Neurophone and the saccule gland

[bobv5]

Neurophone seems dodgy, but until I have evidence I will accept that I don't know.

Some of your comments about component choice seem odd.

" try to find a non magnetic leaded TL494"

TL494 is a Texas Instruments chip meant for power supplys. I strongly suspect either all of them are magnetic, or none of them are.


"teflon skinned is a must"

Why? Stray capacitance? If the wires are suitable spaced, the insulation shouldn't matter.

"7 strand is preferable"

Why?

"This is a 'dc to light speed' circuit, it is RF, so it needs to to be executed with care, with RF layout considerations and RF grade components, selected for minimizing RF distortion at the power and signal levels/shaping at hand."

RF design seems like voodoo, but really ultrasonic frequencies are pretty low, compared to the multi GHz frequencies our computers run at. The computers get by with cheap parts on cheap PCB's. I assume you were exaggerating when you said light speed? What is the actual upper limit of such a circuit?

[geekmaster]

Not to mention that Direct Current (zero Hz) electricity and the Speed of Light use different units of measurement. Perhaps the FREQUENCY of light was intended rather than its "speed", although light is more commonly measured in its wavelength (nanometers) rather than its frequency.

Then of course, even near-zero frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. DC) travel at "lightspeed", which makes that a very narrow range rather than a very wide range as intended.

[KBK]

When you go to current/voltage conversion systems, the developed field conditions, skin effect, and thus gauging and sizing become the other aspects of micro transient function. Or, more properly, micro transient development, with peak levels, in relation to one another, and their exact aspect of timing placement. For the timing and peaks to be representative of the original signal, with regard to phase and peak conversion, the entire 3d dimensional and relational aspects of the circuit, as a grouping of current path shaping dimensions and voltage field development and collapse are required to be perfected as a set. All with respect to the complex LCR of all the components in each device, and as a group. You are essentially taking the intelligence in an audio signal, and converting it to transient pulsations, in time. Permeable metals give you hysteresis and thus issues or deviations in signal development. Besides each component and it's connections having potential for their own resonance and complex LCR issues, locally. Shielding is not a solution that is to be proximity applied, either, as that destroys the balance in field development within the circuit. You are trying to create perfect square wave response, as rise and fall are key to this circuit. Thus the expression of a square wave in perfection: DC to light speed.

These are straightforward high end audio design principles which make for better gear. Test gear is done the same. Once again, that the signal development that this circuit is attempting, means that it has a requirement for serious component and layout considerations. If board mounted, careful design/layout is a minimum.

I will say that I have no idea about the circuit's efficacy having never tried it and only recently found out about it. Nor am I reading up on it. Or defending it, or detracting from it. It is just that..what you see in this circuit design attempt, demands this sort of attention be paid. I also have no idea if this is his original circuit.

Here's a recent bit that explains some of the challenges when relying on engineering measurement to project into the evaluation of potentials... over that of observation based discovery. Observation based discovery, which is how all science really begins. It explains the problem, when an engineering form, has been shown to fall short of observation.

For the first time, physicists have found that humans can discriminate a sound's frequency (related to a note's pitch) and timing (whether a note comes before or after another note) more than 10 times better than the limit imposed by the Fourier uncertainty principle. Not surprisingly, some of the subjects with the best listening precision were musicians, but even non-musicians could exceed the uncertainty limit. The results rule out the majority of auditory processing brain algorithms that have been proposed, since only a few models can match this impressive human performance.


The musician was the best in their test. They scored the 10x better than theory. Audiophiles are notably better at such discrimination than musicians, on average. Imagine their test equipment being poured over by experts, to perfect it. Scores above 10x would be more commonplace. Audio designers, for the most part, are crazy sensitive and might hit well above 10x, on average.

I've been pushing on alternative models for a very long time, due to this evidence type, which audiophiles have been stating, for years. Yet in the test, some could not, so there's your 'nay sayer' crowd, regarding audio quality and human sensitivity to distortions.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-four ... e.html#jCp

I have developed analysis and subsequent fruitful formulaic attacks on design criteria and execution of gear, regarding dealing with the human eye, as well.

[geekmaster]

Thus the expression of a square wave in perfection: DC to light speed.
...
I have developed analysis and subsequent fruitful formulaic attacks on design criteria and execution of gear, regarding dealing with the human eye, as well.

Dude! Your posts have been growing in unnecessary buzzword insertion and poor grammar so that they read like "computer generated text:
http://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/20 ... ake-paper/

And as I said before, DC and light speed are measured in different units and cannot be compared. All electromagnetic frequencies (including near-DC) travel (in vacuum) at the speed of light. Square wave leading and falling edges can have harmonic components extending to very high frequencies, but certainly nowhere near the FREQUENCY of light even in the most exotic of electronic components. Even the latest terahertz imaging devices only operate at the extreme lowest bounds of what could be considered as "light", overlapping the domain of thermal imaging devices.

If your bold claims that human ears can hear up to "light speed", that means that they can detect objects travelling at the speed of light (i.e. photons). That is the domain of the human EYE, not the EAR. Of course, your perceptions of sound and light could be confused if you suffer from synesthesia.

Unless piping audio directly into the brain, the frequency of audio PRESSURE waves travelling through the air is limited frequency to FAR below light speed, and sound waves cannot travel at all in a vacuum. And even IF piping audio directly into the brain (i.e. neurophone), the frequency at which brain cells fire limits the frequencies that can be detected to well below light FREQUENCIES, and limits the SPEED of electrochemical conduction to well below light speed (i.e. 3E8 m/s).

I really am trying hard to extract meaningful information from your posts so that I can respond intelligently. Even so, reading some of your boldly stated "pipe dreams" brings to mind a couple of questions: "What are you smoking?" and "Where can I get some?"...

[KBK]

It's all right there.. plain as day....

When you get to expression of perfect square waves, you require a perfect expression of DC ~TO~ lightspeed in delta. The change in value must be as fast as possible. Like a bullet that goes from zero to it's peak terminal speed.... in NO TIME.

With regard to the electronics, the change from the one state to another. From the DC considerations to the highest delta the combination of components can carry. Which means the RF dynamic expression of the system is not only ultra critical but ultra critical in relation and direct connection to the designed criteria of DC expression in the circuit. That these two design criteria must be designed as a paired set that are inescapably basing and having their ability to express in a low distortion context ---together. That they are interdependent in their distortions specifications and result. That a perfect reproduction of a square wave requires that these two criteria be perfected in the electronic design as a paired interdependent/blended set.

There's no mystery here, it's very, very basic.

With regard to the human body and neurological process, you'll have to a lot more reading, outside of textbooks and theory.

textbooks only tell you where to put your shoes on and begin walking. That is all they have ever been for.

Unless one is an engineer, as an engineer is to build things for human use that does not kill the humans who may use said devices. Therefore, engineers are trained and taught to not step outside those boundaries. The information, in the books is given to them in the form of expression as 'law' for that very reason. To the engineering mind, the book is a inviolate bible, even if it does end in a closed circle of logic.

If exploring and finding new..one reads the textbooks and then heads into the darkness and the speculation.

To the inventor, the physicist, the explorer, the theoretician, the book is the end of the known map, nothing more.

And all that huge unexplored area..it says in it's round about way..that 'the map is not the territory' and that the map is not inviolate and that the map, the textbook, the 'law' the 'theory'.... will be subject to change. Change that is brought in from and found out in those unmapped areas. And to not waste time fighting with engineering minds on the subject of what is in those books.

To return to the subject a hand, that it has just been illustrated that important fundamental aspects that gave rise to the 'theory of Fourier transform and limits' has been found to be incredibly wrong. By a good 10x plus. With regard to how humans hear and the use of Fourier analysis in that context and environment.

That if it is wrong by a factor of 10x, at a minimum, then what does this say about other 'inviolate' papered discoveries that are being put into books, in order to reach some level of capacity --to engineer?

Exploratory science regarding neurological aspects are outside of your premise here, in many ways that I have read upon and found in studies, works and most importantly...anecdotal data. That last of which is observation and then this becomes the anecdote.

That the hard truth of things is that leading edge science, which is the only thing that changes the textbooks... will never be found in a textbook.

[geekmaster]

It's all right there.. plain as day....

When you get to expression of perfect square waves, you require a perfect expression of DC ~TO~ lightspeed in delta. The change in value must be as fast as possible. Like a bullet that goes from zero to it's peak terminal speed.... in NO TIME.

With regard to the electronics, the change from the one state to another. From the DC considerations to the highest delta the combination of components can carry. Which means the RF dynamic expression of the system is not only ultra critical but ultra critical in relation and direct connection to the designed criteria of DC expression in the circuit. That these two design criteria must be designed as a paired set that are inescapably basing and having their ability to express in a low distortion context ---together. That they are interdependent in their distortions specifications and result. That a perfect reproduction of a square wave requires that these two criteria be perfected in the electronic design as a paired interdependent/blended set.

There's no mystery here, it's very, very basic.
... more stuff editted in after my reply...

Sticking "That" in front of a bunch of sentences does nothing to lend credence to them. It just makes them read more like a patent application. In fact, it makes some of those sentences patently absurd. Sticking periods at the end of incomplete sentences has a similar confounding effect.

Perhaps I could understand your "very, very basic" non-mystery (embedded in your mysterious wordplay) if I had the right blend of smoking materials at my disposal. Without them, I get cognitive dissonance when trying to integrate your claims with my internal world view.

... more stuff editted in after my reply... important fundamental aspects that gave rise to the 'theory of Fourier transform and limits' has been found to be incredibly wrong. By a good 10x plus.

Umm... Has anybody besides yourself found this alleged "flaw" in Fourier analysis? What units of measurement are you using in your "wrong by a factor of 10x" claim? Did you publish your extraordinary thesis in any scientific journals? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and yet, you provide NO EVIDENCE beyond your bold claims...

[KBK]

Now we're getting to the nitty gritty. Internal view, which becomes the launch point of logic formation and projection. which circles back to my original points. I'll stop there, and leave it alone.

[geekmaster]

Now we're getting to the nitty gritty. Internal view, which becomes the launch point of logic formation and projection. which circles back to my original points. I'll stop there, and leave it alone.

Circular logic goes nowhere fast (at "light speed" you might say). I feel like I have been trolled.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3n0vBcW5fc[/youtube]

Your post at the top of this page does say "teflon skinned is a must" after all...

[KBK]

With regard to field collapse, and it's bloom, expression, over time, and the generation of distortion by the associated materials in-situ....teflon has the lowest level of 'interference', on record - in materials analysis and use. Slightly less linear than that of air, air being a 'reference'.

No trolling here.

[geekmaster]

With regard to field collapse, and it's bloom, expression, over time, and the generation of distortion by the associated materials in-situ....teflon has the lowest level of 'interference', on record - in materials analysis and use. Slightly less linear than that of air, air being a 'reference'.

The impedance of electromagnetic frequency (i.e. "field collapse") is dependent on the dielectric properties of the material.

Teflon (and other brands of PTFE) does have high thermal and electrical breakdown, low dissipation factor, and high surface resistivity (all qualities of an excellent insulator). However, for audio devices in general, especially those operated in a consumer/office environment (or even most military/industrial environments), Teflon insulation is generally only required when routing cables in plenums or other ductwork, to prevent toxic fumes in event of a fire. It is also commonly used in satellites and other low-pressure environments to prevent the corrosive out-gassing of some other common wire-insulation materials when exposed to a hard vacuum.

There are other less-expensive insulating materials that also work well (even for RF applications). The choice of insulation depends on the application. Even Dupont (maker of Teflon brand PTFE) recommends non-PTFE for various electrical and electronic insulation applications (including Kapton, Kevlar, and Nylon). And transformers commonly use enamel (or shellac) insulation, both in audio and in RF applications). Teflon is rarely used INSIDE coils, even on high-power primary transformer windings. And for capacitors, ceramic chip capacitors are most common these days, but thin-film capacitors are more commonly used in EHF and SHF/microwave applications.

Of course, some self-proclaimed audiophiles prefer teflon capacitors over oil-filled capacitors:
http://www.v-cap.com/
But then, the folks who religiously preach the glories of such nonsense gimmicks are the same folks who believe that they just gotta have "Monster Cables" (and/or vacuum tube amplifiers) when listening to their preferred "superior" vinyl disc collection. The ones who did graduate to CDs think they get superior audio quality by painting the edges of their CDs with green magic marker to prevent the precious laser light from "leaking out" (as if you can hear missing photons/eletrons in a digital circuit). There MAY be a difference between teflon and oil-filled capacitors, but not so much that it actually matters in an audio circuit, and certainly not a DIGITAL one as referenced by your critique of choice of components used in it. As you get older, such things are no longer important.

Unless you have the brain of a dolphin, you cannot discriminate all but the lowest of Ultra-Low RF frequencies (ELF) with your auditory brainstem response (ABR), even with the assistance of electronic nerve stimulation (such as from an "old-school" non-ultrasonic neurophone).

[geekmaster]

Also, in your original critique of components, you mention that a "star-ground" must be used.

That is not true for mixed-signal (hybrid digital and analog) circuits. The digital and analog portions must have separate grounds (including separate ground planes). If these two grounds must be connected, that connection between the digital and analog grounds can only be done at a SINGLE tie point.

Have you ever laid out mixed-signal circuit boards? I actually studied it and still have the course book and study materials...

Your bold claims do not rest easy with my practical experience. However, of all places to make such unfounded and unreferenced claims, this thread dedicated to the much-disputed Neurophone is probably the most appropriate venue.

[bobv5]

"Unless one is an engineer"

I am.

"To the engineering mind, the book is a inviolate bible"

I strongly disagree. The book contains simplified guidelines and shortcuts. Stuff that is close enough most of the time. (Offtopic- once had an argument with one of my teachers about how a 180 degree phase shift is not the same as reversing the polarity. I think his books are still in circulation)

"And to not waste time fighting with engineering minds on the subject of what is in those books."

Any decent engineer knows he doesn't know everything. A person who belives what he reads without thought is a fool, engineer or not.

[PalmerTech]

Has anybody besides yourself found this alleged "flaw" in Fourier analysis? What units of measurement are you using in your "wrong by a factor of 10x" claim? Did you publish your extraordinary thesis in any scientific journals? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and yet, you provide NO EVIDENCE beyond your bold claims...

Now we're getting to the nitty gritty. Internal view, which becomes the launch point of logic formation and projection. which circles back to my original points. I'll stop there, and leave it alone.

Circular logic goes nowhere fast (at "light speed" you might say). I feel like I have been trolled.


Your post at the top of this page does say "teflon skinned is a must" after all...

With regard to field collapse, and it's bloom, expression, over time, and the generation of distortion by the associated materials in-situ....teflon has the lowest level of 'interference', on record - in materials analysis and use. Slightly less linear than that of air, air being a 'reference'.

No trolling here.

I don't see trolling, but I do see evasive replies. Do you have evidence of a flaw in Fourier analysis? Can you explain yourself? If not, can you link to another source that does?

I am always willing to read dense material if something can be gleaned from it, but I really have a hard time understanding your posts.

[KBK]

Sorry, I didn't know of all the replies. (I'm tired of internet battles and rarely involve myself anymore )

Audiophiles have claimed for years , decades, in fact, that their hearing was capable of finding, or discerning things that have not been presented in measurement methods that are used in audio design.

That one side of this 'table of argument' was always about "We don't hear it. If we can't measure it, it isn't real."

The other side was, "We hear it, we therefore cannot dismiss it, and to hell with the measurements, if they can't illustrate it."

That only very recently, did someone devise a testing regimen and then commit to research, in order to find this out. To see if this was true or not. Perhaps it was done for differing reasons, but the audiophile can point at it with some legitimacy. Possibly quite a bit more than minimal legitimacy.

I don't see the arguments ending, even with this finding. People will do as people do.

Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle

Its a thing that seems to happen often, one could say... the old 'tilting at windmills' thing. Audiophiles say they hear things, and what seems like a tilting group of people, they try to take the audiophiles to task, for hearing these things. Which leaves the audiophiles flabbergasted, as they know the things they hear are real. What the audiophile tends to remember most about the group of people who attack them, is that many of them have engineering degrees. It's not a slight against engineers, it is merely a note about the constitution of the attacking group.

That those who could not hear the differences cited the measurements, and their weighting systems tied to such measurements.. as being true. After all, their ears and their measurements said they are right. You really can't ask for them to move any further than that. I can understand that. No argument. What this group tended to do, after that, is launch into a tirade about what the audiophiles where hearing...was and is expectation bias and self delusion.

This recent result in Fourier analysis as tied to human hearing, this illustrates or highlights this issue quite nicely. That much of what we take for granted, can be, in fact, suspect. That we must be wary of declaring a system of measurement or analysis as being representative of reality, in all future context. To be sure we don't allow such context to emerge in the mind, as some form of 'law'. Some understand this, some don't. Ie, no laws in science, only theory, theory that is subject to change, with hopefully not a 'tooth and nail' fight.

In my experience, regarding skills...the same complex scenario of argument and potential...exists for visual acuity, both inherent and learned.

[Diorama]

If you want to annoy an audiophile just say "double-blind test".

[KBK]

If you want to annoy an audiophile just say "double-blind test".

If you read this, then you will know why it annoys the audiophile.

It's a meaningless test.

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-four ... ciple.html

[geekmaster]

If you want to annoy an audiophile just say "double-blind test".

If you read this, then you will know why it annoys the audiophile.

It's a meaningless test.

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-four ... ciple.html

For an audiophile, it should be a "double-deaf test"?