Fragile Harmonics - Not so crazy after all? =D

[talbany]

After years of research the master glassblowers of Swarowski now did find a way to intentionally create a certain kind of resonance frequency for these mouth blown envelops by the way they blow

Max
On the lighter side..
I wonder if some of these master glass blowers who can blow these perfect envelopes were perhaps nice looking females and if so curious to know if they might be open for dating...


Now that's a deee-rail...

Have a great weekend yourself

Tony

[Structo]

Hehehehe, master blowers.

[dreric]

The research I am doing now is on EcochG auditory evoked responses from the brain, but before we were focusing on EvestG which is sort of in the same vain. The basic idea of EcochG (and I'm oversimplifying here) is that three sensors are placed on the head (one on an ear lobe, another under the other ear and one on the forehead) and a stimulus is played into the subjects ear. The brain is supposed to react to the stimulus a certain way, essentially it gives back a somewhat predictable pattern (looks like a ~1kHz sinusoid superimposed on a 10 Hz wave). I'm actually not certain as of now as to what diseases can be correlated to different peculiarities but I know the EvestG stuff focused on how long the brain took to react to the stimulus, as well as the overall response that we get back, to determine different problems.

Thanks Cliff

AFAIK, both EcochG and EvestG tech is still rooted in measuring the action potential of a nerve or a group of nerves. (an action potential is the electrochemical firing of a nerve cell, it looks like a heartbeat on a EKG screen as the AP is the primary thing a EKG measures)

Am I correct in assuming that the three vectors you measure would be:

1. time or duration of the reason
2. Amplitude of the reaction
3. Frequency of the reaction

ie. a waveform on a scope.

As we are discussing reactions to sound (tube vs. SS) I can't see how this would be of value past demonstrating objectively that the subjects brain reacted to the sound with an action potential.

How that action potential is perceived by the brain is the key question. That would be measured not by whether that brain reacted to the stimuli of sound but rather what the sound caused the the brain to do on a electrochemical level.

For example(with great simplicity):

Sound Electrochemical and Hormonal Reaction

Gunshot Adrenaline
Yanni Trytophan leading to serotonin production (the sleep cascade)

Both tube and SS sounds are perveived and that perception can be measured as an action potential which creates a neurochemical reaction within the brain.

The neurochemical reaction will vary depedending on physical, sociological and physiologic factors (volume, distance from source, age, language, blood sugar, past experience, social history etc. etc.)

But the neurochemincal reaction within the brain creates the thing which cannot be measured objectively.

An individuals emotional reaction (to the sound stimuli)

They can be cataloged and will demonstrate a bell curve (always) typically with 80% of the subject responding in zone of indifference ten percent responding negatively and ten percent responding positively (give or take).

When it comes to tubes I believe the ten percent that respond favorable to their sound are stimulated in a way the evokes a evangelical response from the brain and we are compelled to obsess, analyze, qualify our reaction to their sound as we compulsively attempt to convert the ignorant masses that don't care about tubes vs. SS to our way of life.

I think John Hiatt said it best:

"I like the sound of a telecaster through a vibrolux turned up ten"

I like tube because I like the way they make me feel.

Eric

[Cliff Schecht]

Sorry but I have to strongly disagree that digital signal processing can't accurately reproduce the subtleties of a tube amp. Anyone who is well versed in modern technologies and capabilities would realize how benign that sort statement has really become.

One of my good friends and I have spent hundreds of hours discussing and designing digital systems that can accurately emulate analog without sounding like, well, emulations. We call it "analog inspired digital" style design and while I honestly can't program for shit, I've spend a lot of time figuring out and studying quirks in analog and my buddy will figure out how to model whatever phenomenon in digital. While our focus is on analog synths at the moment, I can promise you that we could (and eventually will) shift our focus to modeling the strange things that happen when you push a tube amplifier into the non-linear operating regions.

The thing is that a lot of the digital stuff that has been introduced so far has been complete crap and this has tainted a lot of peoples views of what digital modeling is really capable of. It's a shame too because as hard as some try to change peoples opinions, guitar players are some stubborn bastards and it's hard to undo the damage that has been done in the past. All I can really say is give it another 10 years and I bet many people will change their tune (tube?) when it comes to digital modeling stuff.

Hi,

Although not as clearly written as I would like to have (I posted past midnight my time after a long day's work and sleep deprivation from the night before), I think I will stand pat on my statement that Digital Simulations to date have promised much and delivered less than the hype.

I agree that with another decade there will be advances in digital modeling.

Whether these advances will be up to the task to change tube amp adherents is another matter. After all if it isn't broken, why fix it? When one's tone signature is perceived as what makes one unique or what is keeping you employed and paying the mortgage, I can understand the tenacity of Guitar players and tube amps.

You wrote, "I have to strongly disagree that digital signal processing can't accurately reproduce the subtleties of a tube amp."

Well, the track record for digital signal processing hasn't been that successful to date. At best it would be a D- for tube amps. Maybe C for digital instruments as I will comment below.

You wrote, "While our focus is on analog synths at the moment."

As someone who worked with (an occasional on) analog synthesizers in the 1970 (Moog IIIP, Mini Moog, Buchla etc), these devices were all Solid State. (No company to my mind produced a classic analog tube synthesizer for retail sale used by bands that I am aware off.)

I have admiration for your accomplishments, emulating a solid state device with another solid state isn't exactly the same thing as emulating either tubes or for that matter acoustic instruments.

The general impression in related area of digital reproduction and/or the use of digital sampling is that no one to date has built a digital piano that among blind listening tests (to eliminate the psycho-acoustic factor) couldn't be distinguished from the real thing amongst pianists. I could say they same about sampled sounds (software for digital organs for $100,000 installations in Churches), and Harpsichord samples off 18th Century instruments. I've played Pipe Organs and digital organs) and as audience member (organists are diehard friends and will fill the chairs at each others performances) as well as the latest digital harpsichords software and real harpsichords, and my conclusion is that pipe organ builders and harpsichord makers aren't going to go extinct in the near future (unless the economy keeps being depressed) or in the next decade for that matter.

(I would extend the above observations to the best software for orchestral instruments. At least I can tell when a score has real instruments or canned ones.)

As to the quality of the sound (tone replication) among the players of digital pianos and organs, the consensus is these instruments are used for their expediency and convenience not because tonal signatures had been cloned to a tee. Ask any major keyboard player and they will say it beats trying to transport or rent have delivered a grand piano, a synth, and an organ to a gig. The equivalent of a Line 6 amp for cover bands.

Ask if it is indistinguishable from the real thing, and the replies are essentially a firm negative. For example, when I last talked to Goldy McJohn (yes, the Goldy McJohn) about his keyboard he was playing (it produced a good replica of a Hammond B-3 in instrument about the size of a computer keyboard), he replied that it got the job done was good because he couldn't get the roadies to deal with transporting and lifting a real Hammond (tube model). He said he would gladly switch back to the real deal in a heartbeat (he wasn't 100% convinced of the digital replication) if could find a practical solution to transportation. To his credit, he made the keyboard sound very close to the original.

Electro Harmonic's Holy Grail emulation of the classic tube Spring reverb by Fender is advertised as "so faithful that even Dick Dale couldn't tell the difference." (The Grail is nice, for sure. But after 40 years of loud rock music and chemotherapy for cancer, I'm not sure Dick Dale's hearing was in such great shape when the Grail came out.)

At least among the guitarist I know (my son included) digital delays of any type are used as a separate effect on its own for its flexibility. Many eschew using the "analog" settings and use the real deal as a separate effect and especially on recordings. And those Tel Ray Oil Can delays have their proponents, too, although I do not know of any digital simulations.

Ask a Concert Classical Pianist about digital and they will flat out say digital does not "cut it" on terms of performance being exactly equal and dynamic as an acoustic piano. Even with the instruments with hammer touch keyboards, the tone wasn't indistinguishable from the real thing or produced the overtones (even without the complication of the damper pedal being depressed) in the same manner as a piano.

An excerpt from review of the state of the art Yamaha sums this up:

"key-notes Home > The Piano > Yamaha Digital Piano
Yamaha Digital Piano
A Pianist's Review of the AvantGrand

I recently had an opportunity to play the AvantGrand, the new Yamaha digital piano that represents the current state of the art, and wanted to share my experiences with it with key-notes readers.

First, as a classical pianist I must caution that no matter how good digital piano technology gets, nothing replaces the real thing, and I don't see that changing even in the distant future. After all, Stradivarius and Guarneri violins have only become more valuable over time, and the best modern technology has been unable to match the beauty of their sound. Where digital versus acoustic pianos are concerned, a recording of a note (called a "sample") triggered by pressing a key and played by an electronic speaker just isn't the same as a real hammer striking a real string causing a real soundboard to vibrate."

Maybe Classical Pianist are stubborn bastards, too (my wife thinks so of me, but I was stubborn before I took up the Piano, Harpsichord, and Pipe Organ) I don't know of any name Classical Pianist that would perform a recital on a digital piano or have given a product endorsement to date for one (and Yamaha has lots of money. Maybe Classical Pianists aren't endorsement whores, too?)

You also wrote, "I can promise you that we could (and eventually will) shift our focus to modeling the strange things that happen when you push a tube amplifier into the non-linear operating regions."

Tubes aren't all that linear a device to begin with in their "linear" operating regions, and when pushed into distortion and other non-linear regions are even more complicated to understand and chart these variables.

Although the physics of SS components are very well understood, where tubes are concerned, we have a general concept and idea how they work, but being electromechanical devices, no one has fully worked out a complete understanding of why there can be as much variance as demonstrated in a tubes performance, even among tubes of the same dates of manufacture of the same type (12AX7). (I won't go into component chemical variables, as the late Ken Fisher commented on in a interview)

As I have said previously, (though not in yesterday's post):

How does a tube react to AC signals and at what frequency, and at what voltage, and at what current levels? (Highly variable.)

Add in transconductance, Mu, internal plate resistances, Miller capacitances, plate currents, as variables, and how tube behaves (or misbehaves) when overdriven (THD and IMD).

Throw in the minimum voltage below which a tube cannot pull its anode toward the plate and what part of the tubes transfer curve is being utilized at low voltage signals as opposed to high voltage signals (even when controlled by a negative feedback loop) and phase changes from incomplete signal inversions.

Also toss how a tube reacts to supply voltages which are not rigid (voltage sag) in the power transformer, interaction between the output transformer (and the power tubes): reflected impedance and other factors such as leakage inductance and vice versa), at what point and when an output transformer saturation occur. (I won't even start on the quality or lack there of concerning the Iron used in the laminations. As to the argument over the insulation, Paper or Plastic, anyone?)

These are just a few of the parameters that would have to be quantified, and I am only scratching the surface.

I haven't addressed components as variables, such as capacitors (resistance, as well as inductance, and distortion present in Electrolytic caps), and shan't go to deeply in detail for this evening do to constraints on my time. To briefly touch on the subject of capacitors, (Dumble builders use ceramic caps) ceramic caps exhibit variation of a capacitor’s impedance with frequency variation. As to a Tweed Bassman model, the carbon composition resistors' resistance on the plates actually varies with the voltage across the resistor.

And if one is trying to model a specific type of amp, then toss in the speaker cone's behavious, sound pressure levels, open back cabinet/closed back cabinet, room acoustics (standing waves), whether the speaker has an issue of beaming. These vary with signal intensity, signal volume, room temperature, humidity and barometric pressure.

Again, I have only addressed the tip of the iceberg.

If after doing so, one would have to use a Hi-Fi amp with sufficient headroom (lots of Watts) and a neutral full frequency speaker with minimum coloration to the final signal without adding any additional artifacts to the digital ones produced (hopefully at an inaudible level).

I sure wouldn't want to model a Dumble ODS or even Marshall 800.

The architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe who said "God is in the details," also said "A chair is a very difficult object. A skyscraper is almost easier. That is why Chippendale is famous." I wonder what he would have said about linear devices (SS/digital) attempting to replicate a non-linear device (tubes amps)?

Maybe in ten years time the Super Computers of today can be made faster and shrunk in size to eliminate latency (using nano-vacuum tube technology?) to facilitate an economical and super minuscule size to crunch the numbers of these and a host of other variables to facilitate replicating a tube amp and be faster than Damn Fast. (And maybe include random numbers generator to facilitate the randomness of tube behavior?) The price would have to be affordable as 90/10 rule of money applies to Guitarists (as well as keyboard players) too.

Maybe if all these factors can be digitized, the proof will be in a touch responsive amp that can mimic a tube amp.

Hearing will be believing.

Then again, as my wife points out when see asked why I am writing this email, "Wouldn't just be easier to use a Tube amp? I use ginger in recipe that calls for ginger."

Best of Luck in your future endeavor.

Steve

Sorry I missed this great post earlier!

There are a LOT of details when it comes to modeling things digitally, this I know first hand, but almost all of what you mentioned can be modeled mathematically and factored in. It just hasn't been done yet to a level that makes the digital versions of their analog counterparts worth a piss! I think the focus so far has been on getting models to be good enough, but not ever really equal. There are so many variables to factor in when looking at the non-linearities of tube devices (and even SS stuff) that it becomes a very cumbersome task though. Theres lots of staring at scopes and FFT plots of whatever you are trying to model, and then figuring out what changes in operation cause what change in the FFT and frequency response (at a minimum), and how can these changes be modeled. Actually modeling the basics (plate resistance, mu, frequency response, first-order effects) is not that hard all in all and so the big trick is figuring out what other crap you have to model to get your digital system to react in a manner that is similar to the analog counterpart.

It gets even hairier when you start trying to make a device that is performance ready though. You obviously can't have a device that takes seconds to do calculations after you hit a note, you have to boil everything down into a more computationally friendly algorithm. This in itself is where the heavy duty work lies and I really don't know more than a few people (including many doctorates) that would have the ability to really nail these algorithms down in such a way that the latency is acceptable. And we haven't even gotten into the discussion of dynamics yet! You are right that there is SO MUCH to factor in, especially when one considers how complex even the simplest amps are in terms of how they react to our stringed instruments.

This is the kind of project where you start with a single stage and figure out how to get an accurate reproduction of this, including factoring in things like how the supply voltage moves around when the plate starts drawing current and how the different parts react. Then of course you can get into modeling how the analog components react (voltage coefficient of resistance of CC's, capacitors impedance vs. frequency, etc..) which actually is not all that hard to model accurately. Then you can start studying different manufactures tubes and how they respond differently than others (perhaps giving a drop down menu to choose Telefunken, Mullard, RCA, Russian, etc). There's lots of fun to be had here but I'm yet to see even a single digital device or piece of software that offers all of this. And of course you have to develop a usable user-interface..

Again I don't think that it's impossible by any means with todays technology (read: FPGA's!) but at the same time, this is the sort of task that takes YEARS to develop with many hours spent doing just trial and error stuff, taking measurements, modifying algorithms, etc.. I think even the big companies realize this and they spend their time focusing on digital instruments that are acceptable replacements for their analog counterparts, not direct replacements for the real thing. I agree that this doesn't really exist yet as the devices would take years to develop and would probably be prohibitively expensive for everyone but the richest of musicians. The technology exists IMO, we just haven't fully utilized it because of the focus on making affordable, usable products for consumers. What we are discussing is something that a research lab needs to take up, not a company trying to develop products for consumer use. I think that's at least 10 years out as well, and even then the devices will be close but not perfect.

Thanks for the kind wishes and interesting mind fodder!

[Max]

How that action potential is perceived by the brain is the key question. That would be measured not by whether that brain reacted to the stimuli of sound but rather what the sound caused the the brain to do on a electrochemical level.

For example(with great simplicity):

Sound Electrochemical and Hormonal Reaction

Gunshot Adrenaline
Yanni Trytophan leading to serotonin production (the sleep cascade)

Both tube and SS sounds are perveived and that perception can be measured as an action potential which creates a neurochemical reaction within the brain.

The neurochemical reaction will vary depedending on physical, sociological and physiologic factors (volume, distance from source, age, language, blood sugar, past experience, social history etc. etc.)

But the neurochemincal reaction within the brain creates the thing which cannot be measured objectively.

An individuals emotional reaction (to the sound stimuli)

Hi dreric,

a lot if not even most of psychoacoustic measuring results are AFAIK not of the kind of data you are talking about, like "electrochemical" ones as an example.

A lot if not even most of the psychoacoustic measurements AFAIK don't deal with the emotional aspects of perception. Example: Is signal A perceived as identical in loudness as signal B?

AFAIK psychoacoustic measuring of the human perception of sound is mostly been done in a different than in the ways you describe in your post (see the attached paper "Psychoacoustic Measuring Methods").

As you will know audio codecs like mp3, AAC, HD-AAC, are results of psychoacoustic research and the psychoacoustic measuring of - as an example - masking effects. And IMO the fact that we all are able to perceive a data reduced mp3 file as "music" and audio codecs like mp3 obviously don't spoil the fun of most listeners proves to some extent that the psychoacoustic measuring methods seem to be at last "objective" enough to create codecs based on these measurements that we all can use as great working tools in our daily life, like mp3. What do you think?

source for the attached paper "Psychoacoustic Measuring Methods":

http://server.elektro.dtu.dk/ftp/tp/Lec ... 8_v2.3.pdf

Cheers and have a great weekend,

Max

[renshen1957]

BTW, awesome thread derailing we have going here.

[img:413:310]http://pennymaxwell.files.wordpress.com ... rail-3.jpg[/img]

Wouldn't this be more appropriate in the Trainwreck forum?

Best Regards,

Steve

PS (Actually Trainwreck was Ken Fishers' motorcycle nickname as he was sort of a wild rider)

[dreric]

a lot if not even most of psychoacoustic measuring results are AFAIK not of the kind of data you are talking about, like "electrochemical" ones as an example.

A lot if not even most of the psychoacoustic measurements AFAIK don't deal with the emotional aspects of perception. Example: Is signal A perceived as identical in loudness as signal B?

Hey Max

Your are right. The measuring methods don't measure the subjects emotional or physiological reason to sound, just whether or not they heard it.

That is my point.

IMO, we loose track of this when we far into endless debates of which technology sounds better (Tube vs. SS) or which amp sounds better. In these discussions we aren't measuring whether they heard it but rather whether they liked it.

That's the emotional and physiological respond to sound and as we are all individuals it will be as unique.

IMO, there is no better only different.

Eric

[renshen1957]

Sorry I missed this great post earlier!

There are a LOT of details when it comes to modeling things digitally, this I know first hand, but almost all of what you mentioned can be modeled mathematically and factored in. It just hasn't been done yet to a level that makes the digital versions of their analog counterparts worth a piss! I think the focus so far has been on getting models to be good enough, but not ever really equal. There are so many variables to factor in when looking at the non-linearities of tube devices (and even SS stuff) that it becomes a very cumbersome task though. Theres lots of staring at scopes and FFT plots of whatever you are trying to model, and then figuring out what changes in operation cause what change in the FFT and frequency response (at a minimum), and how can these changes be modeled. Actually modeling the basics (plate resistance, mu, frequency response, first-order effects) is not that hard all in all and so the big trick is figuring out what other crap you have to model to get your digital system to react in a manner that is similar to the analog counterpart.

It gets even hairier when you start trying to make a device that is performance ready though. You obviously can't have a device that takes seconds to do calculations after you hit a note, you have to boil everything down into a more computationally friendly algorithm. This in itself is where the heavy duty work lies and I really don't know more than a few people (including many doctorates) that would have the ability to really nail these algorithms down in such a way that the latency is acceptable. And we haven't even gotten into the discussion of dynamics yet! You are right that there is SO MUCH to factor in, especially when one considers how complex even the simplest amps are in terms of how they react to our stringed instruments.

This is the kind of project where you start with a single stage and figure out how to get an accurate reproduction of this, including factoring in things like how the supply voltage moves around when the plate starts drawing current and how the different parts react. Then of course you can get into modeling how the analog components react (voltage coefficient of resistance of CC's, capacitors impedance vs. frequency, etc..) which actually is not all that hard to model accurately. Then you can start studying different manufactures tubes and how they respond differently than others (perhaps giving a drop down menu to choose Telefunken, Mullard, RCA, Russian, etc). There's lots of fun to be had here but I'm yet to see even a single digital device or piece of software that offers all of this. And of course you have to develop a usable user-interface..

Again I don't think that it's impossible by any means with todays technology (read: FPGA's!) but at the same time, this is the sort of task that takes YEARS to develop with many hours spent doing just trial and error stuff, taking measurements, modifying algorithms, etc.. I think even the big companies realize this and they spend their time focusing on digital instruments that are acceptable replacements for their analog counterparts, not direct replacements for the real thing. I agree that this doesn't really exist yet as the devices would take years to develop and would probably be prohibitively expensive for everyone but the richest of musicians. The technology exists IMO, we just haven't fully utilized it because of the focus on making affordable, usable products for consumers. What we are discussing is something that a research lab needs to take up, not a company trying to develop products for consumer use. I think that's at least 10 years out as well, and even then the devices will be close but not perfect.

Thanks for the kind wishes and interesting mind fodder!

Hi Cliff,

Very informative posts and overviews on the subject of psycho-acoustic effect and on the design process of digital modeling.

About technology:

Wendy (aka Walter) Carlos made an observation on the early analog synthesizers, every parameter that can be controlled has to be controlled. In response to a comment that a synthesizer sounded to some ears similar to an electric organ she replied that an organ was a primitive synthesizer with its parameters preset instead of variables.

Or one could say that the technology for a synthesizer had existed for quite some time before someone envisioned and pull it altogether in a viable product.

And I would agree that we have the technology for digital emulation of a tube amplifier, if a company was willing to:

1) produce a product that used the full capabilities of a Quad core CPUs Computer,
2) perform the prerequisite research for such a project to overcome the complexity,
3) take a no compromise attitude as as to the expenditure of cash for research, development, and production of the final product for sale.

Whether a company would underwrite the project to build and sell such an amplifier would depend on:

1) the final costs of research.
2) could these costs be recuperated,
3) locating musicians who have sufficient money to pay for an instrument that would cost more than the most expensive version of their take on a desktop.

Usually, technology exists long before being applied or imagined.

Best Regards,

Steve

PS Did I forget to mention Parasitic capacitance among electrical components as another parameter to worry about

[Max]

the subject of psycho-acoustic effect

Hi Steve,

What effect precisely do you mean by "psycho-acoustic effect"?

Cheers,

Max

[renshen1957]

the subject of psycho-acoustic effect

Hi Steve,

What effect precisely do you mean by "psycho-acoustic effect"?

Cheers,

Max

Hi Max,

Psychoacoustics is the scientific study of sound perception. More specifically, it is the branch of science studying the psychological and physiological responses associated with sound (including speech and music).

In this context and usage, the term "psycho-acoustic effect" has to do with the listener's preconceived bias towards a particular component or part etc in a non-blinded test and their reaction/perception to being colored as such.

You see psycho-acoustic effect-effect more frequently among Audiophile/Golden Ear tweekers on perceived improvements by a certain component that gives is supposed to give audible improvement. (Solid Silver fuses, solid gold chassis, special cables, wire, or gadgets such as on the exterior of connectors or capacitors which shouldn't have any direct effect)

Whether that perceived improvement can identified consistently when before and after recording are played randomly and without the listeners knowledge is another matter. (Or can it be determined/measured by equipment before or after)

For example closer to tube amps, let's say some one is tube "rolling" (switching 12AX7) and has a mental bias that NOS Mullard tubes sound the best in a Marshall 1959 amp. If the test is not blind (the roller knows which tube in P1 is the mullard) he will consistently chose the mullard as the best sounding tube in the amp as he "hears" them as being better. Or if one had a bias against Chinese EL34 tubes and new that you were auditioning them in your amp, these tubes would be perceived as being inferior to other tubes sonically.

However when performing blind tests by playing random recorded clips in either of the above examples (so the test are repeatable) after multiple random playing of the samples, said individual might produce the following results:

1) the individual is unable to consistently identify the tube(s) from other tubes from the recorded samples.
2) the individual preferred another tube than his perceived best or chose the tube perceived as being inferior as his choice.
3) his preferences and dislikes were inconsistent or no better than 50%.
4) he was able to consistently distinguish and identify the tubes.

Results 1-3 would demonstrate the psycho-acoustic effect of preconceptions coloring ones perceived listening experience.

Result 4 demonstrates that psycho-acoustic effect was a factor in his choices or evident.

Of course after several hours of playing (break in), would the same results apply with the same tubes?

Output transformers, resistors, capacitors, speakers (although the latter two do require about 100 hours of break in time) choices could also demonstrate the psycho-acoustic effect or not as the case may be.

(One Output transformer manufacturer has on his website clips of his product compared to his competition, but he also places reviews and other individuals impression next to the clips which would pre-bias (social engineer) the opinions of the listener to prefer his paper wound transformers.)

I will give an example of double-double blind tests performed many years ago by doctor (MD) who was trying to prove Behavioral Kinesology.

Although BK (or muscle testing) has devolved into a pseudoscience category in the alternative health field, Dr. Diamond at the time was exploring a phenomenon trying to understand why it happened.

Dr. Diamond had a lecture at the International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. He took recorded samples of music recorded both on digital and analog recorders. The clips were played to the test subjects in the audience at random on various on different stereo systems and on various forms of reproduction (the CD had just been brought to market). None of the assistents that were assessing muscular strength, nor the test subjects, nor Dr. Diamond had any knowledge as to which random sample was which or on what stereo system components, or on what speaker systems.

Long story short, the results were tabulated, the code was cracked, and the results were presented by Dr. Diamond: Digital recording and sound reproduction made the test subjects weaker than the analog versions.

The response to this demonstration was very negative (Dr. Diamond was called many names including Quack). Dr. Diamond replied find a flaw in my protocol in this test and I will recant, but otherwise I stand by the results. The participants quickly looked for tar and feathers (digital was the next big money maker), but as neither tar nor feathers were available at CES, Dr. Diamond left the building unscathed.

Psychological aspects are just one part of Psycho Acoustics:

Sum or Difference tones whether generated electronically by synthesizer or by a variety Andean double flutes produce an additional tone that is "heard" or perceived as existing (when processed by the brain) is an example of another aspect of psycho-acoustics. What previously was thought only to be non-linear aspects of the human hearing was reproducible using single tones into each ear with headphones, in some cases.

The physiological effect of sound or music on the body is another aspect.

However, in short "psycho-acoustic effect" translates to this if think a part or component is going to sound better, it will sound better to your ears.
Usually used in reference to "voodoo parts" with Mojo that can't be measured or consistently is audible to a variety of individuals.

Best Regards,

Steve

[stelligan]

This thread is a great read.

[ampdork]

Do you guys dig the grateful dead either musically or because of their contribution to modern day live sound systems?

IIRC it was them who really funded and pushed the development of live PA sound systems.

Not to mention they spent 30 years trying to mess with minds using music.
practice ANYTHING for 30 years your going to get good at it!

What does physcoacoustics say about synesthesia?

Does it touch upon "group mind" experiences through music that thousands have reported at those concerts?

I just wonder if they or these kinds of subjects ever get any mention in the books of physcoacoustics....you know without actually having to buy a book. ;O)

I find their music a lot more fun too then shepherds tones anyday...which I am assuming there are entire chapters in these books devoted to??

Wow....way to derail this train all the way to the moon Shad....

[daydreamer]

The same effect is found in flute playing circles. (yes I play flute, no I'm not gay..)

Solid gold and silver flutes are perceived to be better sounding when players can see them, but in blind tests flutes of the same construction method (pearl concert series for example) cannot be consistently differentiated from the normal nickel silver alloy types that cost $1000 vs all gold at $20,000.

I would bet good money that there are many SS amps that would fool us in blind tests. Alot of the sound is they way it is played, so a good player will hear that the amp has too much attack, or not enough compression for their liking and adjust the way they are playing to suit.

At the same time, a well designed amp just makes everything easier so it is really a case of, A) what does the player want to hear B) which amp helps him/her get there.

Some people need 20K all gold flutes. Some don't. But if they can play well, the rest of us won't care.

[Bob-I]

Interesting point on the processor power. The music industry has always been several generations behind in compute technology, floppy storage when hard disks were in all PCs, 64K memory when 1M was common, 100M disks when 20G was common. If the industry could keep up with technology we'd be much further today.

Also interesting about the gold/silver flute. Visual perception is more prevalent with guitars than any other instrument. You'd be hard pressed to tell what brand of sax Clarence Clemons plays but everyone knows Bruce plays an Esquire.

At a recent open mike night a sax player commented on how clean my sax sounded, until he saw it was a 70's Yamaha, then he said it sounded thin.

Interesting thread.

[talbany]

Visual perception is more prevalent with guitars than any other instrument

A quote from Ray Henning the day SRV first saw #1

When he came in, like every other day, we had a long row of guitars, and he wouldn’t take them off the hook. He’d simply walk down and feel them and look at them and move on to the next one. He stood there and looked at that old thing, and I thought, Oh no. Then he reached down and felt of it, just like he did always. And then he took it off the hook, hitting some licks on it. He said, ‘Ray, where’d you get this?’ I said, ‘Stevie, you have got to have picked the biggest junker on the wall.’

Sounds like looks played a big part!!

Tony