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
I think the key to this lies in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of Jadem's post. The former starts, "The assumptions..." The latter starts, "These effects..." That's quite a lot of scientific progress in the space of a single sentence. Yes, assumptions can get you into trouble. And the biggest trouble they can get you into is to treat them as more than just assumptions. That's why scientists talk about the properties of cables that have been demonstrated to affect currents passing through them, while others assume that there must be something else involved. Scientists aren't the ones doing the assuming here.
This is quickly becoming a very entertaining thread. Jadem6 unfortunately, I have become one of those computer field people. After years of "working" for a living(under the pitiful salaries paid to researchers), I decided that I too wanted to do little for 2 to 3 times as much as I was making. We did the work at my company(s), and they got the money(for VERRRRY little work). I may be dumb, but I am not stupid. I now program C++/Oracle, in a UNIX environment. Back in the fun days, I worked at two companies. At the first, we made thick/thin film/polymer inks. Conductive, resistive, dielectric, insulative, encapsulative, and solder pastes. We supplied companies like Vishay, Solen, Sprague, CTS, Holco, and many, many more involved in audio and other fields. I then went to a company that made EL(electroluminescent lighting), which is just a capacitor that lights up. I got to test all manner of polymers(as dielectric) and conductors there. I found a lot of things that I wanted to try for audio(insulators like kynar[PVDF]), but am no longer in that field. Along the way, I found more often than not, scientists who just wanted to work a 40 hour week and go home. They had NO interest in making any progress or discoveries. Scientific dogma was not to be questioned. They were written in stone. I also found that for every "rule", there was something that blew it apart. One example of a "truth" would be that something like Bi2O3 would push the TCR(temperature coefficient of resistance) of a resistor negative. I found resistors where the opposite would be true, it would instead shift positive. All the while, people in awe of the "scientists" because of whatever. Believe me folks, there is nothing better or smarter about a scientist than anyone else. It was just the course of education we took.
A lot of excellent posts above. I especially liked the summary of Estmad who despite being a scientist is willing to "think outside the box". I think he speaks for many open minded audiophiles, including me. I spent a 30+ year career as a forest soil scientist, and so was well versed in scientific principles. We had to be constantly "on guard" against scientific dogma, assumptions, and "truths"-- mine was a different field, but the principles of inquiry are the same. Thanks for a good thread JD. Cheers. Craig
O.K. Trelja and Craig, now what? How can we as educated people of like mind find new answers? I've learned alot about you two now and feel we have a good start, we don't have to change the world, just progress our corner. J.D.
Once again:

Relativism: a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing and hence not true to the nature of independent reality and that holds that absolutely true knowledge is impossible because of the limitations and variability of sense perceptions or that reality as it is in itself can not be known by minds whose modes of thinking and perceptions are essentially subjective or that thinking and perceptions sees relations of one thing to another only and not the intrinsic nature of an object and hence are merely symbolic.

(Just a little "stream of consciousness" post. [:)] )