|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.203.20.51
In Reply to: RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) posted by May Belt on May 31, 2011 at 04:45:18
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
Follow Ups:
> > “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
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: