| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: The inconvenient fact that you don't mention is that if there is no change in signal due to acoustic stimulus at the auditory nerve before it gets to the brain, the 'ear-brain construct' is IRRELEVANT. And you ignore the fact that the brains auditory processing is not simple physical registering, but also pattern matching and the ability to make sense out of things that in and of themselves, in isolation, may not make sense or even "register". C'mon. The brain can't react to a stimulus that doesn't reach it. Period. snip As far as I (and others of my persuasion can tell, there has never been serious auditory research conducted either in support or against the use of dbt abx'ng (or even a-b'ng) as a testing device *FOR THE OPEN ENDED EVALAUTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS*. DBTs don't test components; they test hearing. You are claiming that human hearing operates differently when listening to audio components than when listening to anything else. When you come up with some evidence to support that claim, we'll be glad to consider it. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Tax headache? MSN Money provides relief with tax tips, tools, IRS forms and more! http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/workshop/welcome.asp |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: The inconvenient fact that you don't mention is that if there is no change in signal due to acoustic stimulus at the auditory nerve before it gets to the brain, the 'ear-brain construct' is IRRELEVANT. And you ignore the fact that the brains auditory processing is not simple physical registering, but also pattern matching and the ability to make sense out of things that in and of themselves, in isolation, may not make sense or even "register". C'mon. The brain can't react to a stimulus that doesn't reach it. Period. snip As far as I (and others of my persuasion can tell, there has never been serious auditory research conducted either in support or against the use of dbt abx'ng (or even a-b'ng) as a testing device *FOR THE OPEN ENDED EVALAUTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS*. DBTs don't test components; they test hearing. You are claiming that human hearing operates differently when listening to audio components than when listening to anything else. When you come up with some evidence to support that claim, we'll be glad to consider it. Okay, Bob. Where in your EE books does it tell you that the brain is hardwired for rhythm and for positive reaction to certain harmonic structure. Where in your audiology books written before 1995 does it tell you that music elicits a response in the pleasure center of the brain. They don't, but these are facts recently discovered by researchers in different fields. And they obviously indicate that "music" is far more integral to the human psyche than mere "sound". And yet you can't even begin to admit that maybe, just maybe, their must be an accounting for such differences in how we test to determine can/cannot hear in evaluating musical reproduction? |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:fqDcc.85530$JO3.44033@attbi_s04...
Okay, Bob. Where in your EE books does it tell you that the brain is hardwired for rhythm and for positive reaction to certain harmonic structure. Where in your audiology books written before 1995 does it tell you that music elicits a response in the pleasure center of the brain. To be complete, the full title of the text I cited is most instructive: Hermann L. F. Helmholtz, "On The Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music," 1st German edition 1862, cf. Alexander Ellis' English translation of the 4th German edition, 1877, pub. 1885, available through the Henry Margenau edition of 1954, Dover Publications, New York. And to reiterate the point, the high-end audio biz once again is just tickled pink tripping over stuff that was known to the rest of the world for a LONG time, and is so thrilled when it still manages to completely misunderstand, misapply and misinterpret the obvious. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:fqDcc.85530$JO3.44033@attbi_s04...
Okay, Bob. Where in your EE books does it tell you that the brain is hardwired for rhythm and for positive reaction to certain harmonic structure. Where in your audiology books written before 1995 does it tell you that music elicits a response in the pleasure center of the brain. Hermann Helmholtz, "The Sensation of Tone," 1877, etc. Harry, this notion that the discovery of such "facts" is "new" and some how "revolutionary" and supports some of the more bizarre notions of the high-end audio business is simply another example of the high-end audio's belief that it is somehow at the forefront of such knowledge when, in fact, it has spent most it's time with it's excessively swollen head stuck firmly in it's as., uh, the sand. This stuff is OLD news, EXCEPT to the high-end audio industry. It is over a century old at least as far as pure objective science is concerned. It was known to Helmholtz, it was known to the researchers at Bell Labs and such, and yet the high-end audio business jumps up and down when some corporate sponsored lackies come up with "research," using heavily cooked data, that surprisingly supports some corporate agenda, or is conducted in the most slovenly fashion that you could as easily prove the existance of a backed brie moon as prove the brain is hardwired for rhythm. If the auditory periphery can't detect it, then any "differences" perceived MUST be due to a furtive imagination. Unless, of course, you are invoking paranormal or other "magic" abilities. Are you? |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
news:5PWcc.90003$K91.195784@attbi_s02... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:fqDcc.85530$JO3.44033@attbi_s04... Okay, Bob. Where in your EE books does it tell you that the brain is hardwired for rhythm and for positive reaction to certain harmonic structure. Where in your audiology books written before 1995 does it tell you that music elicits a response in the pleasure center of the brain. Hermann Helmholtz, "The Sensation of Tone," 1877, etc. Harry, this notion that the discovery of such "facts" is "new" and some how "revolutionary" and supports some of the more bizarre notions of the high-end audio business is simply another example of the high-end audio's belief that it is somehow at the forefront of such knowledge when, in fact, it has spent most it's time with it's excessively swollen head stuck firmly in it's as., uh, the sand. This stuff is OLD news, EXCEPT to the high-end audio industry. It is over a century old at least as far as pure objective science is concerned. It was known to Helmholtz, it was known to the researchers at Bell Labs and such, and yet the high-end audio business jumps up and down when some corporate sponsored lackies come up with "research," using heavily cooked data, that surprisingly supports some corporate agenda, or is conducted in the most slovenly fashion that you could as easily prove the existance of a backed brie moon as prove the brain is hardwired for rhythm. If the auditory periphery can't detect it, then any "differences" perceived MUST be due to a furtive imagination. Unless, of course, you are invoking paranormal or other "magic" abilities. Are you? Nope, nor am I basing anything on "the high end industry". I am basing it on articles covering research done in the last dozen years by professionals in the field of physiology. I am postulating that directed pattern recognition is certainly not known, but has some potential plausibility given what we are finding out, just as being able to listen below the noise floor is not plausible on the surface, but is plausible once we know how human hearing handles frequency discrimination. And to the best of my knowledge, the "hardwiring" of rhythm is a brand new discovery based on research done just a few years ago. And since physiology on live patients was not possible in the mid-1800's except through self-reporting, I doubt that brain research of that era showed activated pleasure centers. :-) |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:fqDcc.85530$JO3.44033@attbi_s04... Okay, Bob. Where in your EE books does it tell you that the brain is hardwired for rhythm and for positive reaction to certain harmonic structure. Where in your audiology books written before 1995 does it tell you that music elicits a response in the pleasure center of the brain. To be complete, the full title of the text I cited is most instructive: Hermann L. F. Helmholtz, "On The Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music," 1st German edition 1862, cf. Alexander Ellis' English translation of the 4th German edition, 1877, pub. 1885, available through the Henry Margenau edition of 1954, Dover Publications, New York. And to reiterate the point, the high-end audio biz once again is just tickled pink tripping over stuff that was known to the rest of the world for a LONG time, and is so thrilled when it still manages to completely misunderstand, misapply and misinterpret the obvious. Thank you for the source. Since I don't have the book, it would save I and others a lot of time and trouble if you could cite a few of the most relevant passages (e.g. those relating to the pleasure center of the brain) and cite what pages these quotes are on. Otherwise, we will have a timeout on this discussion until I can locate and read the book. |
Linear Mode
