As I said, new science emerges, and the rules change. So resolute objectivists ---can just take a hike.

I'm supposed to be gracious, but if they constantly slam you over and over, even when one proposes balance, then no. No breaks. Any scientist with a lick of sense will tell you that the science FOLLOWS the premise, or act of human observation. The math almost never comes first. Science is not the arbiter of reality, but scientists, who should have been forced over a barrel to take multiple psychology classes,and not allowed a degree unless passed with flying colors..well..this is exactly what I mean. Newton screwed up the 'scientific method', for all time, when he took over the Royal society. He was angry and bitter due to the fact that he presented his mathematics on light..and Hook, Boyle, Wren, etc told him to take a hike..unless he could produce solid evidence in the physical world of his math. The original premise of the Scientific method was physical recognition of a given phenomena first..then the math and analysis to define it follow. Not the other way around. Newton's anger and revenge, where he changed that working methodoloy when he became head of the Royal society, caused a colossal screw up in a the best working methodology within the idea of scientific method:

The premise that we do not ignore what our logic attatched to our senses tells us.

http://www.sciencenewsden.com/2007/newhearingmechanismdiscovered.shtml


MIT Professor Dennis M. Freeman, working with graduate student Roozbeh Ghaffari and research scientist Alexander J. Aranyosi, found that the tectorial membrane, a gelatinous structure inside the cochlea of the ear, is much more important to hearing than previously thought. It can selectively pick up and transmit energy to different parts of the cochlea via a kind of wave that is different from that commonly associated with hearing. In short, the ear can mechanically translate sounds into two different kinds of wave motion at once. These waves can interact to excite the hair cells and enhance their sensitivity, "which may help explain how we hear sounds as quiet as whispers," says Aranyosi. The interactions between these two wave mechanisms may be a key part of how we are able to hear with such fidelity - for example, knowing when a single instrument in an orchestra is out of tune. "We know the ear is enormously sensitive" in its ability to discriminate between different kinds of sound, Freeman says. "We don't know the mechanism that lets it do that." The new work has revealed "a whole new mechanism that nobody had thought of. It's really a very different way of looking at things." The tectorial membrane is difficult to study because it is small (the entire length could fit inside a one-inch piece of human hair), fragile (it is 97 percent water, with a consistency similar to that of a jellyfish), and nearly transparent. In addition, sound vibrations cause nanometer-scale displacements of cochlear structures at audio frequencies. "We had to develop an entirely new class of measurement tools for the nano-scale regime," Ghaffari says.

Oh my gosh! Suddenly it all makes sense why the pizza box pyramid improves the sound of a CD player! :rolleyes:"which may help explain how we hear sounds as quiet as whispers,"You do realize, I hope, that a "whisper" really isn't all that quiet---at least not compared to the measurable differences imposed by, say, differences between speaker cable impedance.

As I said, new science emerges, and the rules change. So resolute objectivists ---can just take a hike.

I'm supposed to be gracious, but if they constantly slam you over and over, even when one proposes balance, then no. No breaks. Any scientist with a lick of sense will tell you that the science FOLLOWS the premise, or act of human observation. The math almost never comes first. Science is not the arbiter of reality, but scientists, who should have been forced over a barrel to take multiple psychology classes,and not allowed a degree unless passed with flying colors..well..this is exactly what I mean. Newton screwed up the 'scientific method', for all time, when he took over the Royal society. He was angry and bitter due to the fact that he presented his mathematics on light..and Hook, Boyle, Wren, etc told him to take a hike..unless he could produce solid evidence in the physical world of his math. The original premise of the Scientific method was physical recognition of a given phenomena first..then the math and analysis to define it follow. Not the other way around. Newton's anger and revenge, where he changed that working methodoloy when he became head of the Royal society, caused a colossal screw up in a the best working methodology within the idea of scientific method:

The premise that we do not ignore what our logic attatched to our senses tells us.

http://www.sciencenewsden.com/2007/newhearingmechanismdiscovered.shtml


MIT Professor Dennis M. Freeman, working with graduate student Roozbeh Ghaffari and research scientist Alexander J. Aranyosi, found that the tectorial membrane, a gelatinous structure inside the cochlea of the ear, is much more important to hearing than previously thought. It can selectively pick up and transmit energy to different parts of the cochlea via a kind of wave that is different from that commonly associated with hearing. In short, the ear can mechanically translate sounds into two different kinds of wave motion at once. These waves can interact to excite the hair cells and enhance their sensitivity, "which may help explain how we hear sounds as quiet as whispers," says Aranyosi. The interactions between these two wave mechanisms may be a key part of how we are able to hear with such fidelity - for example, knowing when a single instrument in an orchestra is out of tune. "We know the ear is enormously sensitive" in its ability to discriminate between different kinds of sound, Freeman says. "We don't know the mechanism that lets it do that." The new work has revealed "a whole new mechanism that nobody had thought of. It's really a very different way of looking at things." The tectorial membrane is difficult to study because it is small (the entire length could fit inside a one-inch piece of human hair), fragile (it is 97 percent water, with a consistency similar to that of a jellyfish), and nearly transparent. In addition, sound vibrations cause nanometer-scale displacements of cochlear structures at audio frequencies. "We had to develop an entirely new class of measurement tools for the nano-scale regime," Ghaffari says.
Interesting paper. Of course, most of what is quoted and discussed by the lay public are the speculations of the significance of the work, not what is demonstrated by the experiments. Thus, discussions, such as those in the audio forums about this paper, are not about the science, at all.

Interesting paper. Of course, most of what is quoted and discussed by the lay public are the speculations of the significance of the work, not what is demonstrated by the experiments. Thus, discussions, such as those in the audio forums about this paper, are not about the science, at all.


True enough KAL. But not all of those with degrees up the yin-yang are qualified to attempt to understand reality and not all those without degrees up the yin-yang are to be dismissed when they don't have such. Faraday being an excellent example of the latter.

The middle of the herd does not define the edge.

Michael: Pizza boxes? I've got a grasp on the fundamentals of mechanical noise control concerning electronics, and it is quite 'sound', thank you. The pizza box likely has an effect, but not wholly due to it's 'construction'. The pyramid shape is quite non resonant and rigid. Very fast.

I'd say that it's 50-50% on the mass vs the shape. So yeah, there is good science and experimentation on that point. it goes deep into mechanicals, the kind that most loudspeaker manufacturers are completely unaware of -and in my opinion, should stay that way. Their ignorance is my bliss.

There is also the point that the person with the box on their CD player or the like might make a difference, but is it the correct one? I commend them for being able to hear a difference, and heartily encourage them to continue...just try to not go mad in the process. :eek: The challenge then becomes the art of understanding the direction of the difference: good or bad-correct or incorrect. I wish them luck. It is not easy. Without the fundamentals of all aspects clearly in proper order in the given person's head, it is going to be very difficult to get to the correct point of understanding of what exactly is going on. Thus the whole thing can have the appearance of voodoo.

No wonder I left this forum. All I ever hear is monkey pouting and posturing. The "Oh yeah?!? Oh yeah?!?" over and over.

Oh yes..the single violin out of tune in a orchestra does qualify, in terms of level and freq. vs the rest. Measurably that would qualify somewhere in the 0.000x% in a linear weighted measurement criteria/system.

Enough.

No, not pizza boxes, pizza box tripods (my mistake calling them pyramids above)---those plastic tripods they put on pizzas to keep the box top from touching the cheese.

http://www.stereophile.com/images/newsletter/305stph.htmlThe case of the GSIC reminded me of something similar that erstwhile audio scribe Enid Lumley demonstrated to me at a hi-fi show many years ago. Except it wasn't a magic chip costing $1.50 per use, if I recall correctly, but the plastic tripod out of a pizza box. Enid (who was a very persuasive person) placed the tripod atop a CD player and convinced her audience—including me—that the sound was better. I could never replicate the effect in my own system, but hey, the tweak was free, and that's equally important.

Of course, most of what is quoted and discussed by the lay public are the speculations of the significance of the work, not what is demonstrated by the experiments. Thus, discussions, such as those in the audio forums about this paper, are not about the science, at all.Indeed. Let's look at the following sentences from the paper: These waves can interact to excite the hair cells and enhance their sensitivity, "which may help explain how we hear sounds as quiet as whispers," says Aranyosi. The interactions between these two wave mechanisms may be a key part of how we are able to hear with such fidelity - for example, knowing when a single instrument in an orchestra is out of tune. "We know the ear is enormously sensitive" in its ability to discriminate between different kinds of sound, Freeman says. "We don't know the mechanism that lets it do that."The paper is not claiming to have discovered a new ability of our hearing. The ability is already known. It is the mechanism that gives us this ability, the explanation for it, that is being discussed here.

It's like the fabled "bumblebees can't fly" story. Of course they always could, we just couldn't figure out how. Likewise, we have quite a number of ways to determine, measure, and document our hearing ability that depend on little or no knowledge of the mechanism by which we do so. We have a good handle on how sensitive our hearing is, even though we don't necessarily understand fully how or why it is so.

Frankly this paper's relevance to high-end audio is bordering on zero.

That's what I mean, Michael, we have an entire section of the magazine rack dedicated to the point that people can hear these things in electronics and wiring. Now let's figure out why.

Enough with the naysaying. We are long past that point.

And yes, pardon my enthusiasm, I thought I found a new religion there, for a second. (Follow the Gourd! No! Follow the Shoe!---Life of Brian) Thanks for providing some countermeasure. But I still stick to my guns on this. We can hear the differences, the measurement systems are incorrectly weighted compared to the human hearing mechanism and the middle of the herd's whining... does not define the edge. Nor does any science hold or define the keys to reality. They may point the way, though. The specific is: 'point', and may..not 'own'. Too many people feel and understand, quite incorrectly, that science 'owns' reality. It most specifically does not.

It is debatable if there are any keys beyond simple human recognition of such, when one looks the basics of psychology..

Indeed. Let's look at the following sentences from the paper:The paper is not claiming to have discovered a new ability of our hearing. The ability is already known. It is the mechanism that gives us this ability, the explanation for it, that is being discussed here.

It's like the fabled "bumblebees can't fly" story. Of course they always could, we just couldn't figure out how. Likewise, we have quite a number of ways to determine, measure, and document our hearing ability that depend on little or no knowledge of the mechanism by which we do so. We have a good handle on how sensitive our hearing is, even though we don't necessarily understand fully how or why it is so.

Frankly this paper's relevance to high-end audio is bordering on zero.

Indeed.

Would Dr. Freeman (http://umech.mit.edu/freeman/cv.html) be one with degrees out the 'yin-yang"?

Indeed. Let's look at the following sentences from the paper:
These waves can interact to excite the hair cells and enhance their sensitivity, "which may help explain how we hear sounds as quiet as whispers," says Aranyosi. The interactions between these two wave mechanisms may be a key part of how we are able to hear with such fidelity - for example, knowing when a single instrument in an orchestra is out of tune. "We know the ear is enormously sensitive" in its ability to discriminate between different kinds of sound, Freeman says. "We don't know the mechanism that lets it do that."But, as you know, that's not even in the paper; it is a quote from the report about the paper in ScienceNewsDen!! The experiments were all done in vitro and did not demonstrate what the authors (and others) suggest can occur in vivo.
Frankly this paper's relevance to high-end audio is bordering on zero.Amen.

That's what I mean, Michael, we have an entire section of the magazine rack dedicated to the point that people can hear these things in electronics and wiring. Now let's figure out why.And what would you propose that's unbiased and leads to statistical analysis of the results?

Kal: Now I have to get out my Ayn Rand sourced Pseudointellectual latin conversion dictionary and pretend I know what you just said.... You know, the one where she writes this elaborate story about Zappa pontificating on The Greatful Dead. (it's humour, not a jab)

The experiments were all done in vitro and did not demonstrate what the authors (and others) suggest can occur in vivo.Wow, you're right, I didn't catch that at first. I now say that the relevance doesn't just "border on zero", it is zero.

Kal: Now I have to get out my Ayn Rand sourced Pseudointellectual latin conversion dictionary and pretend I know what you just said.... You know, the one where she writes this elaborate story about Zappa pontificating on The Greatful Dead. (it's humour, not a jab)It's biospeak. As the Great Sage said (even before Google): You could look it up!

I have a good excuse for my slip-up. Just as I went to read this article, my whole back-lower spine exploded with pain. I was covered in sweat and couldn't really even focus my eyes. It has only abated in the past 45 minutes or so. So I posted without a good read first. Oh well. Such is life.

I gotta stop moving/lifting those 70-80 lb amplifiers around on the test bench, while still sitting. The smart guys use a rug covered lazy susan for that.

KBK please again tell me if the new device or whatever it is you have, is for sale yet? And does it have a 30 day money back?

Kal: Now I have to get out my Ayn Rand sourced Pseudointellectual latin conversion dictionary and pretend I know what you just said.... You know, the one where she writes this elaborate story about Zappa pontificating on The Greatful Dead. (it's humour, not a jab)

in vivo - in a living organism
in vitro - in a test tube or petri dish
in situ - in place

incognito - concealing one's identity i.e.The men in black walked right past him as he was incognito.

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida - available in at least 2 versions.

Right. Here's the relevant quote from the ScienceNewsDen article:The team learned about the new wave mechanism by suspending an isolated piece of tectorial membrane between two supports, one fixed and one moveable. They launched waves at audio frequencies along the membrane and watched how it responded by using a stroboscopic imaging system developed in Freeman's lab. That system can measure nanometer-scale displacements at frequencies up to a million cycles per second.So they didn't study the tectorial membrane in its natural environment---the ear. So the best they can do now is speculate what its impact might be on our hearing. Now, there's nothing wrong with a little speculation. For one thing, it's informed speculation. For another, such brainstorming can lead to experiments (ideally in vivo of course) designed to verify or refute their thinking. For example, their work might suggest a change in the design of hearing aids. Well, if the change in design results in the very improvements in performance predicted by their models, then that would lend credence to their speculation.

incognito - concealing one's identity i.e.The men in black walked right past him as he was incognito.

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida - available in at least 2 versions.

Actually this thread, as well a many others, is best described as 'ignoratio elenchi'.

Right. Here's the relevant quote from the ScienceNewsDen article:So they didn't study the tectorial membrane in its natural environment---the ear. So the best they can do now is speculate what its impact might be on our hearing. Now, there's nothing wrong with a little speculation. For one thing, it's informed speculation. For another, such brainstorming can lead to experiments (ideally in vivo of course) designed to verify or refute their thinking. For example, their work might suggest a change in the design of hearing aids. Well, if the change in design results in the very improvements in performance predicted by their models, then that would lend credence to their speculation.Their work does suggest experiments which relate the behavior of the tectorial membrane, in situ, to input signals, to basilar membrane dynamics and to hair cell responses. What it does not suggest is anything related to audio at the present time and taking the experimenters' speculations as fodder for such does them a disservice (although they may like the publicity).

Kal (wearing his neurobiologist hat)

Their work does suggest experiments which relate the behavior of the tectorial membrane, in situ, to input signals, to basilar membrane dynamics and to hair cell responses. What it does not suggest is anything related to audio at the present time and taking the experimenters' speculations as fodder for such does them a disservice (although they may like the publicity).

Kal (wearing his neurobiologist hat)

I don't see any objectivists running.

Art

I'm supposed to be gracious, but if they constantly slam you over and over, even when one proposes balance, then no. No breaks.

And swing and a miss!

Hey! I admitted I was wrong! I even tried to weasel out of it with an excuse. Jeez. I wish more of you guys were capable of doing the same.

To bring up Dr. Phil. (Please use the vomitus visuals)..as my mother saw him by accident the other day. (She swears) She said, that DR.Phil actually said something useful. What was that? it was that look at your time in this world..in months. Since the months go by so fast..count it in months.

That there deathbed don't seem so far away after that. So why argue, worry about ego, or cause others grief? By that measure, if I'm good, I've got about 400-350 or so good months left in me. The remainders likely won't be so good.

i know, but the swing and a miss seemed funny to me...

I think we are devolving into random noise.

Can we leave Zappa and the Grateful Dead out of this... Thanks.

To set the record straight, the theory and importance of the tectorial membrane was described and documented by researcher Andrew Bell at the Australian National University. You can download and read the material at the following links.

Helmholtz.pdf (cogprints.org/1735/0/Helmholtz.pdf)

Helmholtz's piano strings - reverberation of ripples on the tectorial membrane

UWPiano.pdf (cogprints.org/186/00/UWPiano.pdf)

The Underwater Piano - Revival of the Resonance Theory of Hearing

SAW.pdf (cogprints.org/1734/0/SAW.pdf)

The cochlear amplifier is a surface wave resonator

Surely, MIT isn't trying to claim that they "discovered" some auditory phenomena that has been in print for the last seven years!

for your further humour, over on the DIY audio forum, I posted the exact same bit. Straight cut and paste. If you can't dismiss your own foibles, what does that mean about how you treat others? So I just posted this, over there:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
turns out the article bears little resemblance to being important to audio gear. That point remains to be proven.

If you like to pick on me, go to the over $20K component section on the AVS forum and watch me get an *** kicking. Might make your day.

To set the record straight, the theory and importance of the tectorial membrane was described and documented by researcher Andrew Bell at the Australian National University. You can download and read the material at the following links.

Helmholtz.pdf (cogprints.org/1735/0/Helmholtz.pdf)

Helmholtz's piano strings - reverberation of ripples on the tectorial membrane

UWPiano.pdf (cogprints.org/186/00/UWPiano.pdf)

The Underwater Piano - Revival of the Resonance Theory of Hearing

SAW.pdf (cogprints.org/1734/0/SAW.pdf)

The cochlear amplifier is a surface wave resonator

Surely, MIT isn't trying to claim that they "discovered" some auditory phenomena that has been in print for the last seven years!A quick scan of the PDFs reveals interesting review papers with lots of analysis and speculation. I didn't see any experiments to demonstrate/prove his points. Does he have any refs in refereed journals? He doesn't refer to any.

That's what I mean, Michael, we have an entire section of the magazine rack dedicated to the point that people can hear these things in electronics and wiring. Now let's figure out why.
..

No, those mags only claim that they can. No proper demonstration, so what are you looking for and why? How is it different from all the claims on any number of other consumer areas where unsupported claims are made.

Prove time, then. Go ahead. Try.

Here's the actual paper (not the PR piece about the paper):

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/42/16510

Abstract:

Sound-evoked vibrations transmitted into the mammalian cochlea produce traveling waves that provide the mechanical tuning necessary for spectral decomposition of sound. These traveling waves of motion that have been observed to propagate longitudinally along the basilar membrane (BM) ultimately stimulate the mechano-sensory receptors. The tectorial membrane (TM) plays a key role in this process, but its mechanical function remains unclear. Here we show that the TM supports traveling waves that are an intrinsic feature of its visco-elastic structure. Radial forces applied at audio frequencies (2–20 kHz) to isolated TM segments generate longitudinally propagating waves on the TM with velocities similar to those of the BM traveling wave near its best frequency place. We compute the dynamic shear storage modulus and shear viscosity of the TM from the propagation velocity of the waves and show that segments of the TM from the basal turn are stiffer than apical segments are. Analysis of loading effects of hair bundle stiffness, the limbal attachment of the TM, and viscous damping in the subtectorial space suggests that TM traveling waves can occur in vivo. Our results show the presence of a traveling wave mechanism through the TM that can functionally couple a significant longitudinal extent of the cochlea and may interact with the BM wave to greatly enhance cochlear sensitivity and tuning.

Conclusions:

We have demonstrated that radial displacements of an isolated TM excite waves of motion that propagate longitudinally with velocities similar to those of the BM traveling wave. Analysis of physiological loading effects of the hair bundles, the limbal attachment of the TM, and fluid viscosity in the subtectorial space suggests that TM waves also can propagate in vivo. Because these waves can stimulate hair cells and interact with the BM traveling wave, they constitute a distinct mode of motion (10, 45) that can have a significant effect on cochlear tuning and sensitivity, thereby fundamentally changing the way we think about cochlear mechanisms.

Auditory subjectivism has been vindicated? :eek:

Regards,
Terry

Prove time, then. Go ahead. Try.

Several examples come to mind.
1) Waiting on line at a checkout.
2) Waiting for medical service to be authorized and provided in Canada.
3) Your signficant other saying, "You're finished?!"

Prove time, then. Go ahead. Try.

Time (http://www.time.com/time/) is an American news magazine owned an operated bt Time-Warner Inc an international multimedia holding firm.

Or a Song on Pink Floyd's 1973 album titled "Dark Side of the Moon".

Or a Song on David Bowie's album "Aladdin Sane"

or a fundamental quantity of physics.


:D

Terry

Thanks for the pnas link. I downloaded the paper but haven't gotten a chance to read it in any detail. They didn't reference Bell.

Kal

For decades, the world of psychoacoustics has blindly accepted von Bekesy's theory of the travelling wave through the basilar membrane without any serious questioning of the whole idea. Maybe it was because von Bekesy was a Harvard man and won a Nobel prize with the theory.

What Bell did was to simply state that the whole basilar membrane theory was wrong because it didn't fit the observed behavior of the inner ear. His SAW theory, involving the tectorial membrane, does; and in a rather insightful and brilliant manner, too!

I'd prove time, but I just don't have enough of it.

What Bell did was to simply state that the whole basilar membrane theory was wrong because it didn't fit the observed behavior of the inner ear. His SAW theory, involving the tectorial membrane, does; and in a rather insightful and brilliant manner, too!I still would like to see a refereed paper on this since refutation of the fundamental points of von Bekesy's theory is still accepted by bulk of the sensory physiology community. Please take this as genuine request by someone with a serious interest.

BTW, I googled him and found mostly reviews and press reports. When I have time in the office, I will use the medical library.

Time is what you notice more, the more you run out of it...

SAW theory? Someone actually studies those gore thrillers? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw_(film))

Prove time, then. Go ahead. Try.

Newtons 2nd law- F=MA. A=deltaV/t. t=Time. (If one subscribes to Newtons laws of motion anyway.)

Unlike many of the seemingly baseless claims, :D it CAN be quantified and measured. I have a device hanging on my wall that measures it. What would you suggest that common device is counting and measuring then? If you reject the seemingly objective truths of Newtonian laws and physics and want to go all quantum and metaphysical then… Whatever. Truth is what works. Objectively. Quantifiably. I’ve got all the quantum metaphysical stuff I need so I’m not buying.

Dave

SAW theory? Someone actually studies those gore thrillers? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw_(film))Especially from the director's cut. :cool:

Prove time, then. Go ahead. Try.


"What is, I wasted it trying to decipher Ken's posts?"

I'll take hilariously absurd claims for $1,000.


Just kidding you Ken, I love reading your posts.
It brings a nice counter-balance to reasoned Ph.Ds ;)

That's what I mean, Michael, we have an entire section of the magazine rack dedicated to the point that people can hear these things in electronics and wiring. Now let's figure out why.

An *entire section*? Let's see, 'Stereophile', 'The Absolute Sound' (whcih have shared writers over the years) and maybe a couple of others. Impressive!

As for communities that adopt beliefs that have no basis in objective reality,
ever read 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'? or hear the story ofthe Emperor's New Clothes?


We can hear the differences,

You can hear some differences. You can imagine others (and will even be biased towards doing so). The trick is to determine which differences are real, and which are imaginary. Science has tools for that.

Why do you ignore human fallibility, when science has to deal with it every day, in every experiment?

As for communities that adopt beliefs that have no basis in objective reality,.....................Careful. We have to keep politics out of this.:p

in vivo - in a living organism
in vitro - in a test tube or petri dish
in situ - in place

this one has become pretty popular in biology over the last decade :

in silico -- in a computer

I still would like to see a refereed paper on this since refutation of the fundamental points of von Bekesy's theory is still accepted by bulk of the sensory physiology community. Please take this as genuine request by someone with a serious interest.

BTW, I googled him and found mostly reviews and press reports. When I have time in the office, I will use the medical library.


try this in PubMed:

Bell A*[AU] AND cochlea


Returned 10 hits, a few of which seem to be the guy you're looking for. THis article's open source:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15486577

He only recently got his PhD, it seems, so I wouldn't expect to find a great many publications.

'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' can be found in the public domain: http://robotics.caltech.edu/~mason/Delusions/epdatmoc.html

Yup, and it's often in the Borders/Barnes'n'noble 'cheapies' table for a couple of bucks, hardcover.

Maybe John Edwards will get the spirit to flow through him and autograph it.

That's what I mean, Michael, we have an entire section of the magazine rack dedicated to the point that people can hear these things in electronics and wiring. Now let's figure out why.

You have to determine "if" before investigating "why."

try this in PubMed:

Bell A*[AU] AND cochlea


Returned 10 hits, a few of which seem to be the guy you're looking for. THis article's open source:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15486577

He only recently got his PhD, it seems, so I wouldn't expect to find a great many publications.Looks like a another review paper to me. I'd like to see some experimental evidence that tests his interesting inferences.

An audiophile passes a DBT audio engineer rummaging around on his hands and knees under a street light at night and asks. "What are you doing?"

"I am looking for my car keys" is his response.

Our audiophile then asks "Where did you loose your car keys?"

"Way over there." Is the unexpected reply.

Perplexed the audiophile asks "if you lost your keys "way over there", then why are you looking for them here under the street lamp?"

The DBT audio engineer's ironic answer "Because the light is better here then it is over there"

Confused our audiophile walks away thinking perhaps the answer would in this case be more easily found "in the dark"

John Franks

?

An audiophile passes a DBT audio engineer rummaging around on his hands and knees under a street light at night and asks. "What are you doing?"

"I am looking for my car keys" is his response.

Our audiophile then asks "Where did you loose your car keys?"

"Way over there." Is the unexpected reply.

Perplexed the audiophile asks "if you lost your keys "way over there", then why are you looking for them here under the street lamp?"

The DBT audio engineer's ironic answer "Because the light is better here then it is over there"

Confused our audiophile walks away thinking perhaps the answer would in this case be more easily found "in the dark"

John Franks

Grandpa Simpson?

what i cannot understand is why a desire to know for sure if something is actually working is perceived to be wacky!

That's not the point here, Diz. I agree with you. I don't think it is wacky at all, but I'm focused on other issues. I fully accept that the ear can hear these things.

The guys who 'believe' such things as the sound of a given piece of wire, etc, .well..I'll say 'we' all know that it does sound different, this given one piece of wire after another. We've done these tests under so many differing circumstances and ways that it is well, well, well beyond any remote chance in hell of being flukes or a mental farce of some sort.

And as usual, the measurement systems have not caught up with that reality. The tools of measurement need to be refined along the lines of how the ear works, not along the lines of strict 'whole signal linearity'. Otherwise it's not going to work. What is being looked at, and the weighting, are both wrong, when it comes to being analogous to the way the ear works. This is about the only viable position that can be arrived at in this quandry. Devise new tests and methodology, as obviously, the current models aren't working.

The human eye can see a single photon of light, or look (nearly) straight into the sun. That's one hell of a range of capacity. 1:1,000,000 difference in brightness between the two extreme points.

Throw some of that leeway for extreme capacity..at the ear as well. Throw the ear a bone, here. It is not a set of answered mathematical formulae to be thrown at a problem, not by a long shot.

Remember, we can, using the ear as a tool, hear ONE voice out of a hundred in a crowded room with bad acoustics. We can figure out how to zero in on the one person's voice, and theirs alone.

Objectivism, with balance is perfectly fine. Balanced objectivism, by nature, requires the ability to understand that new methods of measurement and understanding of the exact questions need be brought to the table..then this issue can possibly be tackled. I am also relatively sure that we will come to some new sort of plateau, or similar - who knows. Nothing is written in stone, nothing is fully answered. Thankfully, mot much ever will be. Not at least by us humans, living and existing in the funk we exist in, right now. Just about the only thing there is certainty of, are the simpler forms of mathematics.

And there is no math in nature. A handy tool for us 'humans' it may be, but it does not in reality, actually exist.

Then we get into this.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

It's the double slit experiment. The one done by Hitachi, that I've spoken about here in this forum, at differing times. Once you understand the effect that the very idea of a human psyche or persona...has 'mass' in terms of an 'effect' on reality.... it gets real, real, real, real ugly.

Like in the placebo point I brought up. Someone else mentioned that in testing, they tend to get rid of those people, so as not to pollute the test. Uh..'SCUSE ME?!?!?!?

For you see, if you actually read what I posted, you will find that the person was capable of physically manifesting a positive result for the application of a placebo, NOT the pain killer. So far so good, but it can be excused as being the person doing a 'mental blocking' of the pain, in some sort of way. Like a old Hindu sage performing some sort of pain blocking trick. So far, so good. Except, this occurred with the 'everyman', the guy off the street.

Here's the weird part that I posted, that people's minds shy away from, the part they REFUSE to even see or acknowledge, as it tears down their concepts of reality, to have to do so. And that is inordinately painful and they'd rather strike out at me before attempting to fix themselves.

When, the people, doing the test..... told the patient they were receiving a 'painkiller' but actually getting nothing but a saline solution...the patient responded..by having their pain..nullified.

Now the weird part. If they did the same thing, but also administered a BLOCKER for the painkiller.. but it was just that blocker and the saline solution... and still kept the patient in the 'dark' about what was going on..well..and this is a double blind test, OK? The person administering the solution does not know what's in the solution, either! The patient reports PAIN, not the painkiller 'doing it's job'.

That particular patient JUST DID TWO IMPOSSIBLE THINGS.

Now this happens, and it happens all the time.

What do the doctors conducting the test do? They drop the data like a hot potato, and pretend it never happens.

Now, in that situation, who's full of crap? And who isn't? And what should be done, and what should be investigated, instead of some dumb painkiller test?

There are entire WORLDS, entire libraries of data, in that area of endeavor and research..out in that area where many folks simply fear to look, and completely deny the existence of. I have no fear of such things and investigate all, quite deeply. That area of 'difficult to deal with', full of 'flatly - impossible things.'

And those answers allow me to walk completely though and well beyond where most people position themselves, in terms of what is possible in science. Because I'm actually out there, at the edge of the herd, not sitting placidly in the middle. Sometimes I walk really far way from the herd. I think everyone should. it might bring them a bit of a viewpoint from a new position, give them a stereoscopic view on life and existence, for once. A bit less myopic.

Science does NOT, I emphatically write again does NOT write the rules of reality, or dictate them to anyone. Science is supposed to clear headed, and open to any investigation that may be deemed..useful. But it does not write laws. It is merely a system of investigation, with rules, and a bunch of 'theories' but...not one single fact..as a good scientist knows that everything in existence, that we investigate - is open to modification or change. Every bit of it. Even 1+1=2, is open to investigation, if you think you've got a different answer.

Which is why I say that there are people here who hide under the banner of 'scientific objectivism', but they are in no way showing anything like that to us. What they are really showing us is their immaturity, blindness, etc..posed as objectivism.

But in fact, what they have....it is prejudice and bias. Good ole' human monkey fear of new things, wallowing in confusion, everything needs be perfect and real. Too bad. I guess they never got the message that reality itself, is a figment of our non-existent imaginations.

As for the tree, it makes no sound as it falls in the forest. It only makes a sound if there is someone there to hear it.

That's not the point here, Diz. I agree with you. I don't think it is wacky at all, but I'm focused on other issues. I fully accept that the ear can hear these things.

The guys who 'believe' such things as the sound of a given piece of wire, etc, .well..I'll say 'we' all know that it does sound different, this given one piece of wire after another. We've done these tests under so many differing circumstances and ways that it is well, well, well beyond any remote chance in hell of being flukes or a mental farce of some sort.


No, it isn't. Errors of interpretation are not rare, and repeating them over and over under various non-blind conditions doesn't stop making them errors.

Aside from being far too long, your posts reek of crackpottery.

As for the tree, it makes no sound as it falls in the forest. It only makes a sound if there is someone there to hear it.

in reality the question can only be answered if we define the word sound. By accepted definitions (a movement of air particles) then it does make a sound. if we define it as "our interpretation of the movement of sound particles, then no.

However in what we are talking about... if nobody can prove that they are REALLY hearing it under even moderately controlled circumstances...then Ken old boy... they are not hearing it.

Great classic joke, John Franks. The reversal of roles gives it an interesting, surrealist twist.

Here's another one:


A doctor walks into an elderly man's office.

Says the doctor, "Mr. Jones, I have an problem I would like your help with. I keep cutting silent farts all the time, all day long, no matter where I am or what I'm doing. In fact, since I walked in I've let about a dozen. What do you recommend?"

The elderly man replied, "Well, doctor, what I would recommend is a hearing aid!"

If a deaf Doctor farts alone in the woods, does he make a sound while looking for his car keys?

in reality the question can only be answered if we define the word sound. By accepted definitions (a movement of air particles) then it does make a sound. if we define it as "our interpretation of the movement of sound particles, then no.

However in what we are talking about... if nobody can prove that they are REALLY hearing it under even moderately controlled circumstances...then Ken old boy... they are not hearing it.

The results of the double slit experiment, show that proofs on the tree in the forest, are in reality and by definition, completely unprovable, by any known or suspected means.

The results of the double slit experiment, show that proofs on the tree in the forest, are in reality and by definition, completely unprovable, by any known or suspected means.You can go to Chinatown and buy tree ears. Then, you don't have to be in the forest.:p