Thanks for posting. Fascinating stuff.

Very interesting analysis and speculation. One should note that the fluid-filled chambers of the cochlea, semicircular canals and the otolith organs are continuous and pressure perturbations in one chamber can affect the others. Thus, the sound pressure variations that constitute sound with have some influence on the others, so one would expect that at some level the others can signal sound, especially since they all share the same transducers (haircells). Their common development and evolutionary history also supports this.

The issue is whether the sensory input to the brain from the saccule/utricle has a function/pathway for its sound-induced output distinct from its established inertial signals. If not, any input from these organs from sound would be superimposed on the inertial input as noise.

I suspect that in view of Morphic resonance and products like Cream Electret, the Red X Pen and Silver Rainbow Foil not to mention The Ultra Signature Version of the Clever Little Clock and Morphic Message Foils the Scientific American Article is a bit behind the power curve and appears to be rather mundane by comparison. You know, since the aforementioned audiophile devices operate NOT by affecting acoustic waves in the room! or the electronics or the AC power in the house, or the cabling, NOT anything related to the audio system. The really good sound your system produces is in the room the whole time. You just can't hear it correctly or competely because of all those information fields flying around. Hel-loo! When Scienfiic Americsn catch up o high end audiophiles and publishes articles on quantum superposition and quantum teleportation let me know. Then we can talk.

One of the anecdotes in Rupert Sheldrake's book the Presence of the Past, which also incorporates evolution theory and suggests that memory as well as other types of human information normally thought to be the manifestation of cells in the brain or genes concerns a group of monkeys that were taught to perform a complex activity. Even when the entire portion of the brain that performs the functions associated with memory, the monkeys were still able to the perform the learned activity. How can that be so? It can only be so if the memory, the stored information regarding the learned activity is stored SOMEWHERE ELSE OTHER THAN CELLS IN THE BRAIN. This suggests that memory may in fact be just out there in the air as it were, and that when someone reports they used to be a different person in a past life they're just resonating so to speak with the frequency of the memories belonging to that person long deceased, the memories that are still "floating around out there" as it were.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff: Proof read what you said. At least something is missing (and I suspect a lot).

Interesting stuff-

The whole subject of how the hearing mechanism works is seriously interesting.

The hearing mechanism is extremely complicated and as commented on by many experts in that field “All is not yet understood about the hearing mechanism”.

I touched on this subject in a paper I wrote in 1986 – some 30 years ago !!

In my paper I quote from:-

“An Introduction to the Physiology of Hearing” published 1982

“The intracellular voltage changes of inner hair cells cause the release of transmitter at the synapse at the base of the hair cells, so activating fibres of the auditory nerve.

Outer hair cells will be omitted from the model; we have too little information on their properties, and are not sure of their role in transduction”.

From :-“Science & aesthetics in sounding and hearing” 1985.

“Much remains poorly understood about the functions of the hearing mechanism”.

In my paper I was concentrating particularly on research into the tortuous journey which ‘sound’ (musical) information has to endure on it’s journey along the auditory nerve. Because the ‘sound information’ is converted to electro chemicals (positive and negative ions) for it’s journey along the auditory nerve to an area of the brain where it can be identified by the working memory. So, it is the actual information eventually received by the working memory which is the actual sound – not the earlier acoustic information which arrived at the ear drum !! Much can happen to this information during it’s journey – to be identified by the working memory !!

To quote again from my paper:-

From “An Introduction to the Physiology of Hearing” :-

“It is presumably advantageous for the current to be carried by K+ rather than say Na+……we must not however forget that the transducer current may also be carried by other ions, for instance C1- and Ca2+. A second relevant property of neural membranes is that ionic conductances can be electronically modifiable “.

Yes, much progress in further understanding HAS been made since then but even by 1998 (in the New Scientist) it was stated that :-

“The auditory pathway does not run in isolation from cochlea to cortex. Other areas of the brain can link up with it, and modify the signals that reach our consciousness”.

In 2006, in a UK Hi Fi Magazine, there was an extensive article (covering three separate issues) on the “Science of Hearing”. Although this article was of such a length, there was only one sentence at the end which referred to the role of the brain !!

To quote :-

“The role of the brain is considerably more complex. How the electrical stimulus leads to awareness is still an enigma”.

STILL an enigma – in 2006 !!! All is not yet known !!

In my opinion it is the simplest (narrowness???) of thinking to believe that if one understands that sound is all about “the audio trilogy Acoustical, Mechanical, Electrical”, then all will be understood – as in Michael G’s statement:-

>>> “For those who have turned their hobby into unsuccessful listening ventures I can only say "it's your own fault". Playing back music isn't all that difficult, it's as easy as your ability to learn the entire audio chain and your desire to apply the 3 parts to the audio trilogy Acoustical, Mechanical, Electrical. The more side tracks you throw into the mix, the further from the truth you will be. The longer you listen to non-truths, the longer it will take you to find the consistant joys of playback.” <<<

In my opinion, it is the simplest (narrowness ???) of thinking to believe that if one understands that sound is all about “Frequency response, Noise, Distortion, Time-based errors”, then all will be understood – as in Ethan Winer’s claims :-

>>> “Yes, everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters:

* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors” <<<

In my opinion, it is the simplest (narrowness???) of thinking to believe, as claimed by a prominent member of the Audio Engineering Society, that changes in the sound reported by numerous people after trying certain ‘tweaks’ is solely caused by the person’s head (ears) being in a slightly different position after sitting down after applying a particular ‘tweak’.

The whole subject of chemicals conveying musical information (along the auditory nerve) and how ??? those chemicals could be affected by other chemicals produced within the brain is an extremely fascinating subject. The subject of sound and musical information cannot be reduced to solely considering acoustics or vibrations or the ‘recorded code” !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

For those who might be interested in a less simplistic and more authoritative description of the auditiory system, there are many modern neuroscience text books. Of these, I suggest Principles of Neural Science (5th Edition), edited by Kandel, Schwartz, Jessel, Siegalbaum and Hudspeth (McGraw-Hill):
Chapter 30. The Inner Ear
Chapter 31. The Auditory Central Nervous System

The stereophile forum could use more threads like this one. As May & Geoff might use this as a place for posturing against the tune, the tune is constantly involved in the wholeness of audio and life.

part of what makes the hobby fun :)

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

It's not really a question of which explanation is more simplistic or which one is too complicated. It's a question that Modern Science doesn't allow explanations that don't fit the conventional mold into it's complex theory. How can the theory that acoustic waves are transmitted to the ear and consequently are transformed into music in the brain be complete when products like Cream Electret and Silver Rinbow Foil, both of which by the way are in Stereophile's Recommended Product List, operate via a completelydifferent and unconventional theory. Not to mention the Clever Little Clock, the Teleportation tweak and Morphic Messge Labels, to name some more, all of which also operate to improve the sound, but NOT by affecting acoustic waves in the room or any part of the audio system or any part of the house AC or any RFI/EMI in the air. These audio devices operate outside the textbooks and Scientific American and New Scientist. This "strange operation" must have nothing at all to do with acoustic waves impinging on the outer ear, cochlea, neuron transmitters in the brain or any such thing. Thus, it is far more accurate to make the following statement. How we hear is at least partly INDEPENDENT of how acoustic waves propagate in the room, how acoustic waves impinge on the human ear, how the acoustic energy is converted to music by the inner ear and the brain, it is also INDEPENDENT of RFI/EMI and vibration in the room. All that acoustic waves impinging on the ear and the cochlea and neuron transmitter stuff is fine and dandy but although it sounds very complete and scientifically thorough, it just isn't complete. Hel-loo!

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamics

No one, certainly not any scientist, has that our current state of knowledge is complete. However, your statement, "These audio devices operate outside the textbooks and Scientific American and New Scientist." presumes that the referred to devices actually do work. Only when they are supported by more than anecdotal evidence, will science need to deal with them.

Kal Rubinson wrote:

No one, certainly not any scientist, has that our current state of knowledge is complete. However, your statement, "These audio devices operate outside the textbooks and Scientific American and New Scientist." presumes that the referred to devices actually do work. Only when they are supported by more than anecdotal evidence, will science need to deal with them.

Oh, they work. And that's why Stereophile's Recommended Components List contains two of them. One assumes Stereophile wouldn't put them there unless they were pretty sure they worked. I would have thought you as a neuroscientist would be all over this sort of technology. Anecdotal evidence? That's actually a very good point. How would you test such devices? I also personally doubt that the scientific community has any interest nor will they have any interest in audiophile tweaks in the future. I suspect every nook and cranny of science already has a lot on its plate and simply doesn't have the time or inclination to pursue such things. At least that's my experience. For that matter not too audiophiles have any interest in audiophile tweaks. Lol One last thing - do you think listening tests are anecdotal evidence, which I'm kind of assuming you mean as opposed to "real evidence?"

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Stereophile is, mostly, a journal of opinion with the exception of JA's measurements and the occasional analytical reporting. Whether someone or many believe in an opinion does not make it more than anecdotal, just more popular. (Science cannot prove that Beethoven was a great composer but popular opinion is overwhelming.)

But, as a (recently retired) neuroscientist, I can say that there have been a few such ideas that have intrigued me but there was (and is) no support to pursue investigation. The logical reason is that the available anecdotal evidence has not created sufficient serious interest in the scientific community. As you point out, science always seems to have "a lot on its plate" and there is competition for resources.

My main reason for posting in this thread is to offer reference information that does not contain oversimplifications and errors. That said, I neither accept nor deny the phenomena you discuss. I am busy enough with other stuff.

Ah, if it's PROOF you're looking for that's a tall order. All I have to offer is evidence. But like Judge Judy sez, it's about the preponderance of the evidence. Of course if one is not going to be swayed by ANY evidence that's another story. So what was it about this stuff that initially intrigued you that convinced you not to pursue it further? Just a gut reaction? Evidence? Proof? Bad vibes? Fear? Lol

I dunno why the "Scientific Community" would not be interested in such things as these bizarre audiophile tweaks. Is the scientific community even aware of them? I seriously doubt it. Obviously AES is aware of them as they have expressed outrage on at least several occasions. As for NASA, MIT, Scientific American, The New Scientist or Nature I kind of doubt they would be interested in audiophile tweaks of any color. Any more than audiophiles would have much if any interest in how birds fly, how black holes are formed, how to rendezvous with a comet, etc. I also think there is a big difference between a so called skeptic and a real skeptic, you know, someone who is curious enough to get to the bottom of things rather than just poo poo them.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Who is going to pay for the research?

Kal Rubinson wrote:

Who is going to pay for the research?

The manufacturer is responsible for all research development and marketing when it comes to audiophile tweaks. If someone or some entity like a Government lab or perhaps MIT or Georgia Tech wishes to investigate a particular device or theory he or it s certainly free to do so on his own dime or get a Government grant. Maybe there should be entrepreneurs who investigate audiophile tweaks. Of course by virtue of the Internet and audio forums such as this one audiophiles can share their experiences with audiophile tweaks. Yes, I know, that's only anecdotal, but what else have you got?

Actually I don't expect the Governent is going to get involved with Flying Saucers for Windows, The Red X Pen, The Super Intellgent Chip, the Quantum Temple Bell, the Teleportation Tweak or other things that go bump in the night. Just like in the opening sequence of the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind the airline pilots (wisely) preferred "not to report" when asked by the controller if they'd like to report a close encounter with a UFO.

Reviewers of audiophile tweaks for whatever reason always seem to fall back on the old chestnut, "I don't know how the damn thing works but work it does!" Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Kal Rubinson wrote:

Stereophile is, mostly, a journal of opinion with the exception of JA's measurements and the occasional analytical reporting. Whether someone or many believe in an opinion does not make it more than anecdotal, just more popular. (Science cannot prove that Beethoven was a great composer but popular opinion is overwhelming.)

But, as a (recently retired) neuroscientist, I can say that there have been a few such ideas that have intrigued me but there was (and is) no support to pursue investigation. The logical reason is that the available anecdotal evidence has not created sufficient serious interest in the scientific community. As you point out, science always seems to have "a lot on its plate" and there is competition for resources.

My main reason for posting in this thread is to offer reference information that does not contain oversimplifications and errors. That said, I neither accept nor deny the phenomena you discuss. I am busy enough with other stuff.

Kal, excellent post. short, pithy, logical.
I know it's unnecessary to point out that there's anecdotal evidence that Elvis is still alive, that people have been abducted by aliens, and the moon landing was staged in a warehouse. Science is probably uninterested in these things for the same reason that they're uninterested in investigating the kind of audio phenomenon herein considered.

The problem with investigation by the manufacturer is that it is not an unbiased entity. Most independent facilities are not funded for this research since funding is based on prior work as well as on the general relevance of the topic.

As a reviewer I still cannot change my spots and I would be very discomforted by the psychic dissonance of your old chestnut. As a result, I tend to avoid products, some of which you mention, where I cannot see a connection between cause and effect based on known science. You might say that I have a limited view but, until I and/or science have more understanding, I'll choose "not to report" to avoid expressing derision.

The greatest part about music is that it is based on experiencing and practical application. To wisely buy a guitar or any instrument, you go play it. Anything in the hobby of listening has the same plus. It comes down to those who try to justify with paper and talk vs actually doing.

I think this hobby is finally getting to the place where we realize listening (playing) "is" the proof, and as important, everything performs differently depending on the variables and everyone listens differently. There was a chapter in time where it use to be that a large demographic of this industry listened with their RTA's. This is no longer so, except for the guys who are in this hobby for the measuring itself rather than the listening. The hobby has loosened up with the audio spec guilt thing.

It wasn't so long ago, when a test would be done and the results published would be used as fact with no regard to any condition variables. But as popular as this was as a particular group of hobby followers, these tests are completely mute when you do something as simple as a hearing test. If we were all twenty one year old listeners, all growing up in the exact same set of conditions, maybe (I said maybe) we would hear somewhat close to each other. But a group of guys ranging from 40-90 with extremely different conditions and hearing? Absolutely no way we hear the same regardless how the equipment is actually playing.

Now something else and we need to be very real about this.

If you have been reading here over the last couple of years, you have read me being critical of both geoff and May over the way they approach forum etiquette. Most of these threads end in crash and burn flaming, which I don't think is helpful or cool. But, the one thing you will not see me do is cut their products out of the realm of possible good, and here's why. The fact is, I might listen and have results that aren't what I am looking for, but this has nothing to do with the next set of ears.

This hobby is about personal listening and always will be. It's a hobby of so many variables and different sounds, conditions and mindsets, that the only thing that keeps us from getting the sound we want is us. Now I buy about 1% of audio hype, but the proof is, if someone likes a Belt or Kait product it's their proof that it works within the context of that particular set of conditions. The next person may hate it, but I hate peas and know many who love them.

We need as an industry to stop with the one size fits all. It's stupid and not very adult.

I can't remember who it was that asked me a couple of weeks ago, and I can't remember which product, but they asked me about one either of May or geoff's product (I need to think about what it was). Anyway my answer was, if you can afford to and am curious, there's no reason not to. You don't have to buy the hype to try the product, and have fun exploring.

Proof is all about what you do, and this is a hobby of doing.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

More jibber jabber and insults from what I am beginning to perceive as the least well informed member here. Wrong at every turn. Even this last post of Michael's is just more self serving junk, presuming one supposes trying not only to be the head audio guru here but also the moderator of etiquette and manners. We already have a troll in residence, sorry Michael we don't need another. I'm starting to see Michael more as harmless loose cannon than anything else trying to poison every single thread here with more rantings about his own personal problems. Be a good chap, Michael, let your fingers do the walking. There's Rehab Locator just a click away. Good luck with all that angst and animus. If we want any more horse manure out of you we'll just squeeze your head.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Kal Rubinson wrote:

The problem with investigation by the manufacturer is that it is not an unbiased entity. Most independent facilities are not funded for this research since funding is based on prior work as well as on the general relevance of the topic.

As a reviewer I still cannot change my spots and I would be very discomforted by the psychic dissonance of your old chestnut. As a result, I tend to avoid products, some of which you mention, where I cannot see a connection between cause and effect based on known science. You might say that I have a limited view but, until I and/or science have more understanding, I'll choose "not to report" to avoid expressing derision.

I didn't say investigation should be performed by the manufacturer except of course for product development. As for testing Obviously a third party tester would be ideal. I used to be a third party tester. That's how testing works in the real world, as in Government and Military, of course they would not rely on the manufacturer's own data. Duh! That's kind of my point, that audio is not the real world. Not that it necessarily should be. It's rather subjective in nature and should not necessarily be regulated and standardized like weapon systems and smartphones. If you're waiting for some scientific entity, DARPA, MIT, Georgia Tech, US Navy, NASA, AES, Nature, Journal of Acoustics, whatever to suddenly get a hit flash and research audio tweaks you might be in for a long wait. It's like anything else in audio, you pays your money and you takes your chances. There are no guarantees of anything, in my opinion. Everything is up for grabs. The only time I think I've seen an audiophile tweak manufacturer publish actual data from a Third Party is Shakti who published data on the Inlines used on automobile cables of all things and of course HiFi Tuning, makers of aftermarket fuses, who published data on fuses in terms of directionality, cryo'd and uncryo'd.

Of course you are not alone. Mim even on your side on this one. At least I was at one time: that for the products I mention, many of which I even manufacture and design, it's quite difficult to see the connection between the product and the sound or between the product and the audio system. I mean, come on, isn't that really the whole point, that there DOESNT APPEAR TO BE A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PRODUCT AND THE AUDIO SYSTEM? That's precisely why I'm saying that Science, even rigorous science, complex science cannot be complete if these products work.

How come everybody demands proof and testing and investigation but nobody does anything about it? Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

There seems to be a bit of paradigm shift or two in high end audio the past ten or even twenty years, with many things coming down the pike to challenge the skeptical mind of the true audiophile. It's not really only the "fringe" audiophile tweaks that have been challenging but also new concepts and new products. Here are some examples of what I'm referring to: High Fidelity Cable with their so called magnetic conduction (as opposed to electrical conduction), cables and after market fuses with direction arrows on them that should actually tip off audiophiles to the distinct possibility that ALL wire and all cables are directional, cryogenic treatment of not only CDs and LPs but also entire CD players and amplifiers, tiny acoustic resonantors such as Mpingo discs, Frank Tchang and others' tiny little bowl acoustic resonators, coloring CDs with not only Green but also purple, orange and turquoise and black, pre-activation of air molecultes by electronic stimulation as it were, giving the molecules a "head start" thus improving how sound waves propagate through the room, vibration isolation was not even a gleam in an audiophile's eye twenty years ago, the negative influence of the induced magnetic field in cables, power cords and transformers is still either dismissed or an unknown idea. Those are just examples of advanced audio concepts that are not accepted cross the bird by audiophiles and that the Science community is probably unaware, blissfully., and I seriously doubt if ANY of those ideas appear in those Handbooks of Audio Engineering, you know the ones I mean. And THESE ideas are conventional physics based ideas not the ones I was referring to in my last posts, the ones that go bump in the night. So, even on a basic physics level there is a gap, let's call it an information gap. ;-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Quote:

I mean, come on, isn't that really the whole point, that there DOESNT APPEAR TO BE A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PRODUCT AND THE AUDIO SYSTEM?

Well, that's the point of this discussion but it certainly puts some products at a conceptual and competitive disadvantage compared to those that support their claims with testable concepts.

Quote:

That's precisely why I'm saying that Science, even rigorous science, complex science cannot be complete if these products work.

That IF is the elephant in the room.

Quote:

How come everybody demands proof and testing and investigation but nobody does anything about it?

Those who want proof are not able to or are not willing to pay for it.

I am not sure what you could possibly mean by wanting proof. Proof of what? Frequency response? We all know that is a red herring since a given speaker or component or cable will measure and sound different in every system and different in every room. Soundstage? Define soundstage and correlate measurements to soundstage. Dynamics? Refer to the discussion here on the Dynamic Range Database and the Loudness Wars to see why we can't achieve the advertised dynamic range of anything. 90 dB? Afraid not. Smoothness? Again, it's room dependent. So, what DO you mean by testable concepts? Testable how? Results aren't necessarily repeatable. Do they still test speakers in anechoic chambers. That's rich. That's all why we disagree over just about everything. The cable debate is what 35 years old? And the CD vs LP debate is 33 years old. Personally I think it would probably get real boring if suddenly everything was figured out and everyone agreed. In a subjective hobby it might be actually better to focus a little more on listening as opposed to testing and measurements since they can be shown to be rather flakey in terms of correlating to what we hear, no?

In addition I think it fair to remind you that the concept of Morphic Resonance upon which many audiophile products are presumed to be based is testable and provable concept. That why the contest to prove or disprove the theory had a winner. He won for proving the theory is true. Hello! Thus, the assumption that all those weird audiophile concepts are not testable is false. Sometimes gut reactions are false.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I took the word "proof" from your quote. I was not demanding it because I do not expect it.

Why would you not expect proof? Because you find the concept preposterous? I think we already ageed it's preposterous. So are black holes. So is quantum teleportation. So is the Big Bang. Also, are you saying you disagree with David Bohm who awarded the prize for proving Morphic Resonance is real?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica