|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.108.142.131
In Reply to: A very simple question posted by Jim Austin on March 12, 2007 at 11:01:48:
I would propose a thought experiment. Suppose a listener has a recording of an Italian opera where the soprano is way down in the recorded mix. On first listening, the listener does not understand the lyrics.Suppose this listener undertakes a study using the libretto in Italian, along with a translation. He listens multiple times and learns the lyrics and their meanings by heart. In the end, he clearly hears the soprano and he also feels an emotional impact from the way she emphasizes her vocals.
There has been a real change in the listener. His brain has physically changed to accomodate a new set of information. Most people nowadays consider memory to be a physical change in the brain.
There is also a different sort of reality to this. The listener now gets far more information from the recording of a musical event, and this is real information that existed in the original event.
This "tweak" has changed the listener and brought more real detail from the recording. This is not controversial. Similarly, one could propose that meditation or exercise prior to listening, or some method of concentration during listening, could have real benefits in getting more real information from a recording.
What May Belt is proposing, it seems to me, are sort of magic rituals to be performed prior to listening. I would also expect that some people will find benefit in these. And as she honestly states, "people vary," so some will find no benefit.
I do not think there will ever be agreement on the efficacy of ritual behavior. For some it will work and effects will be real.
Follow Ups:
> > What May Belt is proposing, it seems to me, are sort of magic rituals to be performed prior to listening. < <If this was right then I would agree with you, but I don't think it is. I think what May is proposing is that somehow changing the environment, even without the listener's (conscious or subliminal) awareness, affects what the listener hears. One doesn't need to know the "tweaks" are there--even subconsciously--for them to have an affect.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
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.
The first step is to propose a hypothesis. You have done so, and I can say that it shows a great deal of thought has gone into it.But you are not done, you have only started.
The next steps, if you choose to undertake them, would be to design careful controlled experiments to test your hypothesis, to perform them, to make public both the complete experimental design and the results so that they can be independently verified by other experimenters.
This really would not be so hard. If some foil in a room affects the energy, it would be easy enough to poll listeners with the foil installed or not installed, random choice. They cannot know whether it is installed, that is part of the control of the other variables.
And then statistics could be gathered. And complete results could be published, so that others could verify the results independently.
I assure you, if various other people reproduced the positive results of such an experiment, you would find few skeptics left.
But without such data, a hypothesis on its own is worth little.
In any case, I now see very clearly the defect in your thinking. The challenge is to explain it in a simple way. You are presuming the existence of some energy field that 1. is generalin the sense that the nature of the "threat" doesn't matter, and 2. that this energy field can influence our minds via an unknown mechanism. Both parts of this proposal are dubious.
You like to invoke evolutionary explanations--but in evolutionary terms there's absolutely no reason that we would have developed sensitivity to, say, electromagnetic fields, since very few (and very weak) fields existed until a little more than a hundred years ago. I need not even mention how silly it is--in evolutionary or any other terms--that an electrical cable sitting on a carpet (neither of which--carpet or cable--existed during our evolutionary history) would be perceived as hostile. (Is it because it looks like a snake? why is a snake on cable risers less threatening?)
Your answer, it seems, is that we are intrinsically sensitive to "threats" of any sort. It's not an electromagnetism field but a "threat" field that we respond to. We haven't been selected, in the evolutionary sense, to respond to electromagnetic fields, but to "threat" fields.
But this logically preposterous. Going back, again, to your evolutionary picture: mutation and natural selection can give rise to adaptations in our genetic makeup, but this mechanism cannot alter our surroundings. The idea of a "threat" field is anthrocentric in the extreme: an energy field that exists in nature that warns us of danger? You will need a religious, rather than a scientific, explanation for the existence of such a field. It presumes that someone is looking out for us.
I could go on to point out that no such field has ever been detected,and that our ability to detect it has never been demonstrated scientifically, and so on. But it's not necessary. Your explanation makes no sense.
I now see very clearly the defect in your thinking, Jim. The "mechanism" to which you are referring doesn't alter our surroundings. The hypothesis is that it alters our perception of our surroundings. When a woman walks down the street alone at night, hears footsteps behind her, goes into full alert mode... is someone looking out for her? You're the one making presumptions here, about "religious" explanations for scientific phenomenon, and that "no such field has ever been detected", or that it hasn't been demonstrated scientifically. Such fields have been detected and researched for about a quarter of a century. Some further empty presumptions on your part, include personifying an audio cable as a "snake", and then concluding that the "snake" must appear "less threatening because its on risers" (just silly). Here's a hint for you: the electrical cable is, in this sense, not much different than the carpet its sitting on. And raising the cable may not "make the snake more threatening", as you seem to think, but one thing it does change is its interface to the carpet. It is because of the fact that cable and carpet did not exist in our earliest history, that it may be regarded as hostile to us today, on some level.Have you any idea how foolish your notion is that because something sounds "silly" to you, it has no merit? You should consider learning more about a subject before attempting to present yourself as an expert on it, else you are no better than a dogmatic fool. You're drawing conclusions about a subject when you are clearly not in a position to do that, as its based entirely on what you've learned about other things. The fact that I see you misunderstanding so much of what is being explained to you, says you're not the qualified expert you seem to think you are. You should be in "learning mode" here. That means asking more questions, making less presumptions.
Right on PR. Jim always presumes that he knows what works or not , and will condemn others, without even first trying it. He did it to me, bigtime.
Hi Posy. This is your first post, I notice. Did May dig you up and get you to post in an effort to save face? If so, then she made a mistake, since she did a far better job defending herself than you have done defending her. I'm not going to waste much more time on this, but it won't take time to dispatch you and your specious arguments.> > The "mechanism" to which you are referring doesn't alter our surroundings. The hypothesis is that it alters our perception of our surroundings. < <
Yes, but there must still be a mechanism. My point--which is transparent--is that you cannot affect a person's 'perceptions' in the absence of some sort of mechanism to act ON THE MIND. I didn't say, nor did I intend to say, anything about the surroundings. May has already said that the Belt products work even if you don't know they're present, that even subconscious awareness is not required. So they influence the brain...how, exactly? By what mechanism do they influence your perceptions? Hence the "threat field" that I hypothesized.
It was May, not me, who introduced the idea that the cable was somehow a 'threat,' and that putting a cable on risers made it less threatening. I suggested the snake analogy only as a way of understanding the nature of the "threat"--since no other reasonable explanation was on offer. And your explanations make no more sense than hers--less in fact. Why would separating two things that didn't exist in our evolutionary history reduce the "threat"? In evolutionry terms their very existence, let alone their existence in proximity, are irrelevant. Why, for that matter, would a cable on carpet be perceived as a threat, while a stereo system, or the electricity that makes it work or floor polish, or the chemicals in the fabric or leather of your listening chair, or even musical instruments--none of which have existed for an evolutionarily relevant period of time--NOT be perceived as threats? It's an empty theory; it has no content. It seems to me nothing more than a feeble attempt at a theoretical explanation for which a far simpler explanation is available: the exhaustively demonstrated, ubiquitous fallibility of human perceptions. The rest is gloss.
Posy, you are ignorant, and you do May no favors by trying to defend her, even if she requested it. In our interactions she managed to maintain a certain nobility. So do her a favor and leave off. Let this die. I will waste no more time with this.
> > Hi Posy. This is your first post, I notice. < <Hi Jim. You did research on me? Already?? Well, I'm flattered. I usually don't receive that much scrutiny until the second post. You're wrong though (again). I've posted here over many years, probably started before you came. Can't remember what my moniker was though, long time no post. You know if you stopped making presumptions about everything and every one, you'd learn a lot more. Just a suggestion.
> > Did May dig you up and get you to post in an effort to save face? < <
"May"?? Who's "May"?
> > If so, then she made a mistake, since she did a far better job defending herself than you have done defending her. < <
Sorry, wrong again, Jim. I'm not defending anyone. I only, ever and always represent myself. However, if you're speaking on behalf of Stereophile, then I would say JA made a mistake hiring you to write for him. For someone who has no fear of writing so many personal opinions about science and audio based on wrongheaded presumptions, possibly leading so many of the Stereophile flock astray, I can't imagine what value he thinks you bring to audiophile consumers. I noticed that when you got all hostile and defensive like you've been, like you are more than ever I should say, well you end up saying a lot of things in your posts that are based on a lot of wild assumptions. I thought that needed correcting. And after seeing your subject give up trying to get you to understand anything, I thought I'd give it a whirr myself.
Not that I expected to do any better than her, with you. Because if JA has a "semantic curtain" put up, you seem to have a "semantic concrete wall, 12 inches thick". With a hole made by a 5/8" drill bit, where you dare new ideas to squeeze through, if they can. Don't worry though, I don't have it as my goal to get you to embrace Beltism, let alone get a grip on the basics. My goal is to have fun. Isn't that what you're here for?
> > I'm not going to waste much more time on this, but it won't take time to dispatch you and your specious arguments. < <
Oh please don't hurt me Jim. I'm afraid I bruise easily. And if I start crying, trust me, it'll be embarassing for the -both- of us.
> > > The "mechanism" to which you are referring doesn't alter our surroundings. The hypothesis is that it alters our perception of our surroundings. < < <
> > Yes, but there must still be a mechanism. My point--which is transparent--is that you cannot affect a person's 'perceptions' in the absence of some sort of mechanism to act ON THE MIND. I didn't say, nor did I intend to say, anything about the surroundings. May has already said that the Belt products work even if you don't know they're present, that even subconscious awareness is not required. So they influence the brain...how, exactly? By what mechanism do they influence your perceptions? Hence the "threat field" that I hypothesized. < <
You're not listening again. You were told there is a mechanism. You even referred to it as a "threat field". I refer to it as an "energy field", but your term will do fine for our purposes. The field -is- the mechanism, Jim. I believe May gave the puzzle away in this clue:
"Supposing, because of our evolutionary programming, we ARE able to detect this pulsating energy..."
Do you need more "transparent" than that to understand the mechanism by which this phenomenon may work?
> > It was May, not me, who introduced the idea that the cable was somehow a 'threat,' and that putting a cable on risers made it less threatening. I suggested the snake analogy only as a way of understanding the nature of the "threat"--since no other reasonable explanation was on offer. < <
Instead of presuming something as silly as "the cable has now turned into a snake", why don't you simply -ask-, if you don't understand something. You needn't be afraid of your ego surviving the ordeal of asking questions or remaining available to learning bold new concepts about the science of audio. I'm sure it's big enough to handle it. You were offered a very lengthy and dare I say reasonable explanation about the nature of the threat concept here: http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=30401&highlight=threat+may+belt&r=&session=
...But you didn't get it. It seems you're not too big on subtleties, Jim. Why is that? Let me help you connect the dots. You were told by the OP that this energy field may be interpreted as a threat, such as a dangerous "Cobra!". You were then told that it may be possible to change the energy pattern by merely manipulating the cable, so that the pattern no longer registers in your mind as a threat, and is now a "wee harmless grass snake". You interpreted that simple explanation as the "audio cable is a snake", entirely missing the analogy that was proposed to you.
> > And your explanations make no more sense than hers--less in fact. < <
Maybe if you make a little more effort to understand what you're being told, things might make a little more sense to you? Just a suggestion. Also, it might help if you made the hole in your semantic block just a wee bit larger.
> > Why would separating two things that didn't exist in our evolutionary history reduce the "threat"? < <I believe the concept is, those two things are a "threat". Many things you may do, or not do, change the energy pattern, which makes you react slightly differently (constantly altering tension levels). I don't know that simply lifting a cable up from the floor will "reduce the threat". Whilst I don't wish to speak for anyone, I believe that what May was suggesting to you was meant as a hypothetical example (the word "supposing" used liberally, was the giveaway clue on that one, for me). IOW, a "possible" alternate explanation (to the electrical one) for the changes people experience when using cable risers. I know you can change the energy pattern of an object simply by placing it on another object, and if so, the reverse must also be true. So the example she may have proposed isn't impossible, I suppose.
> > In evolutionry terms their very existence, let alone their existence in proximity, are irrelevant. < <
According to who's principles and what research? You're just making another assumption based on your notion that they haven't been around for all of our evolution, aren't you? Can you at least -try- to be careful about that?
> > Why, for that matter, would a cable on carpet be perceived as a threat, while a stereo system, or the electricity that makes it work or floor polish, or the chemicals in the fabric or leather of your listening chair, or even musical instruments--none of which have existed for an evolutionarily relevant period of time--NOT be perceived as threats? < <
Who said they're not? Let me come at you from a different angle: if you saw some "weird alien space being" in the middle of your den one day, would you perceive it as a threat or go on with your business as if it wasn't there?
> > It's an empty theory; it has no content. < <
No, you're confusing the theory with your posts. I can understand how days of reading both will get you all mixed up like that. The theory makes a lot of sense to me and many others familiar with the subject under discussion. However, it should be recognized here and now that you, Jim Austin, are not one of them. You have no extensive experience with the devices that support the theory.
I think the problem we see with you is that you need to acquire that experience before attempting to tackle the theories. According to John Curl, it seems to be an idea you've never considered before. Well, you should. Perhaps then the theory part of it will start to make better sense to you, and you'll find that it was just your empty pre-Beltist rhetoric that had no content. The effect is more important than the theory, anyway. I'm sorry if you felt you were lead to believe otherwise.
> > It seems to me nothing more than a feeble attempt at a theoretical explanation for which a far simpler explanation is available: the exhaustively demonstrated, ubiquitous fallibility of human perceptions. The rest is gloss. < <
Thanks. Because if you are correct, then you've just explained for me and everyone else why you are unable to wrap your head around the idea that audio doesn't end at the electron. How did you put it again? "The ubiquitous fallibility of human perceptions". Yes, well said. Goes a long way to accounting for your prejudices.
> > Posy, you are ignorant < <
Now you're getting personal. And really, really contradictory, in light of all you've shown here recently. So is the ad hominem really necessary, Jim? Is it your insecurity grumbling again? If so, perhaps you can feed it a Clark bar. At least manage to keep it at bay until the end of your reply. (Doesn't look like either of you will have to hold out much longer).
> > and you do May no favors by trying to defend her, even if she requested it. < <
Now you're going off making assumptions again.
> > In our interactions she managed to maintain a certain nobility. < <Indeed. Which is more than anyone can say for -you-, isn't it, given how crudely I saw you behaving in these "exchanges" you refer to. Well I'm sorry Jim, I deny the rumours, I'm not part of the Royal family. Although I did once know someone who looked like the Queen Mum, if that impresses you at all? No? How about Queen Latifah, then?
> > I will waste no more time with this. < <Now I get it. It must be your voracious scientific curiousity that inspired JA to hire you in the first place, because he heard you came with a scientific background. Nonetheless, given your performance in this thread so far, I think you've probably made a wise decision here. You're right, you're better off sticking to what you know, and 'safe subjects', that you can do a better job of pretending to be an expert on. Thanks for giving this old-school Beltist a few good laughs, anyway. And don't stop making all those assumptions about everything that you're so very good at. I'm afraid that if you do, you'll lose the greater part of your imagination. Cheerio!
OK Jim, at least I tried. And I am glad I tried.
You really did help me to think this through.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: