Sax on the Web Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,303 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This whole thing started bugging me, i.e. why people think that black rubber MPCs are darker and shiny metal MPCs are brighter and I did a little research. Well, somebody else really did and it goes all the way back to Pythagoras and Aristotle.

Here is an interesting read if anybody is interested: http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0041591/mccabe_m.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,736 Posts
This whole thing started bugging me, i.e. why people think that black rubber MPCs are darker and shiny metal MPCs are brighter and I did a little research. Well, somebody else really did and it goes all the way back to Pythagoras and Aristotle.

Here is an interesting read if anybody is interested: http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0041591/mccabe_m.pdf
What mouthpieces did Pythagoras and Aristotle use?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,901 Posts
This whole thing started bugging me, i.e. why people think that black rubber MPCs are darker and shiny metal MPCs are brighter and I did a little research. Well, somebody else really did and it goes all the way back to Pythagoras and Aristotle.

Here is an interesting read if anybody is interested: http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0041591/mccabe_m.pdf
I never thought that. Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Let me think, I believe the bronze age was over but rubber was not invented yet .... but I am delighted to tell you they were probably using ebony for their darker pan flutes ..:faroah:
Yes, of course - A bronze Pan Flute would be far too bright ; )
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
38,817 Posts
Very interesting.

Once again this demonstrates the power of the “ mind” over the senses. In other words we are used to consider senses as the primary instrument to asses the positive reality but forget that the senses are only a probe of the mind and the mind has bot hardware (the way it’s built) and software ( what we superimpose culturally).

In many cultures for example the words of green and blue are identical or bear the same root. Does it mean that these populations are colorblind (hardware) or does it mean that they are culturally indifferent to green and blue and call it one thing (software) ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue–green_distinction_in_language

As neuropsychiatry progresses , it is discovering more and more of hardwired structures which have determined our evolution and the fact that we are more prone to believe in certain things rather than other things.

This might even explain the fact that we witness almost daily that certain political figures or happening do goin popular favor despite the fact that if you ask people about the underlying question expressed by the political figure or happening they SAY that they are against it, but they are not, in practice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
707 Posts
Very interesting.

...
In many cultures for example the words of green and blue are identical or bear the same root. Does it mean that these populations are colorblind (hardware) or does it mean that they are culturally indifferent to green and blue and call it one thing (software) ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue–green_distinction_in_language
...
Man, this must be the market where you can sell green oxidised Jumbo Java's as blue Jumbo Java's !!
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
38,817 Posts
this is WAY more common than you think


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
It begs the question as to when the terms brighter and darker were applied to sound and whether that led to the assumed synaesthesia between finish and sound.
p.22 "These philosophers also described musical intervals in terms of color quite specifically: black and white pigments were blended along the same ratios as musical intervals, resulting in shades of
grey that corresponded to each possible sonority (Jewanski, 2001)."
Perhaps the association began in ancient Greece with the assignment of brighter images to higher frequencies?

Not at all disagreeing with the article's point, another issue with saxophone mouthpieces is whether the bone conduction for the player differs with metal as opposed to hard rubber (same phenomenon as to why your voice sounds different to you than a listener). That may create a different sound that the player hears between mouthpieces of different material while there would be no measurable difference that a listener would experience. That is posited here:
https://www.philbarone.com/blog/saxophone-news/post/does-saxophone-mouthpiece-material-matter
"A player may discern a heard difference in mouthpiece material since the sound conduction through the jaw may differ with varying mouthpiece material."
 

·
Forum Contributor 2016-17
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
In other words we are used to consider senses as the primary instrument to asses the positive reality.
I don't see how there can be any other primary instrument to assess reality, given that what we can know about reality comes to us first through the senses. But your points are well taken: what the brain does with the signals after they are read is very important.


Not at all disagreeing with the article's point, another issue with saxophone mouthpieces is whether the bone conduction for the player differs with metal as opposed to hard rubber (same phenomenon as to why your voice sounds different to you than a listener). That may create a different sound that the player hears between mouthpieces of different material while there would be no measurable difference that a listener would experience. That is posited here:
https://www.philbarone.com/blog/saxophone-news/post/does-saxophone-mouthpiece-material-matter
"A player may discern a heard difference in mouthpiece material since the sound conduction through the jaw may differ with varying mouthpiece material."
I don't have any metal pieces, but if I did I'd wrap it in some sort of rubber to see. Far from an ideal test, but even with an ideal test I'd be surprised if there was much real difference.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
38,817 Posts
there isn’t any other human one , but for example the fact that we cannot see X rays doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are not real , just as much as the fact that one “ thinks” he hears or feels something doesn’t mean that the perception is objective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,303 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
there isn’t any other human one , but for example the fact that we cannot see X rays doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are not real , just as much as the fact that one “ thinks” he hears or feels something doesn’t mean that the perception is objective.
Very true, polarization patterns that are clearly visible to insects and certain fish are one example. The other example is the olfactory system. There are essentially 4 olfactory receptors that are supposed to encode smells but there is a lot of evidence that smells are only contextual, that is, the exact same chemical odor composition can evoke very different smell sensations based on synesthetic input. I have tested it many times on myself, especially in the supermarket in the pet food isle. First I thought I was a dog, that I could actually smell the different flavors of cat food in the cans but eventually I started to realize that it was just another mind trick.

Coincidentally, isn't this what the entire field of magic and illusionism is based upon?
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
38,817 Posts
sure but even more how cinema and television works.

They are 24 or 25 STILL frames in a second but because they “ persist” we see them as one flowing movement.

There are many things that we think “ real” when they are simply the way we are built that makes them “ real” for us.

Our brains are made to skip part of the information (which by sheer size would otherwise overwhelm us) and make a synthesis of what the various probes (senses) retrieve.

In doing so there are some mistakes made. Some are intrinsic and make the cinema and television possible (the persistence of the single images seen as a continuos movement). Some are occasional glitches and some are pathological ones.

People who see and hear things that others can't (or feel, as in phantom pain or phantom limbs) are not necessarily “ crazy” they experience a problem in the perception sphere.





There are many neuroscientists who believe ( this is about the get into pun territory!) that humans have structures which lead us in a perception and belief direction or other which would explain certain things like the tendency to follow certain way of doing things or to uphold beliefs.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/29/health/religious-brain-mormon-mri/index.html
https://bigthink.com/going-mental/the-neurological-origins-of-religious-belief
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
Milandro, perhaps the neuroscientists are referring to association cortices:
http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/assn_cor.htm

As an analogy think of voice recognition systems. You can have a simple direct system that recognizes the component parts of sound (phonemes) like "oh," "puh" etc, translating the sound into a written term (as I attempted to do).

With association systems we might turn those phonemes into words. "suh"+"aaah"+"icks"=sax, and voice recognition is born. By attaching those to a dictionary in memory we will associate those words with definitions.

A more sophisticated program with associations into sentences and meaning will be more reliable in writing what you say, as well as tying what you say into meanings.

For us, association areas are tied into or programmed by memory. We "remember" what a saxophone is, and associate sounds, visual images, touch or combinations thereof to trigger that memory, and that which we associate with the saxophone.

Another example is how Pavlov's dogs learned to associate the ringing of a bell strongly enough to trigger physiological responses.

As I first picked up a saxophone, I suspect that my girlfriend's association with the visual and auditory cues of my sax triggered less serotonin (the reward chemical mentioned in both articles that you referenced). The sound of the instrument being cleaned and the case closing likely triggered serotonin release.

As the Big Think article points out, there may be genetic predisposition for belief, however one possibility is that this predisposition is for a stronger more rigid belief system. That may also have to do with interwiring between brain structures being more or less intricate.

I fear that my girlfriend falls in the former category. That may be why her expectation on hearing the case open may be irretrievably linked to past history.

Or perhaps I should spend less time getting those bright shiny bits for the horn.

By the way Lost Circuits, as you put it, "smells are only contextual, that is, the exact same chemical odor composition can evoke very different smell sensations based on synesthetic input." Perhaps that relates to smell being experienced in the temporal lobe, near memory areas, and the limbic system, the seat of emotions. Close association with memory and emotion would reasonably be expected to enhance synesthesia!

Which is why I'm going to try spraying rose oil around me the next time I practice and my sweetie is around...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,303 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Sometimes I regret getting out of this field of research but being on the outside looking in is way more fun than the daily grind and competing for NIH grants where you could not propose anything that was groundbreaking because it would threaten the same peers that were reviewing your grant application. I miss colleagues like Oliver Sacks (we were in the same school), computer architects are way less "poetic" in their approaches.

And that's where music can fill the void *smiles*
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
38,817 Posts
Mr. Sacks must have been one of the most extraordinary people to have met
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
38,817 Posts
Today I was reading an ad in the NL and someone described the Martin Committee II sound as “ Great BROWN sound” for which IT is supposedly best known!

Beside the obviously scatological association :) .... I was wondering if the describer wouldn’t be referring to a Synesthetic perception and then I discovered that among guitarists there is such a thing as “ brown sound” then, and it is a Van Halen definition.

Was he referring to a Synesthetic perception when he used the term?

There is also somethign called Brown Noise which supposedly would help my tinnitus (It doesn’t).

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
881 Posts
I'm a perceptual scientist by trade and training, and I think that the prevalence and significance of synesthesia are generally overblown. Most of the phenomena that people attribute to synesthesia can in fact be more simply explained via simple association learning.

There are essentially 4 olfactory receptors that are supposed to encode smells
This is absolutely false, humans have hundreds of different olfactory receptors; orders of magnitude more distinct receptor types than we have for any other sense.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top