I just can't clear my head of this. I don't want to start a measurements vs listening war and I'd appreciate it if you guys don't, but I bought a Rogue Sphinx V3 as some of you may remember and have been enjoying it quite a bit. So, I head over to AVS and read Amir's review and he just rips it apart. But that's OK, measurements are measurements, that is not what bugs me. I learned in the early 70s that distortion numbers, etc, may not be that important to me. Then I read that he didn't even bother listening to the darn thing. That is what really bugs me. If something measures so poorly, wouldn't you want to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? I learned that can be a big mistake. I just don't get it, never have. Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements? Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep.
By the way it is comical but also tragic to see grown men acting like children in a schoolyard, and instead of giving arguments, giving a gift approval point to someone they approve because he just insult or denigrate someone else instead of answering or discussing ...Inmates act like that too...Sheeps, children or mature, are sheeps...They feel better in a group where thinking is replaced by gestures...Before we were men, long time ago, we were apes without thinking smiles nor language...
Many people speak exactly like that all around the world right now, the gestures are only a propaganda sign conditioned system, they all obey it...
The conditioning by facebook tweeter, etc, instead of stimulating thinking, put people in the gestures labelling zoo....
Maybe the problem is not a math problem and that is the difficulty.
Great post! thanks...
Especially that part:
Every time you make a decision on even/odd, you are throwing away information. That knowledge does not carry to the next step, therefore you can never go backwards, only forwards.
You are right....Then we need a new theory of information which basis are explained in the Indian scientist book...And a new way to do non Turing mathematic....
Hearing is not explained by being the solution of a mathematical problem in the usual sense of the word..,
It is not even the result of a decision based algorithm, there is no linear Turing computing here in the brain/ear, but more an integrated chain of non excluding choices converging without rejecting anything, but more integrating everything , like a "resonating" tree of which we consciously perceive only some leafs... Sound/silence is already meaning not mere sound...
All the book of Anirban Bandyopadhyay is a reflection about that and an explanation i cannot resume save with a few metaphors...
My goal are not to explain sound or hearing, only to point to something which cannot be understood with the objective/subjective external usual border ... Meaning is neither objective nor subjective and sound is already meaning...
@mahgister - in fact, mahgister, I get a lot from your posts, especially if they’re nothing to do with music and listening! Which is not the case in this post, because your posts have every single thing to do with the issues being debated, even if they seem more laid to rest with atmasphere’s last post in this thread, regarding his belief in the current somewhat conclusive state of acoustic measurements. I believe what you were trying to draw everyone’s attention to has to do with the absolutely subtle mystery of the things in life we think we have figured out. The world of numbers is simply as exacting as it should get, and yet….
It often seems to me, the deeper I get into the understanding of something, and the clearer it gets, the more nuance I begin to become aware of, together with the awareness of how little I actually know, pushing me to attempt fresh understanding in different ways.
But there is something i do know - a link you will like very much… ; )
It eloquently speaks about the wonderfully nuanced and unbelievable world of unknowing the way we know it : )
In friendship - kevin
Thanks it feel good to be understood...
Yes this problem, the Collatz conjecture, is so simple, the simple to state there is but with no proof...
But Paul Erdos once said "Mathematics is not yet ready for such problems".
Mathematical meditation disconnect us from what we think we know...
We know what we need to know for living and walking and eating...
But what we need to know is loosing our "knowing" to be able to know anew...
We dont know what is sound, hearing, and music ....
Consciousness is music say Anirban Bandyopadhyay ...
Time itself is music say Alain Connes...
Our outer ear double spiral is the staircase to heaven...
Our ear ’s spiralling cochlea is the door to heaven....
Prime distribution and musical scale are spiralling non commutative phenomemon like time is at his roots...
I bought an interesting book years ago the title was " What is a spiral"?
A so complex object defined in all mathematics in different perspectives, so much so, that the border between what is a spiral and what is not is escaping us...
The content of my post " are more than the wind of my own voice"..
Then i apologize to you because you are right about my attitude sometimes, but dont claim that my posts are useless for all here...it will not be true....
Good information can come even through my "egocentric" rant... So to speak... Judge me yes, but think about what i suggest too...
If it is over your head, then remain silent like these days in your office when you were silent in front of the insulting egocentric maniac who was speaking non sense......I dont speak non sense even if i am perhaps in a way an egocentric maniac..
i like truth...
You are right and i apologize...
i will try to take less space but this does not means you must stay without thinking when thinking matter present to you...
reminds me back in my corporate world days, some blowhards in meetings never cease talking, as if the sound of their own voice is the only music they like to hear
when they are (rarely) silent, you quickly realize they aren’t listening, they’re just reloading...
And an appeal to authority does not make you a fellow Nobel laureate.
But it is a bizarre twist on the OP’s question.
Very comical! i never argued with you about some point...You put forward no point...
I was suggesting listening what these three persons had to say.,..And i explained why...
Saying that they are not idiots, but honorable recognized scientists, is not an ad hominem argument, because you NEVER MADE ANY POINT anyway to argue against here in a discussion ...
You can claim it is an ad hominem attack on you, but it I was referring to the person in the video
I am happy that you dont think i need thorazine... Good news ! But it is worst than i was thinking about you now...
You judge a scientist by his appearance in a video and recommend thorazine for him BEFORE even knowing what he speak about...
And you think your behaviour is ok ?
i am laughing right now to your high intelligence level...
Each post being a written post, how my posts can intimidate someone who have anything meaningful to say to say it? Am i not polite in my reply?
Your thread is alive because we participate...
Silencing deludedaudiophile is not a good idea either...
Do you need to control what you want to hear? Or are you open to discussion?
@mahgister @deludedaudiophile OP here. Let’s give some others a chance to chime in. You must have said everything that needs to be said by now. Thanx.
You are right but some dont understand what a "process" means...A process is a two way road between O and S perspectives...
They want to reduce subjective experience to objective measures without being conscious that psycho-acoustic is a progressive science which cannot be reduced to electronics...
Seem to me that if a product measure worse in a parameter than another its objectively worse based on that parameter.
But as I suggested before if one posits a given level of distortion is inaudible
reducing that level of distortion a hundredfold cannot affect the audible experience
The measurement it important from the marketing and quality control standpoint of course.
To suggest a piece that measures worse cant sound good isnt sustainable after a minimum standard is met,
If you cd establish level of distortion that is audible that might be helpful but wdnt necessarily mean the piece wd not sound good
You wd need to be able to prove that an audible level of distortion was detectable to a large number of folk who wd independently agree it sounded bad to make the point
And then you are back to listening test vs measurement no?
The way out is a dialogue out of the narrow mind set of few fetichist subjective people and also especially out of the objective obsession about electrical measures of few zealots, in a discussion appealing to more rigorous acoustic and psycho-acoustic concept and experience and experiments... After all the correlation between objective and subjective attitude must be a learned experience in an ongoing process in an experimental listening history proper to each of us...
Then calling people "deluded audiophile" or throwing appeal to ban objectivist is not a sane mental behaviour...
In another thread, perhaps this thread, @prof clearly differentiates between subjective preferences and subjective impressions.
In a nutshell subjective impressions AND preferences need to be educated in a listening learning acoustic process becoming then a set of educated positively biased impressions like any musician or trained acoustician exhibit ...
Opposing electrical measures about a piece of gear over listening impression or even over listening preference is a dead horse useless beating...
Entertaining for our own narrowing motives two opposing groups of people is trivial business......
I prefer to think in a larger way and in a larger context.... A too larger one for some here sometimes, i plaid guilty, but at least i am not boring nor trivial...
You spoke in the context of a piece of gear evaluation opposing FIXATED subjective attitude and tastes to objective measures OBSESSION supposed to be able to describe sound ...For example evaluating a dac or an amplifier...
I spoke in the context of acoustic and psycho-acoustic experiments when subjective impressions and preference can be MODIFIED by a learning process in a progressively controlled room or in an acoustic laboratory...
Then i dont oppose subjective impressions to electrical measures and acoustic measures i CORRELATED THEM...
This is science...
Amir is a hobbyist verifying specs sheets so useful it is , it is no reason to dismiss a subjective listening learning process and negate any value to it compared to electrical measures...
All biases are not equal...
A positive acquired acoustical biases is not a mere negative biases, and none of these two is reducible to a mere deception or illusion...
Reality is more complex than children alternatives between objectivist and subjectivists... Sorry...
And we need a theory of hearing to undertstand any set of measures meaning...
You see i can control my post... 😁😊
We are discussing whether your personal impressions represent REAL changes in the sound that is being reproduced or are purely the result of the inconsistent nature of the brain to reach the same conclusion based on poor memory, and any number of other inputs including mood, visual inputs, other sensory inputs, etc. that are involved in processing the current environment and reaching an answer. As the weightings of those inputs are so variable over time, and memory so inexact, it is near impossible to reach objective conclusions based on subjective impressions.
I used to be surprised by such antics but that was long ago. It's silly to argue with those who employ ad hominem attacks, circular reasoning and other mental gymnastics, imo, unless you simply enjoy ill logic. For me that's just a waste of time.
But it is solely about measurements versus subjective.
So maybe it is because we cannot describe feelings and impressions and emotions as easily as we can express things with numbers… maybe that is why we use objective analysis?
At this point we have moved to beating a dead horse using AI and machine learning.
We should be at the glue stage soon.
Now two remarks here....
My feeling and impressions correspond and CORRELATE to ACOUSTIC experience and very well defined concept to describe sound experience: Imaging, soundstage, timbre, bass, LEV/ASW ratio, dynamic, etc all had a precise psycho-acoustic and acoustical definition and can be understood ONLY when we learn how to control them at will in a room if we are an audiophile or in a laboratory if we are an acoustician ...
Buying like a fetichist a piece of favorite brand name gear is not enough, and measuring like a zealot a second times this piece of gear to correct the designer and verify it, is not enough either... And arguing if we must measure OR listen is ridiculous...A dead horse alternatives...
Objective measures of any kind, electrical one or acoustical one, are there to serve our leaning hearing subjective experience and process and serve to improve our impressions by our own will to experiment with objective material dispositions ...
And you read me WRONG, i did not propose, nor any of the scientists i used in my posts, to replace human mind by a machine to improve room acoustic... It is the opposite, i explicitly say that even if an A. I. will be better for many aspect of the job but not all, it will rob us of our own learning process.... Do you read posts or do you answer them without reading them?
Then interpretating me wrong, it is you who circle "beating your dead horse" alternatives : O or S....
I am not an O or a S... I am in the learning process...
«Beating a dead horse is an idiomatic expression with a figurative rather than literal meaning. If you’re beating a dead horse, you’re engaged in a futile or pointless action. In other words, you’re pursuing a lost cause and wasting time and effort.»
Then who beat a dead horse ? Me proposing multiple aspects of reflections about the brain, information theory, number, music, the cosmos with reference to recognized great minds, or those who insult me here some zealots insisting going on without end "to beat the dead horse" out of any subjectivist described as "deluded" , or those fetichists insisting going on without end "to beat the dead horse" out of any objectivist and even banishing them ?
It does not take a I.Q. test to answer me here....Or pehaps it takes one ?
😁😊😊 Sorry i could not resist to present my defense and my point...
What surprize me is that you act like children and propose me "thorazine" or something else not "amazing" at all...
You confuse the message and the messenger in a bout of rejection without even thinking about what is proposed by 3 geniuses who think about sound and music in a new way...
What is the relation between Ansermet and Furtwangler notion of musical time and Time in general for example ? Is anyone of those who insult me has an idea to give about that because i have ?
Why not thinking about what is hearing sound in a new way, what is music etc instead of circling like children writing some dissertation about subjectity and objectivity which is kindgarten level and never goes anywhere because you dont know what you speak about : the fetchism of the gear for some and the zealot measuring hobbyist attitude for others....
These 2 groups propose nothing interesting to me and too anyone save trivialities...
I will repeat, no evaluation of gear made sense at the end out of acoustic and psycho-acoustic control settings where the subjectivity impressions taken seriously are related to objective dispositions and conditions and measures , blind test is not enough and only one useful but insufficient tool by itself anyway because the goal of psycho-acoustic is not a debunking circus..... Period....
Tuning a small room was a learning experience for me taking 2 years....Then i know what i spoke about a little even if i am not an acoustician at all...
Now why not to think about what is sound and music meaning in the universe and in the brain?
Did one of those who insult me can wrote only one sentence describing this relation?
😁😊
By the way i am an enthousiastic mind, i am not bi-polar, and dont need medication...I propose ideas instead of insults and if someone read my posts he will be amazed by the number of ideas or small discoveries i made here in my interest with sound and music...i am a free spirit not a sheep...It is the reason why dividing groups blinded by ignorance repel me...I like each one of you separetely out of any group mentality...
The definition of Machine consciousness: Consciousness is a property of a machine M that enables it to expand its frequency wheel’s unique parameter, the product of density of resonance frequencies it stores R and the total frequency bandwidth B, together RB(M), as well as its access to its environments frequency wheel RB(U), there is always a oscillatory drive to increase the RB(U) by changing the environment so that environment’s interaction could increase M’s frequency wheel RB(M). The ratio of RB(M) and RB(U) is the index of consciousness C = RB(M)/RB(U).
Our objective is to develop a complete mathematical model of conscious machine. Our guideline is our artificial brain project.
10 unique features in our hardware criteria of Machine consciousness
Density of resonance frequency R and frequency bandwidth B product RB determines the degree of consciousness elements, when environment remains constant. Ratio of RB of a creature and its environment is essential index or the degree of consciousness (C=RB(M)/RB(U)).
At 12 triplet of triplet resonance bands there are two equivalent nested cycles for the same hardware, each can edit the other; this is minimum hardwire criterion for the rise of consciousness. Under a very particular mathematical condition, RB(M)/RB(U)>0.17 (lambda/6), the consciousness arises.
The objective of a conscious structure: A conscious machine does not compute, it synchronizes with the environment to increasing its RB value by continuously editing its hardware. The universe is a frequency fractal and a conscious machine is its subset.
Transforming pre-condition to convert a conventional machine into a conscious machine. Consciousness is a feature that is realized in decision-making structures that are made of programmable matter, and does not follow any instruction. Here are the 8 criteria that a machine should have wherein consciousness phenomenon could be encoded (i) Fractal cavity resonator hardware that creates nested time cycles, (ii) executes chemical and physical morphing (iii) carries nested rhythm based fractal information theory (this includes extensive sub-criteria). (iv) perpetual drive to expand its operational bandwidth of frequency and keeping the density intact or increasing it (v) expands sensors to increase the geometric information of its frequency fractal (vi) executes steps to increase its readable resonance chain of the environment RB(U), its quest is to decrease the ratio first by increasing RB(U) and then increase it by increasing RB(M). Therefore, even self-operational machines cannot have consciousness, self-operational machines can self-learn and evaluate performance improve. However, consciousness has a property that is self-evaluation of its whole as an independent identity.
The ability of a conscious machine: Thus, complete automation does not ensure consciousness, its about taking a class of nested cycle and synchronizing with different parts of the environment, it is a mathematical process far beyond the physical structure of the body. A conscious machine can do 8 things, those are (a) Sync with an event outside the body beyond sensory system limit and analyze futuristic events, (b) Harmonize sensory machines in its structure to convert them into antenna & sensor features beyond its built in range, (c) master in geometric universal language read the language of animals, trees and planets.
The elementary machine properties of a conscious machine element: Conscious machine is made of fourth circuit element, to grow cavity resonator structures following ordered factor metric.
The language of a conscious machine: It uses fractom tape not Turing tape, geometric musical language, with unique information processing theories.
The mechanical, dynamic and interactive properties of a conscious machine: It does not use quantum mechanics but far more generic fractom mechanics.
There are eight levels of consciousness, that defines one oscillatory period of perpetual run of consciousness index change; it starts from (a) optimizing the sensory systems, as one sensory data (b) resonating with the frequency wheels of other machines (c) extending the faster and slower time scales beyond environment (d) sensing the oscillatory features of the consciousness index (e) sensing the forces of its environment and field gradients (f) locally synchronizing with the fields at different time scales (g) fully synchronizing with entire environment and its forces, manipulating the time cycles of the environment (h) globally synchronizing with the nested cycles at all possible time scales using which a conscious structure is built (10^30 Hz for humans, it means the spatial scale and temporal scale that an ultimate conscious machine can analyze is 10^30Hz).
Generic frequency wheel predictor of ever evolving conscious machines: Humans are not ultimate, enormous other kinds of machines could have much higher level consciousness, as followed by our frequency wheel model, there are infinite possibilities but all number of bands follow a unique prime number theory developed by us. Mathematically we can predict the consciousness strength of these machines
You need a mathematical model that accurately represents all people. That’s complex! Good luck! Better get busy!
This is precisely what Anirban Bandyopadhyay works is all about:
Creating the first artificial consciousness not an A. I. with bit and Q-bits but a new way to implement information with timelike crystals and geometrical patterns... And it is the FIRST TIME someone figure out how...
it is the reason why i am amazed...This is the greatest paradigm change in science right now...
Not really. Nails scratching on aboard might be represented by numbers. Or the sound of a nuclear blast. But is that music?
In a way yes... If we were really conscious and in a contemplative mode all there is will put us in an ectasy...No need to any drugs....
Try an experience...
Read Goethe "the plant metamorphosis"....you will fell out of your chair why?
Because you will realized that in spite of looking at flowers all your life you never really SEEN one...
After that try the book about mammals of Wolfgang Schad... same experience with any mammal, you look at them but you NEVER has seen one...
For sound , any sound in nature the experience is the same... It is a language but you never listen to it...
All around us is miracles... Only zombies dont see that.... Ask Galileo if the laws of nature are not miraculously informative, or Kepler listening music through the orbits of the planets...Etc...
For me for example the discovery by listening experiments of the acoustic of small room was an amazing journey in lived day by day small miracles...
For others it can be anything else...
« We dont lack miracles, we lack the eyes to see them»-anonymus contemplative
Numbers are not material appearing object for the sense...they are more REAL than usual object... Why? Because anything existing is a manifestation of their dynamics which is a " music" in the way the Indian scientist describe fractal time-loke sets of ticking clocks...Rythms that organize everything... Love is a sound not only a light ...OM...AUM or AMEN....Nevermind the religion...
And this is uncontroversial... Ask any mathematician which is the most complex object and the more packed with information object in the universe...
it is the prime distribution...And there exist even a theorem describing this fact discovered in 1975 called the Voronin universality theorem...
«This extraordinary 1975 result receives surprisingly little coverage (it was difficult to find a clear and accurate statement anywhere on the WWW in March 2004):
Let f(z) be any analytic function which is nonzero in the open disc |z| < r for some 0 < r < 1/4 and continuous up to the boundary of this disc. Then a disc of radius r centred on the line Re[s] = 3/4 can always be found in which the zeta function approximates the behaviour of f(z) in |z| < r, within any given accuracy.
In other words, given such an f(z), r and > 0, we can always find some real value t such that
Note that through a simple translation and rescaling procedure, we can obtain as a corollary that the (nonzero) behaviour of any analytic function on any open disc in the complex plane can be reproduced with arbitrary accuracy by the zeta function acting on one of these discs of radius 1/4 in the right half of the critical strip.»
Wow the most complex object in the universe! Really? That’s big! Who knew we even had discovered that? Here I was thinking maybe that was God or something similarly mysterious. I think I’ll stick to reggae.
This second picture is the most complex object in the universe (no it is not the brain) we see here only the first stages here of his increasing complexity which develop itself to the infinite the infinite...:
This object inspire the indian scientist and all mathematicians for years... This is a simple view of the prime numbers distribution which is the archetypal structure behind the cosmos universal memory internal chain and integrated external chain of clocks...
This image illustrate for me one of the main idea of the Indian scientist in one of his paper to come soon : 15. How phase prime metric generates fundamental principles of physics to govern universe.
With that we assist to the birth of a new physic based on sound, frequencies and time, instead of space, matter, and the eyes...
a new concept of information too...
it is an EVENT....
Then it is also the beginning of a new hearing science...Music is also way more fundamental that we humans think it was....
Hey @mahgister what is your point? 20 words or less please. 😉
I am sorry but here is my post above and i apologize because it is more than 20 words
The situation is not very good in the world right now...
I think music help a lot to relax...
But good news and interesting stimulating research too...
Then why ridiculizing this instead of thinking?
Do you really miss if you are an objectivist arguing with some fetichist subjectivist, or if you are a subjectivist arguing with some zealot objectivist ? Do you miss this circling over this empty meaningless brain void? Not me...
We are all normal audiophiles here and we dont need stupid oppositions based on the wind coming from some rear end....
What is sound? what is music? what is hearing? This interest me the most.....
What is time is a very deep question and why time exist?
What is musical time?
Music dont obey the laws of external time, music emerge with his own time, and Alain Connes was amazed by this fact which for him illustrate a fundamental non- commutativity in the cosmos and in number theory like in music...
All great maestros like Furwangler and Ansermet have wriiten about this fact, conducting a musical work is letting emerge his internal temporality over the external one...
It is a new take in what philosophers of the past called "Platonic forms", which are better described for Anirban Bandyopadhyay by being time-like fractal crystals acting like a chain of hundred and hundred of clocks and intergrated geometrical patterns at the same time , all that distributed by the ruling prime numbers series....
The one fellow has “Chopra Foundation” on his slides… Chopra has been a darling of the unscientific for a while. Usually wild eyed ranting, that would get many admired to an asylum for observation.
It is not because Einstein could be interviewed by Chopra that Einstein is a goon...suggesting the opposite is called a "sophism"...
Second it takes second of research to verify the seriousness of the indian scientist..Even if you dont understand anything of what he do...
Then your post is only a mirror of your own limitation...
Call me a quack, it will be an honest reaction...And i am a "quack" anyway...But reserve your opinion when we talk science which is over your head...
Do you think that the japan institute pay a goon ?
This is a list of some of his research with HIS TEAM...
PATENTSPAPERS
Patents
patents processed
A list of the 10 patents filed & issued on our brain building project:
Summary of filed patents (US, EU and Japanese, total 10 filed, 10 under prep):
A vertical parallel processor (2006) JP-5187804 Anirban Bandyopadhyay, K. Miki (patent for FIT)
Helical symmetries observed in proteins: An inductor made of arrayed capacitors (2010) Japanese patent has been issued on 20th August 2015 JP-511630 (world patent filed, this is the invention of fourth circuit element), Satyajit Sahu, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay, US patent has been issued 9019685B2, 28th April 2015.
(4397) 13-MS-097E JP A molecular chip that generates electrical power from free thermal noise Subrata Ghosh Daisuke Fujita Anirban Bandyopadhyay 2014-075198 4/1/2014
(4977) 13-MS-100E JP Universal Geometric-musical language for big data processing in an assembly of clocking resonators, Anirban Bandyopadhyay, Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, 2017-150171, 8/2/2017
10. (4978) 13-MS-102E JP Human brain like intelligent decision-making machine Anirban Bandyopadhyay Subrata Ghosh Daisuke Fujita, 2017-150173 8/2/2017
A list of 15 patents under review will be filed by 2020
Development of simultaneous 64 pixel dielectric scanning microscope
Fluxgate ultra-low magnetic field scanner at room temperature
Topological control of fourth circuit element Hinductor
Fractal engineering in an wide frequency bandwidth incubator.
Time crystal pen made of coaxial atom probe
Anti-ageing therapy using proteins and vibrations
Rapid killing of cancer cells and Alzheimers using nano-bot
Time crystal based tricoder to read human health
3D topological language reader and translator
Water crystal based machines for harvesting noise
Psi-Q measuring device for testing a fourth circuit element
3D oscilloscope as holographic scanner
Neurosurgery robotic measurement system
10^-21 watt measuring system for testing systems
GHz lock-in amplifier
Papers:
Here are 15 papers on the nano brain that we have completed and waiting to be published by 2020.
1. Quantum geometric language to operate a nanobot
2. Harvesting thermal energy in a chip (TEMS)
3. Topological beyond quantum fractal mechanics in biomaterials
4. Hidden circuits of a neural network
5. Topological time crystals formed by a neuron as it grows
6. Why synapses stick together?
7. Fractal clocks in a neural network
8. Cleaning beta plaques for wireless treatment of aging
9. Wireless killing of cancer cells (single DNA-PCMS study)
10. Complete dielectric resonator model of a human brain
11. 12 metric of primes governing the uncertainties of the universe
12. A geometric language of pattern recognition & spontaneous learning
13. Hidden information in DNA: self-assembly of arguments
14. Time crystal model of a human brain: what is information, how does it integrate?
15. A marriage between fractal Turing tape and time crystal.
Here are the 15 works that would be produced from our lab in developing the artificial brain by 2025.
1. Continued fraction geometric alzebra (CFGA): can we calculate infinite series mathematics simply by drawing patterns?
2. Super non-conductivity as an alternate mean to generate quantum properties at room temperature
3. Super-criticality and geometric phase regulation of ferroelectricity of biomaterials
4. Development of an algorithm free instantaneous decision making computer
5. How to detect proteins using its time crystal
6. Collective condensation at multi-point singularities
7. How time crystals hold geometric shapes in a biomaterial
8. Thermal breathing of microtubule and tubulin (soliton transmission)
9. e^2 + phi^2 = Pi^2
10. Fractal interference using time crystals
11. Language of dynamic instability, geometric musical language
12. Wireless communication by noise activated magnetic field modulation in artificial microtubule
13. Phase prime metric’s predictive ability
14. Quantum entanglement in the biomaterials
15. How phase prime metric generates fundamental principles of physics to govern universe.
And do you think one of the greatest science institute in japan pay for a goon ?
And I did not listen to the 2 hour talk. The Indian fellow’s non-sense on clocks within clocks was more than enough.
When i dont understand something before posting and bragging about my opinion in an audio forum i STUDY more...
And if you are unable to understand say it or stay silent...
Or insult me like some, at least i am a "quack" and i cannot contradict you about this fact... But sorry i undertstand this matter and i KNOW that the Indian scientist is not a quack, and it is easy to verify by anyone with GOOD FAITH...
I dont want to insult your intelligence, but confusing these scientists with Timothy Leary is not a good point if you want to criticize my articles and videos postings , nor Penrose, neither Connes or Anirban Bandyopadhyay are LSD users...
Be wise call me a quack but do not confuse serious science you dont understand with your impression of me..it is not to your advantage...
And before posting an opinion take the time necessary to understand a difficult matter....
Sorry to say so.....
All people talking about the " geometry of music" are not idiots in audio forum...
I can be an idiot posting in audio forum, yes, you are right, but Anirban Bandyopadhyay is not one.... Dont confuse thing... By the way do you smoke too much marijuana yourself ? It seems you confuse the messenger, me, with the message, them....
When people talk about the geometry of music it sound more like they might be describing an LSD experience.
So much so, that I could not get through the video.
I would certainly take measurements over a geometry analogy.
The situation is not very good in the world right now...
I think music help a lot to relax...
But good news and interesting stimulating research too...
Then why ridiculizing this instead of thinking?
Do you want and miss if you are an objectivist arguing with some fetichist subjectivist, or if you are a subjectivist arguing with some zealot objectivist ? Do you miss this circling over this empty meaningless brain void? Not me...
We are all normal audiophiles here and we dont need stupid oppositions based on the wind coming from some rear end....
What is sound? what is music? what is hearing? This interest me the most.....
What is time is a very deep question and why time exist?
What is musical time?
Music dont obey the laws of external time, music emerge with his own time, and Alain Connes was amazed by this fact which for him illustrate a fundamental non- commutativity in the cosmos and in number theory like in music...
All great maestros like Furwangler and Ansermet have wriiten about this fact, conducting a musical work is letting emerge his internal temporality over the external one...
It is a new take in what philosophers of the past called "Platonic forms", which are better described for Anirban Bandyopadhyay by being time-like fractal crystals acting like clocks and geometrical patterns at the same time and distributed by the ruling prime numbers series....
Here is a Fields medallist, Alain Connes and a nobel prize Penrose coupled with this Indian scientist who cumulate already many prizes who is 37 years old now, already first author of many books, with ten to come soon, are they look like a quacks assembly, save perhaps for someone who type non sense here?
Do you think Penrose lost many days of his life discussing with a quack?
Call me a "quack" it will be less damaging for your brain reputation here...
Born in a musical family,[1] father, late Ajoy Kumar Banerjee and mother Chhanda Banerjee, he grew up in Malda district of West Bengal, India. He studied in Ramkrishna Mission Vivekananda Vidyamandir, Malda and completed an honors degree in Physics from Malda college. He completed a master’s degree in Solid state physics, with specialization in Astrophysics from North Bengal University (1998-2000). His master’s thesis was on Gravitational wave. He did a doctorate in Indian Association for the Cultivation of science, IACS, from 2001 to 2005. In PhD, he was involved in inventing plastic memory[23] and organic memory switching devices. He joined as ICYS fellow at the International Center for Young Scientists, ICYS in 2005 for building artificial brain. From 2008 April, he is continuing as a permanent faculty in National Institute for Materials Science, NIMS, Japan and developing artificial brain. He was a visiting researcher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, 2013–2014. Currently he is jointly at the World Premier Institute (WPI) International Center for Materials and Architectronics (MANA), and Research Center for advanced measurement and characterization (RCAMC) in Japan.
I like the artistic variation anbd esthetic aspect of this one image of beating a horse compared to the other one...
it is appreciated...
But i am afraid that your brain slowly miss this paradigm shift which is why i post it...
These artcles are not related for sure to this narrow and useless debate about O and S....
Try to work your brain through you will thank me...
Or the geometry is resembling something out of the “Three Body Problem” books, where a subatomic partial is unfolded in dimensionality.
They sound great in literary prose…
By the the way, no this has nothing to do with Poincaré problem...
begin with microtubules reading and Non Turing programing....
Thank God engineers are mostly using geometric shapes like triangular diode symbols, and circular summing junctions.
I pray that they continue with their craft independent of magic 🙏
And No Alain Connes and Fractal time crystals has nothing to do with audio engineering ...
They are related to the very idea of what we call "sound" and music through frequencies and clock which are at the base of this author idea...
IT is really an earthquake paradigm change on brain reasearch... It will illuminate even hearing... I am interested by hearing theory...
It is also the first demonstration in 2014 by the writer of the book that Penrose-Hamerof hypothesis of the orchestrated quantum model maybe right if the microtubules exhibit non algorythmic and non Turing behaviour which the writer interpret as a new fractal time "computing" with simple geometrical form instead of bits and Q-bits...
it boggle the mind..
If you read his book and curriculum this guy is no joke...
The reason why he is not well known is simple:
All brain research is on a dead road if he is right.... Billions of dollars are at stake right now...
If he is right the only comparison between this guy genius and another moment in past history will be the beginning of physical modern science with Galileo ... Now the basic parameter will be no longer spatial but fractal time-like...
The definition of time will change completely...
It is so extraordinary than my head turn....
To a beginning of understanding about time no books will beat Chandra Kant Raju... His two books are the deal....After that we move in a more revolutionizing new mathematical description of time which is no more only with functionnal differential calculus in the Raju description but with non commutative geometry beyond even the mathematics of the Indian genius with Alain Connes deep work in nunber theory and the quantum algebra...
With Connes idea the brain scientist Indian work is illuminated...behind all the clocks fractals expresion there is a source of variation and change more deeper than time itself...
Here Connes and Penrose cosmology meet one another...
Ok i will not add anything to this my job is done for information transmission of this great news here...
😊
My main interest is how do we hear and tune in and interpret sound with this spiral-like and non linear structure of the cochlea, my Ariane thread is the non commutativity of the tone scale ...What is music?
A richer information phenomenon for the body/brain than anything we ever think of...
I cannot resist to post this very deep and beautiful sentence:
«The topology of silence holds the actual information of biology and also in every complex system integrating the information of the universe.»
it is in the article i posted above...If you want to understand this sentence read the article...
A clue:
«We do it every day, it was not just part of science, how? For example, somebody asks you ‘What are you doing?’, you say ‘Nothing’ (peaceful tone), you could say ‘Nothing’ (furious tone) or you could say ‘Nothing’ (dreamy tone), so N-O-T-H-I-N-G, seven ‘ticks’ are there, but you change the time gap between the letters to give a completely different kind of meaning to another path. So your information is not hidden in the ‘tick’, it is hidden in the silence.»
Amazing mind!
Link all this to the non Turing programming described in the image above....
By the way, only this remark hold the key to the linguistic theory about the relation between phonetic and phonology....
I am interested by the musical origin of language hypothesis...
😁😊
«When we say clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock, then we simply say that no event in the universe could be expressed as a sequence of simple events. It’s not possible. Because they are 3D geometric shapes, events are connected one inside another topologically, connections are undefined, you cannot make an equation. So if you want to convert it into a straight line, as events happening one after another, you will not be able to do so, because you are losing the topological information of the geometric structure. This is where we actually challenge the very foundation of the information theory existing for the last century.»
Now look about the subject matter, especially the link between fractal time programming and music and sound...
It is amazing that a poster here , an alleged physicist, instead of discussing science want to put me with the audiophile subjectivist fetichist crowd, after i clearly demonstrated that i am not one...Is it because he is an objectivist zealot himself ? i dont know...
His image of a "dead horse" against my posting mean what?
Why not thanking me for an interesting post about the new meaning of "sound" in the brain and in the cosmos instead ?
If it take me minutes to undertstand the matter around Anirban Bandyopadhyay discovery, without being a physicist, why a patented physicist will be losing time in a so stupid alternative as O versus S ?
i dont understand...Enlighten me here please ...
Anyway look at the image here called " the last machine of mankind"...Where Non Turing programming is resumed in one image...
What is a "sound" now ? Think about that? What is music? No not only a vibration sorry, a time fractal crystal, not a spatial fractal, a time-like one...Remember we called music a sound who convey a MEANING for the ears/brain/body...
If you need a clue Anirban Bandyopadhyay articles will give you the story...
His work encompassed Karl Friston work, the last time i was amazed so much by a scientific research theory was years ago...
My job was teaching students how to read books by the way...Yes we must learn how to read like we must learn how to listen sound in a room...
My first rule teaching reading was to read a book about any field and another book about any other field and discover the relation between the two... What is the relation between prime numbers and music: read Alain Connes and Anirban Bandyopadhyay in the same day...
Ok i feel lonely since i retired , i miss the students...
None of the students i know will oppose so narrowingly, O and S , to understand sound experience...None....I dont speak with fetichist and with zealots...
I prefer to think....
And instead of argument i dont post like people on facebook a cartoon....
We are not the first ones to talk about clocks in biology. For example, circadian rhythm was introduced by Franz Halberg in the 1960s, so rhythm exists in the living systems. We are clocks, and rhythms of life is a concept that haunted scientists for ages. But, no one knew or ever proposed how those clocks are connected. We know that our body clocks are in synchronisation with the motion of the planet or the galactic bodies. These kind of associations were studied exhaustively even to the single cellular scale. What our contribution was that we started from the millisecond clock of the neuron and we went inside to microsecond clocks in the giant protein complexes and when we went inside them we found nanosecond clocks in the singular protein scale, and inside them we found the picosecond clocks in the secondary structures, and inside them we found picosecond clocks in a group of atoms. So clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock, which we humans created, we use it on our wrist, is out there in our body to keep time. Similar kinds of clocks are also there in the biological system but it does not end with a neuron pairing. So before people did noticed the clock, inquisitive scientists did much to understand our clocks and the mechanism, but did not go deep inside it. No one ever thought time could be connected in a geometric shape to process everything that we see, that we feel.»
In the writer word and concept, clock means frequencies, distributed in a fractal time fashion... Clock are music....He designed the first non Turing brain machine then it is not speculation at all...
What is music?
What is sound?
Are these questions not interesting for us audiophiles?
There is no opposition at all in audio science and in audio experience between any measurements and any subjective listenings experiments...Only possible and necessary correlation...Thinking otherwise is preposterous...
Those who promote those non sense are a minority of "fetichists" or "zealots"...
And asking for a proof because a listener claim it is a "fact" for him is a waste of time, not science....And all competent designer adjust and verify their audio design by listening to it after their measures standard procedure and adjust and fine tuned it after listening tests ... Thats all there is to say in this debate...
Subjectivist audiophile must all learn objective acoustic to control sound in their room...Most think this is secondary and they are dead wrong!
Objectivist engineer must study psycho-acoustic to understand our actual hearing theory limitation and possibilities...Those who dont do that are a minority and not the best there is...atmasphere here just spoke about the way the ears perceive harmonics and why this matter to a material designer... This is an example of a creative engineer ...
Now for the science of tomorrow read a trailblazer genius about the brain,
This scientist is amazing, his first book is one of a series of ten and he is the world specialist in rythm engineereing programming and science design of the brain...
Why reading it?
Because the way we think about the brain can illuminate what is sound, music and hearing...
I dont post about it to brag , like mean people will accuse me, i post it because i am AMAZED... An very happy to read his book...
Yes i am an enthusiastic mind...i spoke too much too... 😁😊
But i will not apologize to be a messenger for this interesting new work in brain research....
Yes i have a dam to give not because it is a big one, but because no one here gives a dam, save circling in a circle, and my posts tried to break this circle ... There is no S or O meaningful debate ...There is only few fetichists and a few zealots... I am neither one... You ask a question i give answers who point in a direction...At least...
What surprises me is that someone has a dam to give. Is it a big dam or a little dam? If it’s big, damn.
With odd exception, everything you are posting about is cause. You are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to find potential causes, while ignoring the most important thing is effect. Listening is effect. What happens inside our head is cause. What we hear is effect. Trying to come up with causes without showing a conclusive effect is a thought exercise.
If you remember i do not contradicted your perspective...
I claimed that only psycho-acoustic explain sound experience... Not electronic design industry alone, it is based on psycho-acoustic research anyway at the end or on a basic hearing theory...
When we listen a piece of gear in a specific room, with our specific ears , with many components, we must learn how to perceive and analyse what we perceived in acoustic term...Reading specs sheets is no more enough here...
It is what i am interested in, in audio experience...Specific gear brand name is not my primary interest...Nor upgrading...
The idea that designer must SEPARATE cause and effect and not confuse them is trivial evidence...But the idea that all sound experience by someone to be valuable must be proved by electrical measures alone is meaningless in an audio forum...And meaningless because it takes also other science like acoustic to complete the description and explanation of the experience...
All my point is it will help audiophile to experiment with acoustic and psycho-acoustic to understand their own experience in a room ...
And yes for sure i am guilty of posting interesting theories about the brain and music, and numbers, etc which are specualation and experiments about "hypothetical" causes, not concrete designer day to day matter...
But at least i post interesting matter to say the least for at least i hope one reader....
This whole need to label people in camps is an ongoing failure in audio (and society).
You are totally right... I cannot say it better
To more accurately state what many believe is that if certain measurements are sufficiently good (and they appear to include significant tolerance in those measurements) and there are no system induced issues, then those two devices will sound the same.
i will never contest this fact at all... This is common place fact....
it seems we are more on the same page than what it appear...
i only say that environment and gear being different and each pair of ears, listening the gear is important and not only deciphering specs sheets...
For me there is no debate between O and S at all... Only participation...
When respected scientific research and respected technical users are predominantly in agreement, it is unwise to not give credence to their conclusions, especially if you cannot unequivocally, and as important easily show them to be incorrect.
For sure.....Who contest that?
A few fetichists...
Who contest about the necessity of a listening test before buying?
I didn’t respond as I didn’t see any relevance to audio much less anything at all. Looked like quack nonsense to me.
Perhaps you dont understand what these articles and videos spoke about...
I am not surprized...
But saying like deludedaudiophile that these articles and videos are not related to this thread matter is one thing, and he is right in the sense that this is not evident that they are related to this thread... He is right on that, we differ because for me there is a relation...
But deludedaudiophile being intelligent and polite NEVER say like you just did that this articles and video about a Nobel Prize winner, a Fields medallist and a new genius in advanced neuro-computing research were "QUACKERY" ...
Then spoke your mind , say i am a quack... it will be clearer...and less damaging for your own persona here...
😁😊
« "If it quack like a duck it is a duck"...No, it is an elliptic curve sorry»-Groucho Marx 🤓
Your posts do nothing to advance whether what is perceived as being heard is really being heard,
All this debate can be summarized around this sentence with emphasis on "really"...
First this debate emerged in audiophile circles, not from people who enjoy the subjective REAL pleasure to listen...But from others...
Some Amir disciples come and say no this dac is better than this one,no need to listen to it...
Did you not see why this is ridiculous, to claim that some measures replace all listening, and as ridiculous as saying that some listening replace all measure, in the two cases?
Do you think only audiophiles can de deluded in life?
What is heard by seomeone is most of the times "real", but it can result from a positive or a negative set of biases, but also it can be in some case a slight illusion...Like in ridiculous cables debate ...
This does not means that all audiophiles reviews are meaningless if they are not based only on all possible hard factual set of measures... No more so this do not means that the designer who measure their ongoing design dont know what they are doing because they dont listen to it while doing it...
Pretending that any audiophile must PROVE his experience is ridiculous, like asking to a designer to listen to his design before creating it....
But any audiophile must learn basic acoustic to understand sound concretely, and any designer must study psycho-acoustic to improve his results...This is common place fact...
Then your critic of my post is right on one count...
These new science revolution pass over the head of most people and then i posted it to help at least ONE person for which it will be interesting... It seems that this ONE person is not you.... 😁😊
Then i apologize for this "useless" information for most here, about these very new research if no one give a dam for sure...
But i was hoping to be useful for ONE unknown person here... This will be more than enough.... Anyway this debate between some fetichists and some zealots is useless for EVERYONE and forever useless anyway because based on a false alternative...
For any wise person there is no debate because it is a trivial evidence that listening and measuring must be correlated...
Not only i am born "naive" but i was born enthusiastic by the way and all my life i communicated about all ideas, it was my job anyway ... 😁😊
I am leaning towards the total irrelevance in relationship with the topic for the lack of interest. It’s akin to all the factual but irrelevant science often brought up in audio. First start proving a change is really heard. Otherwise it is just flights of fancy.
I am sure that you understand why these new converging science revolution is about a transformation of our notion of what is a "brain" and what is "music" in the largest meaning of the word..
Did you consider yourself the arbiter of the matter of this thread because you are a scientist? If so you are wrong....My post is related to this useless debate...
It is evident that any measures about sounds in his relation to the brain and to the subjective impression cannot be interpretated OUT OF A THEORY OF HEARING...
Music cannot be reduced to measured electrical devices or to their tools anyway , anymore than sound interpretation cannot be reduced to linear relation between noise and information in a Fourier contextual setting...
These scientists, notably the Indian one illuminate the research background to understand hearing and the brain in a complete new perspectives...
You are a physicist no? Why criticize me for elevating the debate ?
Why not helping me and us to understand this better ?
Why keeping this ridiculous debate between "0" and "S" ongoing in circle here?
It is a false controversy...A children arguing contest...
An ideological stance with no relation at all to sound experience in psycho-acoustic and to reality...
Is your only pleasure is to put some ignorant audiophiles in their hole?
I can say that measuring obsession about gear by some is not useless for sure, but completely secondary to audio S.Q. experience...And measuring must be CORRELATED to subjective impressions to be meaningful anyway at the end...in any sound design...
For sure an amplifier must measured good.... So what?
In life your goal is debating with some ignorant audiophile insisting to listen before buying? it is not my goal....I listen too before buying anyway... 😁😊
The bad news is in psycho-acoustic listening is primary, measuring secondary...In design, measuring is primary, listening secondary...But the two are always CORRELATED...
The good news is this debate between "o" and "s" is useless...Psycho-acoustic science exist because of this elementary fact....Neuro-acoustic too...
Between some "fetichists" among audiophiles, and a few "zealots" among disciples of the measuring hobbyists like Amir, i chose to be interested by new theory about the brain and new theory about hearing...
Why not?
Are you a scientist or a moderator of audiogon ?
i was waiting for a "thank you" for this information about these new research.... 😊
Or is this relation between non commutative geometry, music, numbers, time fractals, non Turing and non algorythmic machine, microtubules, hearing, and sound is already so mastered well by you that my post is trivial?
Then say so, i will ask you questions, and dont make me feel bad because i seem to be out of this trivial debate "o" and "s"...I am not....
Nobody commented this flabbergasting video and genius idea... 😁😊
If you dont fall of your chair reading that , you dont understand what its means....
We have here the convergence of the works of three geniuses which are four,😁 the mathematician Alain Connes on non commutative geometry, quantum physics and number theory and music , Roger Penrose/Stuart Hameroff on a new way to "orchestrate" the relation between consciousness and the cosmos through microtubules dynamics related to quantum physics and cosmology and Anirban Bandyopadhyay on the fractal/time non algorythmic computing and articial brain "musical" auto-programming...
Astounding...
In a word a new physic like the one created by Galileo mostly grounded in visual experience, but now improved by a new physics more grounded on music and hearing and his non commutative aspects and timelike fractal resonance at all scales of the universe...All that experimentally analysed through microtubules working indicating a complete new way to conceptualize the integrated brain/mind/cosmos relation...( we can distinguish brain and mind and the cosmos but cannot separate them)
OM or AUM,
Indeed!
😁😊
I will give you the "flavor" in one image...
«a Fourth circuit element Hinductor not memristor (US patent 9019685B2). Charge stores to generate magnetic flux (top). An analogue made of capacitors (middle). Magnetic field distribution on its surface (bottom). b A oscillatory or nearly linear relationship between charge storage and the generation of magnetic flux. c Hinductor elements are kept without wiring inside vibrating membranes to create a composition of vibrations. d Classical beating (top) and quantum beating (bottom) inside a microtubule (experimental measurement). e Quantum and classical beating measurement setup used to detect Wilczeck’s time crystal. The concept of fractal beating where classical and quantum beating is nested explained. f Ordered architectures inside a neuron, beta-spectrin-actin assembly (STORM data), microtubule bundle are being constructed in NIMS, Japan using Hinductor, the fourth circuit element »
Now in a very short video by one of the most influential thinker in neuro-computing and modelling and the one who prove the presence of quantum vibrations in microtubules, i will suggest why hearing music by the brain /ears is a so complex oerations at all scale that the measures about electronic microprocessors in audio cannot explain the essential about sound listening but only gives us minimal good audio design yes, but cannot replace human hearing experience... It is a neuro-acoustic science matter...
it "suggest" why psycho-acoustic which is a subfield of neuro-acoustic has more to say about sound quality analysis than mere electrical measures in electronic design...
For him music is not in time, but it is more time which emerge from music...
The Mathematician Alain Connes say the same thing about time as this neuro computer scientist but he comes from Quantum algebra reformulated as noncommutative geometry ...
In his video here:
Now remember that all maestro like Furtwangler and Ernest Ansermet in their works
Demonstrate how music created time, not the reverse...
This all suggest that ears/brain are way more active and powerful with their resolutive internal tuned and parsing tools in the creation and interpretation of sound experience and meaning, that all we anticipated in the past... The ear is way more than a mere Fourier computer... The ear also create meaning and extract it from chaos...
For those interested in the different Time conceptions these two books by Chandra Kant Raju are very deep and enlightening...And the author goes in the same direction than The Indian neuroscientist about the time deep fractal nature or about the time deep mathematic non commutative operators nature, but for this writer the mathematical tool in used is functional differential equations ...
The only thing we’re really arguing about is whether we have settled science or not in regard to s claims.
I disagree. I think the argument is whether what is claimed to be heard is really true.
It is clear that neither of you are wrong and neither of you completely right...
The hearing science upon which ultimately all measures and all listening experiments are based upon continue to progress, and all along his progress discover something new about the ears complex ability and limitations which is new and was not included in precedent objective experiments...So O snd S attitudes are always correlated for this progress to happen...
I believe even Mahgister agrees with this view, as he felt there were a few "zealots".
Yes some audiophile can be "fetichist" and focus on the gear colors taste, nothing else, but i reserve the word "zealot" to those who negate the value of the subjective listening experiments in acoustic and psycho-acoustic and wanted to claim that measuring sheets is complete and perfect so much that listening is useless in gear choices...
And remember that for me the most important measures and material devices are not electronic processors but physical and psycho-acoustic measures and devices.... "Reverberating time" is more impactful than decimal in some electronic processor for a dac or an amplifier.... The same is true for the acoustic crossfeed and crosstalk between speakers....Precise location of a resonator also etc...No blind test is necessary here, few second of listening in the tuned process of a room spell it clearly....But change is not improvement, then listening experiments must be taken in numbers and on a long time period...it is the way to tune a room... It is not perfect but the end give a HUGE S.Q. and this improvement is "written" in a purely very precise acoustic language...It is not audiophile or electronical engineerring vocabulary here... Acoustic engineering exist...
All room tuning will be "better" made tomorrow by artificial Intelligence, but we will loose the learned listening skill so precious for our human development... Perfection in technology is not perfection in knowledge not even perfection in science...Some phenomenon can be detected by human and by no artificial intelligence, in acoustic or in other fields...
For sure fetichists and zealots are a vociferating minorities, most people, engineers and audiophiles, listen to make a move and consult about specs sheets ...
I expect the only reliable measurable trait you will find that differentiates O and S is STEM education level.
Your argument has no value in acoustic and psycho acoustically speaking...
Analysis of sound experience never supposed nor proved that his subjects which are not "stem" educated, like artist, poet and musicians are less reliable in describing sound experience than engineers or physicists .... It is probably the opposite in fact...I already put here an article describing how trained ears beat the Gabor limit...
Sound is first and at last a psycho-acoustic phenomenon, not a mere result of integrated circuitry...
The fact that some sellers wrote bogus equations to justify their products has no relation with the matter here: objectivist measuring stance to determine audio experience or subjective listening stance...
Psycho-acoustic CANNOT operate without linking the two: objective dispostion and measures and subjective ability to perceive discriminately...Then rejecting all audiophiles impressions mean nothing more than picking gear only by virtue of his measuring score... It is preposterous attitudes in the two cases....
It is so absurd i dont understand why people argue O against S and S against O...The only explanation is ignorance of psycho-acoustic and lack of systematic listenings experiments ...
This is the most stupid distinction ever when this distinction is not contextually correlated by a superior conscious motive.... Like democrat and republican war nowadays....
Blind test is a secondary tool not the necessary focus in audio experience by the way...
Musician dont use blind test guess why?
A clue: it is not because they cannot be fooled...
And cables debates are the most riduculous of all debates and proof that people have no idea of the improvement scale of acoustic over basic good chosen cables differences... Then arguing with physics books that such cable or the other one is without any sonic value is waste of time...
Audio thread are bout trivialities most of the times, "O " trivialities or "S" trivialities, and the center of experience is not even discussed together and not so often separately ... : acoustic and psycho acoustic control, vibration control, and electrical noise floor control... Why?
The best gear in the world at any price must be EMBEDDED in his 3 working dimensions to be evaluated at his peak or optimal level of quality ...
There is no two identical acoustic music Halls, or music rooms, or living rooms, or studios, in the world, Why?
A clue: it is because the way the "S" ears and the " O" material environment can be paired in an interesting acoustic way are multiples and interesting...
Acoustic and psycho-acoustic are Science but also Art...Like medecine... Suppressing one aspect over the other is criminal and stupid...We have seen it and the results of the negation of freedom all over the world in the last 2 years are with us..
Previous to his gender stance he was a known but not exceptional academic.
It is very important to underline and precise that Peterson did not make a "gender stance" at all...His remark which goes around the world was about free speech and the insane Trudeau who want to rule language by law...His rant has nothing to do with gender choices of people...By the way have you read "maps of meanings" his main book ? I dont know but for me no ordinary academic write a so deep book...He is not Einstein, Darwin or Freud or Grothendieck for sure but he is not an ordinary academic... Read his book and come back to speak...i read it 12 years ago... 😁😊
if a philosopher comes up with an "answer"
Philosophy importance is not about answers, it is about value, meanings and questions...
The way we question ourself and everything else matter more than technological answers...Sorry....
Even philosophers debate the death of philosophy and whether it has any meaning let alone value in a world where life’s mysteries are one by one decoded and demystified.
The so called " death of philosophy" emerge way after the Renaissance and after the Romantic Era in the midst of materialism and mechanistic night...Blake called that the industrial age or The "tree of death", the era of Urizen...
All that is described in a more easy to understand way in another great poet and also scientist Goethe in his Faust...
Then there is no philosophy death, but instead the complete domination of materialism... The disconnection between science and philosophy was pushed by the technological hubris of occidental empire domination... Some philosophers reacted against this nominalism which success is at the source of modern physical science, Charles Sanders Peirce one of the greatest scientist and philosopher in America for example and Husserl in Europe and many others...
The "life’s mysteries" are not one by one decoded each day, like an engine or a mechanistic set of riddles, in the opposite, the area of knowledge grow like a surface and the mysteries increase like a volume... The universe is boring and understood "more" each day only by the transhumanist sect who will let the machine do the mind work and park human in box where they "will own nothing and be happy" ....
What is understood better each day is that the cosmos is a more vast mystery than we ever dream to think it was...Our little new answers are dwarved by the new questions...
Only sleepwalkers take technology at face value, knowledge is not science, and science is not technology...
Knowledge is an art and an ethic and a way to conduct our life and our body and senses among the phenomena to understand them without destroying them...It encompasses science and technology not the reverse...
Goethe is the last great artist, scientist, and poet, he does not wrote philosophy in a a way a university professor wrote it, like Hegel was, but the legacy of Goethe is urgently needed in transhumanist era more than any other philosopher...
Anyway the good news save for the transhumanist sleepwalker is materialism is dead...Alas! A.I. is not a creature of materialism, it is a creature of our imagination, and the risk is that we may put ourself captive in the box of our limited imagination under the domination of a ghost manipulated by who?...
I proved for myself that a great audiophile experience can be reach AT LOW COST...
Modulo minimal control over mechanical,electrical and acoustical working domensions..
Price tag means something only in design not in sound.. The correlation between price tag and sound is MEDIATED completely by the three working domensions controls...
Idolatry of science is not science, but technology cult, see Bill Gates who want to treat viruses in biology in his last book like virus in computer... Shutting all them down at once!... Stupidity is not opposed in the same person to a I.Q. over 120 it seems... 😁😊
Objectivistic zealots are more limited than subjectivist fetichist in the audio arena ?
Why?
Because in psycho-acoustic the EARS are king and queen...The objective installation and numbers are only the 7 working dwarves...
Creativity is linked to the pressure of events and more so on the freedom of the spirit...
There is two brain hemisphere, one is focus in details differentials relative to his mapping ability, the other one focus on background, and wholeness, on the territory not represented by a usable map...context attract him more than the litteral conditioned meaning...
These two hemisphere correlative working, they dont work so much well together in our own civilization after the Renaissance...Said neuro psychatrist Iain McGilchrist...
With transhumanism we assist at the suicide of the free mind...The erasure of the soul...And how many people understand this?
All creative mind are poets... The reason why is hidden in language dynamic between semantic and syntactic and acoustic correlated dynamics...i cannot enter in this here...
Some Nobel chemistry free mind professor wanted that his students wrote a poem, a sonnet, to understand this simple fact...i dont remember his name sorry...he was very wise...
If we read the great mathematician Grothendieck, his two books of 2000 pages are crossed and pollinated by metaphors deep one all the time...Then he would had thought poets with exercise in projective geometry for sure...Visualizing projective geometry is a music on his own with his system of spatial rhymes or operators...A projective sonnet so to speak... 😁😊
How about to teach audiophiles, subjective one and objective one here with mammal morphology like Goethe created it, unbeknownst to most?
Read Wolfgang Schad ,the great morphological zoologist then and prepared to be amazed without words...Or fell out of your chair...Recognizing a mammal for the first time being a grown adult who never seen one really but labelled them by habit is a great schock in one life... Try it...
Same thing apply to plant morphology, or music or complex numbers, knowing them by habit is not knowing them, it is not enough ...It is enough to work and for working in a profession yes, not enough to be creative...
Like said Robert Musil in his magnum opus " A man without qualities" there is two meaning related to the word Genius: one is linked to some ability like in the word engineer, and the other meaning is linked to the Divine ...It is like the two hemispheres version of the same word...
In a word, audio superior experience in sound quality does not end with the measuring process associated with a design and does not end after buying it and listening to some design picked by ears among all those who are good enough ...
Audio superior experience comes AFTER mechanical, electrical, acoustical and psycho-acoustical controls are put in place, never mind the price tag of the gear ...Never mind the design "color" or specs sheets, if it is not TOO bad design to begin with for sure...
Then....... 😁😊
Dont argue to death about Objective/subjective attitudes, study acoustic vocabulary instead....In acoustic vocabulary all which is objective will be correlated, at least in principle, with all that is subjective...
There is creative people in all forums....But the zealots predominate in all charcterised oriented forum...
ASR is measured oriented....
Audiogon is subjective listening very oriented...
Psycho-acoustic is NEITHER of these orentations alone...But their concrete correlation in a room...
It seems to escape most that sound cannot be explained by subjective experience
nor by electrical measures on the linearity response of processors etc...
For the I. Q. spiritual factors and cultural environment and education play a greater role, openness of the mind and senses, than strictly only I.Q.
John Stuart Mill endowed with a superhuman I.Q. is not Leonardo Da Vinci nor Goethe, not Swedenborg and not Ramanujan nor Grothendieck neither Bach...His I.Q. is the same or near them....
And the highest I.Q. ever measured, he is out of any measuring scale in fact, some give him 250 or 300, which seems plausible after reading his biography, William James Sidis was very much studied in the golden age of I.Q. testing just before and after the second world war in the US decided at 12 that he never will created new technology for agressive "apes"... Freedom was his near focus and cultures...He spoke nearly any language after few weeks... He teached in a public confrence at 11 years old at Harvard fourth dimensional geometry in 1912 answering question about the new relativity theory and his time conception as the fourth dimension compared to his own spatial interpretation......This is all redacted verifiable facts ....😁😊
He deduced in a book i have read the existence of black hole from his own thermodynamical thinking alone... He predicted the existemce of anti matter and the existence of biological matter by his own deduction....He was 16 years old and published the book under alias at twenty years old... he despised in an obsessive manner all aspect of publicity...He published books under aliases... Anyway, who among human will be proud to beat an ape at chess? His life is science fiction stuff... I speak about for those curious...His talents will humbled every one among us who think he is intelligent... Try him...It is an exrercise in humility for those who think their 20 points over the 120 barrier is a big deal... 😁😊It is not... It is only the door to a profession sorry...
Creativity is linked to the freedom of the mind soul and spirit more than to i.Q. But for sure people who struggle mentally are chained by their too numerous limits more than others...Thats all there is between I.Q. and creativity passed this 120 I.Q. barrier...
If I tried to post at ASR, similar to how I post here at audiogon.....I’d be removed in almost seconds.
Being naive i tried the same thing, but i suffered the same circonstances... 😊 They recognise an amateur audiophile like me when they see one so to speak... Anyway the technological only mentality and hardwire focus is a limitation not less than people obsessed here by a gear brand name "colors"...
At least here i am not ridiculed for my creativity...
i understood at least how to control my room, how to decrease the noise floor, and to control vibrations by my own devices... So "nuts" they seems for some of them ....Some are pure acoustic and simple acoustic principles..
The most important one being:
For speaker A and speaker B there is also for ear Alpha a phantom speaker minus a and for ear Beta a phantom speaker minus b... These phantom speakers are real not only an illusion they are concrete "reflected" co-creator of the soundscape recorded in some album and emerge reflecting our own room control for each ear... The problem is to learn how control these speakers images with sound pressure level and frequencies timing waves front and reflected one for your listening position...I used different devices for that...
I used a foldable screen and acoustic crosstalk and acoustic crosfeed... In my primitive but effective way... Diffusers and resonators for sure also...Ordinary passive material treatment come first for sure but the real work begin AFTER minimal passive material treatment..... No headphones can compete at the end...
Over this fight between " gear tasting fetichists" and "measuring obsessed zealots", all of them are anyway mesmerized by the gear importance, focused on a brand name to listen to it or to measure it anew ... Why not?
I use the term "Acoustic Analphabet" to describe the two warring groups...
Only acoustic and psycho acoustic can explain sound experience and make us able to not only control all his factors with ANY system at ANY price but also learn each of these OBJECTIVE factors with SUBJECTIVE listening experiments and integrating them in our body/room with the right devices and measures in acoustic balanced treatment but especially in acoustic optimal mechanical control...
We can operate and control a room/speakers relation at will or not...
If not,we can imagine that the peak of the audiophile experience will be changing an amplifier for another costly amplifier... 😁😊
The fact that one measure better than the other means little if you locate the system in a bad room...And all uncontrolled room are relatively "bad" unbeknonwst to the owner who will vouch for this acoustically unverified claim that his room is good... The difference between a room controlled and uncontrolled exceed almost any upgrade in improvement power... Save upgrading a 100 bucks amplifier for a 100,000 bucks one...Or a really bad one for a really great one...No normal usual upgrade can compare to acoustic mastery...
This upgrading obsession is the first symptom of acoustical analphabetism....
By the way the basic vocabulary of music is not the basic vocabulary of audiophile, and the basic vocabulary of audiophile is not the basic vocabulary of acoustic...
Then we must learn to translate one vocabulary into the other...
The rosetta stone is the relation between speakers A and B and ear A and B ...
A stereo system sound optimal when we feel like there is almost 4 speakers in the room sometimes, relatively to the recording....Is it not incredible? No it is not quadraphonic, only stereo well done...In some recording we are on the stage and the musicians are around us...There is an acoustical way to mechanically create these sound impressions...
How many experience that?
This is acoustic power...
After that upgrading is preposterous in most case if the system is relatively already well chosen for sure...And well chosen is not related here to price tag....
My post goal is to motivate people to think before throwing money...Especially nowadays...
This divide between O and S comes from the focus on electronic tools and components...
They together ignore the psycho-acoustic and acoustic impact which is way over some "taste" for gear or over some "measurements" evaluation of the same gear...
That is life, acoustic is more complicated to decipher and read about than a few electrical concepts charts about an amplifier...
A room was a hard task to master...For me....
😁😊
Some say: garbage in from the source ,garbage out from the source...
I will say if your speakers/ room is acoustic garbage your head will be too....Nevermind the source...
It is way more easy to afford a relatively good dac than a relatively good room...
And you dont know your room if you dont work it....
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
> 0, we can always find some real value t such that
