Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not He..

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Bob Marcus" <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4usio01pq3@news3.newsguy.com...
> >Harry Lavo wrote:
> ><jjnunes@sonic.net> wrote in message news:c4rv4v04eb@news2.newsguy.com...
> > > Harry Lavo <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The inconvenient fact that you don't mention is that if there is no
> >change
> > > in signal due to acoustic stimulus at the auditory nerve before it
gets
> >to
> > > the brain, the 'ear-brain construct' is IRRELEVANT.
> > >
> >
> >And you ignore the fact that the brains auditory processing is not simple
> >physical registering, but also pattern matching and the ability to make
> >sense out of things that in and of themselves, in isolation, may not make
> >sense or even "register".
>
> C'mon. The brain can't react to a stimulus that doesn't reach it. Period.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >As far as I (and others of my persuasion can tell, there has never been
> >serious auditory research conducted either in support or against the use
of
> >dbt abx'ng (or even a-b'ng) as a testing device *FOR THE OPEN ENDED
> >EVALAUTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS*.
>
> DBTs don't test components; they test hearing. You are claiming that human
> hearing operates differently when listening to audio components than when
> listening to anything else. When you come up with some evidence to support
> that claim, we'll be glad to consider it.
>

Okay, Bob. Where in your EE books does it tell you that the brain is
hardwired for rhythm and for positive reaction to certain harmonic
structure.

Where in your audiology books written before 1995 does it tell you that
music elicits a response in the pleasure center of the brain.

They don't, but these are facts recently discovered by researchers in
different fields. And they obviously indicate that "music" is far more
integral to the human psyche than mere "sound". And yet you can't even
begin to admit that maybe, just maybe, their must be an accounting for such
differences in how we test to determine can/cannot hear in evaluating
musical reproduction?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<fqDcc.85530$JO3.44033@attbi_s04>...
> Okay, Bob. Where in your EE books does it tell you that the brain is
> hardwired for rhythm and for positive reaction to certain harmonic
> structure.
>
> Where in your audiology books written before 1995 does it tell you that
> music elicits a response in the pleasure center of the brain.

Hermann Helmholtz, "The Sensation of Tone," 1877, etc.

Harry, this notion that the discovery of such "facts" is "new"
and some how "revolutionary" and supports some of the more
bizarre notions of the high-end audio business is simply another
example of the high-end audio's belief that it is somehow at
the forefront of such knowledge when, in fact, it has spent most
it's time with it's excessively swollen head stuck firmly in it's
as., uh, the sand.

This stuff is OLD news, EXCEPT to the high-end audio industry.
It is over a century old at least as far as pure objective
science is concerned. It was known to Helmholtz, it was known
to the researchers at Bell Labs and such, and yet the high-end
audio business jumps up and down when some corporate sponsored
lackies come up with "research," using heavily cooked data, that
surprisingly supports some corporate agenda, or is conducted in
the most slovenly fashion that you could as easily prove the
existance of a backed brie moon as prove the brain is hardwired
for rhythm.

If the auditory periphery can't detect it, then any "differences"
perceived MUST be due to a furtive imagination.

Unless, of course, you are invoking paranormal or other "magic"
abilities.

Are you?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Dick Pierce" <dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
news:5PWcc.90003$K91.195784@attbi_s02...
> "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:<fqDcc.85530$JO3.44033@attbi_s04>...
> > Okay, Bob. Where in your EE books does it tell you that the brain is
> > hardwired for rhythm and for positive reaction to certain harmonic
> > structure.
> >
> > Where in your audiology books written before 1995 does it tell you that
> > music elicits a response in the pleasure center of the brain.
>
> Hermann Helmholtz, "The Sensation of Tone," 1877, etc.
>
> Harry, this notion that the discovery of such "facts" is "new"
> and some how "revolutionary" and supports some of the more
> bizarre notions of the high-end audio business is simply another
> example of the high-end audio's belief that it is somehow at
> the forefront of such knowledge when, in fact, it has spent most
> it's time with it's excessively swollen head stuck firmly in it's
> as., uh, the sand.
>
> This stuff is OLD news, EXCEPT to the high-end audio industry.
> It is over a century old at least as far as pure objective
> science is concerned. It was known to Helmholtz, it was known
> to the researchers at Bell Labs and such, and yet the high-end
> audio business jumps up and down when some corporate sponsored
> lackies come up with "research," using heavily cooked data, that
> surprisingly supports some corporate agenda, or is conducted in
> the most slovenly fashion that you could as easily prove the
> existance of a backed brie moon as prove the brain is hardwired
> for rhythm.
>
> If the auditory periphery can't detect it, then any "differences"
> perceived MUST be due to a furtive imagination.
>
> Unless, of course, you are invoking paranormal or other "magic"
> abilities.
>
> Are you?

Nope, nor am I basing anything on "the high end industry". I am basing it
on articles covering research done in the last dozen years by professionals
in the field of physiology. I am postulating that directed pattern
recognition is certainly not known, but has some potential plausibility
given what we are finding out, just as being able to listen below the noise
floor is not plausible on the surface, but is plausible once we know how
human hearing handles frequency discrimination.

And to the best of my knowledge, the "hardwiring" of rhythm is a brand new
discovery based on research done just a few years ago. And since physiology
on live patients was not possible in the mid-1800's except through
self-reporting, I doubt that brain research of that era showed activated
pleasure centers. :-)