Prana-Bindu Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 For those who think that we (hairless monkeys) know all there is to know about how electricity works, do a little search for recently declassified Navy research on a quantum phenomenon called phononic energy. Research was driven by efforts to improve passive radar systems. Electronic noise is the biggest problem faced by passive radar. Onward hairless monkeys, marching as to war.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 The below was unabashedly copied from the Archives of Stereophile, a magazine that certainly has its ups and downs, but occasionally has some interesting pieces. Personally, I think the execution and even IDEA of DBT is flawed most of the time. khf>s>Auditory Perception Improves with Practice By Barry Willis November 5 2001 Audiophiles almost universally agree that hearingor "auditory perception" to neuroscientistsimproves with practice. That phenomenon would explain why many of us are able to hear differences between audio components that untrained listeners can't hear. To our dismay, and sometimes, discredit, few scientific studies of this learning process have been conducted or published. By-the-book engineering types frequently dismiss audiophiles' assertions that they can hear minute differences that are imperceptible to most people, a situation that has fueled one of the most contentious and long-running disputes in the audio world: whether such differences are perceptible and quantifiable in double-blind testing. A study undertaken by researchers at Northwestern University's Institute for Neuroscience may shed some light on the old controversy. Curious about how people learn to localize sounds, researchers Beverly A. Wright and Matthew B. Fitzgerald devised an experiment that allowed them to measure how auditory perception improved with practicespecifically, detecting small differences in sound levels, and small differences in arrival times of equally loud sounds at each ear. The two auditory aspects are major factors in the so-called "head-related transfer function," or ear-to-ear differences that create localization cues. Volunteers in the study32 adults between the ages of 18 and 44, all with normal hearingwere first tested, using headphones, to determine their abilities to distinguish level changes in pairs of tones launched simultaneously in both channels. They were also tested for the ability to detect timing changes in equal-level tones. Following the initial tests, the volunteers were divided into two groups, and spent one hour per day over a 10-day period training to improve on one of the two tests. Their progress was closely monitored by Wright and Fitzgerald to determine how quickly, if at all, they responded to the practice of these listening skills. Improvements in both abilities rose "noticeably" after only two training sessions. Improvements in the ability to distinguish small differences in sound levels continued beyond the duration of the experiment. Improvements in the ability to detect timing differences was far less pronounced; training to improve this ability yielded only slightly better results than no training at all, the researchers reported. From these results, Wright believes that learning to perceive slight timing differences is a much more difficult process. She and Fitzgerald, who work in the Institute's Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, hope to expand their research to explore how "acoustic learning patterns occur in real-life circumstances," according to Bruce Bower in the October 13 issue of Science News. The study correlates nicely with an examination by German researchers of improvements in auditory spatial perception as an occupational adaptation. That study compared spatial localization abilities of career orchestra conductors, pianists of approximately equal experience, and non-musicians of similar age and overall hearing ability. The conductors, whose work requires them to spot musicians who are out of tune or step with their comrades, demonstrated vastly better abilities to perceive peripheral sounds than either the pianists or the non-musicians. Although small in scope, both studies lend credence to audiophiles' assertions that they can hear minor differencessuch as those between amplifiers or CD players, devices with extremely small frequency-response discrepanciesand that the ability to do so improves with practice. The studies also call into question the validity of blind tests that do not account for the skills of the participants or provide a meaningful way for them to learn the sonic characteristics of the equipment or recordings being compared. The Wright/Fitzgerald study, "Different patterns of human discrimination learning for two interaural cues to sound-source location," was published in the October 9 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 01-14-2002 at 12:28 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prana-Bindu Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 I'm hard-pressed to name one single skill/activity that does not improve with practice.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 Prana Bindu: "I'm hard-pressed to name one single skill/activity that does not improve with practice...." - spontaneity kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prana-Bindu Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 I disagree: spontaneity seems to be a function of creativity and timing, two skills actors must hone with practice. Look at that comedy show -- I think it's called "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" -- all those little games they play were originally made to exercise the performer's sense of timing and creativity. Somebody just got the bright idea of putting such funny practice sessions on the air. We are creatures of habit, my friends. Excellent try, anyhow. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 spon·ta·ne·ous (spn-tn-s)adj. 1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated. 2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint. 3.Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior. 4. Growing without cultivation or human labor. Your example merely illustrates how an actor could come up with a skit depicting a scene with almost no preparation when called upon. This is not really "spontaneity" per say. Read the definition of spontaneous. Pay particular notice to #3 and #4....as well as #2. They have merely cultivated their skill inorder to come up with a skit in very little time....usually 20-30 seconds (if you even believe it). This, on the other hand, is not spontaneous by sheer definition, as the resulting action should not have it's roots in method ...it should preclude all cultivation...a natural impulse... a freedom that does not involve PRACTICE.... IT should be unconstrained and unstudied .....a natural impulse..not using routines and skits that one has worked up in past. In fact, in a strange way, that example is anything BUT spontaneous. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Lindsey Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 This board never ceases to amaze me. ------------------ My Music Systems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prana-Bindu Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 Interesting.... Using the definition you provided, please provide an example of something spontaneous. An example of a skill or activity arising without apparent external cause and that does not improve with practice? A skill or activity arising from a natural inclination or impulse that does not improve with practice? A skill or activity unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior that does not improve with practice? A skill or activity that grows without cultivation or human labor (practice)? I think the problem is that spontenaity is not a skill or activity, as much as it is a quality. Maybe? ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... This message has been edited by Prana-Bindu on 01-16-2002 at 09:51 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 17, 2002 Share Posted January 17, 2002 art. music. all the practice in the world can sometimes lead you FURTHER from the pure existence of the above two examples. While the musician might improve his triplets, his ability to play music could be further masked as the relying on the component of practice makes perfect, does very little if the soul is solid state.... but enough of this drivel. Basically, I was coming back with a rather tongue in cheek retort to your original response to the even more interesting notion on the usage of DBT and the search for the subtle difference. But this was an interesting little exchange. RIght now, I need to go forget practice and move to the spontaneous reactions brought about by listening to 100dB of Coltrane's sax mated with Elvin Jones' drumming. I need to find my blindfold.... kh ------------------ Phono Linn LP-12 Vahalla / Linn Basic Plus / Sumiko Blue Point CD Player Rega Planet Preamp Cary Audio SLP-70 w/Phono Modified Amplifier Welborne Labs 2A3 Moondog Monoblocks Cable DIYCable Superlative / Twisted Cross Connect Speaker 1977 Klipsch Cornwall I w/Alnico & Type B Crossover system one online / alternate components / Asylum Listing f>s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easyeyes Posted January 17, 2002 Author Share Posted January 17, 2002 It's amazing to me that one requires a physics degree and must conduct a myriad of listening tests in order to decide whether cable A sounds better than cable B. Yet, some spend thousands on speakers and even more on the equipment to push them, and not being open to the idea of speaker cable making a difference. I guess than I should not mention that I'm considering purchasing some "premium" interconnects to connect my dvd and cd player to my receiver. I must admit that initially I was ignorant to the cable facts and tests, that isn't the case anymore, I've been thoroughly educated. In an earlier post someone mentioned that PWK, the creator of the legendary horn didn't care much about cable and said that anything would work. Well, considering that was years ago and maybe the cables then weren't as advanced as they are now, what would PWK say about the new reference series being wired with "premium" cable on the inside. Some may say that's on the inside and not the outside. If cable makes improvements on the inside what will it do for the outside? Easyeyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S Posted January 17, 2002 Share Posted January 17, 2002 Easyeyes, I doubt that PWK is involved in any of the marketing decisions made by the company today. This is a partial quote from the owners manual of the Klipschorns I bought new in 1985: "Good cable and connections will make an audible improvement in the sound of your Klipsch loudpeakers." Further on this follows: "As an alternative to a special cable system, common lampcord will provide satisfactory performance and is readily available in every area." I should note that my Klipschorns were internally wired with Monster Cable at that time. It should also be noted that there was no mention of this fact in the manual, and that no claims were made as to any sonic superiority from doing this. I do not think anyone would argue with the statements made in the brochure. You do need good cable and good connections. I think that PWK's Dope from Hope paper Volume 17, No. 1 from 1978 speaks to how "good" was defined by PWK. Some partial quotes: 1. "Our tests show...that the essential property of loudspeaker wire is it's ohmic resistance." 2. "This method of test showed no audible difference on guitar or octave bands of pink noise between 40 foot lengths of "speaker wire" or #18 zip cord." 3. "Finally respnse curves were run on speaker wire and zip cord to show a negligible frequency discrimination." 4. " We hope this dispells the fantasy about "high frequency definition" as well as any other claim of superiority of "speaker wire"." It is my conclusion that "good" as defined by PWK means low resistance and proper mechanical construction and connections. I purchased two compilations of papers by PWK off of e-bay several weeks ago. One set are the "Dope from Hope" mentioned above and the other set is a "Biography of Audio Papers" that were once available from Klipsch. I would suggest everyone get themselves a set and read through them. I is my opinion that they can be used as excellent bullsh*t filters. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Pioneer PD-F908 100 Disc Changer Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 17, 2002 Share Posted January 17, 2002 May I suggest you plug your new PWK Bullshit Filters between your Monster HTS-5000 and your two HSU subwoofer amps - Make another ceremonial run-through of the legendary "Pear Harbor." Man, the score swell when those Zeros fly over the harbor combined with the prop noise...WOW... Just Awesome. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 Ah, Mobile. So nice to hear from you again. I should have realized when I used the word bullsh*t that you would have assumed I was talking about you. I'll have to be more careful. My apologies. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Pioneer PD-F908 100 Disc Changer Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 heh... good one... One day we'll get together and I'll have to show you the difference between cables... It is not subtle depending on which models you are comparing as well as the upstream components (and system setup). One thing I have learned in all my years in this mess is that almost all things have sonic differences, some very, very subtle, some almost not enough to warrant price, some HUGE and amazing, many not showing ANY relation to cost etc. But differences can be ascertained. And in all my years, I dont think I have ever staunchly said to anyone that there are NO differences sonically between two components of different structure and makeup. You pull the average guy off the street and show him a BMW Bavaria and a BMW 3.0si and he will say they are the exact same car. Same with someone not versed in certain types of music. Listen to Ben Webster and then Scott Hamilton and 95% would say it's the same sax player.... Yet there are differences. This seems to hold true with almost all things, not the least of which is audio components, which are far more tricky to resolve as many factors come into play as the mixture of hearing and vision can play upon the results. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prana-Bindu Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 What I can't fathom is that opponents of the idea that cables make an audible difference tend to presume that the burden of proof in this issue belongs to those who assert that a difference can be heard. So equality is the default? Please! Equality is only found in mathematics. Otherwise, it is a convenient tool used to make conversation easier. If you put me on a mountain bike with air/oil suspension, I would not be able to tell the difference between that bike and one with elastomer bumper suspension. Make me ride those bikes over rough terrain every day for a year, and I'll write pages on the amazing differences. Slap some crimson lipstick on Sean Young one day and scarlet lipstick the next, I will not notice a difference. Make me marry the woman, and after a few months it'll be the first thing I notice. By the way, Ms. Young, if you're reading this: will you marry me? What is so difficult to understand about this progression? P.S. - since I CAN'T STAND not having the last word - I still don't know any skill or activity that does not improve with practice. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 Your posts? kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 Oh, God, Kelly! The best yet! (insert rimshot) keep it comin', fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 Prana, there have been numerous listening tests conducted that show cables do not make an audible difference. I am not aware of even one that shows they do. Thats why folks like me who do not hear the differences would like to see proof from those of you that do. Taking "your" word for it doesn't cut it. I will admit, however, that if the test was conducted with the listener watching Sean Young sitting on a bicycle seat, and pumping up the shocks, that the results may have been different! ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Pioneer PD-F908 100 Disc Changer Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prana-Bindu Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 Any such test is likely quite flawed: if you're not familiar with the subtle differences cables are supposed to make, of course the cables are gonna sound the same. In other words, if you're not familiar with the way a bike reacts to a bump, an air/oil shock will feel the same way as an elastomer bumper shock. If you're not familiar with Sean Young's face (oh god help me), you're not gonna notice that she's wearing different colored lipstick (it was red before, it's red again). The problem of confirming the difference at issue is that you almost have to be familiar with the difference before you set out to confirm it. I want to see tests involving participants who have been listening to high-end audio equipment for a long time. I'm sure all tests done so far involve homeless half-wits hired right off the street.... Practice makes perfect, but practice makes perfect. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... This message has been edited by Prana-Bindu on 01-18-2002 at 06:36 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 Prana, ahh the old "if the test doesn't prove my point then the test is flawed" excuse. And if the test isn't flawed then the participants are "homeless half wits". At least the homeless half wits have been trying to prove their side. Any idea as to when a group of your trained and practiced listeners are going to get together, design a valid test, and put an end to this controversy? It is responses such as this from the folks on your side of the fence that makes it impossible for me to accept what you say simply because you say it. I have frequently asked the question as to why there has NEVER, to my knowledge, been a test conducted by ANYONE, that has confirmed these differences. If these cable companies weren't selling vodoo, wouldn't several of them (if not all of them) have conducted testing by now, and used that testing to market themselves against their inferior competition? Of course they would have, if there were any differences to hear. It has always made me chuckle that when most of these supposed differences are reported in the subjective audio press that they are mostly described as being easily heard, and obvious to the reviewer, but when the question arises as to why everyone doesn't hear them, it suddenly becomes an issue that either the person hasn't "learned" to hear the differences or their equipment isn't "transparent" enough. I guess that I have had terrible luck over the years. For over 30 years I have been in this hobby and not once have I ever gotten a system put together that was good enough to hear cable differences. And although I have listened to music virtually every day of my life (well at least as far back as I can remember), I still haven't trained myself to be discriminiating enough to hear these differences. The good news that comes along with my ignorant bliss is that I think I have spent most of my time actually listening to my music and not my cables. I guess there is something to be said for that. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Pioneer PD-F908 100 Disc Changer Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.