Ah yes, starved zeners produce something close to Poisson noise, essentially a point process.
I've a discussion about what is music in another thread. This gave me the most musical of experiences. Thanks for that.
That machine is very old in design. Nobody (who listened) really used the internal converters, it was mostly used as a storage device with external converters. Never use the internal DSP.
Alan
No!!!!
I did enjoy a bowl of tzatziki for lunch, and my dog enjoyed licking the bowl clean.
Last edited:
Here we go with another area of subjective argument vs objective proof, not to do with audio but close enough to mess with those who only want objective measure and so called scientific method.
A Crisis at the Edge of Physics
www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?_r=0
A Crisis at the Edge of Physics
www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?_r=0
Well, while we are at it, I certainly wouldn't refuse a glass (or two...) of good Metaxa. A wonderful liver-killer in velvet clothes....
Thanks for sharing - I was not aware of this.
Proposal - that it is not a crisis of physics. Physics could care less about humans and our models. It is a question of risk management when we consider if a theory is reliable enough for application to a particular use without the isolation of empirical proof.
What is really a crisis is changing your sample data because it isn't adequately described by your model. No different than looking at your bank statement, not liking the printout and writing a couple extra zeros on the end.
Criminal, even when you walk up to the bank teller and tell them that according to your figures, their records are incorrect. Tar and feathers are what I have for one who proposes not even attempting to gather a sample, because we should just "trust the scientific community".
Though I did not know him, I suspect Clair Cameron Patterson and a whole host of other accomplished scientists would heartily disagree with the idea of that second-hand diaper's validity in a great manner of applications. If proof is not required, why even bother with the LHC, as long as it is reasonably elegant and descriptive.
Yes, I'm sounding very grumpy, and it's not directed anywhere/anybody.
What I take issue with is walking down a path of basic ideas that turn out to make phrenology look like a minor ruse.
Call me paranoid, but if I run along with that, the rest of the lemmings will have a hard time resisting the urge up to go up that hill too. Oh wait, I can just use the EM drive we just invented. Never mind testing it very much, just get me a conical mold, some #2 pencils and a magnetron, I'm sure I can take over spacex with it.
Even the road to hades is paved with good intentions.
Last edited:
On the linked page there are test reports for products - many with measurements; not very good IMO.
Of course, this assumes that physics is hard and thinking is soft - what if it turns out in the end to be the other way round, that is, thinking is hard and physics is soft ...
Mr Dicks driver looks a lot like this.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=ohm+....Board%2Findex.php%3Fshowtopic%3D3303;640;480
Interesting tidbit I just came across ... people who are reticent about subjecting their ears to high volumes - well, they just better keep away from people then, especially when they're whispering sweet nothings in your ear, and perhaps get a sudden shock while doing so ... https://shure.custhelp.com/app/answ...hone-handle-really-loud-sounds?-(maximum-spl), 
.
.
Just listened to the first half of Toole's talk, and everything he says sounds so reasonable, yet never once is audible distortion mentioned. Dropped in on a YouTube video of his ideal speaker, the M2, here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXmPHoG0rps. Immediately has the smell of PA sound, especially in the vocals - it's obviously a speaker producing the sound ... so, where's the problem?
Frank,
I just don't understand how anyone can make a real judgement about sound of anything that is on U-Tube? Who knows what that last video was recorded with, that could be an I-phone video with sound as far as I know, it is impossible to make a critical judgement to me. I never listen to U-Tube videos for sound quality, it makes no sense to me.
I just don't understand how anyone can make a real judgement about sound of anything that is on U-Tube? Who knows what that last video was recorded with, that could be an I-phone video with sound as far as I know, it is impossible to make a critical judgement to me. I never listen to U-Tube videos for sound quality, it makes no sense to me.
Because, you have the background "noise" of all the other sound elements in that video to compare against, especially the voices of people commenting, etc. They have a "natural" quality to their voice, whereas the sound coming from the speaker has a decidedly "false" tone to it. There are a couple of YouTube videos where the vocalist literally sings along with herself, as recorded earlier and being played back through ambitious speakers, the quality of her voice; and that of the playback of her voice, match ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.