|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
121.222.111.223
In Reply to: RE: Right. Now explain that to your buddy Dennis!(nt) posted by deathtube 667 on July 21, 2012 at 05:29:13
What, experimentation, empirical learning, iterative methods, questioning, taking a different approach and actually listening to the results? Sharing those results and encouraging others to experiment while protecting the details, his IP?! Assemble the mob, we have a witch in our presence!Funsies aside, I am all for Dennis' approach; however, sometimes his passion and direct-to-forum communication result in some posts that rightly spark debate (how's that for diplomacy?).
Cheers.
“As long as we have any intention to be right… we should be wary. So long as words have the slightest ego attachment, they are dishonest.” Charlotte Joko Beck
Edits: 07/21/12Follow Ups:
"I am all for Dennis' approach"So am I.
It's been said that the wire from the plate of the driver tube to the grid of the output tube is important in Dennis' design.
So add another wire to it, twice as long. Be careful to keep it away from other wires and the chassis. We don't want stray capacitance or inductance to muddy the experiment.
Do this to just one amp.
Now listen and see if you can hear a difference.
If you think you can, please have a friend there to make sure you don't know which amp you're listen to. Can you still hear a difference?
That's how I know that it doesn't matter.
How's that for experimentation, empirical learning, iterative methods, questioning, taking a different approach and actually listening to the results?
Peace
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 07/21/12
Hi Tre,"How's that for experimentation, empirical learning, iterative methods, questioning, taking a different approach and actually listening to the results?"
To answer your question in brief: unconvincing. I will qualify that by stating that I used to develop medical / clinical research protocols for a living, so feel free to consider my judgement of your approach harsh if you wish.
TBH, *all* experimentation is flawed. As is our so-called Scientific Method, which even the most general health research text states. Although it is not my area of expertise or even interest these days, I think most experimentation discussed on audio forums is naive at best. Despite this, we still seem to be learning... So, let's do what is practicably possible; let’s experiment, even if our methods are imperfect. But by the same token, let us also not attribute more to the 'results' that we should. The results of our experiments are not absolute truths.
I'm not going to crap on about general experimentation any longer; books have been written about it. But I will mention placebo effects before I sign off. I find it interesting that when expectation effects are discussed, people are almost implicitly discussing the positive expectation effects. Very rarely discussed are the negative expectation effects that might be prevalent among cynics and sceptics. For example, the expectation that some factor will *not* have a causal effect. Expectation effects cut both ways. This serves as background to the point that just because you don't hear something does not mean it does not exist or that others cannot hear it.
Of course, this makes it increasingly difficult to refute fallacious claims.
Cheers.
EDIT: I am also sceptical of the claims made regarding the length of wire, at least the lengths and context we are discussing here. My comments were referring to Dennis' approach in general and I was being rather light-hearted about it, though that could be lost in translation. It was off topic and has dragged this thread out a little longer than it deserves (to my mind). Apologies for the diversion.
“As long as we have any intention to be right… we should be wary. So long as words have the slightest ego attachment, they are dishonest.” Charlotte Joko Beck
Edits: 07/21/12 07/21/12
It's not Dennis' approach that I object to. It's making repeatedly making absolutist statements when they are inappropriate.
Opinion and ideas are fine.
If he had said. "I don't agree with you gusser, I reckon I can hear differences when unequal lengths of wire are used" that would be great.
However, he has stated it is PROVEN, without giving a shred of evidence to back it up.
I know where you are coming from! I also take issue with personal preferences and experiences being promoted an absolute; qualitative as quantitative... as subjective Truths.That is not to say for a moment that I think the subjective and qualitative is unimportant - it is very important to audio if you do it for others' (and your own) enjoyment.
Misrepresented "facts", intentional or not, are open for discussion and debate. I have called out Jeff and Dennis on occasion and may again. If I do, I hope I won't make it personal, a pissing contest, or gloat if I score a win (not saying you are, BTW). The moment I do this I am part of the problem: distracting the discussion and confusing the issue, adopting logical fallacies, being generally unconstructive and affecting people in a hurtful way... at that point it becomes more about my personal neediness, not any positive outcome.
In closing, I think Jeff and Dennis are two guys I'd really quite like. Yeah, they occasionally say things, they seem a little out there at times, and their passion appears to lead to an exaggerated emphasis on certain things, but hell, I like their genuine passion and resolve. Ans so what, compared my own crap, theirs is minimal! We are all imperfect - I try to remember that and keep my self-righteousness in check.
Cheers,
Raymond
“As long as we have any intention to be right… we should be wary. So long as words have the slightest ego attachment, they are dishonest.” Charlotte Joko Beck
Edits: 07/23/12 07/23/12 07/25/12 08/14/12
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: