|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.95.208.30
In Reply to: RE: Follow-up by the OP posted by jrlaudio on November 24, 2012 at 21:31:45
You wrote:
"It is basis for radio reception and detection. From this the idea of building very precisely made Zobel networks to help filter or attenuate these RF signals before they enter the loudspeaker, effectively producing high impedence to these frequencies at the load, helped in reducing these IM artifacts."
I have news for you, Zobel networks on a cable do NOT present a high impedance to the load. Your understanding of how Zobel networks work on a speaker cable is way off-base. Based on past claims of your understanding of science and physics, this throws your whole claim to scientific understanding and why you have reasons for disbelieving things out the window. Strike One
You wrote:
"First off you can take any dialectric and measure a 100 microvolt charge with a multimeter. However if you present a low imnpedence load to this same charge the voltage measured is only a few millivolts. That's a 1000 times smaller potential."
Wrong. dialectric is spelled dielectric. A few millivolts is an order of magnitude LARGER than 100 microvolts, put in terms of volts they would be the following:
3 millivolts = 0.003 volts
100 microvolts = 0.0001 volts.
Strike Two.
You wrote:
"Also triboelectricc charges are created only when a cable is flexed and moving and dissipate using the same time constants."
You seem to forget (as do most naysayers), that the cable is not just setting on a test bench, it is hooked up to a SOUND SYSTEM, with speakers filling the air in the room with VIBRATIONS, right next to the sound system cables. Kinda forgot about the real world there.
You wrote:
" (as a sidenote, there is much data proving that "biasing" has no effect on these discharge time constants, nor does it prevent the charges from occuring)"
1st, where is this data? I keep up with all things having to do with audio cabling, as it is a very keen interest on my part. However, I have never seen such data regarding this. Please provide references, citations, etc.
2nd, cable biasing is usually not claimed to reduce triboelectric effect, it is almost always claimed to reduce dielectric polar behavior. The fact that you don't seem to have a clue about this, is another very suspicious thing in someone who claims to be an expert in physics and audio. It looks like you guessed wrong.
Strike three.
With all of this, I find it difficult to take you very seriously when you speak about audio, especially when you are trying to analyze things "scientifically", and you really don't have a clue about the science of high-end audio.
I suggest sticking to writing grant proposals for your lab at school.
Jon Risch
Follow Ups:
" I suggest sticking to writing grant proposals for your lab at school. "Nice touch Jon! I thought that considering your status on this forum you would be above such pettiness. Hard to resist huh?
Edits: 11/26/12
Your attempt to deflect from the obvious failings of jrlaudio is quite transparent and pathetic.
Let us not lose site of the real facts here.
Jon Risch
This guy's credentials seem pretty good. Out of the many many points he has made, you have discovered a few slip-ups, and have condemned him as a result. How about all the good points Jon? Aren't you going to give him credit?
All politicians make slip-ups, yet I still vote. I'll vote for jrlaudio as the most knowledgeable poster on this forum. Sorry bud.
"I'll vote for jrlaudio as the most knowledgeable poster on this forum."
His major point, which I believe is that audiophiles would be better off it they tried diligently to understand and quantify the phenomena underlying what they hear, is music to my ears.
However his grasp of science and engineering is so funky that I'd wager his involvement has always been at least a step removed from the actual work. Perhaps he's been involved at the administrative or financial levels.
That being said, I appreciate his participation and think he brings valuable insights and experiences to the table. Hopefully we all do. While I could go much further than Jon did WRT issues regarding his conclusions, that would not be appropriate for this environment which encourages open discussions and allows, nay encourages kicking things about without requiring any particular level of "proof" or supporting data.
I'm far more interested in lively discussions and feel that it's up to each participant to winnow out the wheat from the chaff for themselves. If they can. While there is the danger of folks being lead astray, so what? It's just a hobby! The upside is being motivated into learning more about things that you may have always regarded as a given and discovering ways, often very inexpensive ones, that you can alter them to significantly enhance your home audio experience. And to hopefully give you some insights into complex systems. In other words, the real world.
If there were lives or serious money at stake my arguments would be quite different, but this is all in fun.
Rick
"His major point, which I believe is that audiophiles would be better off it they tried diligently to understand and quantify the phenomena underlying what they hear, is music to my ears. "That's not what he said - he insists upon the importance of audiophiles understanding and quantifying audio performance via measurements.
And BTW to your point - sure they would be better off if they successfully understood the underlying phenomena - but really these are audiophiles not engineers and designers. There's no reason at all for audiophiles to have to tread those waters.
I would submit that understanding measurements and measured performance is not a requirement for an audiophile, and even more so for an audiophile using a rigorous comparison methodology. IMO though such concepts may help an audiophile get good results more quickly but taken too far (an who knows how far that it is) they may also blind that person from the gear that could give them the greatest listening satisfaction.
I think most designers and engineers should rely on measurements much more than an audiophile. That said IMO the best designers and engineers are the ones who finalize their designs based on listening.
Measurements are important rivaling listening on the design side - but no matter how you slice this pie how one qualifies any spec or performance measurement is a subjective opinion. On the audiophile side, measurements fall far below in comparison to ones listening impression.
Edits: 12/05/12 12/05/12 12/05/12
"His major point, which I believe is that audiophiles would be better off it they tried diligently to understand and quantify the phenomena underlying what they hear, is music to my ears."
'That's not what he said - he insists upon the importance of audiophiles understanding and quantifying audio performance via measurements.'
----------
Actually the bit I was thinking of was in his "follow up", to wit:
"The point I was trying to make is it is not sufficient to make observations (without measurement) and draw conclusions on affects and develop theories as to causes."
That comment was "music to my ears" because I completely agree. It's one thing to just hack stuff together by trial and error and be happy with the results. Fact is, I've done that very thing myself. It's quite another to believe that having done so with success means that you now know what's going on. You may have some notions but without putting them to the test that's all they remain. And the initial test is correlated measurements or successful structured testing.
I am more than willing to share what I've done and discovered and in that I'm a piker compared with many folks here who have done orders of magnitude more things empirically than I have and are happy to share their experiences. In fact that's the best part of AA, I love hearing about other people's experiences, life's too short to have them all myself.
I just wish that "I don't really know" was an answer held in higher esteem here. Learning to separate assumptions from knowns is a major step on the road to understanding. While assumptions or ignorance are always part of the deal at some level since we can never know everything precisely (Heisenberg was right), at the energy levels we work with in audio we can know enough to safely ignore the rest.
Rick
quote carcass: just another cheap and deaf pseudo-scientist.
I ask you Jon, is that not name-calling?
Major double standard happening here.
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam -
The argument of an irrelevant appeal to authority is shown to be fallacious but sometimes persuasive.
It appears you were persuaded by credentials.
Did he (J. Risch) sound threatened? I didn't notice that.
It would be really weird, since that someone is "in the know" only for you, and 1-2 other like-minded (rather, like-mindless) trolls in here. For the rest of us - and it was clearly demonstrated by Jon again - he is firmly "in the NOT know", or, to put it simpler, just another cheap and deaf pseudo-scientist.
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: