Since this is an audio design and construction forum where people discuss schematics and data, you might find a more sympathetic audience at one of the forums run by audio comic books for their readers.
apologising? who gives a crap, bad engineers will always be bad engineers no matter what technology they have. Just because slow moving luddites didnt get with the program, isnt at all relevant and is a different subject altogether.
Trailblazers, Anarchists, educational institutions, private colleges and kids took on the technology and learned how to use it in many cases before the general population, the industry stick in the mud's and reality deniers playing catch up, even knew what it was. (I was the latter pretty much, but a bit of everything, a highschool dropout doing digital design and band flyers in my teens)
the same was the case in digital design and the internet/www, kids like myself were using pirated copies of photoshop, video editing and 3d modelling programs decades before it was taught in schools and the industry caught up. there were people the equivalent to yourself in the graphics game too, claiming that nobody could make real art on computers; slaving away doing pre-press layouts with pen, ink, letraset and popsicle sticks; before they knew it theyde been left behind. but that didnt stop the years of clumsy digital clipart appliqué and round cornered rectangles...
then you have artist/collectives like Massive Attack who were producing digital music with high production values, great vocal performances etc back in 91, Fans like myself still see Blue Lines as a landmark classic and it still gives me goosebumps, with Mezzanine in '98 being the first album i'm aware of that listed 'protools' as an instrument in its own right. that album was like nothing that came before it. some here of course would dismiss it as electronic without listening.
Last edited:
This is the "lounge" is it not? Where the scope is a bit more loosely defined is it not? This is the snake oil thread is it not?
Now one or two have basically jumped at the chance to accuse me of snake oil theory! So well done there!
A long time ago, I asked if it was a good idea to risk the wrath and the fury of the DIY audio community? I dare to stick my head above the parapet and I got my answer!
Using MY discovery, I managed to get my graphics card to run 4% faster, consistently. Is that all in my head? Of course it is. Am I delusional? Of course I am!
I shall have to pretend that the 4% increase in speed never happened because apparently, only academics working in universities have any right to discover anything of any importance. It's in the small print at the patent office: only PhDs are allowed to make a discovery.
I do have a degree in Chemistry and another degree in Mechanical Engineering. I do not have any degree or expertise in electrical engineering. Sorry, I didn't realise that was a requirement for membership of this forum!
Pretty funny, I taught myself 3D animation from 14-16 at school, tried to submit my work to the art teacher and she said 'it's not art if the computer does it'.
Fortunately I ignored her and just over 2 years later started working as a full time 3D artist.
Anyway... is thoriated a troll or what?
Oh, FWIW, I picked up an old mozart CD for a listen the other day, and got that same feeling I used to get picking up vinyl as a kid.... maybe the audiophiles of tomorrow will swear bling by physical digital media over soft digital media? though I can't help but feel it's unlikely.
I must say, the DVD player I used as a CD transport sounded a lot better than my computer... subjectively of course, but in my head it was more open and warmer. Maybe I should buy a better DAC or something...
As a qualified engineer you should be used to the idea of peer review, and shouldn't be shocked to learn that if you make wild claims of results without clearly showing how you achieve them, people will pretty much laugh you off.
nannoo nannoo! ahh yes haha, i'd almost forgotten that early perception that digital art was something the computer did for you! artificial intelligence for the masses. some people really seemed to think there was a 'make fantastic artwork' button, simply because they didnt have the slightest insight into how the technology worked, or the minds/souls of the kids of the day. I had to put up with that sort of thing from 'old boy' designers at industry do's for years; looking down their nose over their tiny arty spectacles and rolled over skivvies
Mork FTW!
thats another parallel, there were indeed 'designers' that simply applied canned artwork from plugins in photoshop at every opportunity, adding to the impression that no real creativity was going on. but mags like IDN, organisations like 'the Designers Republic' and WIRED were actually leveraging the medium to do new things.
the equivalent of low SNR, loudness war 'music' production
Mork FTW!
thats another parallel, there were indeed 'designers' that simply applied canned artwork from plugins in photoshop at every opportunity, adding to the impression that no real creativity was going on. but mags like IDN, organisations like 'the Designers Republic' and WIRED were actually leveraging the medium to do new things.
the equivalent of low SNR, loudness war 'music' production
Last edited:
Peer reviews are done on papers published in Journals. I never submitted a paper for peer review. I merely submitted a small bit of info on what I had just been up to. Was I supposed to check everything to the nth degree prior to submission? I thought this place was supposed to be a bit more informal.
Did I get any handy tips or advice? I'm not sure yet!?
Did anyone even entertain the possibility that it just might work, even if only slightly?
What is a "wild claim" exactly? Is it a wild claim to say that the sound is better? It's my opinion that it sounds better. Of course it's my opinion, who's else would it be?
you submitted an assumption based on fanciful ideas that are not rooted in reality, not info and no, I wouldnt entertain it, especially after your 'measurement' I dont think we have even reached the level of theory as yet.
the THD figures may be awful, but they are awful for both channels
the test conditions were exactly identical for both channels
any errors in using the Visual Analyser were identical errors on both channels
any errors in experimental setup were identical errors on both channels
any shortcomings were identical for both channels
yet the channel with the invention shows an improvement
the errors, interferences, shortcomings, etc, were identical for both channels
if there is one thing that is different (other than the invention) would someone be kind enough to tell me what it is, without being patronising!?
Then either something is broken or you aren't using your tools properly. Or both. That would be expected to affect both channels.
we had a PhD graduate washing "dishes" in the lab because he kept making mistakes in the "real" job - his contract was soon termninated
I was doing the same "real" job as an 18 year old school leaver!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.