New Age "wine enhancement"

[Richard Crowley]

All those things we call subatomic particles or photons are in fact
nothing more than mathematical descriptions of certain limited aspects
of the behaviour of the universe at a small scale. The concept of what
they "are" is entirely meaningless in any sort of terms we could try
to understand.

So you are only a macro-visual existentialist?

 

[Mark Lipton]

All those things we call subatomic particles or photons are in fact
nothing more than mathematical descriptions of certain limited aspects
of the behaviour of the universe at a small scale. The concept of what
they "are" is entirely meaningless in any sort of terms we could try
to understand.

Huh? QM is a mathematical description; photons are an example of a
subatomic particle whose existence is clearly supported by such
empirical phenomena as the photoelectric effect and diffraction. Or are
you making an oblique reference to any of the various superstring
theories, for which there is as yet not a shred of empirical support?

Mark Lipton

 

[Mark Lipton]

You are witnessing macro effects - that is all you can witness. You
can not make the leap from that to claiming there is a particle. The
very word is a macro-dimensioned conceit, and has no meaning in the
sub-atomic world. It is no more than a rather poor analogy in words we
can understand.

OK, I'm with you now, Don. It's true that the best description of any
QM object is its wavefunction, which is nothing but a mathematical
construct and exists over all space. The problem I have is when you say
that because all I can witness are macroscopic phenomena (true, but
tautological) I cannot claim that there is a particle: all that I'm
saying is that we can claim that there is a photon; what word we use to
describe it is mere semantics and -- as you say -- there is no word that
will adequately describe a photon. Please note, though, that at various
points in my career I have been performing QM computations, so I learned
long ago to dispense with any attempt to visualize the species I was
studying as ultimately misleading and a waste of effort.

Mark Lipton

 

[Mark Lipton]

Mark,


If I had even an inkling about what QM and NMR are, I'd be glad to
attempt an answer! :->)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance


As for waves resonating, a room can resonate and waves are the result.
Likewise for an electrical circuit. In this case, the poster is clearly
clueless. These new-agers kill me when they use terms like resonance and
"energy" in a way that shows they have no idea what they're talking about.

I'd agree with you, but I'm too busy aligning my chakras with specially
tuned quartz crystals and placing the finishing touches on my Orgone box
to spare the brain cells needed to do so.

Mark Lipton

 

[Mr.T]

If I had even an inkling about what QM and NMR are, I'd be glad to attempt
an answer! :->)

Well he did mention Quantum Mechanics by name already, and NMR I assume is
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance.
It's not too hard to Google these things if you really wanted to know.
Obviously not I guess.

MrT.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:33:14 -0400, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner
Here's a thing I'd like you to discuss. Comb filtering. If you plot
the frequency response of a speaker close to a wall, positioned as in
your comb filtering demo, it exhibits peaks and dips in the frequency
response because at some frequencies the waves add, and at others they
cancel. Do you regard the high spot between those dips as a resonance,
with a Q, and all the usual good resonant stuff?

Your answer to that will tell me if there is any chance that we can
agree on the rest.

Let's make the experiment even simpler. Consider a system
which has two signal paths through it: One path is direct,
the other path is delayed by 0.2 milliseconds and has a
6 kHz low-pass filter with a slope of 48 dB/octave. The
outputs of these two paths are summed linearly into
a single output.

Now, consider a second system, which consists of a
linear path with a single series circuit consisting of a
an inductor and a capacitor whose values are such
that the value of 1/sqrt(L*C) is about 16,000 radians
per second.

On examining the frequency response of either system,
they exhibit a flat response up about 5 kHz, where there
is a sharp null, and then they are essentially flat above
that frequency.

Question: As they can exhibit essentially identical
frequency response, are they both resonant systems?

Why or why not?

 

[Randy Yates]

Let's make the experiment even simpler. Consider a system
which has two signal paths through it: One path is direct,
the other path is delayed by 0.2 milliseconds and has a
6 kHz low-pass filter with a slope of 48 dB/octave. The
outputs of these two paths are summed linearly into
a single output.

Now, consider a second system, which consists of a
linear path with a single series circuit consisting of a
an inductor and a capacitor whose values are such
that the value of 1/sqrt(L*C) is about 16,000 radians
per second.

On examining the frequency response of either system,
they exhibit a flat response up about 5 kHz, where there
is a sharp null, and then they are essentially flat above
that frequency.

Question: As they can exhibit essentially identical
frequency response, are they both resonant systems?

Why or why not?

Depends on how "resonant system" is defined. From what
I've seen, it usually means that there is an equilibrium of
energy transfer between inductive and capacitive elements
(in the case of electronic resonance), so the former system
you proposed doesn't quality as it doesn't necessarily have
both types of elements.
--
% Randy Yates % "She tells me that she likes me very much,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % but when I try to touch, she makes it
%%% 919-577-9882 % all too clear."
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

 

[[email protected]]

Depends on how "resonant system" is defined.

And that is precisely the point of the excercise. Here we
have two linear systems which show essentially the
same properties in the magnitude frequency response.
Are they both resonant systems? To answer that question
requires the person answering it to come up with a definition
of "resonant" which fits both systems.

From what
I've seen, it usually means that there is an equilibrium of
energy transfer between inductive and capacitive elements
(in the case of electronic resonance), so the former system
you proposed doesn't quality as it doesn't necessarily have
both types of elements.

Under that definition, I would agree. But a number of people
bandy about the term "resonance" without knowing, caring or
revealing what that means. The original poster in this thread
and the article he is citing are two example of all three: the
article cited doesn't have a clue what "resonance" means,
doesn't reveal it and doesn't care. It merely sounds cool
and sort kinda scientific in a stupid sort of way.

By the way, as I am sure you know, the two systems I
describe DO have a fundamental difference that's
unambiguous and completely, objectively measurable.
That difference may or may not make one resonant and
the other not, because, again, that requires the person
bandying about the term to define it.

 

[Randy Yates]

Don,


Yes again.


I have no idea what transduction is supposed to mean in this
context. But room modes do indeed resonate. :->)

Here's how I distinguish resonance from not resonance: Excite a
circuit or room or whatever with a single step impulse. If the result
is a sine wave having a non-zero duration, you have a
resonance. Therefore...


No. This is an increase in amplitude, but the result signal does not
continue after the source signal stops.

Ethan,

I believe you're mistaken here. Any causal, non-ideal system (i.e., a
system other than a straight wire) will have a response that continues
for some non-zero amount of time after a sine wave with a frequency
within its passband has been removed.

This can be seen mathematically as the trailing end of the convolution
of the input sine wave with the causal, finite-lengthed impulse
response.

If that's what makes a system resonant (and I don't believe it is),
then most systems could be classified as resonant.
--
% Randy Yates % "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and kiss her interface,
%%% 919-577-9882 % til then, I'll leave her alone."
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

 

[[email protected]]

AFAIK, the system with delay will produce a null every 6 KHz.

Not as described above, it won't .

We already know this much of the *book* answer - whether
one or both are resonant systems depends on the definition
of resonance.

And that's point of the gedanken, to elicit informed opinions
as to which constitutes a "resonant system."

The obvious flaw in the Wikipedia definition is that oscillation
of the system can be either minimum or maximum at a resonant
frequency, for series and parallel resonant systems respectively.

Actually, the definition is not so flawed. In a parallel resonant
tank circuit, impedance is at maximum at resonance, while
in a series resonant tank circuit, admittance is at a maxximum
at resonance. And, respectively, voltage or current is at a
maximum at resonance.

But not the identical same amplitude or phase response.

But "identity" itself is insufficient a qualifier. Two
topologically identical circuits could have non-
identical phase and amplitude repsonse: clearly
a trivial example. But two radically different
implementations could have essentially the same
properties in one domain or another and still be
radically different of effectively the same, depending
upon definitions and requirements.

That, again, is the point of the excercise: to determine
what the person means when they use the term
"resonance."

If you look at the disambiguation entry in Wikipedia for resonance, one
might find people trying to apply one of the other meanings. Again, I'm
compelled to point out that the Wikipedia fails because the existing
defintion is very physical sciences oriented, and does not contain much from
the arts.

What do the arts have to do with it? The current subthread
relates to whether room modes are or are not "resonances."

And, to date, no one has pointed out the very fundamental
difference between the two models I described, which
also have to do fundamentally with the difference between
a conventional second-order periodic energy-exchange
system such as an LRC tank circuit or a Helmholtz contrivance
and a delay system or a room mode, though I know that at
least one other contributor does indeed know the difference.

 

[Randy Yates]

Randy,


Okay, if you have a REALLY long piece of wire I'm sure the reactive L
and C components can become a factor. But those are second-order
effects, and in most cases the frequencies involved are well beyond
the audible range. I think engineers call that stuff parasitic, yes?
In a practical examination of what (I thought) we're discussing, a
single reflection combined with the original source is not resonant.

You misunderstood me - I was saying any system OTHER THAN a wire. I
mean that if you take a system like an op-amp network with resistors
and capacitors and specific bandwidth, or something like a speaker
crossover, THOSE types of systems would be resonant according to your
definition.

Of course a wire is pretty much a Dirac delta function impulse
response (no transients to speak of).
--
% Randy Yates % "Midnight, on the water...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % I saw... the ocean's daughter."
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Can't Get It Out Of My Head'
%%%% <[email protected]> % *El Dorado*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

 

[[email protected]]

You misunderstood me - I was saying any system OTHER THAN a wire. I
mean that if you take a system like an op-amp network with resistors
and capacitors and specific bandwidth, or something like a speaker
crossover, THOSE types of systems would be resonant according to your
definition.

To amplify Randy's point, consider a current state of
the art analog-digital-analog conversion system, nothing
more complicated than a high-quality sound card in
a computer set up in straight pass-through mode. Hit
it with an impulse, and it WILL ring for not an inconsiderable
time after the impulse is done. Is it resonating? According
to ONE of Winer's definitions, it is, but according to
another, the existence of some measurable peak or
dip in the amplitude vs frequency response, it is not:
the response over the bandwidth is dead nuts flat,
within a very small fraction of a dB, and the phase
response is essentially perfect over the bandwidth.

Take a very high quality professional analog tape recorder
(say a Studer) running 30 ips, adjusted for the flattest
frequency response over the bandwidth (on such a
machine, I'd expect to make to 25 kHz +-1dB at all
reasonable recording levels). The output WILL ring
for a significant number of cycles. Is it a resonant
system?

And all of these system will show a decay tail if hit
with a sine wave tone burst.

Build yourself a 4th order butterworth low-pass filter,
and hit it with an impulse, and watch the output ring:
is it resonant (trick question, because i forgot to tell
you you aren't allowed to build it out of components
like inductors and capacitors).

Are these system resonant?

 

[z]

http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-accessories-supplies-how.asp

"Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
affects the water molecules structure"

Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...

I find that after drinking the first glass, the wine all by itself
becomes smoother and brighter with longer finish and less burn,
astringency, and chalky feeling on tongue.

 

[z]

I bet he meant FCC.

Or AA.

 

[z]

Even maths doesn't deal in facts. All proofs rest on axioms - which
are pretty good assumptions about how the world works, but they are
just assumptions. So a proof will really read "Such and such is
proven, assuming that...".

Well, that gets us back to Godel, Escher, Bach; Turing machines which
never reach the end; etc.

 

[Mike Tommasi]

I expanded this distribution to more of the groups that saw the original.

"Mike Tommasi" in news:[email protected]...


Sorry to tell you, Mike, but we _all_ harbor some notions contrary to fact.
It seems part of how the mind works. (Various wise people have marveled
less at how much they do or don't know, than at the things they do know that
aren't so.)

I see hocus-pocus among some wine geeks, just like some audio geeks. For
instance, mythologies on wine-writing history. Not to mention all that
business about magnets (prompting a section in alt.food.wine's FAQ file).

I used to post on audio technologies -- just technical questions, in areas I
knew something about. Example from 1991-- this one was popular -- posted
after some people were furious and another claimed they'd be damned if
something was true (it was):

http://tinyurl.com/2ska8m

(If that European archive fails, find others by searching word combo
oversampling+curious+furious+damned .)

Also no matter how clear-cut the subject matter, hecklers can be relied on,
as the night follows the day, to attack any information they don't happen to
like. (Again, how the mind works.) I've seen it with postings on consumer
technologies, language history, internet history, absinthe, truffles, the
AxR-1 vine rootstock debacle, wine literature, even the simple math of
multiplying by -1. These hecklers don't always give the impression they are
used to dealing much with things like sources and evidence and facts
unaffected by what you think. But they don't let such limitations restrain
them!


Max (longtime member of Audio Engineering Society)

You are right of course... but wine geeks who believe in pyramids and
magnets tends to be on the fringe and so their problem can be seen as a
superstition on a par with astrology, while it seems to me that audio
exotica enjoys a higher status more akin to religion. ;-)

I will not go through all the details, but there are people that
seriously believe that weighing down a CD will bring less wow and
flutter... and there are those who claim to hear the difference that an
8 ohm transmission line makes... and the latest, someone here in France
has come up with a filter for those evil AC outlets that brings about a
complete transformation of the sound output of CD players and amps, it
sells for €27,000........................................

 

[Mr.T]

You are right of course... but wine geeks who believe in pyramids and
magnets tends to be on the fringe and so their problem can be seen as a
superstition on a par with astrology, while it seems to me that audio
exotica enjoys a higher status more akin to religion. ;-)

Not IMO. I would place audio superstition on the same level as astrology,
numerology, feng shui, etc etc.
Religion is far more widespread and far more insidious.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

And it usually gets even better with the next bottle. It would be really
interesting to transfer some outrageously expensive wine into screw-top
bottles and serve it to a party of wine snobs. Have there ever been any
double-blind tests?

In fact most, if not all, wine judging is at least single blind, and usually
double blind.
And wine judges spit it out to prevent the wine tasting better the drunker
they get.
But it's still only a collection of opinions!

MrT.

 

[z]

In fact most, if not all, wine judging is at least single blind, and usually
double blind.
And wine judges spit it out to prevent the wine tasting better the drunker
they get.
But it's still only a collection of opinions!

MrT.

From what I read, wine tasting is surprisingly repeatable, both with

one taster doing repeated tests, and between different tasters. Highly
UNLIKE audio testing.

 

[Mr.T]

Denying the possibility of progress in audio electronics is the
stock-in-trade of the defenders of the reproductionist faith. Now
accuracy of reproduction is commonplace their agenda is complete:
there's nothing left to discuss.

Well if you think speakers are now perfect, recording techniques beyond
reproach, and even room acoustics now universally faultless, then I guess
you would imagine "accuracy of reproduction is commonplace".
The discussion of course would be by the many millions who disagree with
that.

MrT.