KeithEmo
Member of the Trade: Emotiva
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Posts
- 1,698
- Likes
- 869
I THINK we all agree that this one is snake oil (or perhaps tree sap)?
Although it is by no means the most far fetched product currently for sale.
The answer to your question is simple.... although not as concise as one might like.
The reason is that there is no reasonable scientific basis for any mechanism by which holistic dilutions might even possibly work.
We actually know a lot about chemistry... and especially the chemistry of water.
And, as it turns out, we know that there is no theoretical mechanism present by which their claimed "trace memory" could occur.
(Not only have the failed to show that it DOES occur; they have failed to provide an explanation of how it MIGHT occur.)
Likewise, as far as I know, there is no known mechanism by which a small wooden block could or would cause a significant alteration in room acoustics.
The effect of adding a piece of wood to a room can be quite accurately calculated, it would turn out to be minor, and there are no major unknowns in the equation.)
(If they had presented a plausible theory, consistent with at least some known science, about how the wood block MIGHT affect room acoustics, then testing the claim would be justified.)
If we actually knew exactly how human hearing and perception worked in detail we could make similarly accurate assessments there.
However, in fact, while we know a lot about some aspects of it, we still don't know much about others, so we are unable to make accurate predictions.
We have some very detailed and presumably accurate information about how humans consciously percieve continuous sine wave signals within a certain frequency range at various SPL levels.
(When we play frequency sweeps for people, at different levels, we know when they hold up their hands indicating that they heard something.)
We can also make some pretty reasonable inferences about how we humans consciously percieve frequencies outside that range.
(When we play frequencies outside that range, at reasonable levels, people DON'T hold up their hands indicating they hear something.)
Note how, when I actually phrase what we know accurately and in detail, it seems somewhat limited.
Here's an interesting sample of what you come up with when you analyze things like this somewhat carefully.
The generally accepted frequency range of human hearing... for continuous sine waves... is 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
And, by the basic math, a 44k sample rate is perfectly adequate to reproduce any frequency below 20 kHz.
This would seem to suggest that 44k is a perfectly adequate sample rate to record audio for humans.
Now, note that the time interval associated with a single sample at 44k is about 25 microseconds.
Now, let's look at what might happen to a transient signal (any signal that starts suddenly).
Many DAC filters add multiple cycles of ringing to the beginning or end of transients.
So, WOULD a single extra cycle of ringing added to one channel be audible?
Well, if you do the math, adding one cycle of ringing to the start of the signal will cause it to begin 25 microseconds sooner.
And we know, from several well documented tests, that humans can detect a phase shift between their left and right ears of as little as 10 microseconds.
So, according to those tests results, a single cycle of ringing added to one channel would produce an error that was more than DOUBLE THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF HUMAN AUDIBILITY.
Therefore, there is a perfectly reasonable mechanism by which it MIGHT HAPPEN.
I personally suspect that this effect would probably be beyond the ability of our brains to detect or notice.
And, it should rerely if ever be the case that ringing would be added anything other than symmetrically.
HOWEVER, in fact, a single cycle of ringing at 44k is NOT "obviously beyond our physical ability to detect" after all.
That means that it would probably be a good idea to run a few tests and find out ifi it's audible or not (rather than make an ASSUMPTION that could be wrong).
(That way we'll know whether we have to worry about a single cycle error or not.)
And, just a bit of perspective, for those who think "we've known all about human hearing for a hundred years"....
We didn't figure out that a bacteria causes stomach ulcers until 1982.
(And a lot of people were convinced we knew a lot about medicine before then.)
Although it is by no means the most far fetched product currently for sale.
The answer to your question is simple.... although not as concise as one might like.
The reason is that there is no reasonable scientific basis for any mechanism by which holistic dilutions might even possibly work.
We actually know a lot about chemistry... and especially the chemistry of water.
And, as it turns out, we know that there is no theoretical mechanism present by which their claimed "trace memory" could occur.
(Not only have the failed to show that it DOES occur; they have failed to provide an explanation of how it MIGHT occur.)
Likewise, as far as I know, there is no known mechanism by which a small wooden block could or would cause a significant alteration in room acoustics.
The effect of adding a piece of wood to a room can be quite accurately calculated, it would turn out to be minor, and there are no major unknowns in the equation.)
(If they had presented a plausible theory, consistent with at least some known science, about how the wood block MIGHT affect room acoustics, then testing the claim would be justified.)
If we actually knew exactly how human hearing and perception worked in detail we could make similarly accurate assessments there.
However, in fact, while we know a lot about some aspects of it, we still don't know much about others, so we are unable to make accurate predictions.
We have some very detailed and presumably accurate information about how humans consciously percieve continuous sine wave signals within a certain frequency range at various SPL levels.
(When we play frequency sweeps for people, at different levels, we know when they hold up their hands indicating that they heard something.)
We can also make some pretty reasonable inferences about how we humans consciously percieve frequencies outside that range.
(When we play frequencies outside that range, at reasonable levels, people DON'T hold up their hands indicating they hear something.)
Note how, when I actually phrase what we know accurately and in detail, it seems somewhat limited.
Here's an interesting sample of what you come up with when you analyze things like this somewhat carefully.
The generally accepted frequency range of human hearing... for continuous sine waves... is 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
And, by the basic math, a 44k sample rate is perfectly adequate to reproduce any frequency below 20 kHz.
This would seem to suggest that 44k is a perfectly adequate sample rate to record audio for humans.
Now, note that the time interval associated with a single sample at 44k is about 25 microseconds.
Now, let's look at what might happen to a transient signal (any signal that starts suddenly).
Many DAC filters add multiple cycles of ringing to the beginning or end of transients.
So, WOULD a single extra cycle of ringing added to one channel be audible?
Well, if you do the math, adding one cycle of ringing to the start of the signal will cause it to begin 25 microseconds sooner.
And we know, from several well documented tests, that humans can detect a phase shift between their left and right ears of as little as 10 microseconds.
So, according to those tests results, a single cycle of ringing added to one channel would produce an error that was more than DOUBLE THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF HUMAN AUDIBILITY.
Therefore, there is a perfectly reasonable mechanism by which it MIGHT HAPPEN.
I personally suspect that this effect would probably be beyond the ability of our brains to detect or notice.
And, it should rerely if ever be the case that ringing would be added anything other than symmetrically.
HOWEVER, in fact, a single cycle of ringing at 44k is NOT "obviously beyond our physical ability to detect" after all.
That means that it would probably be a good idea to run a few tests and find out ifi it's audible or not (rather than make an ASSUMPTION that could be wrong).
(That way we'll know whether we have to worry about a single cycle error or not.)
And, just a bit of perspective, for those who think "we've known all about human hearing for a hundred years"....
We didn't figure out that a bacteria causes stomach ulcers until 1982.
(And a lot of people were convinced we knew a lot about medicine before then.)
