|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Using Science as a hook" posted by tomservo on August 10, 2011 at 07:10:26:
"I didn't say it was nothing out of the ordinary. I can leviate a frog using magnetism."
You said "no big deal", if you really had any idea how, it was your opportunity to explain that.
>>>>>>>>>I guess you haven't ever used Earth magnets for levitating an audio component. Oh, well, As I said - it's not big deal. It's not rocket science. It's actually trivial. Whereas trying to explain the Ultra Tweeters to you is not trivial, as it has taken all of this bandwidth and you still don't get it. You appear either to be in denial or unable to grasp a relatively simple concept. Why it almost appears as if you're just another stubborn died in the wool anti-tweak naysayer. LOL
"But we're not talking about GHz signals travelling down cables, we're talking about GHz signals traveling through the air, generated by the Ultra Tweeters. Earth to Tom - Hell-looo!! The Ultras are producing the GHz signal, not the amps. Hell-looo!"
Hell-loo Geof, your saying first the drive signals come from the amplifier, but then that the Ghz signals actually come from the tweeter but are not sound and not part of the audio signal.
They are called "tweeters" and look like a speaker but don't produce sound at all, Earth to Geoff, that is pretty flaky & misleading marketing don't you think?
>>>>>>>>I realize this is difficult for you, nevertheless let me repeat it for you (again). The Ultra Tweeteres are driven by the power from the amps, like an ordinary super tweeter, the Ultras are connected using cables to the terminals of the primary speakers. The Ultras produce a signal that is above 1 GHz, but nothing in the audio range. I.e., they are not super tweeters, although I now realize you *assumed* they were for quite some time. For all I know you still do.
What's next then, that the so called "waves" you can't describe are tiny air molecule policemen you referred to?
>>>>As I stated earlier, it should be obvious (at least to most people) that simply changing the temperature of air is sufficient to change the way sound waves travel through it. For example, sound waves travel faster through warm air than through cold air. So, it should be obvious (to most people) that the nature, the characteristics of the air molecules affects the sound. Can we theorize that the relatuve humidity, temperature and density are some characteristics that affect sound? I have not inspected the air molecules personally to examine exactly how they are changed by the Ultra Tweeters so I won't speculate on the exact mechansim that changes the sound. However, I can say that the Ultras do not have to be matched with the output of the primary speakers nor do they have to be time aligned, as would be the case for ordinary super tweeters. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to conclude that the air molecules are changed by the GHz signal. I realize you have no first hand experience listening to the Ultras, whereas I do.
"Quantum computers work quantum mechanically."
Yes they do but at this point I would be somewhat surprised if you could describe how they work beyond your seemingly favorite buzz word. If a person had to design one or even a simple gate with quantum effects, they would still be able to describe how it works
">>>>So what? We are not discussing vacuum tubes. That's a strawman argument."
No actually it's an example of how someone with no real idea how it works might say it's "physics" or in your case "quantum mechanics" while totally missing is any explanation of "how". I suppose you cannot see that you are not explaining anything by simply citing the phrase "quantum mechanics".
>>>>>That makes no sense. I never suggested vacuum tubes work quantum mechanically. Sorry, but your argument is a logical fallacy.
I have provided examples of things that operate quantum mechanically. You must be in denial.
">>But I have already explained how the Ultra Tweeter operates. You just refuse to accept the explanation."
Perhaps no one has really pressed you to explain how something works before because unless you failed to convert what you think to text, there are no explanations of it's operation in this long thread.
I am pretty sure at this point there is nothing that you will accept. That is the nature of skeptics, at least the ones that will never actually investigate these matters and get to the truth. They would rather argue until they're blue in the face.
">>>I have levitated ordinary objects like CD players using rare Earth magnets. I can levitate a frog, too, if you like."
Your comment about levitation of glass with magnetism was "no big deal" so I asked you to explain the "how" of it.
Either you are unable to explain that, or you are being deliberately evasive to avoid revealing the former..
All I am asking for is for you to demonstrate a shred of evidence that you actually know what your talking about from a technical / engineering standpoint, it's really not hard and everyone following along would understand what I am asking for.
Just explain how one can levitate glass with magnetism, it's not even about your products so there is no danger to your sales.
>>>>>I guess you have never seen a frog levitated. I do not find levitating glass to be any more difficult or profound, or relevant for that matter.
"You're apparently easily offended by the use of the term quantum mechanics, or at least pretending to be offended, seeing a charlatan behind every tree."
No Geoff, i am only offended by being lied to, I have worked with people much more "into" that subject than I am, one a nuclear physicist from Fermi labs, what I am looking for is the smallest glimmer that YOU know what you're talking about beyond marketing spray.
>>>>>So, far, using the Ultra Tweeters as an example, it has taken me more than a few attempts to explain the very basics. And I'm pretty sure, based on your responses, that you still don't get it. So I'd conclude the difficulty is not with my explanation but with your comprehension. Perhaps you need to get out more, who the hell knows.
I don't see charlatans behind every tree and in fact have never used that word in this thread but since you infer it now, I would say "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, has oily feathers, webbed feet and a bill, lays eggs and likes water, it's probably a duck".
>>>.Exactly my point. You have formed a forergone conclusion based on zero experience and predisposition to attack and deny anothing that si outside of your, frankly, limited experience. You have corroborated what I have long suspected, that you are just another self proclaimed skeptic trying to earn his bones - like the Amazing Randi - by going after controversial tweak manufacturers. When attacked fro your own technical shortcomings, then comes the barrage of attacks on ethics, technical expertise and reality. Same old story. I saw you coming a million miles away. LOL
I am still open to change my mind though, just answer the one simple question I asked you and repeated at the end here and it's not even about your products.
>>>>>>>Well, it is rather unlikely you will change your mind, that is one thing I've learned.
"You know, things that op-er-ate quantum mechanically. In your "classical" reality, such things cannot exit."
No, that's not it at all, from actually working with electronics and acoustics, I just don't see even the smallest connection between your explanations and the mechanisms involved with the claims you make.
>>>>>>>>Do think I do not work with electronics and acoustics? Now, you're being ridiculous, but understandable since you are obviously here to promote yourself. I realize you wish to portray yourself as steeped in "real science," that is the nature of the self-annointed, self-satisfied skeptic. But I'm confused - We have only discussed the Ultra Tweeters so far, which are not even my product! So please don't try to infer we have discussed my products or explanations for my products, That's an outright lie!
Instead of any technical explanation of how it works, your answer is "quantum mechanics" as if that were an explanation which it is not.
You cannot explain how a car engine works by saying "physics" or even "quantum mechanics", same for even a "quantum computer" gate, all of that stuff can be explained by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
You want to dispel the appearance of as you put it a "charlatan" just explain how one levitates glass with magnetism, something you said was "no big deal", something that should then be easy "no big deal" if you actually were familiar with electronics / magnetism..
No, it does not use superconducting magnets or "quantum mechanics".
Have at it Geoff, either explain how that works, or end this acting like I have somehow insulted you by pressing you for a real science / engineering based explanation, for something you said yourself was "no big deal".
You have not insulted me at all. I understand where you're coming from and realize that you will argue and deny everything until you're blue in the face. At this point all I can say is good luck with all of that and good luck with your speakers.
Cheers, Geoff
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Using Science as a hook" - geoffkait 08:29:13 08/10/11 (1)
- RE: Using Science as a hook" - tomservo 09:57:33 08/10/11 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
