The power of the thought experiment

[NorthSky]

If we explore the 3-dimensional space of the universe we might find few doors and few holes ...
If we explore the audio world in an acoustic space we might discover a relation with the human mind ...
____________

The perception of transmitted sounds in certain environments...@ certain times.
Can different compositions of molecules affect time arrivals...speed of sound; intermediates and influences on a biological level - tentative...
♣ http://www.academia.edu/1285421/Cells_and_sound_an_introduction_Review_to_be_submitted_2013_

 

[NorthSky]

• http://www.ehow.com/info_8510076_water-affect-sound.html
• http://practicalphysics.org/factors-affecting-speed-sound.html
• https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Sound/tempandspeed.htm
• http://www.rane.com/pdf/eespeed.pdf
• http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/appli...y-ultrasonics/introduction-material-analysis/

 

[fas42]

If we explore the audio world in an acoustic space we might discover a relation with the human mind ...

It's being done right now, Bob - and it's called Auditory Scene Analysis, ASA, ...

The mind takes the data hitting the ears, etc, and turns it into an internal, mental picture - it's a long, long way from being a direct injection microphone feed, even though the conventional audio crowd don't like that thought! Pretty exciting stuff, if you feed the ears with exactly the right sort of material, then all sorts of amazing acoustical experiences would be possible - as far as the mind is concerned these are as real as anything else ... there will be some fascinating places to explore in the sound world down the track.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think we need to be careful when talking in general terms about cables, as they are part of a system. So, bring your power cable over by your mm transformer device and listen to the hum, or playing your amp at high volumes you would in the same case induce more hum into the moving magnet transformer. Now if you shield part of that cable back to the wall outlet, then the E-fields will be less and some of the magnetic fields too and so a bit less hum induced into hyour transformer. Also, tighter twist of the wires in the cable can have an effect of the radiated fields. So, it is a system thing, obviously audiophiles should get a decent shielded mm transformer and keep it well away from power cords etc. So, cables and interconnects are part of a system, and someone who understands what electromagnetic fields are will naturally account for that when setting up a system. Shielding the last 6 feet can indeed make a difference locally. I described the concept of the mmtransformer, which I think can even be done simply as a thought experiment.

Nothing there to disagree with, but this is, of course, mitigating the damage of badly designed cable, not the last 3 feet of cable cleaning up the power grid. And a well-shielded cable is not an expensive, high-end item. It should, in fact, come in the box with all but the cheapest gear.

Tim

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Thought experiments and the construction of arguments are also the currency of 'higher learning'

Or those devoid of factual data and relegated to the imagination

 

[NorthSky]

Acute imagination; acumen. ...Do they have data for acute imagination?

 

[Blumlein 88]

It occurred to me what happens when I do thought experiments is likely what many others find. Thought experiment by itself isn't enough, but can lead to getting further down the road before actually experimenting. Half of my thought experiments when I go to check them in the physical world hit snags. Something doesn't work as cleanly or quite like I "thought" it would. Most of the time a bit of stick to it attitude will allow you to overcome those snags and get useful results to corroborate or disprove the thought experiment results. The other half the time you find out your thoughts are just off somehow and you can't really make it work. Or some of them are things I can never figure out how to test reasonably.

 

[Cosmik]

It occurred to me what happens when I do thought experiments is likely what many others find. Thought experiment by itself isn't enough, but can lead to getting further down the road before actually experimenting.

Yes, that's what I think, too. If any of us is to ever to do something unique, or to actually make real progress in any field, we can't spend our time doing useless experiments. In another thread it was stated quite matter-of-factly the other day that the the way to prove which digital link "sounds best" or whether they are all equivalent, is to perform DBTs. I would say: what a waste of time! You could avoid several days' work and several months of arguing over the interpretation of the 'results' by simply giving it a minute's thought and concluding that they all sound exactly the same.

Or some of them are things I can never figure out how to test reasonably.

I could think of an example: suppose you wanted to build an innovative new system that compensated for variations in your drivers' mechanical characteristics by modifying the signal according to temperature, humidity and long term ageing. It's an idea that can be stated in a sentence, designed in a week, built in a week, and in this case, you would know that it was going to give you less measured error overall. But you would have to decide whether the system should operate dynamically while playing music, or wait until in between tracks, and at what rate it can make changes, what the limits should be and so on. As the designer, you could spend the rest of your life testing all the possible options using DBTs, or you could just build it and put it out there, anyway.

Where this sort of thing goes wrong: http://www.stereophile.com/content/schiit-audio-ragnarok-integrated-amplifier#hZUKUTzoE4zfiXVY.97
A designer thinks of an innovative new system (microprocessor-controlled amplifier biasing and protection) but implements it in a way where test tones must be regarded as a fault condition thereby sending the amp into protection mode. By the power of Thought Experiment, he thinks that this is acceptable. Wrong! (In my opinion). In fact his idea may have been perfectly reasonable, but maybe the implementation was over-simplified. Maybe just by 'thinking it through' but not testing it properly, he got too far down the production process before the issue became apparent. (But that is just conjecture, of course).

 

[RayDunzl]

Ring , rang, rung works.

As does swim, swam, swum.

But think, thank, thunk, doesn't...

That's all I got right now.

 

[Cosmik]

Ring , rang, rung works.

As does swim, swam, swum.

But think, thank, thunk, doesn't...

That's all I got right now.

Just saying that 'science' is a painful, impractical way to build real things like digital links - which are trivial. But the audio objectivists would spend the rest of their lives listening to them for differences if they could.

And thinking it through is the key to rapid progress, but can come a cropper if you don't think it through well enough.

 

[Cosmik]

Another real example. The Beolab 5 (mentioned in another thread recently) has a system to compensate for thermal compression effects in drivers. It's a simple idea and could possibly be implemented 'for free' (maybe just some lines of software), but would need some careful thinking through to ensure that it doesn't go unstable etc. Testing it using human listeners would be 'interesting' or, more likely, pointless. Whether its necessity has ever been established practically, or if anyone has ever noticed its effect or not, I am happy they built it into the speaker, anyway.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Just saying that 'science' is a painful, impractical way to build real things like digital links - which are trivial. But the audio objectivists would spend the rest of their lives listening to them for differences if they could.

I think you misunderstand "audio objectivists." I think most would spend very little time listening to AB/X comparisons for differences. What they would do is have the audio religious listen to AB/X comparisons, understand that what they think they hear is actually what they believe in, and therefore imagine they hear, and then shut up and stop twittering about in the middle of grown-up conversations.

Of course even if they manage to get the testing done it is futile. The religious just attack the study and continue believing their fantasies are real. It's not even long before what they couldn't differentiate is "night and day" again.

Back on topic: I think thought experiments are a good way to establish what the questions are, but will not reveal any answers.

Tim

 

[Cosmik]

I think you misunderstand "audio objectivists."

You made me think for a moment why I had used the word "objectivists" but of course, to an audio scientist/objectivist, a DB listening experience and the ticking of a box on a form is an objective measurement.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

to an audio scientist/objectivist, a DB listening experience and the ticking of a box on a form is an objective measurement.

In your and Frank et al strawman/fantasy world only.

 

[Thomas savage]

Can we get back to 'the power of the thought experiment' rather than 'the consequences of not thinking much at all'

 

[amirm]

Where this sort of thing goes wrong: http://www.stereophile.com/content/schiit-audio-ragnarok-integrated-amplifier#hZUKUTzoE4zfiXVY.97
A designer thinks of an innovative new system (microprocessor-controlled amplifier biasing and protection) but implements it in a way where test tones must be regarded as a fault condition thereby sending the amp into protection mode. By the power of Thought Experiment, he thinks that this is acceptable. Wrong! (In my opinion). In fact his idea may have been perfectly reasonable, but maybe the implementation was over-simplified. Maybe just by 'thinking it through' but not testing it properly, he got too far down the production process before the issue became apparent. (But that is just conjecture, of course).

Wow, what a review. A high-impedance amp that has its output varying by almost 1 dB. And a tracking bias system? For what reason? We can build amplifiers that work without that with none of the limitations.

Detecting what is music and what is not ultimately is not a solvable problem.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Wow, what a review. A high-impedance amp that has its output varying by almost 1 dB. And a tracking bias system? For what reason? We can build amplifiers that work without that with none of the limitations.

Detecting what is music and what is not ultimately is not a solvable problem.

That was my opinion as well. The designer took part in discussion on a another forum but didn't take kindly to questions. I wanted to know what the supposed advantages to such an approach were. Never got an answer that made any sense. Also many complained about there being no remote. No reason for that either.

 

[amirm]

The only reason I can think of doing this is to build a cheaper amp. By controlling bias, you reduce power consumption. Less power means less heat. Less heat means smaller heatsink and so on.

The high measured temps shows that to be the case. I mean who wants a high-end amp that skimps on heat sinks???

 

[TBone]

the comparison to the 3020 is a stretch at best, the key to that unit success, in my opinion, was its Tomlinson Holman phono section. Its amp section always sounded -rolled off- @ the frequency extremes, no matter which speaker mated, that perhaps was what made it "sweet" sounding. As for build quality, it had one major problem: the 3020/1020 rca-input/output sockets were soldered direct to motherboard with no strain relief, providing the inevitable high-failure rates ...

That maybe the worst "review" I've ever read in SP.

 

[Cosmik]

My theory is that the control system is sampling the signal 'sparsely' (they mention 30Hz somewhere) and that with music, it averages to zero. With constant tones, regular aliasing may average to some non-zero DC value, hence the necessity to regard it as a fault. Plausible? If so, I could think of solutions (as could they, probably) but maybe it is too late for this revision of the amp. Just conjecture of course.