that theory ???
The particular explanation I have put forward can explain so much of what is going on in the world of audio than EVERY change being reported in the sound having to have an explanation to do with 'something affecting the audio signal or something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves'.
Have you ACTUALLY tried the Nordost chemical on the outer insulation of PASSIVE cables 20 plus feet away from your audio equipment and wiring and heard improvements ?? Have YOU actually tried such as the Nordost chemical on other NON AUDIO items in your listening environment. I am sure that IF you had, you would have encountered changes in the sound which CANNOT be explained as 'affecting the audio signal or affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room' !!! Which CANNOT be explained as 'somehow dealing with EMI/RFI' and therefore 'having an effect on the audio signal or on the acoustic air pressure waves'!!!
[quote] "So adding a lacquer with carbon added ( a slightly conductive element, IIRC) and coating IC's or cones can not affect the mechanical resonance? or is it just possible that the slight conductivity may possibly have an influence?" [/quote]
Again, unclestu, you are back to referring to 'treating' IC's or cones' with a lacquer and trying to keep the reference (and any explanation) within "what can affect an audio signal" !!! You are back with the blinkers on again. I was originally talking about applying the lacquer to OTHER areas, to OTHER things, in the environment and gaining an improvement in the sound - where again it would be SOOOOOOO outrageous to believe that applying the lacquer to numerous non audio things around the listening environment (where it's slightly conductive element affecting mechanical resonance or it's slight conductivity} could affect the audio signal or the room acoustics.
I was not talking about applying it to IC's or cones or to general audio equipment. It is when one moves away from audio equipment and anything associated with audio equipment and yet can gain identical improvements in the sound by applying the SAME lacquer - is what I am talking about. THAT is why I said that you only seem to have done experiments which can be associated with audio equipment and the audio signal and where the results can be explained from conventional theories.
[quote] "One line of a green felt pen on the back of CD also makes a difference, but I wouldn't claim morphic resonance as a cause. You could write almost anything on the back of a CD and hear a difference and words need not be "beneficial". In fact very early on, I played around with drawing geometric shapes, before I even heard of your website." [/quote]
Of course you can get a change in the sound from making a line with a green felt pen on the back of a CD. When have I ever claimed that it was SOLELY to do with 'morphic resonance' ????? What I say is that human beings are sensitive to colours (all colours) and react differently to different colours. This is because we are sensitive to what is going on in our environment !!
Again, of course you can write almost anything on the back of a CD and get a change in the sound !! But you are wrong if you believe that ANY words will give you an improvement in the sound. Write the words GOOD, EXCELLENT, PEACE on the label side of the CD, listen, get used to that sound, then erase those words and instead write the words WAR, BAD, DANGER and listen again. You will have worse sound !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read Carol Clark's article, she experimented with just that !!!
With regard to the actual words used, then yes, I would suggest that it COULD be a 'tapping into the linkage and the meaning of words (communication)' - i.e Sheldrake's 'morphic resonance', Bohr's "Thought as a system" - the whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process. !!!!!!!!!
Of course you can get a change in the sound from making a line with a green felt pen on the label side of a CD. I presume your explanations would be along the lines of "The pigmentation of the colour can be having an effect on the static of the disc and therefore affecting how the information on the disc was read." OR, "That the colour on the label side of the CD could affect the way the laser beam reads the information on the disc." The problem, unclestu, occurs when you can yes, get a change in the sound from making a line with a green felt pen on the label side of the CD being PLAYED, but when you apply an identical line with an identical green felt pen on the label side of an identical but PASSIVE CD, just resting on the sofa next to you, and you get an identical change in the sound !!!!!! Now, in that example there can be NO problem with pigmentation of the colour affecting the static on the disc, which could affect the information being read because it is a PASSIVE disc (not being played) and there can be NO problem with how the laser beam reads the information BECAUSE there IS NO laser beam reading information on the PASSIVE DISC. !!!!!!!! And yet, doing the identical thing on the PASSIVE CD gives you a change in the sound identical to the change in the sound by doing the same thing on the CD being played !!!!! Explain that from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories.
Of course drawing geometric shapes will give you changes in the sound. How do you think WE discovered the same thing - by just drawing different geometric shapes and listening each time !! LONG before we ever began investigating WHY !!!! Unclestu, have YOU ever investigated WHY different geometric shapes change the sound ??????????????? You KNOW why geometric shapes change the sound, do you ??
[quote] "But I digress here, because I believe it is you who are putting words into my mouth. When I state that using your rainbow foil in a book outside my sound room had no effect, I believe the experiment is consonant with my conclusions, and, as a matter of fact, support it. I hear no difference with freezing my photographs either. While it does not support your thesis, I have no thesis about such effects, having not heard any effect ( I do have a -100 lab freezer also, BTW)." [/quote]
Of course if you heard nothing by doing those things, then your conclusion WOULD be that nothing is happening. Of course you would not need any thesis if you had never heard any effect. But such as Carol Clark (audioMUSINGS) DID DO the experiment of putting her photos in their deep freezer and DID hear a beneficial effect on the sound !!
If trying our Rainbow Foil inside books and trying freezing your photograph in your deep freezer had no effect, then they had no effect. For YOU. This particular part of the discussion ends there. But, if you HAD heard improvements in the sound by doing so (which many other people have) then you would need an explanation !!! In which case you would need a thesis from me !!!
In exactly the same way that if you had tried different cables and heard NO differences in the sound, then obviously you would NOT need any thesis, YOU would not need any explanation. But. if you HAD tried different cables and DID hear differences in the sound, then, yes, you WOULD need a thesis !!!
Just because YOU can't hear things (which others can) does not make me wrong !!! It just means that YOU cannot hear the things referred to !! You can probably hear different cables sound different but others can't. And, because THEY can't, then they do just what you have just done - dismiss others experiences !! And dismiss explanations for those experiences !!
[quote] "It is interesting also that I have said that the color of wire insulation makes a sonic difference, but I do not attribute that to morphic resonances, merely to dye lot contamination. Mundane, perhaps but easier to investigate and to verify." [/quote]
Of course you have heard (and said) that different colours of wire insulation makes a sonic difference. I have never claimed that the effect is due to "morphic resonance". But, sir, your explanation of "merely due to dye contamination" IS too easy !!!!!!!! Dye contamination effect on WHAT ??? Presumably you are meaning "due to dye contamination of the colour of the insulation material it was having a dielectric effect on the signal" - or by "reducing the effect of EMI/RFI" ? .
But those explanations do not explain an identical effect on the sound from changing the colour of the insulation material on other PASSIVE cables, many metres away from the audio equipment !! PASSIVE cables not connected to any equipment and not connected to the AC supply !!
Change the colour of ANYTHING in the listening room and you will change the sound !!! Change the colour of the cushion you are resting on, change the colour of the curtains, change the colour of the walls, change the colour of the table lamp shade, change the colour of your watch strap - and you will change the sound !!!! STILL "the dye contamination" - on WHAT ???? STILL "on the audio signal" ???
Again, unclestu, the story is well known how we discovered that different colours change the sound - and this happened long before we ever owned a CD player or CDs, i.e when we were still using vinyl as the source !! So, by the time we had acquired a CD player and some CDs, we were already aware that colours are important and that such as the colours printed on the label side of CDs have to be 'dealt with' !!!!! But the significant part of our experiences was in 'treating' the label side of an identical but passive CD - identical to the one being played - and gaining an identical improvement in the sound. Some of the first CDs we owned came attached to the front covers of Hi Fi magazines. We then found that we had to 'deal with' the psychedelic colouring of the front cover of the Hi Fi magazines !!! Then we found that ANOTHER important area on the magazine's front cover which needed 'treating' which was not part of the complicated colouring but the actual Bar Code on the magazine's front cover !!!! We then found that ANOTHER important area on the CD label which required 'treating' as well as the complicated and coloured art work was the CD logo !!!!!!!!!! And, so it progressed !!! And which we then had to search for some explanation for. Because the explanation was NOT in the audio text books nor within conventional electronic and acoustic theories !!
Back to the colour of the insulation of wires. Yes, you could change the colour of the outer insulation of a cable carrying the audio signal from (say) Black to Red and get a change in the sound. Your explanation would presumably be that the different pigmentation of the colour had a different effect on the audio signal. But, unclestu, you could have an IDENTICAL cable but this time just passively resting on the carpet in front of you - some 20 feet away from the audio equipment - not connected to the audio system and not connected to the AC supply. You could change the colour of the outer insulation of this identical but PASSIVE cable from Black to Red and you would get an identical change in the sound as the change you got by doing the same thing with the 'working' cable !!!
Just WHY can't the human being be sensitive to different colours - nothing to do with 'an effect on the audio signal' or 'an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves in the room' ?? And nothing to do with the actual 'visual' colour. If the scientists are correct that each colour has it's own frequency, then why can't we (human beings) be sensitive to those different frequencies in our listening environment, and react differently to each different frequency ??
Nothing to do with the "dye lot contamination" of the particular colour 'having an effect on the audio signal' !!
Regards,
May Belt.
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: