2. tech-talk
  3. 984550796

Attention Scientists, Engineers and Na-s

Isn't it funny how timing works. With all the different discussions on proving this, show me fact on that and the psycho acoustical potential of the other thing an article comes along with the same topics and some REAL potential answers. I received my newest copy of "The Audiophile Voice" Vol.7, Issue1 today and on page 16 is an article written by David Blair and Bill Eisen titled "In The Matter Of Noise". The article focuses on disturbance noise but has some reference to thermal noise, low frequency noise and shot noise, and our ability to measure these noises with the equipment of today. We have measured noise as low as 6x10 to the power of -5, or approximately a few cycles per day. We have also found through laboratory testing that the human brain is stimulated with frequencies from just above 0Hz to just below 50kHz. U.S. Department of Defense documents also show studies of low frequency activity below measurable levels and there various affects.
The article then begins to talk about out of band (hearing) noise and in band noise produced by our electronic equipment and the potential of these noises effecting our sound system. The assumptions are that "disturbance noises rob our systems of dynamics, low-level information, tonal purity and stage depth". These effects are for the most part overlooked and misunderstood by the scientific communities. They say they think that our speakers being hit with "massive quantities of R.F.I. are affected" A very good quote referring to power filters was "Effective noise control imposes no sonic tradeoffs or downside." How often have the discussions here on Audiogon focused on what they are doing? A very interesting comment was that Teflon is capable of carrying 40-Kilovolts static charge, and the industry is touting this as a great insulator for audio signals, that's scarey!
Now I bring this to light because I believe the view of the "Scientists and Engineers" here on Audiogon is so narrow that they are failing to see the exciting challenges in front of them. If all these noises do exist, which they do, and they can be transmitted and received through our systems, isn't possible, just maybe feasible that the insulation of our wires, the casing of our dedicated lines the size and shape of the conductor could, just maybe effect the sound? Isn't it even possible that forces set off by electrical components could be interfering in some so far unmeasured and inaudible way affecting the sound. Do you all test within the full spectrum of 0Hz to 50Khz for every possible situation? Or is it possible, just ever so small of a chance that you are overlooking a whole new science yet unexplored. Doesn't that, even slightly excite your little scientific fossils?
Man if I was younger, healthier and wanted a challenge. This is a career if you'd just climb out from behind you oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzer and see the world is indeed still spinning, and yes, it is 2001. Remember how 30 years ago 2001 was going to be so exciting. What the hell have the Scientist, Engineers and Na-sayers who tote there stuff here on Audiogon done for the advancement of science. Anyone, have any of you really broken through! J.D.
128x128jadem6
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,071 posts
 
Wow Danvetc, that was amazing. Just came out huh? That's exactly what I'm talking about, loosen up and let ideas flow. Now you just need to relate it to audio equipment and we have a start. Don't get me wrong, I love your "stream of consciousness" thank-you for sharing. J.D.

Craig, I think you under estimate the knowledge you do have. I've read enough of your posts to know you have a very good grasp of this hobby, you and I just need some techno dude to help us out here.
detlof
1,899 posts
 
Sharp thinking Jostler! You're right, assumptions will get us into trouble, especially if they get metamorphosed into "thruths", which often enough happens. On the other hand, assumptions , as new insight in a given set of problems, can lead to scientific progress, under the condition, that they become verified or lead to new sets of premises for further research.
trelja
3,215 posts
 
If proposals for us to make something of ourselves are being sought, I would humbly suggest an experiment. We could all share in the listening. Doing this via listening to a product in our system. A matris test could be developed. We could choose something simple, perhaps power cords or interconnect. Make a number of different designs(ideally in pairs, maybe 3 to 5 pairs of variables) focusing on things like wire guage, metal composition, insulation, and geometry. We could evaluate things like one strand versus more than one, stranded versus solid core, silver versus copper, insulations such as PVC, teflon, kynar(don't see that used in audio...), and twisted versus braided versus not organized. Perhaps have a member assemble the lot of cable for the experiment(making each cable identical for each person). We could all pitch in a modest sum of money($50, $100, or whatever), to cover materials and labor. We would listen to each product in our system for two to three weeks. We would report the results here on Audiogon. The cables would also be tested objectively, using an oscilloscope, with several pieces of music(which we will also agree to use in our listening). The measurements would not be revealed until we each round of testing came to a conclusion. I know it may seem to be a daunting undertaking, but I think 5 to 10 people might be interested. We could then develop rough guides on how variables work with different types of amplification, loudspeaker, music, etc. Afterwards, all involved can call themselves scientists, because that is what they would be. Just one man's opinion...
stevemj
129 posts
 
Jade - What are the scientists supposed to "break through" to? I suggest that you replace all your electronics with stuff that was built by non-engineers and also that it uses principles discovered only by non-scientists. This way you can stay home and beat your drum without fear any electronic coloration. And I won't be tempted to respond you your moronic posts because you won't have a computer.
redkiwi
1,092 posts
 
A true scientist would retain an open mind as has been pointed out here. But the scientific method can become a trap, or at least a constraint on what might be achieved.. History has taught scientists that failing to rigorously prove new theories can lead to decades of wasted endeavour, and so the inherent scepticism of the scientific method has been learnt the hard way. But having said that, it can be argued that the scientific method has closed medical minds to many potentially beneficial ways of treating people other than getting out the knife or prescribing pills (sorry to you doctors for being so harsh - I know I should qualify that statement, but space does not really permit). Therefore many scientists have found there is value in a little bit of a walk on the wild side every now and then, in order to create new possibilities. The value of doing this and how to ensure it does not just result in wasted time on fanciful notions is a debate in the scientific community and one that each scientist needs to take a view on. So there is a tricky balance for any scientist between wasting time on silly ideas and failing to make progress because of too much scepticism. I think the scientists that cause my blood to boil however are those that simply made a career choice mistake and should have become accountants. The world is made up of all types, and accountancy is one of those areas where ambiguity or a lack of rules that cover every eventuality is not tolerated (lest it allow an unscrupulous management to tell lies), and therefore tends to attract people that feel more comfortable in a profession where there is an unequivocal answer to every problem (apologies to the accountants I have now offended). Accountancy is a very particular type of science where a fundamental theory is at its foundation, and all the detailed rules are deduced from this. (Before I get shot down - I know that this is a simplification by the way as I have studied the history of accountancy in some detail). But the scientists that make my blood boil are those that approach audio in that same way - with the assumption that existing electrical theory is a unified theory of audio and that all there is to learn is deductive from that. Even if they are right, they are making a huge and unjustified assumption, and therefore hardly earn the right to the scientific high-ground - which they so commonly claim on these forums. I just want to emphasise that I do not accuse all scientists of this fault at all.
More to discover