Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Re: ambiguity in the word "real"

You are quite correct Jim, that is exactly what I propose.

Now, to reply to one of your earlier postings.

>>> "Where she departs from our common view, Klaus (and from the "reality-based community" as one of GWB's advisors described it) is that--if I understand--she still insists that these are real--not psychological--effects. Which is to say that you don't have to know that there's a piece of colored foil on your wall, or a picture of your CD player in your freezer, in order for these "tweaks" to improve the sound." <<<

Jim, I think the stumbling block is the definition of "reality" and I think this is the point we reached and got stuck at during our previous exchanges.

We have to reach an agreement on how to define 'reality'.

My thoughts :-
Your 'reality' is the audio signal travelling through the equipment and what happens to that signal plus the 'reality' of the acoustic information, presented into the room via the loudspeakers and which then reaches the human ear drum.
That anything which happens past there is still a form of 'reality' but a 'reality' which is induced by "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing"

My 'reality' goes past the ear drum as far as the working memory.

Let me divert briefly to an earlier example I gave - that of two boxes of capacitors. With exactly the same specification but from two different manufacturers.
If an engineer is making a radio controlled clock and the circuit requires a particular specification capacitor, then that engineer should be able to go to either box, fit a capacitor from either box and the radio controlled clock should work perfectly. That is one form of 'reality'. Let me call it 'general reality'

If, however, an engineer is making a piece of audio equipment and that audio circuit requires a particular specification capacitor, then what is important is that the capacitor used should be the one which 'sounds' the best. Now, that is another form of 'reality' - a much 'tougher reality' than the 'reality' required for getting a piece of electrical equipment working !!

If you are wishing to detect something by Sonar (sound waves), then you will transmit sound air pressure waves and, hopefully, be able to detect something. That is one form of 'reality'
If, however, you are designing a loudspeaker diaphragm, then what is required is a design which will present information contained in the sound air pressure waves, into the room, in the best way possible. Now, that is another form of 'reality' - a much 'tougher reality' !!

I presume that that is what you would refer to as 'sound' ?
Both examples would be described as 'reality' but with differences in interpretation.

I think, Jim, we will still be in agreement at this point.

What I propose now is an 'even tougher reality' and it is this next part which will be the 'tricky bit'. And that is regarding what YOU are going to call 'physical' and what YOU are going to call 'reality'. Does your definition of 'physical' stop at the ear drum ?

I personally would say that - from the ear drum, the whole way through to the working memory, where the information reaching the working memory is interpreted by the working memory in order to construct a 'sound picture' to present to the brain - is 'physical' !! Physical because there is still mechanical and electrical activity going on - even though we might not be able to measure it inside the head. In my concept, at the point where the information reaches the working memory, that is the point where 'interpretation' takes over from 'physical'. At what point - along that path - would YOU regard it as 'ceasing to be physical' ? Does your definition of 'physical' stop at the ear drums ? If not, where does it stop ?

I would also regard that whole path I have just described to be 'reality' - what I would call "even tougher reality".

I don't like to be simplistic but if I have to be in order to get our concept over, then so be it !

It is not that we (human beings) are going on nicely, living our lives, and suddenly we detect danger - and go under tension, prepared for flight, fight or freeze - which is the usual way that people understand it. They KNOW that they are OK until they see a spider and then they immediately freeze, rooted to the spot, hands all clammy - I know exactly how to describe it because it is ME !!!
Our concept is slightly different. Our concept is that we (and the earliest of creatures) are programmed, by evolution, to be reading/sensing our environment every second. We are programmed to try to make sense of the environment and if we (and the earliest of creatures) cannot resolve the situation then we are programmed to remain under tension until the situation CAN be resolved. Our concept is that, in the modern environment, we are UNABLE to resolve correctly what is going on - therefore we (subconsciously) remain under tension - producing stress chemicals !!

To illustrate what I mean with a simplistic example. We have endless power cables, strewn all over the place, pulsating all the time. Yes, we all know that there will be an electromagnetic field around those cables but the engineers state that conventional theory dictates that this field will decay with distance so the engineers say "X feet away from the cables, there will be no electromagnetic field, therefore there will be no problem" !!! End of discussion. Because they can measure that X feet away there is definitely no electromagnetic field present !!!

Supposing, because of our evolutionary programming, we ARE able to detect this pulsating energy - however many feet we are away from it. Our eyes are seeing no danger but our senses (what sense ??) can detect it's presence. But, although we can detect the pulsating energy, we still cannot resolve it - so, as I have explained earlier, Nature (evolution) dictates that we remain under tension until the situation CAN BE resolved. Supposing, in our attempt to resolve the situation, we INTERPRET this pulsating energy, coming from winding cables strewn around the environment, as "Watch out, there's a dangerous Cobra about".

Supposing you now do something to those cables. Supposing you lift them up off the ground. Supposing you suddenly find that your sound has got better. "What on earth has happened ?" you say. Mention this and you will be laughed around the audio industry !!! Ring any bells ?? A simple explanation could be that you have inadvertently changed the energy pattern, surrounding the cable, to one which you are now INTERPRETING as "It's OK, it is only a harmless grass snake." Therefore being under less tension, therefore producing less stress chemicals, therefore allowing your working memory to better resolve the information reaching it. You now describe the improvement in the sound as 'greater height, greater depth, greater width, sparkling treble, better separation of instruments, the sound suspended in the air' and so on. Recognise the description anyone ?

Surely what I have described comes under the category of "Physical" ?????? Something physical happening in the environment producing a physical reaction in the human being and that physical reaction affecting how the musical information is resolved.

You would be surprised how little it takes to alter the interpretation of what we are sensing from within the environment. That is why we have described so many 'free' tweaks in the past. Try describing to the world of audio how tying a Reef knot in a cable gives an improvement in the sound !! No magic rituals are required, no magic incantations, no belief - just experimentation !!!!!
No electronic text books have to be re-written.
No acoustic text books have to be re-written.
No one has to get 'hot under the collar' !! As many people (engineers) seem to do.

Regards,
May Belt.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Signature Sound   [ Signature Sound Lounge ]


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.