What level of resolution ?

[Haselsh1]

So, it would appear that while Daft Punk were recording 'Random Access Memories', on the track featuring Georgio Moroder, they used three different microphones. Whilst he was talking about the sixties they used a 60's microphone. Whilst he was talking about the seventies, they used a 70's microphone and whilst he was talking about the future, they used an ultra modern microphone. The balance was shifted between these three microphones as he was talking. Big question time; who can clearly hear the difference...?

[danilo]

Someone of 8 years of age? The point where human hearing begins (measurably) it's inevitable deterioration :)

[Light Dependant Resistor]

The deterioration is far more likely the conditioning
imposed by using poor quality sound reproducing devices,
Perception of hearing, is for some years then conditioned /numbed
into thinking, that is all there is.

Until...

.

[Audio Advent]

I can hear the differences between and within the two main times he's speaking (sounded to me like the 60s to 70s mic switch happened after the little pause) listening to it on youtube (HD video).

But they also change the wetness of the reverb. First is dry without any, next has a very short time on it and is subtle and then much later he's speaking with quite a lot of reverb going on. So what is the mic and what is down to other effects?

It does open up a little to me a bit before he starts talking about the click but then the music stops too so you can hear more detail...

On this thread on diyaudio.com, first post, there is a download link to a DPA microphone promotional recording: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/269776-filter-brewing-soekris-r2r.html

It has a few different microphones of theirs in different positions whilst recording grand piano. The tracks sound really good and it's intresting to hear the differences between mic placements.

[danilo]

OF course you can
:lol: Clearly there is NO acknowledging the Human condition.
Fill yer Boots mate

[Audio Advent]

huh? Are you joking? Sounds to me that you're not used to studio geekery or don't have interest in studio techniques and so don't know what you're listening for.. Go and explore https://www.gearslutz.com and find the threads where people post up audio files of their recordings, demonstrating the differences between mics, gear, plugins emulations v the real thing etc etc . You begin to the learn to actually hear rather than just listen. Same with that Philips Golden Ear website they put up a while ago: https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html

If you can't the hear the difference between no reverb and loads of reverb though (as is the difference between the first instance he speaks and later on where the reverb is similar to the speech in "Fluffy Clouds" by The Orb) then there's no point being into hifi!

Other than that obvious change, you can hear a tonal difference although it's subtle between the middle and last bits of speech, so much so that it could be down to anything. It could even be that the whole mic thing is false and they've just EQ'd the tracks differently to get an effect or it's the tonal difference caused by the different effect gear or plug-ins used. Either way you can hear differences.

Listen to the files in that link I gave - listen to the differences in mic placement on a grand piano. Very real and obvious. Listen to different mics in the same placements - again, very real and obvious and that with mics from the same manufacturer. I have the actual DPA promo SACD and know it well (I know the CD layer anyway as I have to play SACDs through a not-so-good DVD player which is rarely set up.. wish I could find an easy way to rip it to my Pono player for DSD).

[Audio Advent]

And just to add, try as hard as I like, I don't hear differences between interconnects - differences I think I might hear are there again when I look for them but for the opposite cables - so I am well aware of the tricks your mind can play and deliberately focus on the opposite only to find I can trick myself both ways (and therefore any difference is imaginary).

[Haselsh1]

One thing my partner Sue and I can definitely hear are the differences between interconnects and loudspeaker cables. These differences are blatant they are so obvious. I currently use Atlas Hyper interconnects which have a clear emphasis in the treble when compared to Atlas Equator interconnects. I also use NVA LS5 loudspeaker cables as they also have a precise definition in the treble which tends to emphasise detail in the playback.

This weekend I shall be listening to the Daft Punk album on CD to hopefully hear the different microphones that were used on the Giorgio Moroder track. My guess is that now I know they are there, I shall hear them unlike listening to interconnects where you are not aware of the differences until you connect them up and then they smack you in the face.

[walpurgis]

Yes. The audible differences in the effects varying cables have on the sound are there to hear, even with digital cables. And I'm not talking about subtle effects (although they can be).

I simply don't understand those who say there is no difference. My thoughts are that they simply have not done the comparisons or if they suggest it's a psychological effect, don't trust their own perception.

[Haselsh1]

Geoff, I agree with the ‘perception’ angle on things. Sue and I can clearly hear the differences between interconnects and also loudspeaker cables but we fail miserably to detect any difference between mains cables. We did once try out a Tacima surge protected mains block and it completely screwed up the sound. It is of course possible that we were expecting it to completely screw up the sound in which case that was our ‘perception’.

I also think though that we can have a definite effect on our own perception. Sue and I are very open to cables sounding different so maybe that is why they do…? I once tried out some PWB Graphite foils and they made a rather significant difference to the sound of the CD’s with and without them. OK, the test disc was a Status Quo disk so maybe the end result was inevitable.

I don’t want to get wrapped up in whether interconnects sound better because to me, they sound different and maybe not better as who the hell decides what is better or not…? One thing I do know is that interconnects and loudspeaker cables sound very different to each other and many people can hear the difference.

[Haselsh1]

Your avatar is far too distracting

:eyebrows:

[Spectral Morn]

I will re listen to the track myself I had noticed a varaition in the track, which i put down to using an old recording. I didn't realise the interview was done for the album - interesting.

[Spectral Morn]

Your avatar is far too distracting

:eyebrows:

Yes, she looks nice.

[lurcher]

And just to add, try as hard as I like, I don't hear differences between interconnects - differences I think I might hear are there again when I look for them but for the opposite cables - so I am well aware of the tricks your mind can play and deliberately focus on the opposite only to find I can trick myself both ways (and therefore any difference is imaginary).


Not sure I follow the logic there. If some change makes you aware for the first time of something in the recording (which was there all the time, but for whatever reason the system didn't reproduce it in a way that you mind became aware of it) you cant rewind your mind, if you go back to the original setup, you are still now aware that the sound is there, so you will forever hear it. Its the fundamental (IMHO) problem with AB and ABX type comparisons.

The analogy I use is if they tried to determine if a chemical was fatally poisonous, First they give the poison to the subject (without letting him or the experimenter know so its all nice and double blind), then the subject dies, then they give the non poisonous substitute to the now dead corpse, and the corpse doesnt jump back to life. Therefore they conclude there was no difference between the substances.

[Haselsh1]

But the mind doesn't die just because it is now aware of something that previously it wasn't aware of. The mind has now been made aware of this difference so is now listening for this difference on every occasion. It is as though the perception has changed because now the mind knows that it has to listen out for a specific sound whereas before, it had no knowledge of that being the case.

[Haselsh1]

In fact, this would fit very well with the Daft Punk recording but would not fit with the cable analogy. Where cables are concerned, you have no preconceived idea of how it should sound. I listen to a cable and then decide if I like what I hear. What I do very definitely hear is a difference between Atlas Equator interconnects and Atlas Hyper interconnects. I also heard a significant difference between Atlas Hyper interconnects and Van Den Hul D102 MkIII HB interconnects. The difference was truly huge.

[Audio Advent]

Not sure I follow the logic there. If some change makes you aware for the first time of something in the recording (which was there all the time, but for whatever reason the system didn't reproduce it in a way that you mind became aware of it) you cant rewind your mind, if you go back to the original setup, you are still now aware that the sound is there, so you will forever hear it. Its the fundamental (IMHO) problem with AB and ABX type comparisons.


I agree with what you're saying so I guess my post can read differently to what I meant (pretty standard for my posts!). It's not that something pops out (though that can happen and yes you then forever notice it - there was something on QI earlier this year that was similar where subtle and some really not very subtle at all changes were made to a photo whilst you and the guests were invited to stare at it. Once you were told of the changes they were obvious but the mind just fixated on humans and animals in the image).

I mean that when I've bothered to compare a couple of interconnects and switched between the two using dual outputs of a source into different preamp inputs, I've focused on different bits of the sound and decided that one input sounds more this or more that. Then when I've deliberately tried to focus on that aspect of the sound on the opposite input/cable then I find it is also there too.. The only difference was where my mind was focusing.

My analogy would be this: It would be like looking at an image of a blue apple sitting on a red table. With one you say "hey the table is red with this cable!" and the other you say "yeah, the apple is blue with this one!" I like red tables so I'll buy this cable with the red table...

Hey, perhaps I've only got good cables that tend to sound the same, or I've got good components which don't react to the differences of electrical cable properties? Most recently I compared between some Deltec Black Slink and a one-man-band pure silver cable which the owner raved about as being better than some top end Kimber silver cable.

You know, probably the much better test would be to use different cables on left and right and hear if things move in the image when swapped over.

Totally different to listening to something where you know what you're listening for (mostly frequency response changes with mics) but then again, people's verbal descriptions of cable differences tend to be one of frequency response too, "brighter" "more presence" etc etc.

[Audio Advent]

Your avatar is far too distracting

:eyebrows:

I agree but after having listened and read discussions of the culture of the day surrounding the Jimmy Saville enquiry these past few days ...

... I can't help just think "we (am I? - leave it to others to guess)/people will be perving but how old exactly is this girl and what is the circumstance that she's posing with no knickers on in the 1970s and for whom?"

Probably not appropriate I'd say, given that Walpurgis talks of hifi in the 1970s so I guess he's at a creepy age for posting up such photos :)

(am just waiting for someone to think and then post "it's just harmless fun!" .. and so proving some kind of loose point).

[Barry]

Which avatar is/was it? Geoff changes his avatar frequently - the current one is of a young woman sat in an armchair holding (badly!) an LP.

[southall-1998]

Geoff is Hugh Hefner MK2.

s.

[walpurgis]

I agree but after having listened and read discussions of the culture of the day surrounding the Jimmy Saville enquiry these past few days ...

... I can't help just think "we (am I? - leave it to others to guess)/people will be perving but how old exactly is this girl and what is the circumstance that she's posing with no knickers on in the 1970s and for whom?"

Probably not appropriate I'd say, given that Walpurgis talks of hifi in the 1970s so I guess he's at a creepy age for posting up such photos :)

(am just waiting for someone to think and then post "it's just harmless fun!" .. and so proving some kind of loose point).

Does this guy have a problem with me?

[Haselsh1]

Does this guy have a problem with me?

I was wondering the same thing about me but some folk have a problem with everything.

[southall-1998]

Does this guy have a problem with me?


Maybe his sugar levels are low, Geoff. Go and give him some sugar :)

S.

[struth]

Certainly dont think you should be calling any member a perv Sam. If you have a problem with any avatar, just like a post, then contact a mod.

Ive not seen anything that i would call pervy.....yet!:)

[Audio Advent]

Does this guy have a problem with me?

Huh? I've not made any personal comment at all.

I was expressing my personal reaction to the image that was there when I posted! Don't take things so personally!

(The image looked like a teenager, black and white photo, no knickers on apparently, holding some 70s records infront of a stereogram)

[Marco]

Lighten up, FFS, Sam! You're going through one your 'overly intense' periods again.... :rolleyes:

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

Certainly dont think you should be calling any member a perv Sam. If you have a problem with any avatar, just like a post, then contact a mod.

Ive not seen anything that i would call pervy.....yet!:)

We live in hope :D

[Audio Advent]

Certainly dont think you should be calling any member a perv Sam. If you have a problem with any avatar, just like a post, then contact a mod.

Ive not seen anything that i would call pervy.....yet!:)

I've not! Where have you understood that I have?

If you read my post, I say that "we" are, in general, all perving - a reference to Shaun's post saying the avatar was distracting with a raised eyebrows emoticon, Darlek/Neil's agreement and that "she looks nice" and then MY agreement too that she looks nice.

In the light of the report on the sexual abuse at the BBC and the many surrounding discussions about the culture of the day, that people turned a blind eye to underage sexual abuse AND the photo appearing to be from that era of a girl of that kind of age, then it made ME feel it was inapropriate. IMHO, in my view.

Said nothing about others (other than suggesting Walpurgis may be of an age where it would add to that image too).

It didn't warrant any reporting of it to mods as it was a passing comment.

[Audio Advent]

Lighten up, FFS, Sam! You're going through one your 'overly intense' periods again.... :rolleyes:

Marco.

Nope! It's the over-reaction that seems overly intense to me. I expressed a feeling of confliction from the avatar given recent events.

It didn't invite such a reaction - could have been replied to with humour or anything. But instead there was a negative reaction, it being taken personally and then a few others wading in in reaction to Walpurgis rather than my post itself.

[Audio Advent]

I was wondering the same thing about me but some folk have a problem with everything.

Rest assured I have no problems with anyone here! If I disagree about something then please don't take that personally - I'm always talking about the subject in hand, and to be honest rarely distinguish between who's posting unless there's a clear carry over from another thread.

[Arkless Electronics]

Rest assured I have no problems with anyone here! If I disagree about something then please don't take that personally - I'm always talking about the subject in hand, and to be honest rarely distinguish between who's posting unless there's a clear carry over from another thread.

Unfortunately this does seem to be the order of the day on forums.... be critical of an idea, concept or even a specific piece of equipment and far too many, IMHO, take it personally.... I virtually had death threats on pfm for saying just what I think of Naim amplification FFS :eek: and my opinions on cables don't exactly go down well either.... on any hi fi forum :stalks:

[struth]

I've not! Where have you understood that I have?

If you read my post, I say that "we" are, in general, all perving - a reference to Shaun's post saying the avatar was distracting with a raised eyebrows emoticon, Darlek/Neil's agreement and that "she looks nice" and then MY agreement too that she looks nice.

In the light of the report on the sexual abuse at the BBC and the many surrounding discussions about the culture of the day, that people turned a blind eye to underage sexual abuse AND the photo appearing to be from that era of a girl of that kind of age, then it made ME feel it was inapropriate. IMHO, in my view.

Said nothing about others (other than suggesting Walpurgis may be of an age where it would add to that image too).

It didn't warrant any reporting of it to mods as it was a passing comment.


well, you ,mentioned him by name and implying him to be at a creepy age etc, and pretty much in next breath from mentioning J Saville etc. so you if looking at it that way, it does suggest that you were, in the eyes of others implying him to be perving. Such wording is very open to be misconstrued Sam, so irrellevent of what you may have meant, its how others read it.



I agree but after having listened and read discussions of the culture of the day surrounding the Jimmy Saville enquiry these past few days ...

... I can't help just think "we (am I? - leave it to others to guess)/people will be perving but how old exactly is this girl and what is the circumstance that she's posing with no knickers on in the 1970s and for whom?"

Probably not appropriate I'd say, given that Walpurgis talks of hifi in the 1970s so I guess he's at a creepy age for posting up such photos

(am just waiting for someone to think and then post "it's just harmless fun!" .. and so proving some kind of loose point).

[Audio Advent]

well, you ,mentioned him by name and implying him to be at a creepy age etc, and pretty much in next breath from mentioning J Saville etc. so you if looking at it that way, it does suggest that you were, in the eyes of others implying him to be perving. Such wording is very open to be misconstrued Sam, so irrellevent of what you may have meant, its how others read it.

You seem to be reading into my post in hindsight as if to intentionally derive a meaning from it.

If you read it in context (and even out of context as per the quote in your post) it doesn't read that way at all .

In fact Walpurgis didn't say anything about being accused of being pervy or creepy either - you've introduced a new element to accidently ramp it further out of context into over-reaction land!

Again, I say that we are ALL (meaning those involved in the thread at that moment - Shaun, Neil, Geoff, me) pervying / enjoying the photo (as evidenced by the mention of it in the first place and our replies). And in fact I'm not even talking about Geoff/Walpurgis at all if you go back to the context - I am quite clearly only referencing those who have specifically commented on the avatar :


Your avatar is far too distracting

:eyebrows:


Yes, she looks nice.


I agree but..

Regards to creepy - it's just a fact that many people out there might perceive someone in their 60s? (sorry Goeff if that's way out!) having an avatar of an apparent teenage girl with no knickers on as being a bit creepy. That does not imply that he IS creepy and doesn't imply that I think he is either. It's a matter of age difference, a difference which is factual not an opinion (ok, other than the guess at Goeff's age). I could have expressed that part of it more clearly I guess - apologies Geoff if it wasn't clear that I was not implying that you actually were creepy in any way. You have every right to be if you want to or are - obviously I have no idea as we've never met.

As I say, if people are pre-disposed to take things personally (and I don't know to what extent anything HAS been taken personally) then of course they will read all sorts into things - that's outside my realm of influence I guess.

[Audio Advent]

So, it would appear that while Daft Punk were recording 'Random Access Memories', on the track featuring Georgio Moroder, they used three different microphones. Whilst he was talking about the sixties they used a 60's microphone. Whilst he was talking about the seventies, they used a 70's microphone and whilst he was talking about the future, they used an ultra modern microphone. The balance was shifted between these three microphones as he was talking. Big question time; who can clearly hear the difference...?

From the original post, I kind of had assumed you did notice the difference once you'd found out (and it does need pointing out I think) and were asking others if they noticed too, hence why I was interested in the thread in the first place - but now think you've said the opposite..

Did you get a chance to listen to the CD again in the end ?

[Jimbo]

Shaun, I am listening to Daft Punk RAM on vinyl and I recon the first microphone has more body and sounds the best - maybe coloured but sounds richer.

The last microphone sound bit lighter weight in comparison but maybe thats because there is more going on in the mix behind his voice.:)

[Haselsh1]

Shaun, I am listening to Daft Punk RAM on vinyl and I recon the first microphone has more body and sounds the best - maybe coloured but sounds richer.

The last microphone sound bit lighter weight in comparison but maybe thats because there is more going on in the mix behind his voice.:)

Yes James, kind of agree there. The first part is definitely warmer or thicker. My other half Sue also says it is very easy to tell where the transitions are. Maybe a clear case again of 'progress' not being quite what it claims to be.

[Haselsh1]

Yes James, kind of agree there. The first part is definitely warmer or thicker. My other half Sue also says it is very easy to tell where the transitions are. Maybe a clear case again of 'progress' not being quite what it claims to be.

By the way James, technically a very fine analogue system you have there. I would love that front end.

[Marco]

You seem to be reading into my post in hindsight as if to intentionally derive a meaning from it.

If you read it in context (and even out of context as per the quote in your post) it doesn't read that way at all .

In fact Walpurgis didn't say anything about being accused of being pervy or creepy either - you've introduced a new element to accidently ramp it further out of context into over-reaction land!

Again, I say that we are ALL (meaning those involved in the thread at that moment - Shaun, Neil, Geoff, me) pervying / enjoying the photo (as evidenced by the mention of it in the first place and our replies). And in fact I'm not even talking about Geoff/Walpurgis at all if you go back to the context - I am quite clearly only referencing those who have specifically commented on the avatar :







Regards to creepy - it's just a fact that many people out there might perceive someone in their 60s? (sorry Goeff if that's way out!) having an avatar of an apparent teenage girl with no knickers on as being a bit creepy. That does not imply that he IS creepy and doesn't imply that I think he is either. It's a matter of age difference, a difference which is factual not an opinion (ok, other than the guess at Goeff's age). I could have expressed that part of it more clearly I guess - apologies Geoff if it wasn't clear that I was not implying that you actually were creepy in any way. You have every right to be if you want to or are - obviously I have no idea as we've never met.

As I say, if people are pre-disposed to take things personally (and I don't know to what extent anything HAS been taken personally) then of course they will read all sorts into things - that's outside my realm of influence I guess.

Ok, Sam, you've made your point, so give it up now. I insist that the thread gets back on topic, and so any further comments made out with of that will be removed without further warning.

Marco.

[Audio Advent]

Yep, I had moved it on 12 hours before your post.


Shaun, I am listening to Daft Punk RAM on vinyl and I recon the first microphone has more body and sounds the best - maybe coloured but sounds richer.

The last microphone sound bit lighter weight in comparison but maybe thats because there is more going on in the mix behind his voice.:)

See I hear it as being more congested (ok, I'm not really sure that term has the meaning I intend..) and lacking transparency..

It has more of a sound of it's own whereas the others are more open and appear to have less of a sound signature.

When it comes to music and creativity, sound of it's own is just as important as transparency. Down to using them in the right place.

[Audio Advent]

There is as much difference between brand new mics made today as there will be between mics of different eras. I'd like to know what the mics actually were..

[BTH K10A]

Differences in tonality between mics are clearly discernible. The Stereophile Test CD highlights how big those differences can be.

Gordon Holt narrates Track 5 of the Stereophile Test CD entitled "Why Hi-Fi Experts Disagree" a microphone comparison that includes:

Shure SM57, AKG D190E, Sennheiser MD441, Electrovoice RE20, Coles 4038, B&K 4006, Crown PZM, Milab LC25, Neumann LC25, Neumann TLM170, AKG C414B, Neumann U87, Neumann U47FET, Neumann U67, Telefunken U47, Telefunken ELAM251, AKG C12, AKG C12-modified, and EAR The Mic.

All were recorded on a Nakamichi 1000 R-DAT.

http://www.allmusic.com/album/stereophile-test-cd-vol-1-mw0000926026

[Macca]

I've ordered a copy of this record to see what the story is. I quite like Daft Punk. It's derivative, but good derivative.

[Haselsh1]

See I hear it as being more congested (ok, I'm not really sure that term has the meaning I intend..) and lacking transparency..

Yes, I fully agree that it could be read as congested. I don't want to get into a debate about what is better and what is simply different but congested is a word I would use to describe that 70's sound. I also have to add that I much prefer ultra modern microphones are their sheer clarity, especially on that Daft Punk recording.

[Jimbo]

[QUOTE=Haselsh1;735501][FONT=Tahoma]

That is how I heard it too Shaun.

Yes the VPI is a nicely engineered TT, a great analogue tool. It is totally silent and plays vinyl with an inky black background. :)

[Rothchild]

If one can't hear the difference between a Crown PZM and a 414, but can hear the difference between interconnect cables, one is probably imagining the difference between the interconnect cables!

[Haselsh1]

If one can't hear the difference between a Crown PZM and a 414, but can hear the difference between interconnect cables, one is probably imagining the difference between the interconnect cables!

Then there must be a helluva lot of people out there with very vivid imaginations.

[StanleyB]

If one can't hear the difference between a Crown PZM and a 414, but can hear the difference between interconnect cables, one is probably imagining the difference between the interconnect cables!
When you say "one is probably imagining.." does this refer to you personally?

[Rothchild]

When you say "one is probably imagining.." does this refer to you personally?

Possibly, but not exclusively.

I wouldn't have made use of the indefinite pronoun if I hadn't meant to.

[Rothchild]

Then there must be a helluva lot of people out there with very vivid imaginations.

Indeed there are.

There are also published spec sheets which help us understand the differences we hear between microphones, these never seem to be quite so forthcoming in the cable world.

The question was 'what level of resolution [do microphones really make any difference]' and my answer is '[yes] one greater than that presented by changing cable' So my point remains - if your hearing is not resolved enough to hear the difference between a budget PZM and a high grade LDC it's probably not resolved enough to hear difference between cables.

[Audio Advent]

Indeed there are.

There are also published spec sheets which help us understand the differences we hear between microphones, these never seem to be quite so forthcoming in the cable world.

The question was 'what level of resolution [do microphones really make any difference]' and my answer is '[yes] one greater than that presented by changing cable' So my point remains - if your hearing is not resolved enough to hear the difference between a budget PZM and a high grade LDC it's probably not resolved enough to hear difference between cables.

Exactly! That was the point I tried to make at the beginning of the thread. If cables are as markedly different ( or more so! as seemed to be implied early in the thread) as two microphones then cable manufacturers will ALSO be able to show us the clear and measurable frequency responses of each cable. That was in context of the generalised posts at the beginning implying it was impossible or needed some ultra high resolution of hifi.

Of course there is a context in that too, that a cable MIGHT effect the sound completely whereas you have to hear the mic difference within a mix and whilst being able to ignore the music - most people it seems to me, friends family etc, only hear music as a whole and either naturally find it hard or are unused to listening to individual sounds within music. No reason why the general population should be that much different to those enthusiast about playing music at home through hifi (not everyone into hifi is into sound per se, many it seems are just into the music).

[Haselsh1]

Ah, but I play various musical instruments and I can hear the difference, easily...!

[Audio Advent]

Are you sure you could originally? The thread title and first post seemed to say that you hadn't heard the difference... but I guess you meant that you hadn't put differences down to mics. Yes, certainly different when something is pointed out.

And things being pointed out can make a difference to hearing something even when it's false - as per that famous US court case claiming there were deliberate messages in backward-playing records. Even though it is nonsense, once a person has been "told" what they "should" be hearing, they will hear it. We all do.. even when it's made up or suggested.... or auto-suggested!

[walpurgis]

once a person has been "told" what they "should" be hearing, they will hear it. We all do.. even when it's made up or suggested.... or auto-suggested!

I hope you are just speaking for yourself. I don't 'hear things' that are not there.

[Audio Advent]

you do.

[Audio Advent]

Just as you no doubt see faces in random patterns just as 99% of humans (peope who don't are often then examined by nurologists to see why their brains are wired so differently).

Once a picture is pointed out to you from a random pattern, you will continue to see that picture even though it's not there. To a point you may be unable to see it as a random pattern ever again!

Certainly that is the same for things like hearing words within nonsense. It will sound like nonsense until somone points out that it sounds like a voice saying "it's fun to smoke marijuana" as per Another One Bites the Dust by Queen played backwards. From that point, you will never be able to hear anything else but those words.. even though it truly is just the mind projecting that pattern of speech upon effectively random sound.

Same with someone pointing out the differences between mics used or the attack on some fret work.. If you believe what you're hearing enough you will continue to hear the aspect of sound from the moment it has been pointed out. And to some extent, especially on subtlties, that can also happen when nothing of note is really there.

[Barry]

Does "Tsud eht setib eno rehtons" sound like "it's fun to smoke marijuana"?

Otherwise I agree with your post. Your comment about seeing things in seemingly random patters is apposite: I once 'saw' a face in the pattern of the bedroom curtains and now I see it every time (much to my annoyance!)

[Haselsh1]

Are you sure you could originally? The thread title and first post seemed to say that you hadn't heard the difference... but I guess you meant that you hadn't put differences down to mics. Yes, certainly different when something is pointed out.

And things being pointed out can make a difference to hearing something even when it's false - as per that famous US court case claiming there were deliberate messages in backward-playing records. Even though it is nonsense, once a person has been "told" what they "should" be hearing, they will hear it. We all do.. even when it's made up or suggested.... or auto-suggested!

My first post in this thread stated no such thing. What it said was that three different microphones had been used for the vocal recording. The fact is that I hadn't even listened for any such difference. Making such assumptions only succeeds in making one look an idiot. In fact making any assumption can be very dangerous.

[Haselsh1]

I hope you are just speaking for yourself. I don't 'hear things' that are not there.

I sometimes experience hypnogogic and hynopompic hallucinations but then apparently that is perfectly normal. When it comes to listening to music via hi-fi, I do not hallucinate sounds. Audio Advent obviously does as he has admitted here but I certainly do not.

[southall-1998]

Yes, hypnopompic hallucinations are very common. I sometimes get them, especially when I wake up, in a dream state.

S.

[Haselsh1]

Just as you no doubt see faces in random patterns just as 99% of humans (peope who don't are often then examined by nurologists to see why their brains are wired so differently).

Once a picture is pointed out to you from a random pattern, you will continue to see that picture even though it's not there. To a point you may be unable to see it as a random pattern ever again!

Certainly that is the same for things like hearing words within nonsense. It will sound like nonsense until somone points out that it sounds like a voice saying "it's fun to smoke marijuana" as per Another One Bites the Dust by Queen played backwards. From that point, you will never be able to hear anything else but those words.. even though it truly is just the mind projecting that pattern of speech upon effectively random sound.

Same with someone pointing out the differences between mics used or the attack on some fret work.. If you believe what you're hearing enough you will continue to hear the aspect of sound from the moment it has been pointed out. And to some extent, especially on subtlties, that can also happen when nothing of note is really there.

Apologies to those who may be offended but this is utter bollocks.

[struth]

Hell, I have a hard time seeing and hearing things that are actually there, far less things that aint :doh: ionly use alcohol as a medicine not to have a mind altering state.

[struth]

Who said that!!!

[Macca]

Who said what? What's going on? Where am I?

Trusting your senses:

Busy road, raining hard, you are at a major roundabout, you wait for a gap to pull out, you get a gap and pull out, you don't crash, you trusted your sensory input and it was correct.

Why is that this works but when it comes to audio our sensory input is suddenly completely fallible, hopelessly unreliable and capable of fooling us on a consistent basis?

[struth]

Its true we can be fooled sometimes mostly by eye but by ear too.. The brain tries to make sence of things usually i think by comparison. If it sounds like something you have heard before andvidentified it may for instance be cattagorised that it is that when it wasnt. Or it may look/ sound like something your mind thinks should sound or look like that so get classed that way... Or you my just be high:)

[walpurgis]

I do not experience perceptible physical, auditory or visual hallucinations at any time whist awake and alert.

What one may experience whilst asleep or partly asleep is neither here nor there. Alcohol, medications and other substances can alter perception, but that is not really the point here.

That the mind, at subconcious levels is randomly generating images and sensations is not in question. This is largely triggered by associations from data in the memory which the brain is processing for conscious thought (bit like RAM in a PC).

If an individual experiences hallucinations, that suggests that the (vague and undefined) boundary between the subconscious and the conscious is being breached. For some, this may be normal. It no doubt happens to everybody in a minor way, but should not be at a level that is perceived as a non reality experience.

[Haselsh1]

It all sounds a bit 'Matrix' to me. Maybe there is no reality at all...? Maybe the whole thing is just a dream, good or bad...? How do we actually know...? It's that bloke with the cat again. It is dead and alive at the same time. Now this really is bollocks.

[Macca]

Even the Matrix had rules. 'God does not play dice with the Universe'.

[struth]

Im not particularly artistic and dont really see 3d or those tricks of the eye well if at all. We all see odd things on occasion which we somtimes cant catagorise.. Goes for hearing too. Just that some folk see/hear things a lot more. Sometimes its becausetheir brain is not working normally. I guess ive seen folk see or perceive things that they may want to be there too. The brain is a very powerful entity.

Parallel universes aside which may of course exist i will for now go for the misfiring of neurons

[southall-1998]

Darn, why didn't I take the blue pill :D

S.

[walpurgis]

Darn, why didn't I take the blue pill :D

S.

I tried it and ended up here! :eek:

[struth]

Depends on the pill:eyebrows: not sure if they are for vigour or rigor:eek:

[Audio Advent]

Are you sure you could originally? The thread title and first post seemed to say that you hadn't heard the difference... but I guess you meant that you hadn't put differences down to mics. Yes, certainly different when something is pointed out.

And things being pointed out can make a difference to hearing something even when it's false - as per that famous US court case claiming there were deliberate messages in backward-playing records. Even though it is nonsense, once a person has been "told" what they "should" be hearing, they will hear it. We all do.. even when it's made up or suggested.... or auto-suggested!


My first post in this thread stated no such thing. What it said was that three different microphones had been used for the vocal recording. The fact is that I hadn't even listened for any such difference. Making such assumptions only succeeds in making one look an idiot. In fact making any assumption can be very dangerous.

To address the bit in bold : I didn't say that it had stated such a thing! Please read the post rather than adding in your own meaning ("adding in your own meaning" is the same phenomenon as I'm talking about here - once one convinces oneself of a thing, one will see it again and again even if it's false).


The fact is that I hadn't even listened for any such difference.

... which is kind of what I was addressing when I said
... but I guess you meant that you hadn't put differences down to mics. Yes, certainly different when something is pointed out.

You seem to have ignored that next line completely.

You hadn't listened to such a difference (You just stated that above, before you refute that too) but you may well have noticed it and not given it any consideration. Now it has been pointed out and you've taken time to listen for it you'll no doubt be forever aware of it..

[Audio Advent]

Does "Tsud eht setib eno rehtons" sound like "it's fun to smoke marijuana"?

Otherwise I agree with your post. Your comment about seeing things in seemingly random patters is apposite: I once 'saw' a face in the pattern of the bedroom curtains and now I see it every time (much to my annoyance!)

As a kid those patterns could keep me awake at night... although it was worse when I shared a room with my sister and she insisted on having a poster of Hellraiser's Pinhead on the wall opposite my bed !

Here is Queen's Another One Bites the Dust played backwards:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj2dJsVpgCY

It's pretty much meaningless backward sound... until it's suggested out that it says "It's fun to smoke marajuana" - was part of a famous case in the US, accusing record labels of satanic messages on the records. After it has been suggested, the brain will forever hear that speech within the sound even though it's not really there - might not effect 100% of the population.

[Audio Advent]

Apologies to those who may be offended but this is utter bollocks.

Which bit is utter bollocks? If all of it, then you are arguing with much of the sciences of psychology and neuroscience...

[Audio Advent]

Here's a really good backward record example with Led Zep's Stairway to Heaven.

Listen to the video WITHOUT LOOKING AT the SCREEN first.. You'll no doubt hear no discernable words in the backward parts at all. As soon as you read the words that are "supposed" to be there, you will suddenly hear them - your brain creates the pattern after it has been suggested.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mMJvzZq4hA

[anthonyTD]

Sorry,
But all these videos seem to be doing is planting a seed in your mind as to what someone else's interpretation is of what might be being said, IMHO its all bo**ox, for eg, the words to Stairway were written almost entirely by Robert Plant in one take, do you realy think he had time to set out a pattern of words that when played backwards, would say exactly what the interpretation in that video would have us believe, come on, you can play anything backwards and find a part that resembles a sentence of some sort or another.:rolleyes:
A...

[Macca]

I think the point being made is that our brains will perceive a pattern whether intended or not because that is how we are wired. And if a pattern is not initially perceived , once pointed out we will then perceive it, intended or not.

if our brains did not do this we would just perceive music as seemingly random sound pressure waves, as that is all it is.

[anthonyTD]

I understand where your coming from, i just think the intentional hidden messages, in records playing backwards thing, isnt a paticularly good example to use in this instance.
I think the point being made is that our brains will perceive a pattern whether intended or not because that is how we are wired. And if a pattern is not initially perceived , once pointed out we will then perceive it, intended or not.

if our brains did not do this we would just perceive music as seemingly random sound pressure waves, as that is all it is.

[Macca]

I agree.

[YNWaN]

So, it would appear that while Daft Punk were recording 'Random Access Memories', on the track featuring Georgio Moroder, they used three different microphones. Whilst he was talking about the sixties they used a 60's microphone. Whilst he was talking about the seventies, they used a 70's microphone and whilst he was talking about the future, they used an ultra modern microphone. The balance was shifted between these three microphones as he was talking. Big question time; who can clearly hear the difference...?

I've got that record though have only listened to it a couple of times - I'll have a listen and see if I can hear the differences :).

[Audio Advent]

But all these videos seem to be doing is planting a seed in your mind as to what someone else's interpretation is of what might be being said,

.....

you can play anything backwards and find a part that resembles a sentence of some sort or another.:rolleyes:


Thanks - exactly the point I was making. Those videos got you to understand what I was saying, therefore they were PERFECT for this instance.

Some things don't have to be there to hear them - they can be suggested and the brain fills in the rest to make them "real".

I think making this point was in response to Walpurgis stating that his brain is the only one on this planet that only hears and sees the absolute truth, whatever that is. Certainly he doesn't see or hear things which aren't there (I guess he won't hear those words either in those videos).

I think people need to try to understand the nature of the brain and conciousness before believing they are infallible and that everything they hear is real..

[walpurgis]

I think making this point was in response to Walpurgis stating that his brain is the only one on this planet that only hears and sees the absolute truth

That is not what I said. Do not refer to me personally in your postings.

[Audio Advent]

I hope you are just speaking for yourself. I don't 'hear things' that are not there.

All human beings hear things that are not there - by stating that you do NOT hear things that are not there, you're effectively stating that you're not the same as other human beings.

I'm sure that's not what you really intended to say but it is the resultant conclusion seen from the point of view of neuroscience.

And of course I didn't refer to you personally anyway strictly speaking - I used your avatar name. You, personall,y are completely hidden from me. No reason for anyone to conclude that anything presented as you necessarily relates to the real you... in other words, nothing here is personal, especially anything I write.

[struth]

Give it a break Sam. You cant speak for everyone on the planet's hearing or mental abilities.

[Macca]

Neither can Neuroscience. They're only scratching at the surface with that stuff. When they can completely reverse engineer a human brain then they can come and tell me what I'm hearing or not hearing.

They had a thriving Neuroscience dept at my University. They had a bunker where they tortured monkeys or something. The Prof was ritually banned from the Student's Union in a vote every year. Not that he gave a shit. In fact I think he sent a message along once saying as much.

[Haselsh1]

What was that Chemical Brothers album called..? Dig Your Own Hole I think

;)

[anthonyTD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj7vukZT9sI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDJpbSxhe0

[Audio Advent]

Give it a break Sam. You cant speak for everyone on the planet's hearing or mental abilities.

If it's how the human brain works and all those people have human brains... then I think people studying the brain and their findings on the relationship between conciousness and the outside world, can speak for everyone in general.

What you're expressing is that you don't believe it (although I'm guessing you don't know what exactly it is you don't believe? ) - a completely different point and proposition. If that's the case, then just say you don't believe it rather than say it's definately not true.

[Marco]

Are you married, Sam, or do you have a girlfriend or partner?

Marco.

[Audio Advent]

What's your thinking behind the question? Seems pretty off-topic...

Can I point you to post #38 ?

[Marco]

Please answer the question. The reason for asking will become obvious when you answer it :)

Marco.

[Audio Advent]

I've answered it here and nothing has become obvious. If I answer it again online in this text box too, how will it become obvious?

Or do you mean that your reply in response will make it obvious? In which case can't you just say why it's relevent beforehand? I don't believe it is going to be, sounds like some kind of set-up for a judgemental, personal comment. Sorry if I'm misjudging you here :)

Already this is off-topic and you've already told me not to be (post #38). I guess I'll have to stop here.

[Marco]

Hahahahahahaaha.... That answer says it all!! Why say two words when two hundred will do, eh? ;)

I'm being flippant, of course, but the reason I asked you the question is because if you have a wife, girlfriend or partner, do they ever tell you that you don't seem to know WHEN THE FUCK TO SHUT UP?? :D :lol:

You're *so* intense, it's unreal, and analyse everything to buggery!

Anyway, mate. Give it a rest and lighten up, as you're continual 'yeah but, no but, only if, maybe' pish is pissing folk off! [No offence intended].

Marco.

[RMutt]

I have found Audio Advents musings interesting. In fact I usually find his take on audio matters interesting. I would imagine almost everybody on this site over analyses stuff, if its only their interconnects, VTA's , sample rates or whatever, so Audio Advent is not unusual there! It seems obvious we all hear differently. We all see differently. Some people are wired to see smells or taste colours, that's the nature of our brains. So if we hear differently, we are hearing things others are not and so by definition we are hearing things that are not there, at least to others. I would imagine it's one of the main reasons we argue about the qualities of music reproduction. I for one definitely hear things that are not there because I have tinnitus and it does not take too much of a stretch of the imagination to assume I could be encouraged to hear other sounds that are not really there.

[RMutt]

PS I've tried to listen to the album in question and I don't know what all the fuss is about. Average at the very best, in my opinion.

[Marco]

That's absolutely fine, Andrew. I also enjoy some of Sam's posts, and have said so in the past. However, now and then his 'intense-o-meter' goes into overdrive, and needs the plug pulled ;)

Just sayin'...

Marco.

[Audio Advent]

Hahahahahahaaha.... That answer says it all!! Why say two words when two hundred will do, eh? ;)

I'm being flippant, of course, but the reason I asked you the question is because if you have a wife, girlfriend or partner, do they ever tell you that you don't seem to know WHEN THE FUCK TO SHUT UP?? :D :lol:

You're *so* intense, it's unreal, and analyse everything to buggery!

Anyway, mate. Give it a rest and lighten up, as you're continual 'yeah but, no but, only if, maybe' pish is pissing folk off! [No offence intended].

Marco.

Well there you go... you're very predictable eh! :)

She doesn't and they never have either. We talk about stuff and get deep every now and again (no smut please!).

When people's counter arguments are "that's bollocks" or "not me, I'm different!" without any further explaination then someone has to try to tease some kind of basis for an argument out of them. Else what's the point in their reply?

[Audio Advent]

I have found Audio Advents musings interesting. In fact I usually find his take on audio matters interesting. I would imagine almost everybody on this site over analyses stuff, if its only their interconnects, VTA's , sample rates or whatever, so Audio Advent is not unusual there! It seems obvious we all hear differently. We all see differently. Some people are wired to see smells or taste colours, that's the nature of our brains. So if we hear differently, we are hearing things others are not and so by definition we are hearing things that are not there, at least to others. I would imagine it's one of the main reasons we argue about the qualities of music reproduction. I for one definitely hear things that are not there because I have tinnitus and it does not take too much of a stretch of the imagination to assume I could be encouraged to hear other sounds that are not really there.

Thanks and I agree - it's what generates most heated discussion yet for some reason people won't acknowledge that their reality is only correct to them at that point in time. People insist that their version of reality is the correct one which err... is bollocks.

It does make me laugh a bit though seeing people get het up about their version of reality having to be the real one... it's like they're not accepting being human. Oh well.. at least they've got that path to travel, somewhere to go, hopefully before their deathbed.

Sorry to hear you have tinnitus! Although that's interesting in itself if you can look at it from a distance..

Daft Punk - you've got to feel the funk.. (not a bad strapline! I might sell it to them).

[Macca]

It's disco not funk. Although it is growing on me, even if I can't tell the difference between the microphones.

As to the nature of reality, I am reminded of Dark Star:

'Teach the bomb phenomenology, Doolittle.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)

[Audio Advent]

Funk as a musical feel or even emotion(?) - not funk as a music genre.

Funk is part of and within the Disco genre in my opinion.

[Macca]

They are in the same musical area but the beat is different. Some tracks on it are funk and some are disco is what i'd say, having given it another listen.

[Stratmangler]

Funk as a musical feel or even emotion(?) - not funk as a music genre.

Funk is part of and within the Disco genre in my opinion.

Funk is a feel, an attitude.
Deep Purple was a very funky band, as are Aerosmith. Neither band could be termed as "funk bands".
Funk has sweet FA to do with genres.

[lurcher]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOWdp1sOxvA

[Rothchild]

Bring on the battle of the funky drummers, there aren't really any good videos of Ziggabo so let's have some Jabo instead, he doesn't have Purdie's patter but he slays him on feel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSdvuqqiT8