I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

The first 10 minutes of this video must keep you glued on your chair!...

 

Nobody commented this flabbergasting video and genius idea... 😁😊

If you dont fall of your chair reading that , you dont understand what its means....

We have here the convergence of the works of three geniuses which are four,😁 the mathematician Alain Connes on non commutative geometry, quantum physics and number theory and music , Roger Penrose/Stuart Hameroff on a new way to "orchestrate" the relation between consciousness and the cosmos through microtubules dynamics related to quantum physics and cosmology and Anirban Bandyopadhyay on the fractal/time non algorythmic computing and articial brain "musical" auto-programming...

Astounding...

In a word a new physic like the one created by Galileo mostly grounded in visual experience, but now improved by a new physics more grounded on music and hearing and his non commutative aspects and timelike fractal resonance at all scales of the universe...All that experimentally analysed through microtubules working indicating a complete new way to conceptualize the  integrated brain/mind/cosmos relation...( we can distinguish brain and mind and the cosmos  but cannot separate them)

OM or AUM,

Indeed!

😁😊

 

 

I will give you the "flavor" in one image...

 

 

 

«a Fourth circuit element Hinductor not memristor (US patent 9019685B2). Charge stores to generate magnetic flux (top). An analogue made of capacitors (middle). Magnetic field distribution on its surface (bottom). b A oscillatory or nearly linear relationship between charge storage and the generation of magnetic flux. c Hinductor elements are kept without wiring inside vibrating membranes to create a composition of vibrations. d Classical beating (top) and quantum beating (bottom) inside a microtubule (experimental measurement). e Quantum and classical beating measurement setup used to detect Wilczeck’s time crystal. The concept of fractal beating where classical and quantum beating is nested explained. f Ordered architectures inside a neuron, beta-spectrin-actin assembly (STORM data), microtubule bundle are being constructed in NIMS, Japan using Hinductor, the fourth circuit element »

From: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337323300_A_Brain-like_Computer_Made_of_Time_Crystal_Could_a_Metric_of_Prime_Alone_Replace_a_User_and_Alleviate_Progr

 

I am leaning towards the total irrelevance in relationship with the topic for the lack of interest. It’s akin to all the factual but irrelevant science often brought up in audio. First start proving a change is really heard. Otherwise it is just flights of fancy.

 

 

I am sure that you understand why these new converging science revolution is about a transformation of our notion of what is a "brain" and what is "music" in the largest meaning of the word..

Did you consider yourself the arbiter of the matter of this thread because you are a scientist? If so you are wrong....My post is related to this useless debate...

It is evident that any measures about sounds in his relation to the brain and to the subjective impression cannot be interpretated OUT OF A THEORY OF HEARING...

Music cannot be reduced to measured electrical devices or to their tools anyway , anymore than sound interpretation cannot be reduced to linear relation between noise and information in a Fourier contextual setting...

These scientists, notably the Indian one illuminate the research background to understand hearing and the brain in a complete new perspectives...

You are a physicist no? Why criticize me for elevating the debate ?

Why not helping me and us to understand this better ?

Why keeping this ridiculous debate between "0" and "S" ongoing in circle here?

It is a false controversy...A children arguing contest...

An ideological stance with no relation at all to sound experience in psycho-acoustic and to reality...

Is your only pleasure is to put some ignorant audiophiles in their hole?

I can say that measuring obsession about gear by some is not useless for sure, but completely secondary to audio S.Q. experience...And measuring must be CORRELATED to subjective impressions to be meaningful anyway at the end...in any sound design...

For sure an amplifier must measured good.... So what?

In life your goal is debating with some ignorant audiophile insisting to listen before buying? it is not my goal....I listen too before buying anyway... 😁😊

The bad news is in psycho-acoustic  listening is primary, measuring secondary...In design, measuring is primary, listening secondary...But the two are always CORRELATED...

The good news is this debate between "o" and "s" is useless...Psycho-acoustic science exist because of this elementary fact....Neuro-acoustic too...

Between some "fetichists" among audiophiles, and a few "zealots" among disciples of the measuring hobbyists like Amir, i chose to be interested by new theory about the brain and new theory about hearing...

Why not?

Are you a scientist or a moderator of audiogon ?

i was waiting for a "thank you" for this information about these new research.... 😊

Or is this relation between non commutative geometry, music, numbers, time fractals, non Turing and non algorythmic machine, microtubules, hearing, and sound is already so mastered well by you that my post is trivial?

Then say so, i will ask you questions, and dont make me feel bad because i seem to be out of this trivial debate "o" and "s"...I am not....

 

 

yes, i am born "naive"....

😁😊

 

 

 

Did you consider yourself the arbiter of the matter of this thread because you are a scientist? If so you are wrong....My post is related to this useless debate...

The horse is dead. Long live the horse. You seem at a loss for why no one commented. I am taking a stab at the likely reason. Even the most ardent tweakaholic has lost interest.

I didn’t arbitrate anything. I just stated rather clearly that until you either prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claims are really heard or provide some relevant scientific basis for differences to be heard, then the posts are simply self indulgent.

How our brains work or our auditory system works is not even relevant. This is all external observation. From my reading there is a large body of work in what is audible, whether level, distortion, frequency response, noise, phase, and I am sure a large number of other factors that could define audio, primarily electronics as this appears to be the topic under discussion. These tests all appear to be done under special conditions meant to give us poor old humans every chance at success, as opposed to music for which it will be harder.

Your posts do nothing to advance whether what is perceived as being heard is really being heard, nor that there is a real physical mechanism for the difference, nor whether the tested limits of human audio perception for measurable differences is significantly better than already shown by those working in the field. I suggest starting with the first as it will require by far the least experimental rigor or knowledge to accomplish.