|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Weighting factors posted by MAD MAN HARJU on January 4, 2005 at 04:05:58:
Here, we would use: J. Curl, "private conversation". Many times, the info from the conversations doesn't exist in print yet.MMH: ""And Soundmind we surely have to be able to use and refer to articles in publications like Wireless World, Electronic Engineering and others, beside AES publications and IEEE?
They sure are in a other class than Stereophile Mag… Or? Because if you are a skilled engineer you should be able to make your own judgement of the content of an article in these mags.""
The problem I have is that many times, even skilled engineers are led astray by articles in non peer reviewed mags...And then, bandwidth is wasted explaining to all exactly why the article was floobydust. Sometimes they are led astray because the article is just barely outside the zone of understanding...sometimes they are led astray by the credentials of the author. I am reminded of the magazine article on faster than light signal propagation..Yes, sometimes peer review can be responsible for delaying an understanding that is real, but the instances where most are led down the wrong path for decades are far worse than months or years of delays..right now, the physics community is wrestling with co-authors,referees, and on line publication issues, so this is probably gonna get worse. There's a lot of web sites out there that are spouting garbage that is being believed by many.
Three very good examples...
1. The standard argument against cables is the 20 to 20K bandwidth, amplitude variation spiel..this is what was taught, and has served well..unfortunately, it does not address lateralization aspects. While those who state "wires don't make a difference" are correct for the vast majority of applications, their baseline does not include the timing criteria needed for left-right imaging. When that criteria is fully established, the engineering community will certainly be able to correct their design techniques...and then, what is done now will be considered "slipshod" with respect to lateralization. I've posted on this here, at AH, and over at that ghost town AR.
2. The second is the old article on skin effect, which has it's own errors of assumptions at the very start of the paper, and diverges very quickly away from reality, including an error in testing. I posted lots on that here.
3. Third: The Belden site has an analysis on transmission lines, and how, at lower frequencies, the characteristic impedance goes up..Unfortunately, it relies on an initial assumption that uses an RC approximation.... that is incorrect..The analysis is quite useable for all T line use, but it is actually only an approximation to reality. The actual model is better defined using a fifth order polynomial, but that is mathematical overkill..the RC model works adequately. I posted that analysis over at AH, if you would like a link..
BTW, those sites support jpegs, so I can post graphs and pics there, though I've tried not to use their sites for picture hosting without contributing there.
Overall, I'd consider articles in non peer review magazines as a basis for conversation and thought, but have seen many cases where the articles are terribly incorrect but yet take on a life of their own.
Cheers, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Weighting factors - jneutron 07:44:58 01/04/05 (2)
- Re: Weighting factors - Soundmind 07:12:53 01/10/05 (0)
- Re:Magazines - MAD MAN HARJU 08:53:31 01/04/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
