 
|
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 |
24.149.197.165
In Reply to: You're Blinded By Believing The Science Being Used Reveal Everything! posted by thetubeguy1954 on June 23, 2006 at 13:10:24:
One thing scientists can test for is whether or not two different things sound the same to the point where people can reliably distinguish them. The reason scientists haven't pursued this science of sound recording and reproduction at a basic level is that most real scientists frankly don't give a damn about it, the problem isn't interesting to them. There's also no big money in it for them. That leaves it to audio engineers to take up the yoke and quite honestly, they don't seem to apply much effort to pull the weight. It's easier to just plod down the same old ruts they are used to. Don't believe it? I've suggested to John Curl twice that he develop measurements which correlate to what he hears since he says the ones he can make don't work for him. So far I've gotten no reply. It's a lot easier and more fun to just keep experimenting with new amplifier and preamplifier topologies. More profitable too.
Follow Ups:
"I've suggested to John Curl twice that he develop measurements which correlate to what he hears since he says the ones he can make don't work for him."Are you familiar with Cheever's work on this very subject?
The bored has shown in its infinite wisdom on General Asylum that it will not tolerate the same technical issues being beaten to death over and over again within a brief time span. Curl claims Cheever's thesis should be manditory reading for all amplifier designers. If it's that good then why doesn't he use this as his golden ruler to evaluate his designs? Apparantly, it's not enough or that would be the end of it. BTW, Cheever never determined minimum audible THD levels for different frequency components. That was just one of the basic flaws in his paper.The only alternative to science is religion. Blind faith. They don't call religious belief "faith" for nothing.
What is wrong with you people? Pay me, and I will try to do what you want! Mostly, you are a bunch of low rent jerks.
While I have my doubts, it's at least something that is based on physiological and psychological as well as LMS data.
Before I buy another amplifier to replace the one I already have, someone is going to have to tell me why the new one will work better than what I already have and just saying that they like it better isn't good enough for me. The problem with being in the business of designing something which has developed to the point where it does pretty much exactly what it's supposed to do is what do you do for an encore? Even if you feel you are the best at it, how many times can you outdo even yourself?"Mostly, you are a bunch of low rent jerks."
If your purpose is merely to insult people who post here, why bother at all. And if my postings annoy you, perhaps you'd do well to skip the ones with my moniker on it. Don't you think you owe some of the people here even if I'm not among them an apology. Does it bother you that I read Cheever's thesis and don't agree with it because you do?
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
