I am a convert. Goodbye snake oil!

[tineared]

 

[Ropeburn]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a noise? Similarly, if amp D measures better than amp A, but you can’t hear a difference, is it still better? I guess yes, but who cares at that point?

I love and loathe this analogy at the same time. Mostly loathe, because it's arrogant. As if humans and their experience being present was the ultimate determination between real and unreal.

The forest has other highly evolved animals too, many with better than human hearing. The wolf, the fox, the squirrel, many more, they all hear, see, and feel the tree falling. Their subjective experience is, in my book, just as valid as our long ape one. The quantum physics philosophical question (if "nobody" hears it, did the sound really happen) doesn't apply. Who is "somebody" really? Only a human? Does a gorilla count? If yes, why not a bird, or an insect? Physical reality does not need a human or generally "conscious" or "sapient" observer to be valid and physically true. This planet and universe and its physical reality existed long before our self-proclaimed "observer self" even evolved into existence. As much as I like philosophy in general, just as often it's just, frankly, head up in the clouds bullshit.

The tree falls. It makes a noise. It makes deep, scary, glorious bass. No matter whether anyone of our species observes it or not. Same with audio phenomena related to our human made gear. There's objective truth you can't get around, no matter your level of philosophical musings.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Hello everyone. I have recently gotten off the high end audio bandwagon.
It all started when I replaced my expensive Naim system, with the Wiim Amp Ultra. The little Wiim comes pretty close to the former Naim system in terms of sound quality. It beats it severely in form and function!
I then started asking myself if some of my other beliefs about high end audio could be challenged. I was a ferocious believer in cables and accessories, to improve sound quality. I believe I wanted to hear improvements with more expensive gear and accessories.
I started removing expensive cables from my system, and replacing them with stock cheap cables. I then listened with what I beleive to be an open mind.
There was absolutley no difference! The expensive cables look nice, but they don't improve sound quality.
I think Amir, Gene (from Audioholics) and others have been correct all these years...

Every time an audiophool transcends the silly folklore, an angel gets its wings -- and a spiffy pair of Amir-measured IEMs.

 

[Ropeburn]

Every time an audiophool transcends the silly folklore, an angel get its wings -- and a spiffy pair of Amir-measured IEMs.

Every time an audiophool gets wise, a kitten is born.

 

[JSmith]

I'd rather a hot cup of sinad in the morning than snake oil... ymmv.


JSmith

 

[kemmler3D]

As if humans and their experience being present was the ultimate determination between real and unreal.

I take it more as an exploration of the nature of "sound" and calling that centering of human perception into question. But I see your beef with it too.

 

[Palladium]

I'd rather a hot cup of sinad in the morning than snake oil... ymmv.


JSmith

Yeah when that hot cup isn't even expensive to begin with.

 

[Multicore]

I love and loathe this analogy at the same time. Mostly loathe, because it's arrogant. As if humans and their experience being present was the ultimate determination between real and unreal.

The forest has other highly evolved animals too, many with better than human hearing. The wolf, the fox, the squirrel, many more, they all hear, see, and feel the tree falling. Their subjective experience is, in my book, just as valid as our long ape one. The quantum physics philosophical question (if "nobody" hears it, did the sound really happen) doesn't apply. Who is "somebody" really? Only a human? Does a gorilla count? If yes, why not a bird, or an insect? Physical reality does not need a human or generally "conscious" or "sapient" observer to be valid and physically true. This planet and universe and its physical reality existed long before our self-proclaimed "observer self" even evolved into existence. As much as I like philosophy in general, just as often it's just, frankly, head up in the clouds bullshit.

The tree falls. It makes a noise. It makes deep, scary, glorious bass. No matter whether anyone of our species observes it or not. Same with audio phenomena related to our human made gear. There's objective truth you can't get around, no matter your level of philosophical musings.

Thank you. That's an important point.

I loath the saying for a different reason: it's stupid and its use is a marker of stupidity. It has the ring of a philosophical question, like something from Heraclitus perhaps. This arises from the uncertainty if the question refers to the animal precept or to the physical mechanisms that actuate animal hearing. We use the same words sound and noise for both. Which are you referring to? Answer that and the answer is trivial either way.

Heraclitus is incomparable. ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω μία καὶ ὡυτή. The way up and the way down are one and the same. Now there's something to talk about! My favorite interpretation is that Heraclitus is drawing attention to the abstract quality of some ideas. A way up or down doesn't exist in the physical image, they are sophisticated high-level concepts useful in the navigation of animals such as humans or goats on a hill. (They are entities in the ontology of way users; in Korzybski's map, not his territory.) A center of gravity is like that too. And Heraclitus is right, the way up is indeed the way down. Go up a way, turn around and Yup, the way down is the way you just came up. One and the same. Wonderful stuff.

There are many valid ways to interpret Heraclitus. δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης. You cannot step twice into the same river. Pregnant with uncertainty over what exactly were are referring to. But unlike the pseudo-philosophical twaddle of the falling tree question, these turn out to be interesting once you choose.

 

[Mort]

The tree falls. It makes a noise

It's not 'noise' it's sound. Some of the philosophy is based on an ambiguity about the definition of 'sound'. Is it the process of hearing virtualization or is it the sound waves themselves?

From Wikipedia

we can say that although the tree falling on the island sends off air waves, it does not produce sound if no human is within the distance where the air waves are strong enough for a human to perceive them. However, if we define sound as the waves themselves, then sound would be produced.

 

[Ropeburn]

It's not 'noise' it's sound. Some of the philosophy is based on an ambiguity about the definition of 'sound'. Is it the process of hearing virtualization or is it the sound waves themselves?

From Wikipedia

we can say that although the tree falling on the island sends off air waves, it does not produce sound if no human is within the distance where the air waves are strong enough for a human to perceive them. However, if we define sound as the waves themselves, then sound would be produced.

That's the thing right there: why is the human needed, and another animal not enough for it to qualify as "sound"? Mammal ears are all the same in principle and only differ in details. So do the brains processing it. They're all sentient. My main point is that whenever a tree falls, there's always dozens and hundreds of sentient observers, that's the nature of the forest. Just not humans.

I find that semantic distinction of little help.

 

[Mort]

That's the thing right there: why is the human needed, and another animal not enough for it to qualify as "sound"? Mammal ears are all the same in principle and only differ in details. So do the brains processing it. They're all sentient.

I find that semantic distinction of little help.

Surely you recognize that the human experience of 'sound' includes auditory hallucination? So the perception of sound is different from the actual air waves.

You may find the ambiguity uninteresting, but it exists nonetheless.

The more interesting philosophical question that arises, is about the impact of the observer on the observed, which from quantum mechanics perspective is a real phenomenon.

 

[Ropeburn]

The more interesting philosophical question that arises, is about the impact of the observer on the observed, which from quantum mechanics perspective is a real phenomenon.

That's interesting indeed, because even outside the quantum realm, the observer physically influences the sound - simply because some dude standing there is an acoustic influence physically. The effect may be little overall, but it exists. Add more fleshy sound barriers and the effect becomes more relevant - nightclubs and venues absolutely must take into account the crowd and its acoustic properties when setting up the soundsystem. "The observer", here: the audience, has a great influence on the sound.

 

[Mnyb]

Surely you recognize that the human experience of 'sound' includes auditory hallucination? So the perception of sound is different from the actual air waves.

You may find the ambiguity uninteresting, but it exists nonetheless.

The more interesting philosophical question that arises, is about the impact of the observer on the observed, which from quantum mechanics perspective is a real phenomenon.

The observer effect is very misunderstood and have given rise to even more snake oil , there are a bunch of quantum foo books to be had
The observer can be another electron it does not have to be a conscious observer its merely the act of trying to measure a quantum state .

 

[Multicore]

It was never my experience that someone quoting the falling tree saying was talking about the measurement problem.

 

[Lsc]

What are you guys talking about? Lol

 

[tineared]

What are you guys talking about? Lol

Just a bit of tangential discussion
Watch the basement sessions in That 70s Show for reference

 

[AndyBell]

I’m glad I had some very nice red wine before reading all this.

IMHO a glass (or three) of decent wine makes everything sound better.

 

[Exonow]

Im the electrician by trade with background in electronics.
Do not get me going about what’s in the walls and audio equipment power cables…
Just to tell you a short story .. i was asked once to make sure that the receptacles im replacing have both branch circuits tied into the same phase. The cable was a BX type! The factory rep … was from MBL

 

[Chrispy]

What are you guys talking about? Lol

Most philosophy I've seen in a cable discussion here I think....

 

[Chrispy]

Im the electrician by trade with background in electronics.
Do not get me going about what’s in the walls and audio equipment power cables…
Just to tell you a short story .. i was asked once to make sure that the receptacles im replacing have both branch circuits tied into the same phase. The cable was a BX type! The factory rep … was from MBL

Can you expand with further explanation of that story? Am not an electrician...