The Much Coveted Jump Factor - Friend or Foe

[Al M.]

I disagree that it is not really science. It is true that there is a limit to which the scientific method can be followed as no real experiment can be constructed to be potentially falsified. However, this is a more modern interpretation of science due in part to Popper and his philosophy of science.

There has been a number of cosmic observations that spark the development of these hypotheses and the math to construct them. Things like the cosmic background radiation, for example and black holes. The predictions of dark matter, which seems to be real but so far undetectable. These are all observations that led us to understand that the "standard model" was inadquate.

I do agree that there is now a return to a sort of science and philosophy confluence as there was many hundreds or thousands of years ago; however, in the past this was due to ignorance of the tools of science to test ideas and currently it is due again to a lack of tools to experimentally test the ideas that the math suggests could be true. Maybe we will never gain those tools but maybe we will. That the math suggests some things is probably better evidence than what our ancestors had to work with.

There is a fundamental difference between things within our universe which are not yet observable, and things beyond our universe that are *in principle* unobservable.

And expanding the definition of science, away from observation and experiment, is disastrous. It leads us away from what has made science this incredibly successful tool that it has been for the last several centuries.

 

[Robh3606]

"I like the fact that you said, "the system was able to literally make you jump" because that's been my premise all along in this thread. Implying to me that it's not the music but rather it's the system and what it has done to pervert the music to cause this jump factor.'

Not buying that at all. So what change did you make that made your system that so exaggerated the dynamics it didn't sound right?

"How about you? Do you have any experience with this jump factor at live performances? How about with your playback system?"

Sometimes at live shows. Do a lot small venues and like to be close so mostly from horns or drums. As far as home sometimes usually if I have not heard a piece with large dynamic swings. Peter Gabriel, Roger Waters as examples seem to like to get a jolt out of you.

"But also proximity. As I mentioned earlier, a .45 caliber pistol shot 5 or 10 ft from my ear will cause a jump factor. But that same .45 caliber pistol shot from 50 or 70 feet away most likely will not cause a jump factor."

Well that's all about SPL level which is why having a system that can do large dynamic swings cleanly sounds more lifelike.

Rob

 

[stehno]

Back OT. Last night I went with my wife, MWG and Christoph to Exil club in Zürich to hear Nik Bärtsch's Ronin in concert. This is a smallish music club in the heart of a rennovated industrial area of Zürich that has a number of cool music clubs and bars (and is the temporary home of the Tonhalle Orchestra). Nik is an ECM recording artist that makes a type of repetitive and minimalistic jazz that he calls Zen Funk. It includes a lot of bass and percussion to have a driving and sometimes very funky groove. Nik is on piano and there is also a bass clarinetist/saxophonist in addition to electric bass and drums. We sat in the second row and while the concert was amplified ...it was not much as far as those things go and we sat so close we got tons of direct sound...particularly from the drums!

Simply put, it had jump factor in Spades! The music often progressed from slower passages to absolutely explosive outbursts that frankly startled me several times. No, I didn't jump out of my seat but more than once my attention was grabbed, shaken and stirred. The ferocity of some attacks on the cymbals or snare were surprising. Given the size of the venue, it surprised me that the drummer was really going full bore and not softening his blows at all. Also, the bass hit you in waves but was tight and driving...no boom but unlike what you can get in a home system (perhaps recording limited?). As if I needed any more examples of jump factor and the ability to startle live this was a perfect example.

That's all well and dandy. But I'm pretty sure I made it clear numerous times that I was only speaking of when there is a reasonable distance between the soundstage and audience.

Like I said before, I've sat about 10 ft in front of a mariachi band in a very intimate venue and there were a number of startling moments throughout the concert. If that's your idea of a pleasant evening out listening to music and if you seek those types of recordings, that's fine.

But I can understand now why your significant other won't let you turn up the volume.

 

[stehno]

For someone who is a self-proclaimed non-technical person, you sure are trying very hard to convince me that your twisted thoughts on "jump factor" were arrived at through a scientific process...LOL.

"My revelation on the amplified electronics-induced jump factor came by analyzing and experimenting and using my ears, actually by happenstance, but it turned out to be an experiment. That’s a scientific term."
Complete and utter random dinking around now masquerading as actual experiments... What is a scientific word? Experiment? Geez did it hurt to use it for the first time?? It was happenstance, no wait it was an *Experiment*... Please tell us clearly which it was and how did it get elevated from a happenstance to experiment. What did you then do with your single observation? You sure spun quite a yarn around it. Did you control for other factors? Did you try the same electronics you thought were the source of the "jump" with other speakers, other sources? Did you try various amp topologies (PP tube, SET, OTL, SE transistor) to see if any others did it? It is nice you have some fantasties that are spun out of that non-technical unscientific mind of yours but what understanding do you actually have to make such a judgement?

"You on the other hand have yet to conduct a single experiment regarding this jump factor phenomena IOW your complete lack of experience. Yet, you profess to be the scientific expert. Put that in your science pipe and smoke it a while."

Where is this coming from? What do you know about the experiments I have and have not conducted? You have a spy camera in my home now? What makes you think I have a complete lack of experience? Experience along with critical thinking skills and analytical training are the things i have in spades...who are you to judge? In addition to hundreds of live, unamplified concerts and practice sessions, I have done multiple recordings, been a reviewer for a magazine and designed and built speakers and electronics. i know what live dynamics are and when a system can approximate them or not.

"I’ve yet to meet one that possesses even basic listening skills. Near as I can tell the majority of science-minded types in high-end audio have long ago abandoned their untrustworthy listening appendages and instead focus on measurements for their supposedly trustworthy eyes. As a result, many have abandoned pursuing live music or the absolute sound as the holy grail and the new holy grail is measurements. In an audio-only industry mind you."

What a load of BS. Good scientists never throw away their observations and only look at the measurments...you are again conflating scientists with engineers...typical for non-technical types. Good scientists look at the measurments and then what they hear and try to understand what makes one result in the other. There are several hypotheses that can be derived from such a simple connection...all of which are testable...and some have been done but doing studies with humans as a detector is always tricky.

"The fact that you don’t even have the hutzpah to take a simple true or false position to my question about Harley’s statement (even with all your vast music and scientific background) tells more than you think. Look, it’s not rocket science. It either smacks one in the face or it doesn’t. Your lack of commitment here leads me to believe you lack even basic listening discernment to sufficiently distinguish the large gulf between live music and playback music."

Didn't realize this was a pissing contest, Stenho. What does Chutzpah have to do with anything? Harley's statement is extreme and I stated that I have experience that partially contradicts it. I have no doubt information is lost at all stages...but a catastrophy?? I also notice that rather than answer it for yourself you have decided you will "test the scientist" to see if I come up with the "right" answer...where is your balls to answer the question? You are right it's not rocket science it's audio science (not that you would know the difference). And I would say it is not as clear cut as either you or Mr. Harley seem to think it is. Have you ever recorded your own voice on a direct cut record? I have and I can tell you it was a spooky experience hearing your voice played back more real than you have ever heard it before. What I mean is that it went microphone, cutting amp, lacquer...and that's it. Much less lost there I can tell you... you know it immediately (smacks you in the face to use your crude language). I doubt Mr. Harley has ever done that...not many born in the second half of the 20th century have. Now, I can believe the whole recording chain as practiced commercially is likely highly detrimental and one can easily hear the effects on many many many poor recordings...but I am not convinced that most of the loss is at the microphone also because of my own experiences with very short, simple recording chains that when played back sounded quite convincing...particularly compared to the usual commercial outing.

"For example. Around 2008, Jonathan Valin of The Absolute Sound said, “We are lucky if even our very best SOTA systems can capture even 15% of the magic of the live performance.” Paraphrased. I like to substitute believability for Valin’s use of the word “magic”."

Now Valin?? OMG! You have picked two of the biggest audio charlatans out there to use as examples. What does he know??? He was a fiction writer who went on to write audio fiction. He is not called "Sterile" Jonathan Valin for nothing... For large orchestral works, he is probably even overestimating...I have been on record on this forum saying I don't think a system exists that can truly do this big music justice (Although a couple large horn systems did better than most). I would say that he is underestimating what can be done with simple arrangements and smaller ensembles. Such a number he throws out comes right out of his ç%&.

"Based on my own experimenting over the years and using my ears, " Which experimenting? You have been making recordings? You haven't mentioned it until now if you have been. Have you tried the wide array of microphones available out there? What did you actually do to conclude this?

...........

"The good news for you is one is not required to possess a discerning ear to build a truly musical playback system. After all, there’s always luck of the draw and gulp science to aid you."

If you are successful (questionable) then I guess the luck thing worked out for you because science surely didn't. If you say you have a discerning ear, well let's hope so but I have no proof of that one way or the other. Your little video does not assuage my concerns...

You’re right. I’ve not a clue what you have and haven’t done. Obviously I’ve overlooked your experiments with the jump factor and playback systems I apologize and I’m all ears.

I will grant you that one successful experiment does not necessarily make something an absolute truth for all so I need to not be quite so dogmatic about my findings. Though I’ll still bet dollars-to-donuts the jump factor induced by a playback system is the result of amplified electronics-induced distortions at our playback systems with volumes levels significantly greater than elevator music.

I’ll also bet dollars-to-donuts that if most/all tried listening at or near live music volume levels, they’ll start experiencing flavors of the jump factor routinely. Even though the consensus in this thread seems to be that experiencing the jump factor at a live performance is a rare occurrence (again with a good reasonable distance between the audience and the soundstage). Why is this? I’ll leave to you to explain since you have a wealth more experience with science and music than I. That should be a very easy experiment for you to do.

However, when I consider some of the things you’ve stated or implied in this thread e.g. where you could not commit to take a solid position on the sonic differences between playback music and live music or in other threads things like stating that a playback system’s frequency limitations is a distortion, distortions discriminate as to whether or not they impact the noise floor, distortions discriminate as to which of the various playback characteristics e.g. transparency are impacted and which are not, etc. I’m just not seeing much substance of anything coming from your direction. I'm probably just not looking hard enough.

 

[stehno]

"I like the fact that you said, "the system was able to literally make you jump" because that's been my premise all along in this thread. Implying to me that it's not the music but rather it's the system and what it has done to pervert the music to cause this jump factor.'

Not buying that at all. So what change did you make that made your system that so exaggerated the dynamics it didn't sound right?

See my OP.

"How about you? Do you have any experience with this jump factor at live performances? How about with your playback system?"

Sometimes at live shows. Do a lot small venues and like to be close so mostly from horns or drums. As far as home sometimes usually if I have not heard a piece with large dynamic swings. Peter Gabriel, Roger Waters as examples seem to like to get a jolt out of you.

Small venues were never part of my landscape when opening this thread. Obviously the smaller the venue the closer to the performance and that's a whole different dynamic. I thought I was pretty clear throughout that my concern about jump factors and live music were essentially non-existent when there is a reasonable distance between our ears in the audience and the soundstage. Hence, my example of once being 10 ft away from a mariachi band and the .45 caliber pistol and close proximity vs distance.

But at the same time, if anybody here pursued listening to live music recorded in very intimate venues and played it back at or near the same live music volume levels, I'd venture you'd be "jolted" 10 times or more than you ever were while at the intimate venue. For the very same reasons I've stated earlier.

"But also proximity. As I mentioned earlier, a .45 caliber pistol shot 5 or 10 ft from my ear will cause a jump factor. But that same .45 caliber pistol shot from 50 or 70 feet away most likely will not cause a jump factor."

Well that's all about SPL level which is why having a system that can do large dynamic swings cleanly sounds more lifelike.

Rob

Then again, all music is about SPL regardless of instrument or volume.

 

[morricab]

That's all well and dandy. But I'm pretty sure I made it clear numerous times that I was only speaking of when there is a reasonable distance between the soundstage and audience.

Like I said before, I've sat about 10 ft in front of a mariachi band in a very intimate venue and there were a number of startling moments throughout the concert. If that's your idea of a pleasant evening out listening to music and if you seek those types of recordings, that's fine.

But I can understand now why your significant other won't let you turn up the volume.

Yes, you are the master of the obvious “if I sit farther away it won’t be as loud “. You were busy pointing out from videos that people in the front row and in the orchestra didn’t look startled but backpedal if you must...

 

[morricab]

You’re right. I’ve not a clue what you have and haven’t done. Obviously I’ve overlooked your experiments with the jump factor and playback systems I apologize and I’m all ears.

I will grant you that one successful experiment does not necessarily make something an absolute truth for all so I need to not be quite so dogmatic about my findings. Though I’ll still bet dollars-to-donuts the jump factor induced by a playback system is the result of amplified electronics-induced distortions at our playback systems with volumes levels significantly greater than elevator music.

I’ll also bet dollars-to-donuts that if most/all tried listening at or near live music volume levels, they’ll start experiencing flavors of the jump factor routinely. Even though the consensus in this thread seems to be that experiencing the jump factor at a live performance is a rare occurrence (again with a good reasonable distance between the audience and the soundstage). Why is this? I’ll leave to you to explain since you have a wealth more experience with science and music than I. That should be a very easy experiment for you to do.

However, when I consider some of the things you’ve stated or implied in this thread e.g. where you could not commit to take a solid position on the sonic differences between playback music and live music or in other threads things like stating that a playback system’s frequency limitations is a distortion, distortions discriminate as to whether or not they impact the noise floor, distortions discriminate as to which of the various playback characteristics e.g. transparency are impacted and which are not, etc. I’m just not seeing much substance of anything coming from your direction. I'm probably just not looking hard enough.

"Though I’ll still bet dollars-to-donuts the jump factor induced by a playback system is the result of amplified electronics-induced distortions at our playback systems with volumes levels significantly greater than elevator music." Bet all you like it doesn't change the fact that your experiment, as it currently stands, is relatively meaningless...I mean you don't even have other observers other than yourself...

"I’ll also bet dollars-to-donuts that if most/all tried listening at or near live music volume levels, they’ll start experiencing flavors of the jump factor routinely."

That's interesting because didn't you state that you didn't experience jump factor from your system until you put in "faulty" amplifiers? You also mentioned that we would feel jump even from125db Ted Nugent concerts or front row of 1812 overture... contradict much?

"Why is this? I’ll leave to you to explain since you have a wealth more experience with science and music than I. " Already been explained ad nauseum....

"e.g. where you could not commit to take a solid position on the sonic differences between playback music and live music"
Talk about taking things out of context!! That is not what was said or done. You asked about the MICROPHONE being catastrophic or not...nice try to spin it into something more general...I call you out on it. There was never one comment regarding sonic differences between playback and live! Everyone here will acknowledge the large difference that exists...there is no mystery there. However, we are talking about degrees of separation between the two. I stated that I know it can be a lot closer when there is less processing inbetween the soundwaves on the microphone to the playback wave on your ears. That is VERY different from what you are now claiming I was not commiting on. I call you out on this bad faith BS you are spining now.

"playback system’s frequency limitations is a distortion,"

It is a distortion as it is altering the original frequency content in terms of amplitude...this is known as a linear distortion (as is phase shift). It would help if you had at least a little technical understanding...then basics wouldn't need to be reiterated all the time.

"distortions discriminate as to whether or not they impact the noise floor"

Your own twiseted definition I presume? You realize that noise and distortion are distinct phenomena, don't you? Noise is uncorrelated with the signal and is typically the sum of various sources. Distortion is signal correlated and can be linear or non-linear...really this is basic. Distortion can be intermodulated by noise though and this can be seen sometimes in measurements with regularly spaced "fuzz" around each harmonic distortion component. Distortion can also intermodulate with itself as can be seen in IMD experiments and spectra. If the distortion is composed of enough of these intermodulted peaks and with noise then it is possible to have an artificial noise floor that is signal correlated and is in fact no longer true noise. This can serve to mask low level information, resulting in truncated amibience and note decay and reducing dynamic range. Crowhurt demonstrated this as a feature of amps with a global negative feedback loop. Otala showed also the back EMF from the speaker can inject, again through the feedback loop, a distorted signal FROM the speaker that then gets amplified...pretty much as pure distortion. Linear distortions affect amplitude at a given frequency or timing but not inherently noise.

 

[Robh3606]

Could you be more specific? If I read your post correctly you say you tripled your power which is not really a significant change at all unless you were underpowered. So what power levels are you talking about 10 watts 100 watts?
Rob

 

[DaveC]

We are I believe more than enlightened enough but perhaps what we aren’t as a species is particularly kind.

I think I understand what you're saying, but this sentence could be misinterpreted... by the classic definition of enlightenment the qualities of enlightenment and kindness are not separable, as kindness is motivated by compassion and wisdom, which are basic foundations of enlightenment. I'd also argue that the more we are enlightened, the more likely the kindness we show to others will be genuine and the most helpful form of kindness possible.

I do think we are finding out that technical advancement is not necessarily leading to happiness, and we need some new definitions for success that better fit our current times...

 

[the sound of Tao]

I think I understand what you're saying, but this sentence could be misinterpreted... by the classic definition of enlightenment the qualities of enlightenment and kindness are not separable, as kindness is motivated by compassion and wisdom, which are basic foundations of enlightenment. I'd also argue that the more we are enlightened, the more likely the kindness we show to others will be genuine and the most helpful form of kindness possible.

I do think we are finding out that technical advancement is not necessarily leading to happiness, and we need some new definitions for success that better fit our current times...

Very much agree to the idea Dave that true enlightenment contains the growth towards kindness as well as knowledge and understanding but was just suggesting our need for a greater focus on kindness and compassion over just seeking more knowledge going forwards as these may be invaluable qualities to us all and offer up something of a salvation.

Much of the modern world has been heavily traditionally broadly weighted towards the idea that enlightenment = knowledge which as you point out isn’t the whole picture at all.

Kindness is perhaps a less attractive quality for some than is knowledge or understanding because being smarter has been more essentially the greater human pursuit and kindness seems more of a lesser byproduct of this civilisation in some ways. From what I have read compassion and kindness itself might be the central core thrust of the suggested Maitreya... tho I really don’t want to jump ahead and put words into the mouth of a Buddha... but I do think that the Age of Enlightenment has been much more successful at creating knowledge and some understanding but perhaps less so at manifesting compassion and human kindness.

Without getting too fluffy I think the current balance of focus is in our knowing ourselves through our heads but we might know ourselves even better if we look more towards our hearts.

 

[morricab]

There is a fundamental difference between things within our universe which are not yet observable, and things beyond our universe that are *in principle* unobservable.

And expanding the definition of science, away from observation and experiment, is disastrous. It leads us away from what has made science this incredibly successful tool that it has been for the last several centuries.

Just because you cannot currently understand how something can be observable or not observable doesn't mean it is "in principle" unobservable. You are right that until it is in some way testable it is perhaps not strictly following the scientific method that has allowed rapid progress in understanding and technology. However, you cannot also just put mathematical speculation into the nature of reality into the box of unscientific like you would philosophy or religion. It is still following strict rules of math and physics nonetheless. And in lieu of observables to test, running simulations with known parameters gives ranges of possibilities. In all liklihood, it is of no consquence anyway for how we orient ourselves towards the future.

 

[morricab]

Very much agree to the idea Dave that true enlightenment contains the growth towards kindness as well as knowledge and understanding but was just suggesting our need for a greater focus on kindness and compassion over just seeking more knowledge going forwards as these may be invaluable qualities to us all and offer up something of a salvation.

Much of the modern world has been heavily traditionally broadly weighted towards the idea that enlightenment = knowledge which as you point out isn’t the whole picture at all.

Kindness is perhaps a less attractive quality for some than is knowledge or understanding because being smarter has been more essentially the greater human pursuit and kindness seems more of a lesser byproduct of this civilisation in some ways. From what I have read compassion and kindness itself might be the central core thrust of the suggested Maitreya... tho I really don’t want to jump ahead and put words into the mouth of a Buddha... but I do think that the Age of Enlightenment has been much more successful at creating knowledge and some understanding but perhaps less so at manifesting compassion and human kindness.

Without getting too fluffy I think the current balance of focus is in our knowing ourselves through our heads but we might know ourselves even better if we look more towards our hearts.

Are we considering "enlightenment" as something outside ourselves? Outside our minds or are we talking only about maturity through gaining wisdom?

There doesn't seem to be much connection between intelligence and kindness. In fact, one could argue that humans are fundamentally brutal to lower animals and each other despite having a clear intellectual advantage over other animals. Has that increased intelligence brought wisdom? To some individuals I would say yes but to humanity as a whole, I don't think so. We have become better at regulating ourselve through laws and social structure but this can be stripped away rather quickly.

Knowledge has primarily led us to higher and higher levels of technology but little I fear in the way of wisdom and how to use that power correctly or with restraint. I guess we have managed not to blow ourselves into oblivion...so far.

Brutality is baked into the species I fear and it has always been the dream of many a philosopher and religious movement leader to try to ascend past that nature but I think we cannot get around our own brains without serious re-engineering (or AI, which is another kettle of fish). Perhaps most of us are still too stupid to get there is all? Evolution pushed us to use our brains to make tools to survive and not so much about compassion. We got very good at the former, which is why the latter lags so far behind...it's not natural to think much beyond your immediate family.

Of course, I am a materialist in that I don't think there is anything beyond the biochemistry that is going on in our brains that manifests in the outer world as thoughts and actions. I also don't think we have true free will and that most of the real "thinking" is subconscious and out of our control...the conscious is mostly window dressing for thoughts that occrred deep within.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Brad, you guessed I love this enough to so risk a complete jump factor off topic.

So I might believe in the numinous, you may trust in science, a philosopher might even suggest that we can’t separate ourselves from external influences and see where we start and where everything else stops and a spiritual soul may see the seat of consciousness as just being somewhere else completely... or we may be internally conflicted and believe in any mix of the above and still manage to cope with all these internal conflicts. I am comfortable that some things may well prove unknowable. I truthfully at times take greater comfort in the unknown.

But I seriously don’t believe that brutality is the natural state of things, I have zero evidence on this other than a feeling of an inexplicable rightness in this, or in complete wrongness whenever I witness brutality, nor am I at all convinced that IQ is the only pathway to anywhere.

From my point of view information and wisdom are interrelated only as various phases of perception. I believe too much reliance on one may well undo the other.

I believe other species are different but not in any way lower and that anthropocentric notions that we are in any way better and more at the centre of things is misguided and that the current undoing of the planet is a result of this misconception and that biocentric and ecocentric notions are a true way forward for us as all... as well as for any other species that actually manages to survive the recent bout of human activity on this planet.

I also don’t believe consciousness is anything but a means to an end but that is a story for another day.

Am always happy for opportunities to be able to discuss these things in a civilised and respectful way as we do which I believe is one of the virtues of talking with fellow music lovers... we may not always see the very same universe but I believe we do share a sensitivity to the ultimate feeling nature of it. Though that said am ok to be wrong or right with any thing of the above because I don’t feel conflict serves us well in these times and I do believe in the essential nature of human kindness as being at the core of what we truly are. Though none of us can in truth absolutely know the truth in this or otherwise. We still all really only just have our beliefs.

 

[morricab]

Brad, you guessed I love this enough to so risk a complete jump factor off topic.

So I might believe in the numinous, you may trust in science, a philosopher might even suggest that we can’t separate ourselves from external influences and see where we start and where everything else stops and a spiritual soul may see the seat of consciousness as just being somewhere else completely... or we may be internally conflicted and believe in any mix of the above and still manage to cope with all these internal conflicts. I am comfortable that some things may well prove unknowable. I truthfully at times take greater comfort in the unknown.

But I seriously don’t believe that brutality is the natural state of things, I have zero evidence on this other than a feeling of an inexplicable rightness in this, or in complete wrongness whenever I witness brutality, nor am I at all convinced that IQ is the only pathway to anywhere.

From my point of view information and wisdom are interrelated only as various phases of perception. I believe too much reliance on one may well undo the other.

I believe other species are different but not in any way lower and that anthropocentric notions that we are in any way better and more at the centre of things is misguided and that the current undoing of the planet is a result of this misconception and that biocentric and ecocentric notions are a true way forward for us as all... as well as for any other species that actually manages to survive the recent bout of human activity on this planet.

I also don’t believe consciousness is anything but a means to an end but that is a story for another day.

Am always happy for opportunities to be able to discuss these things in a civilised and respectful way as we do which I believe is one of the virtues of talking with fellow music lovers... we may not always see the very same universe but I believe we do share a sensitivity to the ultimate feeling nature of it. Though that said am ok to be wrong or right with any thing of the above because I don’t feel conflict serves us well in these times and I do believe in the essential nature of human kindness as being at the core of what we truly are. Though none of us can in truth absolutely know the truth in this or otherwise. We still all really only just have our beliefs.

Doesn't bother me going OT on this thread . You know, I was an unusual chap who majored in Chemistry for my BS but I minored in Philosophy! Philosophy of science was one of my favorite subjects at University.

I get where you are coming from but to me the need to not feel alone in the universe (whether we really are or not) is the driving impetus for most spiritual yearning...we don't like to believe that this is "all" there is. I personally don't have a problem with the unknown as it is always fertile ground to dig one's mind it the subject. As to unknowability...well I don't think we have scratched the surface on what is knowable or even if there is anything ultimately unknowable. Every time we think we are at the limit of knowlege there is a breakthrough and the gates open to new understanding. Are we nearing the limit of what is knowable? Perhaps with our current understanding of the universe and our place in it but that is likely not the end of the story.

"But I seriously don’t believe that brutality is the natural state of things, I have zero evidence on this other than a feeling of an inexplicable rightness in this, or in complete wrongness whenever I witness brutality, nor am I at all convinced that IQ is the only pathway to anywhere."

Are we becoming less brutal compared to our ancestors? The 20th century's violence dose not suggest this, although the rule of law in many places has made casual violence less prevalent I think.

I think our history and pre-history show pretty clearly that A) we are brutal survivalists where some of that has been redirected into more "civiilized" achievenments in sports, business, politics and yes fighting wars. and B) IQ (from a continually increasing brain size...at least until about 25K years ago=) and it is only that long development that allows us to even be having this discussion. So, taking a historical perspective, it actually means just about everything or you and I wouldn't have the mental horsepower to discuss the spiritual vs. material at all.

"I believe other species are different but not in any way lower and that anthropocentric notions that we are in any way better and more at the centre of things is misguided and that the current undoing of the planet is a result of this misconception and that biocentric and ecocentric notions are a true way forward for us as all... as well as for any other species that actually manages to survive the recent bout of human activity on this planet."

It depends on what you mean by "lower". Regarding cognitive power and ability to create, innovate, systmatize etc. we are clearly a step above. Does that mean we should mistreat other animals, no I don't think we should. Just because we are smart enough to make sophisticated tools doesn't mean we are able to encompass much larger and interconnected dynamic systems like the Earth's biosphere. We are trying but our understaning is woefully outpaced by our inventiveness and our brutal nature (which you see in the ruthless pace of "progress" and modernization...which is possibly (I don't say definitely because we honestly don't know) doing permanent (define permanent) damage.

"

I also don’t believe consciousness is anything but a means to an end but that is a story for another day."

I currently don't believe consciousness is anything real at all but is in fact an emergent property of all the subconcious processing going on. It seems that some level of consciousness is a direct result of the number of neurons connected and the number of connections, which is why some other higher primates and perhaps some other mammals have at least some concept of self-awareness. Drop down a bit lower on the brain/connectivity scale and you will see that self-awareness (that we relate to as consciousness) disappear. Doesn't mean this is what is really going on but seems to be the case. If we manage to build a self-learning AI (general intelligence) then I think we will see rather quickly if any of these hypotheses are true because it will very quickly become WAY more intelligent than we are and we will see if it becomes self-aware, or hyper-aware and if it has an inherent kindness due to its superior knowledge.

 

[Al M.]

Just because you cannot currently understand how something can be observable or not observable doesn't mean it is "in principle" unobservable.

"A fantastic consequence of general relativity theory [is] that the part of the universe that we will ever be able to see does not include the whole of it. The part of reality we can in principle ever see has boundaries. And there are necessarily regions of space and time beyond those boundaries."

From: Lee Smolin, Life of the Cosmos, p. 78
(Smolin is a theoretical physicist)

You are right that until it is in some way testable it is perhaps not strictly following the scientific method that has allowed rapid progress in understanding and technology. However, you cannot also just put mathematical speculation into the nature of reality into the box of unscientific like you would philosophy or religion. It is still following strict rules of math and physics nonetheless. And in lieu of observables to test, running simulations with known parameters gives ranges of possibilities. In all liklihood, it is of no consquence anyway for how we orient ourselves towards the future.

The Ptolemaic epicycles mathematically explained nicely how the Sun and all the planets were revolving around the Earth.

Observation killed the Ptolemaic epicycles: the Earth revolves around the Sun. But the math of the Ptolemaic epicycles, following strict rules, largely worked.

Physical mathematics without observation and experiment, such as the Multiverse, is not science, it is Ptolemaic epicycles all over again. And it is philosophy dressed up as science.

 

[Exlibris]

I was going to write a lengthy reply but you covered it quite well. A couple of the points will have a direct impact on dynamics...for good or ill (such as power products, filters, cables etc. ) The rest is sort of incidental and may or may not have signficant impact. Not sure what he was banging on about passives (based on a different comment from him I think he was trying to say passives hurt dynamics) but I don't use a passive...I either have integrated amps or use amps with active preamps. All of these points, while potentially relevant completely overlook the elephant in the room...high sensitivity speakers vs. low sensitivity speakers, IMO.

Take audiophile bills new Swing IIs as an extreme example. They will play concert levels on less than 1 watt! Add to that the drivers are designed (at least the mid/high compression driver) to go to around 140 db and all conceivable musical scale in a domestic environment will be covered with just a couple of watts. Contrast that with an 86db speaker that will require hundreds if not thousands of watts to do the same...if in fact it even could. The problem is that the usual equation of every 3db requires a doubling of power only holds true when the voice coil is at ambient temperature. As you increase the temp, the conductivity is reduced and pretty soon that doubling of power is only getting you 2db, then 1db then none. Now, if Stenho is running AVERAGES of 95-96db as he claims and his speakers are some 8-10db less sensitive than that level, those voice coils are already quite toasty and ready to resist more incoming current for peak demands. This means that a large peak coming in will result in a non-realistic scaling in SPL due to the compression from the driver not conducting normally anymore... This is why pro drivers have A) very high sensitivity and B) Huge vented voice coils in order to minimize this effect. What is interesting is that they are designing for very high levels, so when you bring that back down to a domestic environment you get huge dynamic potential essentially without thermal compression even into the 100db+ range. How this cannot be perceived as important to "jump factor", lively sound or LIVE sound is not clear to me.

Also, I agree that "Robust Amplification" is far too vague to be useful. Robust in terms of watts, power supply capacity/speed, ability to withstand nuclear explosions? I have found that watts and getting a lively or "jump factor" sound has zero or even a negative correlation? Why? Well it's not the watts per se, it is how an amp is typcially designed to get those watts (generally PP, Class AB with substantial feedback). big power supply? Yes, but only if it is also a "fast" design with a low internal impedance...otherwise it gets in it's own way and might be good for not sagging under heavy steady loads but likely not responsive enough for real music demands. Nuclear explosions? maybe if it is coated in Starlite....

I learn a lot on this forum. I had no idea about the effect that hot voice coils can have on performance. I think it might explain why my system sounds like it is running out of gas after two or three hours of listening. I had always blamed that on either bad AC in my building or some sort of problem with a component in my amplification chain.

 

[morricab]

I learn a lot on this forum. I had not idea about the effect that hot voice coils can have on performance. I think it might explain why my system sounds like it is running out of gas after two or three hours of listening. I had always blamed that on either bad AC in my building or some sort of problem with a component in my amplification chain.

It is a big deal in the pro industry but it is virtually ignored in the home one. The thing is, when you bring a high sensitivity driver from the pro world into a home environment...it is barely having to work. It might need some help to be smooth but it won't compress dynamics in the same way a low sensitivity home driver will do. This is just physics.

 

[Exlibris]

Which, if any, home audio speaker manufacturers are using pro industry quality, high sensitivity drivers?

 

[Duke LeJeune]

Which, if any, home audio speaker manufacturers are using pro industry quality, high sensitivity drivers?

Classic Audio, JBL, GedLee, Klipsch, Volti, PBN (“M” series), Spatial Audio, Cessaro, Pi Speakers, Tyler Acoustics (Pro Dynamics line), Edgarhorn, Avantgarde (maybe not prosound but close enough), Oswald's Mill, eXemplar, Zingali, Zu, Seaton Sound, Usher (D2), Pure Audio Project, Tekton, Hawthorne, Living Voice, Serious Stereo, yours truly, and all the others that escape me at the moment.

In addition to the well-known-in-prosound phenomenon of thermal compression, my understanding from conversations with Floyd Toole, Earl Geddes, and others, is that there is also a rapid-onset "thermal modulation" component that can compress instantaneous peaks even if the magnet has not yet heated up enough for long-term thermal compression to set in. Unlike long-term thermal compression, thermal modulation has not been thoroughly investigated. My assumption is that some of the design elements that minimize long-term thermal compression (including efficiency and voice coil thermal mass) also help to minimize thermal modulation.

Imo "jump factor" calls for preservation of the dynamic contrast that is on the recording (which includes avoiding thermal and mechanical compression/modulation effects along with avoiding amplifier clipping, and ime amplifier slew rate seems to correspond to "jump factor"). An often overlooked part of dynamic contrast is having a low noise floor. This of course includes ambient noise, but I think it can also include the reverberant sound in the room. If there is too much reverberant energy, that can reduce the dynamic contrast of notes that come along before the reverberant energy has died away. Among other things, this implies that fairly narrow radiation patterns are conducive to "jump factor", but I'm not sure how valid this really is out in the "real world", as for example people have said the MBLs have good dynamic contrast and they inevitably produce a lot of reverberant energy.

Finally, ime a certain amount of sheer SPL is needed to get "jump". The startle reflex is a limbic system (medulla oblongotta) thing, and I think it is more likely to kick in when we start hitting peaks in the 100 dB ballpark at the listening position, and moreso as we go north of that.

 

[Exlibris]

Classic Audio, JBL, GedLee, Klipsch, Volti, PBN (“M” series), Spatial Audio, Cessaro, Pi Speakers, Tyler Acoustics (Pro Dynamics line), Edgarhorn, Avantgarde (maybe not prosound but close enough), Oswald's Mill, eXemplar, Zingali, Zu, Seaton Sound, Usher (D2), Pure Audio Project, Tekton, Hawthorne, Living Voice, Serious Stereo, yours truly, and all the others that escape me at the moment.

In addition to the well-known-in-prosound phenomenon of thermal compression, my understanding from conversations with Floyd Toole, Earl Geddes, and others, is that there is also a rapid-onset "thermal modulation" component that can compress instantaneous peaks even if the magnet has not yet heated up enough for long-term thermal compression to set in. Unlike long-term thermal compression, thermal modulation has not been thoroughly investigated. My assumption is that some of the design elements that minimize long-term thermal compression (including efficiency and voice coil thermal mass) also help to minimize thermal modulation.

Imo "jump factor" calls for preservation of the dynamic contrast that is on the recording (which includes avoiding thermal and mechanical compression/modulation effects along with avoiding amplifier clipping, and ime amplifier slew rate seems to correspond to "jump factor"). An often overlooked part of dynamic contrast is having a low noise floor. This of course includes ambient noise, but I think it can also include the reverberant sound in the room. If there is too much reverberant energy, that can reduce the dynamic contrast of notes that come along before the reverberant energy has died away. Among other things, this implies that fairly narrow radiation patterns are conducive to "jump factor", but I'm not sure how valid this really is out in the "real world", as for example people have said the MBLs have good dynamic contrast and they inevitably produce a lot of reverberant energy.

Finally, ime a certain amount of sheer SPL is needed to get "jump". The startle reflex is a limbic system (medulla oblongotta) thing, and I think it is more likely to kick in when we start hitting peaks in the 100 dB ballpark at the listening position, and moreso as we go north of that.

Thank you!