xaBBu
xaBBu
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
161
Posted : May 3, 2007 15:32
Quote:
On 2007-05-01 15:29, Tomos wrote:
There are some Tannoy speakers I have heard in an Audiophile shop with so called 'Super Tweeters' that go up to 100Khz
Inaudible frequencies can affect the body in other ways, such as making hairs vibrate if very high or make organs wobble if very low!
However, making music that extends this far (especially in the dance genre) is almost pointless because the systems that the songs eventually get played on aren't going to extend that far.
A couple of thoughts:
I wonder how a tweeter that goes up to 100kHz is being driven. Specially at what samplerate your original signalpath is working (if we are talking about the "digital way")... After all the maths about Nyquistfrequency/digital signal processing is quite down to earth, thus the limitation of no frequencies with "real" information over the Nyquist frequency still holds. This of course is a different story when we start to discuss the resonances a tweeter does (indeed) have. For example the genelec new 80xxA line have a strong resonance somwhere around the 40kHz-50kHz area, if I remember the article in "Sound and Recording" right, but as the human ears cant hear these frequencies anyway it doesnt make a real difference, except if you would play something with 192kHz ... but this is another story if the sound can really benefit from being converted at this rate or only benefits of the internal calculation having more samplepoints to work with (ok in recording stuff its differenct story , but lets stay at electronic music and in digital domain only)... lets leave this for discussion. Just another short thing: if we were talking about resonances of the tweeter or something similar then it just comes down on the monitors/speakers you are using. This is the point where everything becomes so highly subjective talk (imo more and more, the more and more money you spend), that its really a matter of taste. After all you buy HiFi Speakers that cost you the ammount of a luxurary car or villa in Florida... or you can even spend the money on a special "wooden" device which is there to be put on your stereo to make the sound of your whole setup somehow better (even though it doesnt even contain any electronics and has no connectors... its just a little (nice to look at) wooden box). Btw.. there are quite many people that dont really believe in this "mumbojumbo" but still spend that much money on such items because they "feel" the sound is "better" in some way ... thats why I say subjective...
Ok long text, short meaning :
Its most dependend on the domain we are talking about here ... what the hardware (lets say transfering medium) is capable of doing, and what really makes sense in a dsp way of thinking/technical speaking.
----
2to6 Records
http://www.2to6records.com ----
http://www.myspace.com/nfoxabbu
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 3, 2007 16:32
Quote:
On 2007-05-02 16:55, Psycosmo wrote:
References?
This was discussed at the AES a while back. Note that this paper didn't even get in as a published paper at the AES due to lack of peer reviews. It is just a conference paper.
Quote:
What kinds of experiments were used to refute this study?
Mainly the methodology and interpretation of the results was questioned. Also, no one has managed to reproduce these results.
Quote:
Do you have any specific criticisms of the protocols this study used?
Explain youself.
Not me personaly but many others do including such experts as Jim Johnston.
This paper gets mentioned every so often on the pro lists by newcomers but it isn't taken seriously by the people that have done research in this area.
Note that it contradicts all the researches that come previously. That in itself is questionable. (Note the ditinction between contradicting and enhancing or discovering new ground).
UnderTow
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 3, 2007 16:52
Quote:
On 2007-05-03 03:34, shamantrixx wrote:
Please READ posts before arguing. My claim was that we DON'T perceive X-rays but they DO affect us and make damage.
I read you loud and clear and my point is that they are only noticable when they cause dammage which is absolutely no indication that we can somehow perceive them. And if we can't perceive them, they are not any use to music.
Also, the fact that some things wich we don't perceive do affect us is no proof that other things do affect us.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Look it up.
Quote:
So regardless to the fact that we're not aware of X-rays (when they are present) they affect us quite seriously. Same is truth with gamma rays, micro waves etc. So it is reasonable to assume that the rest of electromagnetic spectrum also affects our body.
So in large enough doses they do dammage? So what? Again, you can not conclude anything else from that.
Mind control devices? Electronic Harassment Effects? Thought reading? How about Paranoid Schizofrenia?
Quote:
Note the references to many known scientists, institutes and very VERY detailed descriptions.
You mean stuff like this:
"a. Sleep deprivation and fatigue
i. Silent but instantaneous application of "electronic
caffeine" signal, forces awake and keeps awake
ii. Loud noise from neighbours, often SYNCHRONIZED
to attempts to fall asleep
iii.Precision-to-the-second "allowed sleep" and "forced
awakening"; far too precise and repeated to be natural
iv. Daytime "fatigue attacks", can force the victim to sleep
and/or weaken the muscles to the point of collapse
b. Audible Voice to Skull (V2S)
i. Delivered remotely, at a distance
ii. Made to appear as emanating from thin air
iii.Voices or sound effects only the victim can hear
c. Inaudible Voice to Skull (Silent Sound)
i. Delivered by apparent at a distance radio signal;
manifested by sudden urges to do something/go somewhere
you would not otherwise want to; silent (ultrasonic)
hypnosis is possible
ii. Programming hypnotic "triggers" - i.e. specific phrases
or other cues which cause specific involuntary actions
"
Yeah sounds like paranoid schizofrenia to me.
Quote:
Also notice that this informations date from more than 20 years ago but have only recently been declassified. That is to say that this technology is already obsolete while you still don't believe it exists
And you obviously believe anything you read on the net.
Quote:
Here is a list of few patents and you are free to check out how they work but most of the time you will keep running on the term ELF or extremely low frequencies.
Oh we are at the other end of the spectrum now.
Quote:
U.S. Patent 5,159,703 – SILENT SUBLIMINAL PRESENTATION SYSTEM.
U.S. Patent 5,507,291 – METHOD AND AN ASSOCIATED APPARATUS FOR REMOTELY DETERMINING INFORMATION AS TO A PERSON'S EMOTIONAL STATE.
U.S. Patent US5629678: IMPLANTABLE TRANSECEIVER – Apparatus for Tracking and Recovering Humans.
U.S. Patent 6,014,080 – BODY WORN ACTIVE AND PASSIVE TRACKING DEVICE.
U.S. Patent 5,868,100 – FENCELESS ANIMAL CONTROL SYSTEM USING GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) LOCATION INFORMATION.
What on earth are you trying to proove? GPS localisation tools? So what? What does this have to do with music?
Anyway, there are many patents out there for bogus devices. A patent doesn't proove anything and is certainly not considerd scientific proof of anything.
But hey, what do you care? You don't even believe Newton.
Quote:
You see... "to believe" is equal as "not to know". Since I know what I'm talking about I don't have any believes about this subject.
Oh wow. You really will believe anything you read. And you consider that proof?
Quote:
You have a system of believe to defend and you assume that you know everything there is to know.
No I don't but some stuff is just bullshit.
Quote:
Now be my guest and say that entire text from link is science fiction and assure your self that someone has made that up just to scare the hell out of you
Or scare themselves. Some people, like you, love all these fantasies to entertain themselves. There are fools in every organisation.
UnderTow
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 3, 2007 16:55
Quote:
On 2007-05-03 15:02, subconsciousmind wrote:
Science is good, but it were dreamers, believers like Einstein who found the real great stuff.
This sentence somehow implies that Einstein was not a scientist. Einstein followed sicentific rigour and used mathematical techniques to proove his theories. Lets not forget that.
UnderTow
Seppa
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
485
Posted : May 3, 2007 17:05
Quote:
When the first trains came the most famous doctors and psychologists claimed that travelling at this speed (more than 20mph) , or just looking at it will cause brainmalfunction.
Something tells me that these so called doctors di not made any study to proove their point or to even have a point in the first place.
Science research help us discover new things every day, some discovery have a different impact on our life and experiences, some take a long time to become mature and understood properly. We cannot expect scientist to get it right at first. and every study can have weeknesses..... all and for all its is pretty rare for a single study to give an accurate idea on a subject. surely they will be more studies on the same subject made by other scientist.
What is almost certain though, is that it is not likely for the result of any future researche to have an impact on how we mix and produce music any time soon
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : May 3, 2007 17:47
@ psycosmo: you'll find out that society is wonderfully tolerant. It tolerates everything except diversity and free thinking Nevertheless, many people just read this forum and never engage in arguing. So regardless to the outcome of each argument it's always worth writing about different viewpoints. Rewriting the history is easier than it ever was
@ undertow: Underestimating Albert Einstein in any way tells more about you that you can imagine.
Your science is completely based on accidents. All major break troughs ware made when scientists failed to follow certain procedure and got wrong results that later turned out to be important discoveries.
The "father" of the modern science, the great Descartes had a dream and angel suggested him that "conquest of the nature is done by measurement and numbers". Later this fact was argued by the people who's jobs depended on that argue. Truth remains that modern science is based on a revelation from an angel.
When your science discovered that we live in heliocentric system they ware 2000 years late. Tribes in Africa and scientists from India had known that a long long time before our science.
Until our science accepted "arabic" numbers invented in India we really had no science since it was impossible to do any serious calculations with roman numbers.
Your science would be happier if there ware no consciousness 'cause science can't handle it in any way. Funny because if there was no consciousness there would be no science. If science can't describe it's foundation... what's the basic of any other description that science has to offer? They don't understand the nature of their own consciousness, they don't know what is the nature of observer nor who is observing who.
So to make a long story short... progress is done only when mistakes occur or when we simply take what others have discovered. Philosophers have made foundations of modern science trough angelic revelations and angels provided us with most efficient motors (yes, Tesla was also communicating with angels). Immanuel Kant has predicted discovery of planets without ever looking trough telescope. Later th prediction was confirmed by observing. Now days quantum science is talking about entanglement and we know that "primitive" cultures talk about that for the last 4000 years.
I could go on like this for days, but there's no point. Smart people before me have said it better than I could ever say it. Here is one such quote
Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized.
First it is ridiculed.
Second, it is opposed.
Third, it is regarded as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 3, 2007 20:41
Quote:
On 2007-05-03 17:47, shamantrixx wrote:
@ undertow: Underestimating Albert Einstein in any way tells more about you that you can imagine.
The fact that you translate my comments as underestimating Einstein says something about you, not me.
Quote:
Your science is completely based on accidents. All major break troughs ware made when scientists failed to follow certain procedure and got wrong results that later turned out to be important discoveries.
You are confusing ideas and testable theories. Science follows pretty rigid rules and as long as those rules have not been applied, it isn't science, just ideas.
That doesn't mean that these ideas are right or wrong, just that they are not yet considered science.
Quote:
The "father" of the modern science, the great Descartes had a dream and angel suggested him that "conquest of the nature is done by measurement and numbers". Later this fact was argued by the people who's jobs depended on that argue. Truth remains that modern science is based on a revelation from an angel.
You actually believe that? He claims to have had some kind of vision and that it was brought to him by an Angel. That says something about what Descartes believed. Pretty much what everyone else in those days believed. It doesn't actually proove that an angel visited him or that angels even exist.
Still believing those things in the 21st century is naive.
This seems to be the problem with everything you write and with the way you seem to think: You take one piece of information which is true, in this case the fact that Descartes' ideas influenced other people (although your forget that these ideas are outdated), then you take something claimed and by far not proven, in this case the idea that Descartes' vision was brought to him by an angel, and then somehow in your mind you convolute these two things and believe that the one prooves the other.
That is bad logic and bad science.
[quote]
When your science discovered that we live in heliocentric system they ware 2000 years late. Tribes in Africa and scientists from India had known that a long long time before our science.
[quote]
So what are you arguing now? That western science is bad? So why do you mention Descartes and Einstein? Either you can argue in favour of western science or against it but you can't just pick the bits you like and reject the rest to suite your whims.
Quote:
Your science would be happier if there ware no consciousness 'cause science can't handle it in any way. Funny because if there was no consciousness there would be no science.
Again a logical non sequitur.
Anyway, current western science does not say that we do not have conssciousness, it says that it is an emergent property of our brains that dies with us and that there is no magic going on.
Here have a look at these:
Quote:
If science can't describe it's foundation... what's the basic of any other description that science has to offer? They don't understand the nature of their own consciousness, they don't know what is the nature of observer nor who is observing who.
There are models for consciousness actually. At any rate they are much better than believing some mystical hocus pocus.
Quote:
So to make a long story short... progress is done only when mistakes occur or when we simply take what others have discovered.
A huge generalisation. Some solutions are found because they are specificaly being looked for. Others are indeed found "by chance".
Quote:
Philosophers have made foundations of modern science trough angelic revelations and angels provided us with most efficient motors (yes, Tesla was also communicating with angels).
This is just childish. Because someone in the 17th century claims to have been visited by an angel is not proof of anything.
Quote:
Immanuel Kant has predicted discovery of planets without ever looking trough telescope. Later th prediction was confirmed by observing.
Which planets? Do you have any references for this? Kant was a philosopher. I was not aware that he predicted the discovery of new planets.
Quote:
Now days quantum science is talking about entanglement and we know that "primitive" cultures talk about that for the last 4000 years.
Don't confuse cursory resemblance with equality.
Quote:
I could go on like this for days, but there's no point. Smart people before me have said it better than I could ever say it.
Yes because you are only reguritating half truths and ideas while completely mixing them up in your mind.
Quote:
Here is one such quote
Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized.
First it is ridiculed.
Second, it is opposed.
Third, it is regarded as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Yes and some people are still at stage 1 as far as science and religion is concerned.
UnderTow
mk47
Inactive User
Started Topics :
118
Posts :
4444
Posted : May 3, 2007 21:48
round 6
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : May 3, 2007 22:59
Quote:
On 2007-05-03 20:41, UnderTow wrote:
Which planets? Do you have any references for this? Kant was a philosopher. I was not aware that he predicted the discovery of new planets.
You're not aware of many things... but it's never 2 late
The same year he published an essay in Newtonian cosmology in which he anticipated the nebular theory of Laplace and predicted the existence of the planet Uranus, before its actual discovery by Herschel in 1781.
The rest of your reply is based on "do you really believe that?" but as I have mentioned before... I do not believe in believes. Read what Descartes and Tesla have written about their work, ideas etc... Why should we not believe them? Angels, mystical experience, coincident ergot poisoning... who cares. Facts remain that discoveries always come from irrational minds or from accidents.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : May 3, 2007 23:24
"Facts remain that discoveries always come from irrational minds or from accidents"
So my corny theories can still be valid!! Thats great news guys!!
Psycosmo
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
42
Posts :
787
Posted : May 4, 2007 04:52
Quote:
On 2007-05-03 16:32, UnderTow wrote:
Quote:
On 2007-05-02 16:55, Psycosmo wrote:
References?
This was discussed at the AES a while back. Note that this paper didn't even get in as a published paper at the AES due to lack of peer reviews. It is just a conference paper.
Quote:
What kinds of experiments were used to refute this study?
Mainly the methodology and interpretation of the results was questioned. Also, no one has managed to reproduce these results.
Quote:
Do you have any specific criticisms of the protocols this study used?
Explain youself.
Not me personaly but many others do including such experts as Jim Johnston.
This paper gets mentioned every so often on the pro lists by newcomers but it isn't taken seriously by the people that have done research in this area.
Note that it contradicts all the researches that come previously. That in itself is questionable. (Note the ditinction between contradicting and enhancing or discovering new ground).
UnderTow
Actually no, this is is not a conference proceeding, and it is peer-reviewed, and published in a mainstream science journal (Did you even bother to read the article?)
If in fact these results are not reproducible, then that would be a problem. But my searches have not found any contrary results (or any attempt to reproduce the experiment). But where is your reference? What were the methods that were used by the people who failed to reproduce this, and what are their credentials? Who peer-reviewed them?
Psycosmo
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
42
Posts :
787
Posted : May 4, 2007 05:43
PS If could rename this thread, I would call it "ethnomusicological neuroscience", because it doesnt really help us "understand music", it just combines ethnomusicology and neuroscience.
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : May 4, 2007 09:51
Quote:
On 2007-05-03 16:55, UnderTow wrote:
Quote:
On 2007-05-03 15:02, subconsciousmind wrote:
Science is good, but it were dreamers, believers like Einstein who found the real great stuff.
This sentence somehow implies that Einstein was not a scientist. Einstein followed sicentific rigour and used mathematical techniques to proove his theories. Lets not forget that.
UnderTow
yes "somehow"
But in the end it implies what you want it to imply to secure your position.
The way you interpret it may possibly show your attitude in this discussion? It's not about understanding other peoples points, but just about wiping all others out, isn't it? No offence, but from here it looks a little like that.
Einstein only scientisticly revealed what he revealed, because he just "dreamed" and "believed" it at first.
What I want to say is, that people who follow science blindly or only accept what enters the self announced holy circle of academics (or argue based on such a fact) close too many doors of traces and intuition which could lead to new revelations.
A person who leaves it all open, is much more likely to reveal something new, scientisticaly.
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : May 4, 2007 10:16
The thing is,
we just CAN NOT Know, if there is any unrevealed kind of reception in our body, which could allow the reception of sound above 20khz.
Honestly, it just STUPID to assume that just because the ear can't HEAR it, our body has no other way to be aware of that.
Maybe the studies on it have academical flaws, maybe its all a hoax. but just a little common sense, and considering that science has a long way to go in revealing physics etc. leads to the plausible assumption that our body actually somehow perceives EVERYTHING.
It's ignorant to believe, that anything around us could leave us unaffected.
