|
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: Re: Boyk and Cheever papers shot down... posted by theaudiohobby on March 19, 2007 at 09:26:00:
> Hmmm you are going off on a tangent,Not wholly. You are lumping together and shooting down what appears to me to be two very different pieces of work which piqued my interest.
> The issue of whether the scientific method is adopted by both papers
> or not is tangential to my point.OK if you say so.
> If the model or the key assumptions that underscore a given model
> are invalid, how can the theory formed on the basis of the said
> model be valid?Obviously it cannot. But the question still remains: what is wrong with the Boyk models which on a quick scan seem reasonable, simple and straightforward to me. Obviously there are further effects that might be introduced into the models to bring them closer to that for real devices but it is not clear that will change anything significant in the analysis. Does Baxandall or somebody else claim that something important is missing and, if so, what?
The results show feedback is feedback and not much else of significance that I can see. Boyk speculates but does not claim anything outrageous. Probably dented his audiophile beliefs a bit but they still seem to be around to flavour the introduction and conclusions. Do audiophiles really cite this report in support of the evilness of feedback or some similar audiophile belief?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Boyk and Cheever papers shot down... - andy19191 10:55:29 03/19/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
