|
When will the obsession with "analog" stop? (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Mad for Brad |
| you are missing the point. The overarching system is rather easy to see. As far as hearing, it isn't analog. If you disagree, you need to do some research. You are nitpicking an argument that is quite clear and simple. Like saying digital is analog because eventually it ends up in a D/A. The point is that analog sound has nothing to do with evolution. End of story. Please just stop. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by theterran
And now we're debating whether the nervous system is analogue or digital.
Lets hook up Tiesto to a speaker, plug him into a wall socket and find out what kind of sound he makes. (I bet it's analog)
and yeah off "In electronics, a digital-to-analog converter (DAC or D-to-A) is a device that converts a digital (usually binary) code to an analog signal (current, voltage, or electric charge). An analog-to-digital converter (ADC) performs the reverse operation."
Data digital, electricity analogue. So it's arguable that the electrical signals we receive are perceived as data. (Stored as digital) |
Erhm... Not really... The chemical signals passing through the synapses are just a part of the neuronal system, so IF it was digital then they would just be the mechanism for transmitting the digital information. I think maybe you're thinking of hormones instead.
If M4B was right then the brain would still be digital. Which I don't think he is, because neurons can fire at different rates. Its not just on or off. Neurons turn on and off at a very fast rate, and thats what allows them to express intensity. Certainly these rates might be quantised to certain levels, but the system is a slightly more fuzzy one than a computer CPU for sure, its not a series of on/off switches, its a series of switches that fire at different rates depending on arousal. And that's without even talking about hormones and things that genuinely ARE continuously varying.
| quote: | | or maybe the inherent properties of the analog signal trigger neurons in the brain to release seretonin which causes us to hear the signal in a warmer way |
For a supposed psychologist, this Robby doesn't seem to know much about perception though... Makes me wonder what's going on with the american education system. I mean seriously?? Analogue triggers serotonin??
| quote: | | At least my evidence is based on some sort of repeatable observation, like the fact that you never see companies advertising awesome analog synth as sounding "cold and digital." |
You actually used to see companies advertising the "clarity" of digital sound, and even today, you often see people advertising their sound as cold and digital actually. I've seen sound banks for absynth where this was a selling point.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
So, double-blind tests aren't compelling evidence for you? What would you consider to be "justifiable"?
As for the rest - your evolutionary argument is entirely bull. Man didn't evolve to with condoms either, but the ones who do aren't the stupid ones. For that matter, our ears didn't "evolve on analog" anyway, when you consider that all that analog equipment is based on electronic parts that weren't even invented before the 1950s. It's all technology. |
Ah digi, don't go spoiling his day with logic man. So cruel.
He IS sort of right in one way though. Our ears do prefer harmonically related sounds. We prefer a pure sine wave to the completely unrelated partials of nails on a chalkboard for example.
Digital synths can make sounds that just can't appear in nature, for example a full square wave missing its fundamental, but still maintining the rest of its harmonic structure. Similarly, the sound of aliasing is unnatural and unpleasing to the ears. |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
@m4b
So WHAT are you saying?
If you're saying its isn't analog then by logic you're saying its digital.
And whats worse is you're saying its digital because the "overarching system" of cells turning "on and off" means it must be.
If you can't understand how that clearly makes no sense I'll let you argue with yourself. Evolution has A LOT more grounds, reasoning and justifications then the preposterous arguement you just brought to light.
And if you don't like the word evolution then use the phrase "principle of familiarity". Of course you can't prove evolution, but you can rightfully see theres a high degree of human familiarity to analog sounds. I'm not saying that proves analog is better, I'm saying its light years better of an explanation then saying "because cells in the body turn on and off we're a digital species". I'm really not all too sure what it is you think you're saying.
In the off chance that some random cell "theory" or whatever you're arguing even made sense, than how does it even align with mass opinion that the shocking majority of producers tend to agree analog has a better sound? Not only does it have less grounds than evolutionary theory, but the concept it is based on is linked to nothing but some enormously flawed "on/off" concept. It makes no sense in every sense of the word senseless. It is not "clear" and once again I have no idea what your point is. But I'm sure once again you will try to draw links where no links exist, then accuse something that at least has potential to explain the links. Seriously you can't be for real... you're basically saying "humans like digital because our cells are either on or off". And this is something I won't repeat. There are analog and digital hearing aids, but there is no such thing as digital hearing. Yet you will actually try to make the statement that hearing "isn't analog".
You can have the spotlight now, because like your reasons to make a logical point, my reasons for staying in this thread any longer are nonexistent. |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Erhm... Not really... The chemical signals passing through the synapses are just a part of the neuronal system, so IF it was digital then they would just be the mechanism for transmitting the digital information. I think maybe you're thinking of hormones instead.
If M4B was right then the brain would still be digital. Which I don't think he is, because neurons can fire at different rates. Its not just on or off. Neurons turn on and off at a very fast rate, and thats what allows them to express intensity. Certainly these rates might be quantised to certain levels, but the system is a slightly more fuzzy one than a computer CPU for sure, its not a series of on/off switches, its a series of switches that fire at different rates depending on arousal. And that's without even talking about hormones and things that genuinely ARE continuously varying.
For a supposed psychologist, this Robby doesn't seem to know much about perception though... Makes me wonder what's going on with the american education system. I mean seriously?? Analogue triggers serotonin??
You actually used to see companies advertising the "clarity" of digital sound, and even today, you often see people advertising their sound as cold and digital actually. I've seen sound banks for absynth where this was a selling point.
Ah digi, don't go spoiling his day with logic man. So cruel.
He IS sort of right in one way though. Our ears do prefer harmonically related sounds. We prefer a pure sine wave to the completely unrelated partials of nails on a chalkboard for example.
Digital synths can make sounds that just can't appear in nature, for example a full square wave missing its fundamental, but still maintining the rest of its harmonic structure. Similarly, the sound of aliasing is unnatural and unpleasing to the ears. |
Please never speak to me again about "perception".
Do you even know how the human body works? Just seeing or hearing something pleasurable can trigger higher levels of serotonin/dopamine.
Same way high levels of dopamine/seretonin can cause us to percieve something as more pleasurable than it is. So if analog is more pleasing, which you just mentioned is possible by saying "the sound of aliasing is unpleasing", then the sound that is not aliasing IS pleasurable, and thus likely to stimulate more release of certain neurotransmitters. Please don't try testing my knowledge of psychology and perception, I will never lose.
Now I am done with this thread. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| Are you even aware of how a neurotransmitter functions?? I assume you realise that neurotransmitters can have different functions depending on where they are in the brain. High serotonin levels in the primary visual cortex mean a very different thing in terms of function than do high levels in the prefrontal cortex:gsmile: |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
@m4b
So WHAT are you saying?
If you're saying its isn't analog then by logic you're saying its digital.
And whats worse is you're saying its digital because the "overarching system" of cells turning "on and off" means it must be.
If you can't understand how that clearly makes no sense I'll let you argue with yourself. Evolution has A LOT more grounds, reasoning and justifications then the preposterous arguement you just brought to light.
And if you don't like the word evolution then use the phrase "principle of familiarity". Of course you can't prove evolution, but you can rightfully see theres a high degree of human familiarity to analog sounds. I'm not saying that proves analog is better, I'm saying its light years better of an explanation then saying "because cells in the body turn on and off we're a digital species". I'm really not all too sure what it is you think you're saying.
In the off chance that some random cell "theory" or whatever you're arguing even made sense, than how does it even align with mass opinion that the shocking majority of producers tend to agree analog has a better sound? Not only does it have less grounds than evolutionary theory, but the concept it is based on is linked to nothing but some enormously flawed "on/off" concept.. |
Robby
Accept the fact that your hearing organ does not work in an analogue manner. You do not have access to every Hz. The range is from 20 to 20 000 but there are plenty of gaps not only from the actual physical limitations but also from other elements like masking and that is not even touching the manner in which the brain creates the audio we hear. It is far from analog. It can't be, Nothing is infinite in our body. We don't see in an analog fashion, we don't hear in an analog fashion. The point was that we can't distinguish analog from digital if the resolution is high enough because of our own hearing deficiencies. And aliasing granted an issue with digital music is only an issue at a given resolution and if you work at a sample rate that is high enough, aliasing artifacts are far beyond human hearing. |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
Even analogue is subject to quantum particulate behavior as electrons and other sub atomic particles act by expelling packets of quanta energy in absolute conserved unchanging quantities.
The whole Universe is in fact digital. In the beginning 99% of the Universe was Hydrogen. As this matter grouped into massive clumps, the clumps got hotter and hotter with ever increasing pressure and stars were born out of this heat, and within them hydrogen atoms under immense pressure gained an electron to become Helium. Right there is a digital interaction - the energy transfered between the 2 atoms is absolute conserved 'energy', always the same amount gained and lost (transfered).
Fast forward 13 billion years and look down at your hand - all was once Hygrogen and a few other trace elements inside a star.
Bit off topic, sorry.
For me immesurably more intense and mysterious compared with a man made religious template.
...........
In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized," referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization"[1]. This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete numerical values, rather than any value, at least within a range. There is a related term of quantum number. An example of an entity that is quantized is the energy transfer of elementary particles of matter (called fermions) and of photons and other bosons.
A photon is a single quantum of light, and is referred to as a "light quantum". The energy of an electron bound to an atom (at rest) is said to be quantized, which results in the stability of atoms, and of matter in general.
As incorporated into the theory of quantum mechanics, this is regarded by physicists as part of the fundamental framework for understanding and describing nature at the infinitesimal level.
Normally quanta are considered to be discrete packets with energy stored in them. Planck considered these quanta to be particles that can change their form (meaning that they can be absorbed and released). This phenomenon can be observed in the case of black body radiation, when it is being heated and cooled. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
Do you even know how the human body works? |
Dude, you're a psych student, not a geneticist or brain surgeon. You're not an expert in anatomy or cognitive science. Don't try to assert authority over a subject you know nothing about. Maybe they did teach you some of this in school, but obviously they only scratched the surface, because the crap you're spewing is so utterly superficial, it sounds like it came straight off one of those web pages on recreational drugs. Or maybe Wikipedia.
If you want to argue the facts, fine. But stop throwing your dick around and acting like a few hours in the same classrooms that engineers and pre-med students sat in as a bird course somehow make you uniquely qualified to comment on every single aspect of music and science (because it's all psychology, right? :rolleyes: ).
I'm not even kidding, you simply don't know how to debate an issue and I'm getting sick of watching you try. You ramble on endlessly either stating opinions as facts or making up new facts as you go along, and when you finally manage to paint yourself into a corner, you inevitably respond with some variation of "I don't have to explain myself to you, I'm a Psychologist!" . Off.
For the record, the human brain is not analog, digital, quantum, or any of those things. The human brain is biological. Or biochemical, depending on who you ask. Organic matter does not work on electronic principles. Saying it's digital or analog or whatever else is an analogy, or a model, which is useful enough for what it is but has absolutely no value as evidence in a discussion like this.
I might as well say that airplanes fly, therefore they're like birds, which means they must also on windshields and get chased by cats. That's a form of inductive reasoning, and a rather flagrant and useless one. You're asserting a strong conclusion by relying on a weak analogy. It's not a valid argument.
| quote: | | Now I am done with this thread. |
Unless you've actually got something to say for once, you'd better be. |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| it was meant to be an analogy but our perception of the world is not analog therefor it must be some quantized approximation. That is something you cannot argue. Well . |
|
|
| Raphie |
Gheeezj seems that you guys need to invest a bit in analoque :D
I find myself moving back more and more "out of the box" |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| To me, a violin or guitar is analog. A synth is a synth is a synth. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| That was enough dialog about analog to fill a catalog, if you ask me. What's next, a M4B monologue delivered in Tagalog? |
|
|
|
|
