Your Most Prominent Audio Component

My ears.

Bored today?

If neurology can be likened to capacitors and resistors then technically we are the most important component, and the variations from one human to the next vastly exceed the variations in components. An audiophile has to pay more attention to the neurological brand as much as any other brand. I point this out only to emphasize that a lot quarreling on this site has to do with absolute musical judgements that imply there is one and only one rule of sound. Just sayin'.

This thread was somewhat inspired by the midnight effect thread.

I am the opposite of "bored" today.

If neurology can be likened to capacitors and resistors then technically we are the most important component, and the variations from one human to the next vastly exceed the variations in components.

That’s a non sequitur. The standard model of neuronal membrane proporties applies to all humans and all vertebrates without any significant variability.

This thread was somewhat inspired by the midnight effect thread.

OK. You are excused.

I am the opposite of "bored" today.

Me, too. 😉

Various ion pumps and channels are utilized by neurons to maintain a transmembrane ionic gradient, which produces an electric potential energy (Voltage)...

... Electric potential energy is NOT measured with Volts. It's measured in Joules.

...mjust tryin to make sense

You say what ?

Genetic variation, brain, and intelligence differences

There is enough variation in brain neuronal structure to make large differences in music processing or as we might call it - "musical intelligence."

@bolong - what you say may well be true, but the basis for determining what sounds realistic to each of us comes from the same sources that create sound waves, which pass through air and into our ears. We may well hear differently, but what we identify as realism is of the same origin. The equipment that reproduces recorded sound waves are thus equally judged from their approximation to those origins. So there is indeed a basis for comparisons we can all share.

In friendship - kevin

There is some basis, but it is not total.

I was discussing this subject with a friend of mine, and we also interjected into the topic the notion that exogenous chemicals such as alcohol and THC when added to the neuronal capacitors and resistors produced a "tube" sound with holographic realism whereas stimulants produce a solid state sound. Some of these chemicals might also be likened to "designer fuses" and the effects of different cabling. LOL

Nice change of pace @bolong . This is interesting stuff to me and I enjoy expanding my knowledge of how things work. A couple of observations:

The neuron issue relates to an interesting idea about analog vs. digital. Most audiophiles (I think) believe that our brains and nervous systems work on an analog model. Our nervous system, however, much more closely resembles a digital network. Neurons fire a quick burst of energy and then go back to a neutral state. This is significant because many in our hobby believe that digital is somehow unnatural and therefore inferior to analog.

Many of us have an American idea of equality that we project onto our biology. We think that we have all been gifted with the same basic intelligence and our differences can be explained by education and upbringing. The Molecular Psychiatry article addresses this misconception. In reality, we are highly variable individuals and just like the fact that a few of us can run a marathon in 4 hours, some of us have brains that are wired better or worse for different functions.

We have all probably met or known someone who simply cannot process music. Their brains don't perceive the rhythm and melody that we love so dearly. Their internal wiring is different than ours.

I've been to a few audio shows and what fascinates me about this hobby is that two audiophiles can reach a completely different judgement on a particular sound. In one instance where I thought the system sounded harsh, bright, and unpleasant, the guy literaly sitting next to me loved it and said that he felt it was the best sound at the show. What's happening with all of those little neurons has a major effect on how we perceive reality.

8th-note wrote: The neuron issue relates to an interesting idea about analog vs. digital. Most audiophiles (I think) believe that our brains and nervous systems work on an analog model. Our nervous system, however, much more closely resembles a digital network.

The nervous system, as opposed to individual neurons, uses processing that has both analog and digital properties.

This is significant because many in our hobby believe that digital is somehow unnatural and therefore inferior to analog.

I don't believe this is a good argument because the nervous system has no way to know how the information it receives from auditory transduction (or from other sensory systems) is created or processed; it has only the signals.  If those signals are suitably similar to those of a natural sound, it will sound natural.  Which is better?  If you believe in measurements, the answer is easy.

The Controversial Sound Only 2% of People Can Hear

This "Hum" researcher has come up with the best explanation I have heard yet - the so-called "Hum" is strongly correlated with with buried gas and oil pipelines, and he demonstrates graphically the physics at play.

My point here in the context of this thread is that not all "hearing" is created equal.

There may be little variability in the bio-electrical-chemistry of the brain, but there is tremendous variability in the discipline of listening. Thats one reason why why one cartridge can sound genuinely great to 100 people but can sound just as genuinely awful to 20 others. 

Genetics, Brain, and Personality

"We also demonstrate how these research directions can be integrated using genetically informative designs in order to determine how genetic influences on personality are mediated by variability in brain structure and function."

bump