|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
160.62.7.250
In Reply to: RE: Many Times... posted by cpotl on August 22, 2015 at 02:07:44
"but the ability to hear a tiny change superimposed on a large background signal. "
Depends on the nature of that signal. I can, for example, see a very tiny emission in a huge background if the detector is atuned to that tiny emission (perhaps you are familiar with ICP-OES for the detetction of metals?). I can detect sub parts per billion if the conditions are right. A human can tune into extremely small sound changes when it is correlated with the music. You can hear well below the actual noise floor in some cases.
"I only want to emphasise the point that sometimes one may be able to disprove an assertion about a claimed audible change by demonstrating that the change in the output from the amplifier is so much below the threshold of audibility that one can unambiguously rule out the assertion of a real, as opposed to imagined, effect. I think that the alleged "breaking in" of a solder joint would almost certainly fall in this category.
"
Fair enough but where is that unambiguous limit? And if a lot of people hear it despite the cliam it can't be possible?? Then what? Mass delusion is what you would assert?
"My experience, and my deductions based on order-of-magnitude estimates using standard physical principles, leads me to conclude that the effects would be way too small"
Maybe you are right but how are you making thes estimates? Gut feeling? How do you know what the human psyche drills in on and get's annoyed with. Haven't you ever noticed the effect that all is fine and then someone points out something to you that you never noticed before and then you find it impossible to tune it out after that (not just audio but also visual or personal)? I find in audio that when people are ignorant of certain effects they simply gloss over what we hear very easily. Once down that hole you cannot go back and "unlearn" the training. You are sensitized. Things to others that seem "trivial" or "inaudible" are no longer the case. Where are your orders of magnitude then? Is it all in their heads as some claim? I don't think so in many cases (for sure in some though).
Follow Ups:
By disclosing your education and experience, we certianly can't write you off as some weekend audio hobbyist just learning basic electronics as is often the case with these outlandish claims.
So if you want to promote the idea that 100hr old solder joints sound different than fresh solder joints we expect a properly formatted report of such phenomenon.
And we expect you to submit that report formally to the scientific community for peer review.
As for my submitting a report that there is no difference, we both know that straw man argument is void. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The ball is in your court.
If you are so sure solder joints sound different or transformers break in, that why not put your career on the line. If you do find proof, you will reap great rewards. If you don't your will be labeled a fool by your professional peers.
Go ahead, prove your claims.
So if you want to promote the idea that 100hr old solder joints sound different than fresh solder joints we expect a properly formatted report of such phenomenon.
I never said whether this is true or not. I was only commenting on how I think that break-in of transformers and capacitors is likely an audible phenomenon. I said it might be possible for soldering to also be audible on break-in but I haven't really tried to hear that myself. Given the amount of material in a transformer that can expand and contract and perhaps loosen up, it is not so far fetched to think it might affect the sound. It might also be measurable.
"And we expect you to submit that report formally to the scientific community for peer review."
WHo is we and why should I consider you my peer?
"If you do find proof, you will reap great rewards. If you don't your will be labeled a fool by your professional peers."
And i guess you would be the arbiter, right? LOL get real! I never made hard claims that for sure it happens but I took an opposing position because of your absolutist attitude that there is no way it can happen despite other experienced engineers noting the effect. You who would deny scientific method because he "knows" it can't be true...typically narrow thinking. A lot of important discoveries would pass you by because of your orthodoxy...
"And i guess you would be the arbiter, right? LOL get real! I never made hard claims that for sure it happens but I took an opposing position because of your absolutist attitude that there is no way it can happen despite other experienced engineers noting the effect. You who would deny scientific method because he "knows" it can't be true...typically narrow thinking. A lot of important discoveries would pass you by because of your orthodoxy..."That's not what I said. I said to submit your finding to the community as is done with all scientific claims. You should know that. You're right, I am not the sole arbitrator, where did I say that. If you don't consider me a peer fine, but what about the rest of the engineering community? Anyone that disagrees with you is not a peer?
FTR, I didn't say transformers don't burn in. I said there is no documented evidence I could find that such a phenomenon occurs with audio transformers. And to date nobody else here has found anything either. As for "other engineers noting the effect" where is the research documented? "Stereophile"? What are the credentials of those who have experienced this?
You seem fine with promoting FUD but when pressed to offer some data you balk.
Edits: 08/24/15
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: