More seriously now and perhaps nearer to our debate this is extraordinary: «We’ve all heard of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. That puts a fundamental limit on the accuracy with which position and momentum of a particle can be simultaneously known. The more precision for one, the less for the other. There’s a similar idea in acoustics, called the Fourier Uncertainty Principle. Fourier Analysis, a commonly used mathematical method of deconstructing complex waves into their components, is the basis of this uncertainty principle. Unlike Heisenberg’s, it represents not an intrinsic property of the source, but a limit on the capabilities of linear algorithms to analyze it. It deals with two properties of sound: frequency (or pitch) and timing. If you read music, you know that pitch is the vertical axis and timing the horizontal axis. According to the Fourier Uncertainty Principle, these two properties cannot be simultaneously determined above a limit, called the Gabor limit. This implies that the better two pitches can be distinguished, the less accurately the time between them can be known, and vice versa. Tell that to the human brain. In a new paper in Physical Review Letters (free download on arXiv), Jacob N. Oppenheim and Marcello O. Magnasco of Rockefeller University tested human subjects and found “Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle.“ The time-frequency uncertainty principle states that the product of the temporal and frequency extents of a signal cannot be smaller than 1/(4?). We study human ability to simultaneously judge the frequency and the timing of a sound. Our subjects often exceeded the uncertainty limit, sometimes by more than tenfold, mostly through remarkable timing acuity. Our results establish a lower bound for the nonlinearity and complexity of the algorithms employed by our brains in parsing transient sounds, rule out simple “linear filter” models of early auditory processing, and highlight timing acuity as a central feature in auditory object processing. (Emphasis added.)» https://evolutionnews.org/2013/02/human_hearing_o/ This is the vulgarisation.... The real article is this: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.044301 All this is spectacular example of limitations alleged in the past and overcome.... We dont know what sound IS... We dont understand human hearing .... But science go on enlightening us about deepest and deepest imprevisible discoveries... |
Seriously, Some things cannot be measured as accurately as bio sense. Example, a dogs smell is more sensitive than any current instrument. Because it cannot be measured does not mean it is not there.
This is audiogon. You must have confused it with smellogon, the other website. what is the adress of this new site: "smellogon" ? is this is from this site: http://vosshall.rockefeller.edu/assets/file/BushdidScience2014.pdf Or perhaps this one on forgotten abilities: https://www.nature.com/articles/nn1819 Perhaps we must create Smellogon.com ourself and link it to audiogon... Finally this article about polynesian "primitive" navigators about to "see" their routes around islands very afar in the pacific is astounding about the INTERNAL GPS of human and say a lot about underestimating the perception of humans https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/magazine/the-secrets-of-the-wave-pilots.htmlan extract of this article that speak volume about the understimated human perceotive abilities.... :
«Genz
met Alson Kelen and Korent Joel in Majuro in 2005, when Genz was 28. A
soft-spoken, freckled Wisconsinite and former Peace Corps volunteer who
grew up sailing with his father, Genz was then studying for a doctorate
in anthropology at the University of Hawaii. His adviser there, Ben
Finney, was an anthropologist who helped lead the voyage of Hokulea, a
replica Polynesian sailing canoe, from Hawaii to Tahiti and back in
1976; the success of the trip, which involved no modern instrumentation
and was meant to prove the efficacy of indigenous ships and navigational
methods, stirred a resurgence of native Hawaiian language, music, hula
and crafts. Joel and Kelen dreamed of a similar revival for Marshallese
sailing — the only way, they figured, for wave-piloting to endure — and
contacted Finney for guidance. But Finney was nearing retirement, so he
suggested that Genz go in his stead. With their chief’s blessing, Joel
and Kelen offered Genz rare access, with one provision: He would not
learn wave-piloting himself; he would simply document Kelen’s training. Joel
immediately asked Genz to bring scientists to the Marshalls who could
help Joel understand the mechanics of the waves he knew only by feel —
especially one called di lep, or backbone, the foundation of wave-piloting, which (in ri-meto lore) ran between atolls like a road. Joel’s grandfather had taught him to feel the di lep
at the Rongelap reef: He would lie on his back in a canoe, blindfolded,
while the old man dragged him around the coral, letting him experience
how it changed the movement of the waves. But when Joel took Genz out in the Pacific on borrowed yachts and told him they were encountering the di lep,
he couldn’t feel it. Kelen said he couldn’t, either. When
oceanographers from the University of Hawaii came to look for it, their
equipment failed to detect it. The idea of a wave-road between islands,
they told Genz, made no sense. Privately, Genz began to fear that the di lep
was imaginary, that wave-piloting was already extinct. On one research
trip in 2006, when Korent Joel went below deck to take a nap, Genz
changed the yacht’s course. When Joel awoke, Genz kept Joel away from
the GPS device, and to the relief of them both, Joel directed the boat
toward land. Later, he also passed his ri-meto test, judged by his chief, with Genz and Kelen crewing. Worlds
away, Huth, a worrier by nature, had become convinced that preserving
mankind’s ability to way-find without technology was not just an
abstract mental exercise but also a matter of life and death. In 2003,
while kayaking alone in Nantucket Sound, fog descended, and Huth —
spring-loaded and boyish, with a near-photographic memory — found his
way home using local landmarks, the wind and the direction of the
swells. Later, he learned that two young undergraduates, out paddling in
the same fog, had become disoriented and drowned. This prompted him to
begin teaching a class on primitive navigation techniques. When Huth met
Genz at an academic conference in 2012 and described the methodology of
his search for the Higgs boson and dark energy — subtracting dominant
wave signals from a field, until a much subtler signal appears
underneath — Genz told him about the di lep,
and it captured Huth’s imagination. If it was real, and if it really
ran back and forth between islands, its behavior was unknown to physics
and would require a supercomputer to model. That a person might be able
to sense it bodily amid the cacophony generated by other ocean phenomena
was astonishing. Huth began creating possible di lep
simulations in his free time and recruited van Vledder’s help.
Initially, the most puzzling detail of Genz’s translation of Joel’s
description was his claim that the di lep
connected each atoll and island to all 33 others. That would yield 561
paths, far too many for even the most adept wave pilot to memorize. Most
of what we know about ocean waves and currents — including what will
happen to coastlines as climate change leads to higher sea levels (of
special concern to the low-lying Netherlands and Marshall Islands) —
comes from models that use global wind and bathymetry data to simulate
what wave patterns probably look like at a given place and time. Our
understanding of wave mechanics, on which those models are based, is
wildly incomplete. To improve them, experts must constantly check their
assumptions with measurements and observations. Perhaps, Huth and van
Vledder thought, there were di leps in every ocean, invisible roads that no one was seeing because they didn’t know to look.... »
|
Then what?
We need experiment and we need to discover some individual able to hear this hypothetical change...
But ridiculizing the possibility of sensing this phenomena is not a good point of departure for a scientific journey...
Speculating about this possibility is better and looking for some who experimented it and wanted to be tested a better one for sure...
But a test organized to ridicule someone or debunking him is NOT A TEST....And certainly not a rigorous scientific test created in good faith and by honest curiosity.....
Then "sunday skeptic of the scientism club" or children of James Randi or professional snake oiler hunters are not useful to science here...No more than religious zealot or marketings people.....
It is easy to understand....
A climate of trust only make thinking possible....And discovery possible...
Doubt is a tool not a vocation or a working field.....
Human need beliefs, and need doubts; but human need over all to think and thinking process is alway using these 2 tools simultaneously...
|
dletch2194 posts 04-23-2021 11:46pm
And it turns out that, for example, in a RIAA corrector, the error of the wire going from the MC head to the transformer will be amplified almost 1000 times!
Does not work that way. If the error is simply frequency response, the relationship between the perfect and imperfect signal never changes.
dletch2, you haven't finished explaining your previous statement yet: "The interference of a power cable can get into the signal circuit and become audible not as periodic interference of 60Hz harmonics, but as non-periodic one so that initial frequency of 60 hz is perceived as something related to a musical signal (for example, frequency response), and not as interference or noise." After you make this one clear, I expect the next explanation from you: How the difference in frequency response can occur when a short piece of wire is reversed? And please, no more muddy theories. You are required to: 1 - numerical or relative estimation of the level of possible interference 2 - numerical or relative estimation of the level at which the interference penetrate the signal circuit 3 - In what exact place it penetrates there the signal circuit |
mapman Ok now we are getting somewhere. Have you done that? Where are the results published for those who might be interested?
I have an article in Russian https://www.backtomusic.ru/do/radio/testing, there is a description of a lot of subjective experiments made using the testing system, but what can they give you, other than to take the topic aside? I would believe whatever differences there are would show up most in cases where there is an impedance mismatch which is much more likely with zero feedback amps, but that should not really matter if one has addressed impedance matching between amps and speakers properly, which is the right way to do it for best results, so in that case impedance matching issues due to a zero feedback amp is a moot point.
That's a shot in the air, sorry. Whatever the impedance mismatch is, it will remain the same for any changes in the area of J1 and J2. It will not prevent us from conducting the experiment, all other things being equal. |