 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.167.182.41
In Reply to: RE: OK posted by op48no1 on May 02, 2012 at 19:54:50
get on the suggestions of Tim Fox, and Dave Slagle...ok
If there is a dynamic effect relative to different dielectric constants, this is the next one I would check...how will you check it???
and as for as I am concerned those who need explanations need to do the proving...i.e. very capable people have already done the experiments by listening...Henry: the Church (i.e.you and Gusser) needs to prove to Galileo why the Earth is the center of the Heavens....
and you need to prove why the Earth is Flat...ok....the rest i.e. the users, understand already that the Earth is Round, and that the Sun is the center of the Solar System....like that....then you are in service.
ok have fun,
Sincerely,
-3db
Follow Ups:
Thanks for the notes. Again, a lot of misunderstanding here.1) Galileo was a scientist. His conflict with the church pitted him against the religious and political establishment who had a powerful incentive to stop the spread of science and reason. Same thing today, when much of the hi-fi industry depends on keeping people from thinking clearly about the value of what they're buying. In this analogy, I am Galileo and the hi-fi tweakers represent the church. The flat-earthers were the ones saying, "Don't think! Trust your senses: the ground is flat and the sun circles the earth!"
2) I keep saying (and I'll say it again) that I'm not declaring the claimed effects are "impossible." Anyone who thinks I said that isn't reading what I've written. What I have said is that the burden is on the people making claims to provide the proof. The burden is not on the audience to prove the claimants wrong.
3) Science is by nature an adversarial process. Scientists propose hypotheses and publish experimental results to justify them. The scientific community's job is to try to shoot holes in the research. It's a process of trial by fire. Good experiments get duplicated and validated. Bad ideas get trashed, or evolve and are reborn to start the process again. The fact that many scientists are skeptical of new theories that are eventually proven out does not mean the scientists were fools, or that the process of science doesn't work. The same is true when accepted scientific theories are forced to change in the face of new research. This is all part of the process.
4) There is way too much valid scientific data showing how fallible human hearing is for me ever to accept at face value that just because one or a bunch of audiophiles "heard" something that this means the "something" they heard was real and not an artifact created in their heads. Do some studying on the topic of psychoacoustics and blind testing methodologies and you'll see what I mean. There is a hell of a lot of neural processing going on in the auditory part of your brain, and it's just naive to think that conscious and subconscious biases don't affect perception.
5) I'm not criticising Stu for saying that black insulated wire sounds different. I'm questioning the engineering explanation he's given us to try to substantiate his claim. His technical reasoning is insufficient to prove the case.
All this makes me think of arguments about evolution I've read on news sites and discussion boards. The creationists like to say that science is just an atheist religion as though this proves the whole issue is purely a question of philosophical relativism. And therefore, belief in science is just another kind of "faith" that is no more valid than religious faith. This is all bunk. There are fundamental, deep philosophical differences between science and religion. If this isn't clear to you, you also need to spend some time reading about the philosophy of science.
Finally, the idea that asking for explanations of surprising claims is somehow wrong is just totally backwards, IMHO. If what you are saying is that all perceptions are valid, and that any lay technical speculation based on subjective observation must be accepted as true by default, then I have a big, fat spaghetti monster to sell you...
(If you don't know what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is, then you can add that to your research list.)
-Henry
Edits: 05/03/12
1) please look again at why I said it the way I did Henry...the history is what I am referring to, and your statements here are typical of the Church...it is true because I said it was , etc....
The Flatland analogy applies because you can show a Flatlander a high mountain, and all perspective lines curved (i.e. an actual experience), and demonstrate a FlatLand having noncurving perspective lines, and he is still going to deliver some positional nonsense....i.e. Dahlquist/imaging, non believing engineers and CD/Nyquist nonsense...I am intentionally eroding that stance of any authority Henry...It has been blown already ...ok
You have to recover here by having some fresh willingness in tone...this is the middle ground, which I don't hear so much...ok
2)Yes the Church hates it of course when I say No...I mean NO Henry because of the nonsense...the Audience that has some problem, even with their Tweekers assigning causes inaccurately, is now burden with showing the proof.
You need to grasp this: this is what Galileo incorrectly died for...why should he have to prove the truth to the Church Henry??? This is a problem...as far as I am concerned listening is now way closer, and the denial problem on the engineering side so great that the situation needs to be reversed...if fact authority incorrectly assumed is the problem here....
3) Thank you Henry, I agree here, and am actually just doing my job.
4) and I agree...and I have done the work here...examining one's own perceptions is the primary work...measurements help,but actual insight into the colorations of one's own senses is the most important...and Henry how do you do this...by actual listening and examing one's listening directly, seeing, and actually examing one's seeing (I am a photographer also, the same colorations come into play, just different),
touch, smell, etc...actually I have done a lot of research. I also have no problem with double blind listening ...it tells a lot, particularily with "educated, able to make distinction, listeners"
5) and again, I have no problem I wasn't criticizing: I agree directly, and was saying arrogantly yes (no further use), and move on: because what Dave Slagle, and Tim Fox have to say might get closer to what the distinction is, and real measurements might offer... and Stu is fine and correct about what he is hearing...I actually appreciate his comments..
ok...I am busy and on vacation...so please you and Gusser rip me a new one while I am gone...
thanks
-3db
listening is not the only way of course, but I am honestly interested in getting to some sort of middle....It is not hard...
I had to listen all kinds of nonsense from lots of engineers during the beginning of Dahlquists work....and how many would just go listen and then, ...begin to evaluate , question, challenge...etc? few...
(Tell me Henry: how do you quantify "Imaging"...is Group Delay sufficient?)
Then we had it again during the introduction of the CD..." i.e. no , the CD sounds like crap, sorry Nyquist frequency is all you have to do, trash, and who was listening???" etc...how long did we go around that...
(How do you quantify "Digital Nastiness?")
As far as I am concerned if you don't listen, and are not quite capable of making a lot of fine distinctions concerning what you hear, and also an engineer not capable of parsing problems...then in general one is not competent and should be in a different business....I don't mean you directly because I know you do listen...thank you...however the notion that something is Quote "wrong" because it doesn't fit your theory, or someone's published work....just needs to be thrown out on it's head, as surely as the Church needs to thrown out with respect to Galileo or concerning Flatlanders...etc...
i.e. order of relavence:
First Listening
Second Measurements
Third Theories and Explanations...
Have you read Godel yet Henry???
Sincerely,
-3db
What you propose is the typical untrained hobbiest approach.1) Slap some parts together from somebody else's schematic.
2) Listen to it.
3) Hey it sounds great because I built it.
4) Measurements - why? It sounds great!
5) Theory - Why again? It sounds great!I'm sorry but that's not the way audio (or any technology) products are designed and built in the professional world.
1) Model the circuits. Either by calculator, slide rule, pencil and paper, or computer sim.
2) Bread board the design.
3) Measure paramaters and verify the math is correct. Adjust as needed.
4) Listen to it. If somethings not right, then go back to step 1 & 2.
5) Then, design for production and package it.
6) Measure and Listen again to the finished prototype.
7) Tweak the packaging design as needed.
8) Measure and Listen again.
This idea that match, physics are optional is again just a rookie hobbiest myth. So you can get away with it for a while. But sooner or later you are going to hit the wall and have to learn how thus stuff really works.
Edits: 05/03/12
because no one is going to pay you to reinvent these ancient wheels...
You assume 1 through 5 is accurate, but of course it isn't...
because you need to get to the middle Gusser, because
1 through 8 is actually what happens, except that you needed to come back to me with better than 1 through 5, because I have to call you out Gusser on 4,6,8 as being unfortunately steps you never do, and you are going to have to prove it to me now....so, please step up a bit Gusser...Are you blind enough to see that what I have said here is not in the middle, and how it resembles a lot of what you say???
I am saying this because I think you actually mostly do good work Gusser...I'll be blunt, if I were your Boss, I would say: you could simply start to develop a little more experience/time connecting actual sound to circuit characteristics/material properties, and less time to reaction.
Ok so generally 1 through 8 are true if one is doing a decent job, except that I would add that 4 and 3 are usually reversed, because half the time I am hearing things I don't like before I measure. The things I hear wrong are half about taste...and the other half are that I unfortunately have not so much done bad math, as forgotten some fundamental assumptions, like I can't put the switching were I want, and I should already know that....
So good luck
-3db
Here:And here are the newer tube amps built in 2008.
http://home.earthlink.net/~tubesforht/
Edits: 05/04/12
I am out of my league here but all this debate is very similar to debates about the Hogan amps....people like the way they sound despite the fact that John did so many unconventional things.....but whenever you would question it, the wolves would come out....finding out the whys is always a healthy discussion....it is more to it than it just sounds better....kind of like how 12AU7 clear tops sound open and smoked 6SL7s sound dark.....funny.
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2013, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Take5 ]
