You have a keen insight into what others know and appear to have a command of all scientific knowledge and for that you are to be commended. And I suppose this is an appropriate place to thank the original designers of the CD for creating perfect sound forever.
;-) |
Glad to see you're coming around to seeing it my way. |
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke said it best. |
These tweaks, if one assumes they work, seem to indicate that the knowledge of the design engineers is either not perfect or there are other factors one must consider besides electronics circuit design and speaker design, such as room acoustics and elimination of vibration, that are either overlooked or can't be addressed by the design engineers. Knowledge is not an absolute and continues to evolve. They do the best they can under the circumstances. :-) |
As mystifying as the Stillpoints ERS fabric might or might not be, I submit that there are much more mysterious, you might even say preposterous, audio tweaks and devices out there. To name just a few: C 37 lacquer, the tiny little bowls from Tchang and Synergistic Research, the Red X Coordinate Pen and silver rainbow foil from PWB and the original Intelligent Chip (China). |
I think the folks at Bybee should say, "These work. We don't know why."
You think that's more honest? Interesting. |
Byron c - the word Quantum automatically provokes a response, as if Quantum Mechanics is used deliberately by manufacturers to cover up a more mundane, conventional explanation, to protect their invention. Maybe the Bybee device is only a resister. Lol |
There is no boundary between classical physics and quantum mechanics. |
Byron C - I'm afraid you misquoted me. What I actually said was,
"the word Quantum automatically provokes a response, as if Quantum Mechanics is used deliberately by manufacturers to cover up a more mundane, conventional explanation, to protect their invention."
See the difference?
No quarter asked, none given, I always say. |
I cannot recall a case where a manufacturer attempted to obscure the real explanation for why his product works, only cases where skeptical audiophiles refused to accept "far out" explanations, wanting instead to believe there must be a conventional, more mundane explanation. Now, there may be cases where a manufacturer's explanation is either incomplete or incorrect, but IMHO not because he was trying to be deceptive. Unconventional or preposterous devices and tweaks are often discovered accidentally; then the manufacturer, assuming he wishes to provide some sort of explanation, is faced with the task of doing the best he can, based on his observations and (technical) background.
On occasion, as with the Teleportation Tweak, the manufacturer (moi) does not attempt an explanation. in my case, it's because I wish to keep the operational details secret and because I do not know all the details of how the thing works. Usually I do my best to explain things, so the TT is an exception. |
I tend to think that anyone looking for "satisfying" explanations will probably be, uh, unsatisfied by the explanations provided for many of the less conventional audio tweaks and devices that have popped up over the last couple of decades. Let's see...how about silver rainbow foil, Tice Clock, Shakti Stone, Shun Mook mpingo disc, SteinMusic Harmonizer, Schumann Frequency Generator, the Green Pen, LP and CD demagnetizers, ionizers, the tiny little bowls from Tchang and Synergistic Research, liquid cables. Obviously, some of my devices should be on the list, too, including the Intelligent Chip. |
Somebody didn't pick up on the humor of Sabai's remark.
I've said it before and it's worth repeating: a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic.
Natives on some forlorn island believe a camera is Magic and steals their souls. The opposition dismisses controversial tweaks as ritualistic, witchcraft, psychological, hypnotic and insists they disobey all the known laws of science. So, what else is new? |
"I believe that the universe is much cleverer than we are, so you don't have to go very far to encounter the limit of knowledge and understanding. On the other side of that limit is Magic. I'm not talking about effects that are somehow non-physical or metaphysical. I'm talking about effects that are beyond the limits of currently available explanations."
The limit of knowledge and understanding for whom? It's a little presumptuous to say we know all about science, or all about physics. And if we don't know the explanation for some Magical device, do we assume that someone out there, maybe at Harvard or MIT or NASA, must know?
"I would imagine that, as the designer and manufacturer of Machina Dynamica products, you know very well the limits I'm describing."
I prefer not think in terms of limits, myself. Yes, I realize Dirty Harry said, "a man's got to know his limitations." |
If we accept the premise that most devices and tweaks operate in physical reality, I.e., they affect physical, electrical properties that directly or indirectly result in a better audio signal presented to the ears, then there must be a real, physical or electrical explanation for why you hear a change in the sound when evaluating a device or tweak. I also realize there is a class of audio devices and tweaks that are purported to operate on a different level - on our sensory perception of the sound.
In your OP, your attribution of Magic to the ERS paper might have been a bit premature, since the explanation provided by the manufacturer is EMI/RFI absorption, and experiences of many users including other manufacturers seems to bear this explanation out. So one can reasonably conclude that ERS paper is actually not a Magical device in the sense you were using the word.
Finally, I think it would be productive if there were an independent organization that could evaluate these mysterious products we're talking about and offer explanations as to how they work, especially the devices that fall in the second category - the ones that affect the listener's perception of the sound, not the electronic or acoustic signal.
|
I'm all for well controlled studies, heck I'm even for blind testing or whatever type of testing anyone wishes to do. Why anyone would think I am not in favor of well-controlled studies is beyond me. Why, it's almost like you think I'm trying to pull a fast one. Lol. But it is not for me, the manufacturer, to do the testing; as I mentioned previously, there should be a competent, independent third party responsible for designing, conducting and providing results of the studies for these controversial devices and tweaks, just as there should be for any other audio speaker, component or cable, etc. |
Sakai, you are correct, there may be some confusion here.
Tbg, so it wasn't Magic for you, is that what I hear you saying? Of course you know by now I had to burn mine. One can't help wondering how many manufacturers have incorporated the stuff into their components and cables. |
In the words of Wittgenstein's friend and colleague Georg Henrik von Wright: "He was of the opinion... that his ideas were generally misunderstood and distorted even by those who professed to be his disciples. He doubted he would be better understood in the future. He once said he felt as though he were writing for people who would think in a different way, breathe a different air of life, from that of present-day men."
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - Wm Burroughs
:-) |
Byron c - It's not terribly surprising that you go on as such length on the explanation for the clock since in your OP you expressed disbelief in the explanation for the ERS paper which, relatively speaking, is child's play. I am going on a limb here, but I suspect your PhD is not in electronics, otherwise I doubt you'd be so skeptical of the EMI/RFI explanation for the ERS stuff. As I've already pointed out, there are many other "Magical" devices you might have picked on with greater success.
As for the clock your skepticism doesn't surprise me, your PhD notwithstanding. The explanation, of course, was not written to accomodate anyone's desire for a "satisfying" explanation, which is apparently what you're seeking.
My box contains ideas. Apparently your box really does contain a beetle. |
Byron C - So, a died in wool skeptic continues to post long, drawn out diatribes full of attacks, veiled attacks, straw man arguments and innuendo. Geez, make your posts a little less verbose and a shade more bitter and you'll be right up there with Audiofeil. But, seriously, don't you really think that some investigation on your part regarding these controversial tweaks would be in order? Investigation, that's something they still teach in graduate school, correct?
As another philosopher once said, "There is more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy." |
Byron c - no, you did not touch a nerve. I've become quite used to, you could say even a little entertained by, such confrontations, as you call them. But I have to admit I'm a little confused by your comment, which seem to be your Big Gripe, that I don't explain my products. I actually have explanations for all of them with a couple of exceptions. So, it's actually you who has come out swinging before doing due diligence. By the way, your continued use of strawman arguments, (such as my lack of explanations), personal attacks and innuendo is duly noted. |
Mrtennis, while nobody would say there is no such thing as the placebo effect, the placebo effect does not explain away all tweaks, or even all outlandish tweaks. The problem is that some of these tweaks are so preposterous, so devilish, nobody would ever expect them to work. I.e., you "know" you've been given a placebo. Especially a dyed in the wool skeptic. So, when the ridiculous thing appears to work, there must be some other explanation. |
Bryon C - since most of your angst seems to be directed at the Intelligent Chip, I will respond to your request for underlying Laws involved in how the chip works, which can be found in my definitive explanation at:
Www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm
Cheers |
As you pointed out, there is no explanation provided for some (many) of my products - that's because I don't know the mechanism of operation, or I haven't sat down to write one up, or because I do not wish to divulge the specifics of how the product works.
You failed to mention there ARE detailed explanations for my vibration isolation stands, Brilliant Pebbles, Mr. clock and Codename Turquoise. |
Well, actually it didn't quite happen the way you say it did.
In your own words you were being confrontational and I responded. You used veiled insults and innuendo, and continue to do so. You accused me of having no explanations for my products, and when I provided the explanations you whined about the explanations not being "satisfying" - whatever that's supposed to mean. Most recently, after I pointed out your continued lack of due diligence regarding explanations for my products, in particular the Intelligent Chip, rather than respond in a reasonable, logical way, you come out with yet another diatribe. What was that term you used, close minded?.....hmmmmm. |
Csmgolf, if you don't mind too much I'm going to quote you from a thread discussing cables on Agon last year. I couldn't have said it better myself.
"...listen for yourself. That is the only way. Assuming that we know how to measure everything that the human hearing mechanism can distinguish is incredibly arrogant. Fortunately, at one time, someone proved that the world is not flat. All of the scientists and people who knew beyond any doubt otherwise, thought him a fool for holding such beliefs without ever investigating themselves. Again, listen for yourself. It can be done with little to no investment other than time and an open mind." |
01-22-12: Almarg
Each issue and each tweak should be considered on an individual basis, and broad latitude should be allowed for the possibility that subtle and counter-intuitive phenomena may be at play. But that latitude should remain WITHIN FINITE BOUNDS OF PLAUSIBILITY!!
I am fairly certain we all have differing bounds of plausibility, and differing views on what constitutes a "satisfactory" explanation. If we default to the most skeptical opinions, those with the narrowest definition of the "finite bounds of plausibility," how will that affect progress in many fields of human endeavor? Will we harken back to the dark ages when folks were persecuted for beliefs or abilities that lay outside the norm? If we had limited the boundaries of plausibility for discovery and of science would we have big bang theory, black hole theory, the Hubble Telescope, faster than sound aircraft, satellite communications, a man on the moon, organ transplant methodology, quantum physics, the iPhone and iPad. Isn't what is really needed are folks who do not feel constrained by arbitrary limitations to ingenuity and scientific discovery that are implied in the phrase, "within the infinite bounds of plausibility?"
Fair heart n'e'r won fair maiden.
Ta Ta |
Almaty said,
"The opinions of EE's will differ on these kinds of questions just as they will among the general population. Keep in mind that the majority of the general population would probably consider all high end audiophiles to be at least a little bit wacko :-)
For example, many EE's would assert that all cables, and even all amplifiers, sound exactly the same. Whereas one EE in this thread (me) asserted early on that Bryon's findings with the ERS paper, although not readily and precisely explainable, were certainly not outside the bounds of plausibility.
The real issue, as both of you alluded to, is where to draw the line between plausibility and implausibility. Obviously the choice of where to draw that line will generally be subjective, debatable, and imprecise. For that reason, among others, I said that "broad latitude should be allowed for the possibility that subtle and counter-intuitive phenomena may be at play." That is the antithesis of "defaulting to the most skeptical opinions."
While EEs by training should have no trouble with many audio related issuses, the wide wide world of controversial tweaks presents different problems for them to get their heads around, as it were. I suspect even ERS paper may give some EEs conniptions, since its effects are so unpredictable. But when an EE wonders into the world of other controversial tweaks, it is often the case that the devices do not lend themselves to easy analysis by those with a strong electronics and engineering background. I actually would not place ERS paper in the same category as the Tice Clock, Mpingo Discs, the Green Pen, Schumann frequency generator, intelligent chip, Demagnetizing and ionization of CDs and LPs, quartz crystals and Silver Rainbow Foil. This is the big paradigm shift that has occurred - we can no longer rely (exclusively) on what we learned in engineering school to correctly assess the "plausibility" of many of these newfangled devices, the operational mechanisms of which appear to lie outside of the relative comfort of the concepts and mathematical formulas found in EE textbooks, or in any textbooks! This is actually the reason these things are called controversial, and why they stir up such, uh, controversy. :-) |
B C - the supermassive object responsible for bending the light is not a star but a supermassive black hole, like the one in the center of our galaxy, or a collection of black holes, things of that nature. Even a very large star doesn't have nearly the mass/gravity for the effect to show up significantly.
Yes, It would be nice to get a third party verification of some of my products. I think that would just swell. Whom do you recommend? NASA, DARPA, Harvard. Oh, even better - AES. Lol. Are you volunteering?
Tootles |
Of course, the point of bringing up Einstein rings is that a supermassive object or group of objects is located between the viewer and the object(s) visible due to gravitational lensing. This object or group of objects can be a galaxy, supermassive black hole, or group of galaxies or black holes. But not a star. How massive is a supermassive black hole? Answer at 11.
For more details on what produces gravitational lensing you need look no further than Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens |
Hey, same thing happened to me. At first, in part due to all the hoopla surrounding the ERS paper when it came out (was it six years ago?) I thought the sound was better. Then a couple A/Bs later I noticed the sound was actually worse, even when using smaller and smaller squares of the material. The sound became woolly, more opaque, less musical. Even with all the ERS paper taken away from all the electronics and placed on the coffee table the weird sound persisted. Only when the stuff was taken entirely outside the house did the sound get back to normal. That's some bad juju. |
"So I plan on doing the A/B'ing in a friend's system, which should be sufficiently resolving to either confirm or disconfirm what I experienced in my system. I will also ask him to help me blind A/B. I will report back with the results."
B C. - would you say your friend's system is as resolving as your system when you first tried the ERS paper? Or perhaps as resolving as your system after you got your system to the point where you heard the ERS paper hurt the sound. And if the blind test is negative what will your conclusion be, pray tell? |
You finished my thoughts quite well, actually. IMO it can be rather difficult getting to the nitty gritty truth of these rather bizarre tweaks and glad to see someone is trying to do so. |
"If one listens to live music every day then his or her perception of recorded sound isan educated onethough experience.
My perception is just that my perception, Right or wrong it is right for me. Everything sounds different to everyone so is it not the "perception" of the live sound how we evaluate sound?"
Promoting live sound as some sort of benchmark or ultimate criterion might not be such a good idea when one considers that there isn't any real consistency to the sound for various live venues any more than there is in home systems. Obviously we woudn't wish to consider bad sounding or mediocre sounding venues as ideal. What then is the ideal for live sound? And who will determine which venue produces fhe perfect sound that all audio systems should be measured against? One is faced with the same problem in evaluating live sound that one faces when evaluating sound in home audio systems. Where is the absolute sound, who has heard it? |
"Maybe the old fuse was dirty. Or defective. Or maybe these things actually work."
Or perhaps the old fuse was installed in the wrong direction. What are the odds, 50%?
G |
01-26-12: Sonicbeauty
"This whole discussion exemplifies everything I have come to understand about the truth AND destiny of this hobby: The MUSIC taking a backseat to the never-ending analysis of SOUND, and the countless hours wasting on getting that little one last drop of improvement."
I suspect it's actually quite common for the anti tweak segment of the hobby to believe, or at least employ the argument, that there's not much to be gained by attention to detail and trying to progress in this hobby. And that only a measly 3%, that one last drop, can be achieved. Boomboxes start to look like a real alternative to anti audiophile mossbacks, no offense to Sonicbeauty personally. |
BC - I enjoyed the debates, perhaps there will more in the future. I'm a wee bit argumentative myself. Nevertheless I appreciate someone who can construct logical arguments, I even appreciate well constructed illogical ones, and someone who can research subjects on the fly.
Cheers, GK |
Let's see, which of the following tweaks do the more open minded folks here think will definitely work, have a chance of working or have a snowball's chance in hell of working? Don't be shy. By "working" I mean improves the sound, just to clarify.
1. Removing all telephone books from the house.
2. Removing all plants and flowers from the listening room.
3. Removing all empty beer, etc. bottles from the listening room.
4. Removing unused speakers from the listening room.
5. Removing all unused amps and other components and cables from the listening room.
6. Removing all Sonex from the room.
7. Removing speaker grills. |
Wharton, answers to your questions:
"1. Removing all telephone books from the house.
I don't see this, unless the telephone books are blocking the speakers or air vents on the equipment. But, if you are using them for isolation under equipment, or to sit on so you are at proper listening height, keep them."
Telephone books hurt the sound, but not because they are blocking the sound or damping something. It's a mind matter interaction issue. Take all telephone books outside or just throw them away. Who uses telephone books anymore? Easy to test.
"2. Removing all plants and flowers from the listening room.
Plants are good natural acoustic treatments and look nice too. I'd keep them, but you have to be careful not to over water them. Also, watch out for strange infestations of bugs and plant diseases."
Plants and flowers, while attractive, hurt the sound. Mind matter interaction issue. Easy enough to test, no?
"3. Removing all empty beer, etc. bottles from the listening room.
Good idea. Probably more sanitary too. Since I don't drink, not much of an issue for me."
Empty bottles act like Helmholtz resonators, even one bottle on the room is quite noticeable.
"4. Removing unused speakers from the listening room.
Probably the most important suggestion, i think, because those cones move sympathetically. Unfortunately, I have a large home theatre system in the same room as my hi-fi (not connected to each other, electrically or through signal cables), but the extra speakers are there, and it would be a giant pita to move them for hi-fi listening. I do turn the amps on that control them, to 'charge them' so they are less compliant and the speaker cones less prone to sympathetic movement."
All musical instruments including speakers should be removed for best results. It has very little to do with the speakers cones resonating, as can be confirmed listening through headphones. Alas, it's a mind matter interaction issue.
"5. Removing all unused amps and other components and cables from the listening room.
Dunno what this would do - isn't that sorta the old Linn mantra? I have a bunch of equipment for the home theatre system that is rack mounted in an alcove adjacent to the hi-fi, not part of it and those racks aren't going anywhere (they are about 6 feet high and bolted to the floor). I am not looking forward to breaking them down when i move, which- hopefully, will be soon. New dedicated and far less cluttered room to follow in new location."
Removing all unused electronics from the room improves the sound. All unused cables should also be removed. It's a mind matter interaction issue.
"6. Removing all Sonex from the room.
Sonex is an acoustic treatment, right? I haven't heard that brand name or term in a while. Not sure where you are going with this, some treatment, if properly applied, is good, but I'm not sure about Sonex."
Sonex, you know, the one used in many recording studios, degrades the sound, even in small amounts. Same goes for those foam padded chairs from Ikea. Easy to test.
"7. Removing speaker grills.
Could improve things if not acoustically transparent."
Almost all grills are acoustically transparent. Nevertheless removing grills will improve the sound. Another mind matter interaction issue. |
Bryon asked,
"Question, Geoff, and I'm asking it sincerely... Are you a Dualist?"
No, Bryon, but I am a Machina Dynamicist, a Sheldrakian and a Beltist, and I mean that sincerely.
Geoff at Machina Dynamica |
Whart wrote,
"I probably have on the order of 10,000 records (probably getting closer to 11,000 now) and I would like to see them in my room as well."
Bill, thanks for reminding me of No. 8 in the list of preposterous things that improve the sound.
8. Always store all LPs and CDs vertically. |
What wrote,
"(PS. I am not mocking you. I live in an area outside of NYC that is filled with folks claiming to have all kinds of spiritual connections to the past, present and future. I'm just too dumb to connect on that level- I have a difficult enough time figuring out what's right in front of me sometimes. But, in keeping with my 'almost anything is possible credo,' I won't dismiss stuff out of hand based on its apparent implausibility.)."
Uh, nobody is saying it's at a spiritual level or any such thing. It's not black magic, white magic, ritualism, spiritualism, new ageism, psychological, subliminal, Zen Buddhism, group hypnosis, mind control, alien technology or dualism. I will grant you it's apparent implausibility, however.
What I have in mind for your 10,000 LP collection is a huge vertical Rolodex. :-) |
Sounds to me like those ascribing the supernatural to implausible tweaks are a little like the natives on a godforsaken island somewhere who believe cameras are supernatural and that having a picture taken of them will steal their souls. The problem with many tweaks that can't be explained or have difficult to swallow explanations is that knowledge or expertise in the sciences of electronics and acoustics is no longer sufficient to judge them. These days the well rounded über skeptic must be well-versed in biology, neurological science, evolution and others. Question for the non technical naysayers: Is it still fashionable to report that you told a PhD friend about some preposterous tweak and he laughed so hard milk squirted out of his nose? |
Whart wrote,
"didn't peter belt have a whole thing about putting a photo of yourself into the freezer? that's not far removed, geoff. when you said you were a 'beltist,' i assumed that had nothing to do with the thing that holds your pants up, and everything to do with the fringe audio tweak guy in the UK."
Uh, oh, looks like the cat is out of the bag. I'm getting a bad feeling.
:-) |
Mapman wrote,
"Luckily, most of the really important core principles of home audio are fairly well understood by many, so that is less of a problem practically."
The so-called experts - the "many" - still don't understand wire directionality (or dismiss it), why one cable can sound better than another one that measures better, why tiny little acoustic bowls have such a dramatic impact on bass frequencies, why cables must be "burned in" to sound their best, why cryogenically treated CDs and LPs sound better than stock CDs and LPs, why degaussing improves CDs and LPs, why degaussing improves cables, why deionization improves CDs and cables, why the Schumann Frequency Generator works, etc. in fact, I suspect most of the so-called experts - the "many" - have never even heard of these things.
"When you assume something you make an ass out of me and Uma Thurman". - old audiophile axiom |
Almarg wrote,
"Geoff, could you explain precisely what you mean by "mind-matter interaction," which was your answer to most of the questions in the quiz you presented a few posts back. And which, if I followed your subsequent responses correctly, is unrelated to anything psychological or subliminal, among many other things you appeared to say it is unrelated to. Thanks."
When I use the term mind-matter interaction I'm referring to the concept that the mind is capable of interacting subconsciously with it's immediate surroundings, especially with certain shapes, materials, physical phenomena such as electrical charge, alternating current, flashing lights, as well as other things such as physical and digital media like books, especially telephone books, but also CDs, LPs, cassettes. The Princeton University school of engineering studied mind matter interaction for about 30 years - PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research). How and why the mind subconsciously interacts with its surroundings is not well understood, but I have a strong sense that it has a lot to do with how early man evolved, especially with respect to self survival and having to develop "extra-sensory" skills to help detect and avoid threats such as large, hungry predators. |
Mapman wrote,
"Geoff, in that case, assuming you are right and everyone else is wrong, the you should help educate them. What better way to build credibility? That's kind of how higher learning works in general."
I never said I knew all the answers. Doesn't all the world love a mystery?
"OR you can continue to keep your secrets to yourself and convince people that you are right and that the rest of the world has their priorities wrong."
I keep some secrets to myself. Is that wrong? I think if you review my posts you'll find I reveal quite a bit, however. |
Almarg wrote,
"Geoff, thanks for the clarification. Wouldn't that better be referred to, though, as "reaction" of the subconscious mind to the matter around it, rather than as "interaction"? "Interaction" would seem to imply that in addition to the mind subconsciously reacting to its surroundings, the (inanimate) surroundings are somehow reacting to the mind."
Good point. Actually the interaction does work both ways. In fact, the Mind Lamp from Psyleron (an offshoot of PEAR) was developed expressly to demonstrate that the mind is capable of influencing its surroundings, even inanimate things - in the case of the lamp an extremely sensitive quantum mechanical Random Event Generator (REG). Also, what PEAR primarily focused on for 30 years was to what degree a human operator could influence the outcome of scientific experiments. I suppose you could also call this direction of the interaction mind over matter. |
Mrtennis wrote,
"psychophysics underlies much of what wwe perceive and see."
Really? How so? Please elucidate.
Thanks in advance. |
Mrtennis wrote,
"the differential threshold applies to detecting differences in spl, e.g. . how much of a change in spl is necessary to detect differences in loudness, varies from person to person.
adaptation level concerns the point at which the nervous system is no longer efficient, because neurons are firing more slowly, fatigue sets in and perception of differences suffers. there are actions to be taken to avoid reaching the adaptation level, otherwise, errors in judgment will occur."
Thanks for the explanation.
One can't help wondering if this loss of efficiency by the nervous system is why blinds tests that require many consecutive trials might be unreliable. And why some proponents of blind tests as final arbiters of high end speakers, cables and tweaks *require* a large number of trials, if you see what I mean. |
Mrtennis wrote,
"there is a cd "jazz at the pawn shop". one of the tracks is "lady be good". somewhere under one minute from the beginning of the track a telephone rings. the spl is much lower than the sound of the instruments.
my friend and i listened to the cd on two different stereo systems and could not hear the telephone. obviously, the ring tone is somewhere in the upper mids/lower treble.
a third person heard the ring. thus aural acuity varies among listeners."
This doesn't appear to be headline news. Was there ever any doubt that aural acuity varies among listeners? |
