[Split]Basement technology - split from: Pear Cable CEO Calls James Randi's $1 Millio

[Dan O.]

It may not be necessary to have supernatural hearing. We have lots of data on the ability to hear pitch and loudness and it is primarily that data that forms the basis of the counter claim that the cables are good enough that nobody should be able to hear a difference.

What we don't have as much data on is the ability to hear complex phase and coloring patterns such as used in locating sounds in the 3D space around us. When a listener has trained themselves to interpret these patterns for a particular stereo setup, how much of a change is necessary to break or distort the pattern recognition?

Edited by chillzero: 

Original thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95361

 

[WDB]

I would imagine that moving one of the speakers an inch or so in any direction, or the listener moving their head slightly, or even a new piece of furniture in the room might have far more effect on 'complex phase and coloring patterns' than a change from good to mega-expensive the speaker cable would.

 

[sol invictus]

What we don't have as much data on is the ability to hear complex phase and coloring patterns such as used in locating sounds in the 3D space around us. When a listener has trained themselves to interpret these patterns for a particular stereo setup, how much of a change is necessary to break or distort the pattern recognition?

I don't know, but I do know how much effect changing the cables has on all that relative to many other things, such as a little breeze, moving in your chair, opening the door, humidity, temperature, and the phase of the moon.

I also know that, in blind listening tests, the participants always fail to hear a difference unless the cable is ridiculous (like 50 feet of 18 gauge wire or something), and that even then the audibility can be explained by simple level variations (i.e. I don't know of any level-matched cable test in which differences could be heard).

 

[Dan O.]

I would imagine that moving one of the speakers an inch or so in any direction, or the listener moving their head slightly, or even a new piece of furniture in the room might have far more effect on 'complex phase and coloring patterns' than a change from good to mega-expensive the speaker cable would.

The proof that we don't know what processing is going on in human hearing is that we don't yet have computer systems that can take a stereo input and identify the 3D positions of each sound element like we do continuously in the real world.

Making claims about something we don't yet understand can only be speculation. Sure we can measure the change in the acoustic properties when a speaker is moved or furniture is added. We can even model those effects in a computer. We can also model the changes caused by changing the speaker cables and see that the magnitude of these changes is many orders less than those caused by moving furniture around. But we don't have the measurements from after the auditory processing in the brain to say that it is undetectable.

If someone says they can hear the difference the speaker cable makes I'll be skeptical. But I'll also say that if we can measure a perceivable difference, we can use that measurement to further improve the stereo equipment. This is the introduction to the scientific method that the audiophiles need.

 

[circuit_bent]

first of all, I think the term 'splitting hairs' would sum up a lot of the recent conversation here about minute colouration and supposed phase distortion due to furniture etc..

And Dan O., I don't understand what us not knowing exactly the processing that the brain does to sound input has got to do with anything. We don't really know much about how the subjective conscious of the brain works anyway.

Can you please explain what you mean by the computer system taking in a stereo input and determing 3d position? If you directly specify it's taking in a stereo input, how would you ever hope it could determine 3d position?

The human ear is a bit special in that the shape of it enables sound from the same source to reach the ear and multiple reflections to occur at the various surfaces of the ear and then that compound information is processed. That's how we as biological entities are aided in identifying the source of sound. That organic complexity can not possibly be modelled artificially (yet). And you want to model the intricate bones, cochlear (actually has been done) and even the cerebral processes as well?

About your last paragraph, I'll just go ahead and say that getting a better pair of speakers will help a lot more than some minute improvement in the cable quality, which is a highly questionable tweak in the first place.

 

[mcg]

But we don't have the measurements from after the auditory processing in the brain to say that it is undetectable.

Yes, we do, actually: controlled listening tests! Those are in themselves measurements.

 

[Dan O.]

When our technology can do with sound what we do naturally then I will be willing to accept the technical limits as relating to the human limits. Without knowing how to model the problem, the best we can do is actual human studies. Have studies been done to determine what level of distortions humans can detect? I've found some simple cases involving harmonic phase relationships but only talk about comparing real sounds to simulated 3D sounds and nothing regarding detecting distortions imposed on a 3D sound stage.

We probably have the same expectation for the outcome of the test. But until a properly designed test has been conducted, I will simply remain skeptical. It does no good to reject the test results either before or after the actual testing. Such action is the way of the woo.

 

[sol invictus]

I've found some simple cases involving harmonic phase relationships but only talk about comparing real sounds to simulated 3D sounds and nothing regarding detecting distortions imposed on a 3D sound stage.

I have no idea what you mean by "distortions imposed on a 3D sound stage", but if you're still talking about blind listening tests for cables in stereo systems, many of them have been done.

 

[rsaavedra]

When a listener has trained themselves to interpret these patterns for a particular stereo setup, how much of a change is necessary to break or distort the pattern recognition?

Exactly, there is really no conclusive study showing the whole space of variables affecting sound, and the ranges in which we humans start to notice differences.

Here's an interesting link to a YouTube video showing a blind boy who developed a form of echo-location "vision" to navigate properly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpBm4KoWsrY

That of course doesn't prove anything with respect to standard human hearing abilities, or whether differences between cables can be perceived. But just food for thought.

 

[tacodaemon]

I do wonder how companies like Pear are doing their engineering R&D, manufacturing and order fulfillment out of somebody's house in the suburbs of Boston.

 

[Steve Eddy]

I do wonder how companies like Pear are doing their engineering R&D, manufacturing and order fulfillment out of somebody's house in the suburbs of Boston.

Why would you wonder that? What would be so terribly difficult about it? I mean, he's making audio cables.

se

 

[Paulhoff]

Why would you wonder that? What would be so terribly difficult about it? I mean, he's making audio cables.

se

$7,000 plus, for the not terribly difficult audio cables.

Paul

 

[Steve Eddy]

$7,000 plus, for the not terribly difficult audio cables.

Ok. Your point?

se

 

[JoeEllison]

Dudes... doing your R&D in your mom's attic or in the garage while your wife yells at you means that your product is BETTER than something developed and produced by real scientists and engineers, under much better manufacturing conditions. They could charge even more if they could convince people that they used tiny metalworking hammers at some point in the process.

When it comes to anything remotely audio-related, people turn stupid at the drop of a hat.

 

[Gravy]

I do wonder how companies like Pear are doing their engineering R&D, manufacturing and order fulfillment out of somebody's house in the suburbs of Boston.

http://i2.tinypic.com/6f6n690.jpg

Pear doesn't manufacture its cables. That's done at a cable factory. Their R&D activities are no doubt quite similar to my Uma Thurman dating activities.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Dudes... doing your R&D in your mom's attic or in the garage while your wife yells at you means that your product is BETTER than something developed and produced by real scientists and engineers, under much better manufacturing conditions. They could charge even more if they could convince people that they used tiny metalworking hammers at some point in the process.

Dude... If you're going to criticize Pear Cables or its owner, at least come up with something that's actually relevant.

se

 

[JoeEllison]

Dude... If you're going to criticize Pear Cables or its owner, at least come up with something that's actually relevant.

se

I thought the woo tendencies of audio-nuts, and how easily they can be exploited to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars for no real benefit, is completely relevant. I know some people would like to pretend that one set of woo is completely different from another, but the truth is that there are overlapping, common traits. One of the woo beliefs when it comes to technology is that hand-made, small batch products are intrinsically better simply because they aren't mass-produced. Not just better quality, but also a "better" outcome.

 

[Steve Eddy]

I thought the woo tendencies of audio-nuts, and how easily they can be exploited to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars for no real benefit, is completely relevant.

Ok. But what exactly has that to do with where Pear Cables operates its business?

I know some people would like to pretend that one set of woo is completely different from another, but the truth is that there are overlapping, common traits. One of the woo beliefs when it comes to technology is that hand-made, small batch products are intrinsically better simply because they aren't mass-produced. Not just better quality, but also a "better" outcome.

How exactly are you defining "outcome"?

se

 

[Olowkow]

The proof that we don't know what processing is going on in human hearing is that we don't yet have computer systems that can take a stereo input and identify the 3D positions of each sound element like we do continuously in the real world.

Making claims about something we don't yet understand can only be speculation.

Actually there is a technology for determining the location or the origin of a gunshot. I read that they are installing these in high crime areas. The only reason stereos are not "3D" is that it would take too many point sources, and you would have to sit inside a sphere surrounded by these.

 

[Dan O.]

Locating an impulse sound by triangulation on the differential arrival times at 4 microphones is a rather trivial exercise. There are also some speach recognition systems that use multiple microphones to separate sound sources and enhance the results in multi-speaker environments. These are not at all related to what we are talking about here.


We only have 2 ears and we can hear 3D sound in the real world (at least most of us can). 3D sound can be reproduced in earphones by using microphones imbedded in a sculpture mimicking the subjects head. The transfer function of the recording setup has been modeled to produce 3D sounds digitally. With careful setup, the transfer function for a single pair of speakers can be inverted to allow a 3D sound to be presented to a listener through those speakers. What I haven't found anyone doing yet is mapping the 3D location of a sound source based on 2 audio sensors in a model of a head.