Attention Scientists, Engineers and Na-s


Isn't it funny how timing works. With all the different discussions on proving this, show me fact on that and the psycho acoustical potential of the other thing an article comes along with the same topics and some REAL potential answers. I received my newest copy of "The Audiophile Voice" Vol.7, Issue1 today and on page 16 is an article written by David Blair and Bill Eisen titled "In The Matter Of Noise". The article focuses on disturbance noise but has some reference to thermal noise, low frequency noise and shot noise, and our ability to measure these noises with the equipment of today. We have measured noise as low as 6x10 to the power of -5, or approximately a few cycles per day. We have also found through laboratory testing that the human brain is stimulated with frequencies from just above 0Hz to just below 50kHz. U.S. Department of Defense documents also show studies of low frequency activity below measurable levels and there various affects.
The article then begins to talk about out of band (hearing) noise and in band noise produced by our electronic equipment and the potential of these noises effecting our sound system. The assumptions are that "disturbance noises rob our systems of dynamics, low-level information, tonal purity and stage depth". These effects are for the most part overlooked and misunderstood by the scientific communities. They say they think that our speakers being hit with "massive quantities of R.F.I. are affected" A very good quote referring to power filters was "Effective noise control imposes no sonic tradeoffs or downside." How often have the discussions here on Audiogon focused on what they are doing? A very interesting comment was that Teflon is capable of carrying 40-Kilovolts static charge, and the industry is touting this as a great insulator for audio signals, that's scarey!
Now I bring this to light because I believe the view of the "Scientists and Engineers" here on Audiogon is so narrow that they are failing to see the exciting challenges in front of them. If all these noises do exist, which they do, and they can be transmitted and received through our systems, isn't possible, just maybe feasible that the insulation of our wires, the casing of our dedicated lines the size and shape of the conductor could, just maybe effect the sound? Isn't it even possible that forces set off by electrical components could be interfering in some so far unmeasured and inaudible way affecting the sound. Do you all test within the full spectrum of 0Hz to 50Khz for every possible situation? Or is it possible, just ever so small of a chance that you are overlooking a whole new science yet unexplored. Doesn't that, even slightly excite your little scientific fossils?
Man if I was younger, healthier and wanted a challenge. This is a career if you'd just climb out from behind you oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzer and see the world is indeed still spinning, and yes, it is 2001. Remember how 30 years ago 2001 was going to be so exciting. What the hell have the Scientist, Engineers and Na-sayers who tote there stuff here on Audiogon done for the advancement of science. Anyone, have any of you really broken through! J.D.
128x128jadem6

Showing 17 responses by detlof

JD, GREAT, thankyou for the time and trouble to inform us about this at lenghth. The article seems to help along with a few questions which had been bugging me for a long time, which I had tried to bring up here in other threads and probably been thought loco for.
Sharp thinking Jostler! You're right, assumptions will get us into trouble, especially if they get metamorphosed into "thruths", which often enough happens. On the other hand, assumptions , as new insight in a given set of problems, can lead to scientific progress, under the condition, that they become verified or lead to new sets of premises for further research.
Sorry, You make me look sheepish. I was trying to be funny. Seems I wasn't. Please throw me a lifewest...
J.D. Hear,hear! I remember, long, long ago, when TAS was still innocent and without advertisements, HP ruminating on just this point Steve was bringing up, to wit, that tube's "musical superiority" might be the effect of their inherent lower harmonics distortion. : From Steve's statement you could of course infere, that if that is true about tubed gear, then other amps without measurable distortion must perforce sound alike. To out ears they don't. So now we can start to bicker again about the validity of either measurements or the nonvalidity of our imagination. Isn't it getting tedious a bit?
Now REALLY, Fpeel, you haven't properly digested Stevemj's posts. Please PROVE that betting would make a test like that moot.
I suggest a double blind setting with people, who have betted, and a similar group, identical in n, age and gender to group one, who have not. Furthermore two control groups are necessary. Firstly one, where all think that they have made a bet, but in fact have not. Secondly another group, where all are under the impression not to have placed bets, but who actually have. Then of course, we have to agree on the maths used, to work out a possible statistical significance. As for finding members for the placebo control groups, I think it would not be difficult to recruit them here, many of us - on both sides of the great divide between "scientists" and "believers" are prone to occasional attacks of suggestibility, which I am ready to prove : I suggest a double blind.......please read from the second paragraph of this post. Thankyou.
Hello 702, there is one basic mistake in your assumption:
"We" are not trying to offer scientific proof for what we maintain we hear. All what we are saying is that " there is something. " It is not necessarily our concern, if science agrees with us or not. Even if we were of scientific bend or training, here we are hobbyists out to enjoy ourselves, not scientists. However we are tired of being ridiculed or being taught boring lessons in schoolboy physics or elementary psychological testing routines by people who have no clue about the history of science or, worse, of epistemology and theory of knowledge. If they had, they would get off their occasionally asinine high horses, because they would know that for the last 350 years there have been discussions like ours going on ad nauseam, about people who have maintained that they were on to something, being ridiculed and persecuted by the mainstream . Of course there was snake oil and charlatans, but more often than not,science had to acknowlege that assumptions previoulsy being persecuted as false, did have their objective foundations in science after all. Messmer comes to mind here, as just one example. So I am afraid that I have to answer, permission granted Redkiwi I hope, also to your sermon with a hearty RHUBARB!
702....the biases you speak of do exist and indeed I often worry if what I think I am hearing is perhaps nothing but wishful thinking. So if the oppportunity arises, I will try put my hearing to the test. On the other hand I beg you to consider, that biases unconsciously may also work the other way in the sense, that differences which truly do exist are either simply not percieved or an experimental set up is made such, that the outcome leans heavily towards a preconcieved model. All this does not prove that "you" are wrong and "we" are right, all I am trying to say is, that I have doubts towards "science" when it becomes absolute, just as I would naturally doubt the hype, advertisements about wires abound in. Contrary to your stand, I think I can hear differences between ordinary and "exotic" cables, but I am all with you in your "crusade" for scepticism, because this field especially abounds in snakeoil, hype and mark ups which are nothing but indecent. Again, on the other hand, you see, I find it just as indecent, when some cable manufacturers, with serious academic backgrounds, who truly have advanced the state of the art, are put down as simple charlatans by the " measuring crowd ".
702 ..I have a very basic and perhaps naive question: Would you maintain, that ALL highend cable manufacturers peddle in snake oil? If not, where would you draw the line, apart from basic considerations like resistance, capacitance etc? Would you then also say, that the insistence say of the Spectral people, that their gear be solely used with the MIT wires, reflects rather a commercial reality than a scientific one, based on design criteria? Also, since I am unfamiliar with all the literature, do practically all double blind tests which have been published go against the claims of the golden eared? And if yes, what would you say was the bias of the people, who undertook the testing and devised the procedures and last, were do you think I could best read up about it. Hope I'm not too much of a bother. But I suppose I am not the only one, who's interested. Regards,
Jostler, I've just been on the webside you proposed. Fascinating. The ABX results of the wire tests are indeed devastating. All the same, I still tend to think that I can believe my ears in most of the cases. All the same, I shall plan some testing of my own in due course with the help of the source you had mentioned and I will let you know.
Ha Kat, there you got me...its the old theological question between knowing and believing....Yes I trust my ears, but I don't know if I should. Satisfied? (-;
Jostler: Basically I do agree, but don't you ever feel the urge to break the boundaries of reason and what science tells us to expect and try to hear for more, if you know what I mean? You may well make a fool of yourself, but then perhaps not. Who knows....To me there is no way out of the dilemma.
Paul, nope, it isn't and I don't know any Mogami owners. Your thoughts on the webside in question parallel mine, however it got me thinking all the same and Jostler well put. My wife used to take the cards away for good. Regards!