Stocks, investing, sharking in half red waters and pilling up huge amount of money for turning late into a philanthropist (*) is not what I would like to see my children do. I am strongly biased.
I made the notion for the reason that J. Simon used a mathematical approach exercising his earlier education and work to form tools for executing his later trade.
Mutants are users of statistical tools, genuine profit addicts ( picture of Friday afternoon only desperate boozers, loosing up their black ties after leaving the W.s for the weekend, down at the NY Old Harbor bars when juniors).
Meditation, hmm…
George
(*) tax deduction and image making, plain investment tactic. What’s the name of the talent of touching on anything innocent and benign and screwing it up?
Of course i don't know what it does. As most of the people who use-it, i had not read its code. And even if i should do-it, how can i know the accuracy of all the models ?
It is faster and more precise than a slide rule, right ?
I don't believe in sims, the real work begin with the soldering iron.
you walked into that one Jan
didn't you see the switchup there? - abrax' sticking in "hear what I hear" personal conscious perception with a different interpretation to lead the audience away from your actual argument terms
then compounding the misdirection by a further switch to Visual Perception from our interest in Audible Perception, making a bogus claim in that field that is totally irrelevant to your argument
when in fact Visual Perception is one of the easiest fields to find Perceptual Illusions in, demonstrate that "perception" differs from the objective stimulus due to the visual systems lower processing layers
or even that there is severe attentional "focus" effects - the infamous man in a gorilla suit walking across the basketball court
But Did You See the Gorilla? The Problem With Inattentional Blindness | Science | Smithsonian
I know to my middle American ears such use of "black bag" rhetoric is extremely off putting
perhaps because we are not generally educated in its use, can't wield it with such skill
so perhaps it is just "compensation" to distrust its users - their motives, willingness to actually engage honestly with us
didn't you see the switchup there? - abrax' sticking in "hear what I hear" personal conscious perception with a different interpretation to lead the audience away from your actual argument terms
then compounding the misdirection by a further switch to Visual Perception from our interest in Audible Perception, making a bogus claim in that field that is totally irrelevant to your argument
when in fact Visual Perception is one of the easiest fields to find Perceptual Illusions in, demonstrate that "perception" differs from the objective stimulus due to the visual systems lower processing layers
or even that there is severe attentional "focus" effects - the infamous man in a gorilla suit walking across the basketball court
But Did You See the Gorilla? The Problem With Inattentional Blindness | Science | Smithsonian
I know to my middle American ears such use of "black bag" rhetoric is extremely off putting
perhaps because we are not generally educated in its use, can't wield it with such skill
so perhaps it is just "compensation" to distrust its users - their motives, willingness to actually engage honestly with us
Last edited:
We had an interesting experience here this week. On Thursday our downtown area was flooded with policemen, schools locked down, office buildings, city hall, and provincial legislature buildings all shut, because someone had reported "seeing" a man carrying a rifle, with scope, partially concealed under some fabric, walking down a busy street. After much investigation no matching weapon was found*, and no other witnesses.
Now, did the witness "see" a rifle? The general consensus is that s/he saw an umbrella. But if you claim that perception is reality ("You see what you see") then the object was both an umbrella and a rifle with telescopic sight, simultaneously. Is your extraordinary claim both ontological and epistemological?
(For Hegelians, who love a synthesis, perhaps the object was one of these: wholesale 20 pcs Rifle Umbrella Gun Umbrella ( 100cm )-in Umbrellas from Home & Garden on Aliexpress.com | Alibaba Group)
*Weirdly, a different person who did not match the description, was found to have left a sawed-off shotgun on a bus later that morning. He could not have been the person seen earlier because he was elsewhere at the time, he did not remotely match the description, the weapon did not come close to matching the description, and he was "known to police" and drunk at the time. He is in jail now. He probably had the worst luck of the day, going downtown with a weapon undoubtedly up to no good, then found the downtown full of cops with assault rifles on every corner, so he left his weapon on the bus and fled on foot, only to be arrested a few minutes later.
Our audio perception is much stronger than the visual-. Hearing is both an alert tool and a hunting tool, it covers 360x360 degrees and is able to locate events in both space and time. Hearing never sleeps and is always active. As it is an alert tool it's also very creative and can create believable pictures out of fragments, This is what saves this hobby, and what also makes it possible to sell bad and dubious products.
As any other simulation tool, Spice is an iteration process, data of the models are the parameters of an algorithm.
crap1 in, crap2 out
crap1 becomes crap2
This continues untill the crap falls within the accuracy margin, aka static crap.
(there are mathematical techniques to calculate the order of the approximation error)
The tool can not differentiate between alien crap and domestic crap.
It either terminates before it turns nuts, or spits out complying crap.
It's up to the user to decide if the model is hostile.
Same deal for auditor models, that's where the curtain is for.
The model is either domestic and completely bonkers.
Or it hears things others can not, which makes it alien.
(take my word, I'm the least representable role model)
On measurements, sims, etc.
I never have, nor would dream of belittling the value of measurements. I'm too old for that, I still remember how modelling was done on protoboards, and how we used to borrow somebody's lab to do the basic measurements, since the gear was prohibitively expensive way back then. Today, it's all so much simplier, and the price of measuring gear has really gone down to affordable levels.
Measurements are useful to me in two instances. The first is while cnstructing the basic model, it helps me quickly and efficiently discover any obvious faults I may have, like unexpectedly high distorion (THD and IM), poor high frequency behavior, etc. The second is when I hear a distinct difference in sound from two generally similar products in the same price class, it's always intersting trying to nail it down to something measurable, it helps me to try to study the problem.
However, it has happened many times, I have two units on the table, one has great measurement results, and the other is say average and nominally below par with the first one. Yet, on listening, the situation reverses; the better measuring one does not sound as convincing, as balanced, as clean and clear as the poorer measuring one. No differences to be found by measuring, at least not with what I have, nothing one could point one's finger at.
No measurement can tell me why, no blind test can tell me why. In fact, quite the opposite, measurements tell me that most tube gear is junk, it quite usually has a THD factor of >3%, and I have seen intermodulation measurements of 5%. And the same occurs there as well, a better measuring unit ends up sounding worse than the poorer measuring unit, not always, but it does happen.
Exactly how does and unsighted A/B/C/D, ... test help me there? What can it provide by way of results which will explain this dichotomy? All it can do is to confirm that the poorer measuring unit B's sound is preferred to better measuring unit A.
That's just trying to measure the unmeasurable, as MiiB pointed out quite rightly, or we don't have all the measurement tools and values and savvy to do the whole job. So, I can trust my ears and brain to tell me if it sounds right in my opinion, and a test by others can confirm or refute my findings, but stll cannot tell me why.
And yes, measurements have definitely become a religion, just as blind and ridiculous as any extreme view, exactly the same as belief that cables can sound widely different, only from the opposing camp.
Such blind faith in measurements indicates a lack of faith in oneself, I think. ANY blind faith is caused by that, in my view. 1 will get you 10 that other well known figures in audio, such as Nelson Pass, John Curl (by his own admission) and many others not employed by mega companies, also use their own ears for the ultimate chek up, after all else is said and done. They trust their ears, and their fame attests their hearing.
I never have, nor would dream of belittling the value of measurements. I'm too old for that, I still remember how modelling was done on protoboards, and how we used to borrow somebody's lab to do the basic measurements, since the gear was prohibitively expensive way back then. Today, it's all so much simplier, and the price of measuring gear has really gone down to affordable levels.
Measurements are useful to me in two instances. The first is while cnstructing the basic model, it helps me quickly and efficiently discover any obvious faults I may have, like unexpectedly high distorion (THD and IM), poor high frequency behavior, etc. The second is when I hear a distinct difference in sound from two generally similar products in the same price class, it's always intersting trying to nail it down to something measurable, it helps me to try to study the problem.
However, it has happened many times, I have two units on the table, one has great measurement results, and the other is say average and nominally below par with the first one. Yet, on listening, the situation reverses; the better measuring one does not sound as convincing, as balanced, as clean and clear as the poorer measuring one. No differences to be found by measuring, at least not with what I have, nothing one could point one's finger at.
No measurement can tell me why, no blind test can tell me why. In fact, quite the opposite, measurements tell me that most tube gear is junk, it quite usually has a THD factor of >3%, and I have seen intermodulation measurements of 5%. And the same occurs there as well, a better measuring unit ends up sounding worse than the poorer measuring unit, not always, but it does happen.
Exactly how does and unsighted A/B/C/D, ... test help me there? What can it provide by way of results which will explain this dichotomy? All it can do is to confirm that the poorer measuring unit B's sound is preferred to better measuring unit A.
That's just trying to measure the unmeasurable, as MiiB pointed out quite rightly, or we don't have all the measurement tools and values and savvy to do the whole job. So, I can trust my ears and brain to tell me if it sounds right in my opinion, and a test by others can confirm or refute my findings, but stll cannot tell me why.
And yes, measurements have definitely become a religion, just as blind and ridiculous as any extreme view, exactly the same as belief that cables can sound widely different, only from the opposing camp.
Such blind faith in measurements indicates a lack of faith in oneself, I think. ANY blind faith is caused by that, in my view. 1 will get you 10 that other well known figures in audio, such as Nelson Pass, John Curl (by his own admission) and many others not employed by mega companies, also use their own ears for the ultimate chek up, after all else is said and done. They trust their ears, and their fame attests their hearing.
I think there's reason in that.
Perhaps I can, and perhaps you can, but some people cannot forget names and price tags, and it can skew the results in their minds. Things like thinking: Hey, that sounds like a $300 amp, not like the $10k amp it is, but it's from a famous name manufacturer who is revered, so I must be wrong.
Put it this way - having a blind test certainly cannot hurt, but it just may avoid people from being unsettled between what they expect and what they are hearing.
More of an opportunity.
For some, it tells them what they should be listening to, since they don't trust their own ears. So, the better it measures, the better it must sound, after all, their oscilloscope clearly shows that, and the oscilloscope has no emotions.
For others, it's an opportunity to make money. Just take a look at how many "unsighted, blind" tests are conducted by adio mags around the world each and every month. The more they convince you that they are advancing the art of testing, the more they can sell of their magazine and award badges.
For yet others, it's an ego trip. They have the gear, and feel that makes them better suited to pass judgement. Some insist on it. So when someone says that something measures brilliently, but sounds like junk, of course they will organize a posse, bcause what he's saying is that their measurements do not tell the whole story, and that they and their measuring gear are not as worthy as they feel they are.
But we should never forget those, even if pitifully few, who are really trying to do something good.
You seem to have a long experience. Do you remember the mid 70ies, when HP and Tectronix ruled almost supreme in measuring gear? It had also become a religion, you had to own HP lab gear to be taken seriously, everything else was junk. I asked the same question then, and never got a coherent answer: assuming both meters are well calibrated and in good working order, if they both show the same result, how is the result of the HP gear trustworthy, and the other is not? If all is well, 0.01% is just that, no matter which meter you use, if it's in working order.
Quite so, with equally bad argumentation.
On the other hand, our hearing is also a result of our acquired habits. If one owns say bright speakers, he will always automatically look for that brightness, and upon not finding it, will be left unsatisfied feeling that whatever he's listening to does not compare well with what he is used to.
All right, so here's a question: I can hear the differences between say a Marantz 170DC and a Harman/Kardon Citation 24 and a Sansui AU-X701 and a Karan Acoustics KA-i180 amps. So what?
Generally, it means literally nothing, it has no general application, I may, a few othars may, but many may not.
So, what have we learnt or gaind from that? Myself aside?
Everyone doing it will probably have their own answer to that. It also depends on what you believe.
Personally, I like to measure before listening, just to make sure everything is working as it should be and to rectify any mistakes I may find. To be sure, I do find them every now and then.
Of course, and so what ? Did LTSice take in consideration the disparities between active devices ? No, they are perfectly matched like they will never be in real world. (unless you spend months to create various models).
Did LTspice take in account the instant variations of temperatures here and here and their consquences ? No.
Did SPSpice read the printed board in order to take in account the resistances, inductance of a track and parasitic capacities with the neighboring ? No.
Did LTSPice can create magic smoke to alert-you ? No.
Can-we model the exact characteristic of a specific electronic capacitance ? Oh no !
Are the power supply modeled in all their characteristics ? No....
On my point of view, it is just a dedicated calculator that help a design, saving calculation time... and provide ideal measurements in a ideal ultra simplified virtual world...
I use-it to figure out is something has a chance to work, and this have a chance to be better than that. With no insurance that my ears will vote for the same winner.
In fact, it is because you know how can measure the things you like that you can drive in the right direction.
As i said, the work begin with the soldering iron.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.