I don't believe in ghosts. I believe in observations or else we might as well be blind.
If storytelling is what you don't like, then how is it that we often see reality that is stranger than fiction. I often tell myself "if somebody wrote that as fiction, it would be considered incredulous, nobody would believe it."
And what does "full of remarkable claims" mean other than a hidden character assassination? Why not say "your are full of it"?
I don't sit in judgement of others, I don't judge another person based on a single topic that tells me nothing about the rest of the worth of a man. He that cannot forgive cannot expect forgiveness? He that is quick to judge, will he himself not be judged? How can anybody then escape?
Stuart, I know what you are referring to (even if others here don't - some do, some don't), but look below, what does it say?
"Don't take anything I say as an affirmation but as a question."
That is actually a quote from a theoretical physicist, who also said:
"Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it."
It's that simple, really - just be open minded.
The same person also said that physics, hence science, is not about how nature works, but what we can say about nature - and chastised Wolfgang Pauli "your theory may not be crazy enough to be true."
Maybe I prefer the company of crazy people? That's maybe taking it too far - but if somebody can challenge my perception of things, I should not be fearful, I should not think evil of them, I should thank them.
I don't want to win any battles, I leave that to those addicted to power and politicians.
Cheerfully, Joe
Oh, please. In what conditions those "tests" were done ? Sinus waves, with how long of time for switching ? Musical program with overall gain, or changes of linearity in the response curve, at witch frequency ? etc...
Long time ago, we used to "drop in" recordings during movie mixing sessions. I can tell-you that it require a level accuracy lot better than 1dB. Or, use some cross fade at the dop-in point. Well, other effects were sensible. Like phase problems due to mechanical stabilization of the tape...
Just had fabulous week here in China watching back to back shows on UFO's, Alien Abductions,
You would think they might ban that stuff along with Google.
Yep. And what if they are in the hundreds, then maybe become thousands... at what point does it reach critical mass and... acceptance?
-
I have no definitive knowledge of how charges are exactly moving in a cable, at different frequencies, for an audio signal. I don't know if oxidation, as an example, is affecting or not the signal.
What can-I tell about electrons: I had never seen any of them ;-)
What i know from experience is it is better to have speakers with a flat impedance curve, and that it minimize the influence of the cables. And always better to get minimal length and as big diameter that we can. (" I tend to prefer cables that conduct electricity ";-)
And to verify the amp is stable (with no unwanted overshoot) once the cable is set.
For sure i will not spend extra money for an "audiophile" out-priced cable. Because I'm not a rich man ;-) Some are interested in good looking furnitures, or any social status, what the hell ?
While i will not put my hand to be cut for this, i have the feeling (it is only afeeling) that, on the long distance listening, single wire cables between sources and amplifiers sound more 'fluid' than muti-core cables. What the hell ? I use Cat 5 cables, and they are not expensive. Am-I able to figure out any difference with 100% accuracy in instant ? No !
Is many other points were I can improve my system with more sensible benefits ? Oh yes !
At least, when this question of "cable sound" appeared in the audio fashion, (in the 80 ?), I made experiences to figure out what it was. Yes I was able to feel differences. In blind listening. No the differences were not in the same direction with various amplifiers and speakers.
At least, i had spend some time on this subject, in the most open minded and clever way i was able of, instead of "believing" or "rejecting".
After that, I don't believe anymore that a cable can have a specific character. But that it can affect a system, in an audible way, depending of the damping factor of the amp, its stability, the impedance curve of the speaker, yes.
When i tried, here, to report the benefit of speaker's impedance compensation, I was treated like an heretic by (always the same) brunch of members of this little sharia court i name "Pure objectivists".
You know, those who seems to never *listen* to music, but talk, talk, talk... about numbers.
They are the 'believers'. In a new religion called science.
What can-I tell about electrons: I had never seen any of them ;-)
What i know from experience is it is better to have speakers with a flat impedance curve, and that it minimize the influence of the cables. And always better to get minimal length and as big diameter that we can. (" I tend to prefer cables that conduct electricity ";-)
And to verify the amp is stable (with no unwanted overshoot) once the cable is set.
For sure i will not spend extra money for an "audiophile" out-priced cable. Because I'm not a rich man ;-) Some are interested in good looking furnitures, or any social status, what the hell ?
While i will not put my hand to be cut for this, i have the feeling (it is only afeeling) that, on the long distance listening, single wire cables between sources and amplifiers sound more 'fluid' than muti-core cables. What the hell ? I use Cat 5 cables, and they are not expensive. Am-I able to figure out any difference with 100% accuracy in instant ? No !
Is many other points were I can improve my system with more sensible benefits ? Oh yes !
At least, when this question of "cable sound" appeared in the audio fashion, (in the 80 ?), I made experiences to figure out what it was. Yes I was able to feel differences. In blind listening. No the differences were not in the same direction with various amplifiers and speakers.
At least, i had spend some time on this subject, in the most open minded and clever way i was able of, instead of "believing" or "rejecting".
After that, I don't believe anymore that a cable can have a specific character. But that it can affect a system, in an audible way, depending of the damping factor of the amp, its stability, the impedance curve of the speaker, yes.
When i tried, here, to report the benefit of speaker's impedance compensation, I was treated like an heretic by (always the same) brunch of members of this little sharia court i name "Pure objectivists".
You know, those who seems to never *listen* to music, but talk, talk, talk... about numbers.
They are the 'believers'. In a new religion called science.
Last edited:
You would think they might ban that stuff along with Google.
It must be true: it's Discovery Science.
LOL
The difference between storytelling and science is evidence. If someone says they were kidnapped by aliens and anally probed, that's not a credible observation without some other pretty solid evidence.
So? That is not surprising. All I was saying is that if good tests show that we can just detect X then someone claiming that we can routinely hear 0.01X under similar conditions has to bear the burden of proof himself, not demand it from others.Esperado said:
I am a lot more 'open minded' about the deeper aspects of theoretical physics than I am about the much simpler field of low bandwidth electronics (otherwise known as audio). Dragging in ideas from one field to spuriously support daft ideas in the other is a good way to confuse onlookers.Joe Rasmussen said:
Perhaps it might surprise some to hear that this is precisely what the circuit theory of audio cables as potential dividers predicts: if the bottom half of the divider varies less in impedance then the impedance of the top half is less important.Esperado said:
Restricted like this, I agree.
Well, it is interestinging to constat that, more or less, every designer here, witch was in contact with music production during his life have similar attitude.
Ie a scientific approach during the electronic design, calculations etc... a deep interest in good explanation of the phenomenas for improving their design in the good direction (helped with measurements)... and ... listening feelings as an ultimate justice of the peace.
Hifi is for reproducing music (most of the time). Musician don't make calculations. They rely on their feelings and emotions. They cannot explain the "groove", but, for sure they can feel-it and share-it.
Music is a mysterious way to transmit directly emotions to other's people. There is no (or very few) recipe.
Are-you able to chose *your* amp on the single read of their technical characteristic ? Not me. I will not even read them, but listen to it, for sure.
Science regularly "seeks answers to the unobserved". Scientists build models of unobservable structures or phenomena, and the models have predictive power. They can be falsified by observations of predicate phenomena, but we still can't directly observe many of the things that science talks about, and they remain "unknowable" in an epistemological sense.
I agree.
Most of the science discoreries are based on "intuitions". Some mystrious way some have to 'feel' the univers.
Now, what makes a valid or not valid theory is very simple: It works ...or not and correlate to observations or experimentations.
Untill some other theory will work better ... witch will be, of course, rejected at the begining by the community of scientists, using the previous theory. Followers.
We only know what we know at the current time, but many times there a things we just don't know we don't know, at least not yet. Quantum mechanics have had some new observational things proven, or at least they think they have now been able to actually see and control some of it as of very recently. So though we have our standard models and our so called proven science, sometimes later it is shown we were correct in our beliefs but wrong on the underlying reason they actually do what they do. Our theories change but the reality stays the same.
New CERN Study Suggests Subatomic Particles Could Defy the Standard Model
http://scitechdaily.com/physicists-observe-and-control-quantum-motion/
New CERN Study Suggests Subatomic Particles Could Defy the Standard Model
http://scitechdaily.com/physicists-observe-and-control-quantum-motion/
Last edited:
re: post 72293 et al
That is why I agreed with JoeR's point.
First, I read his "unknowable and unobservable" as a singularity, not to be construed as separates.
And yes, we create models of the unobservable. The atom is a fine example. But I think those models are founded, accepted and/or rejected on observable data and consequence. So harping on observable unobservable is pointless IMO.
That is why I agreed with JoeR's point.
First, I read his "unknowable and unobservable" as a singularity, not to be construed as separates.
And yes, we create models of the unobservable. The atom is a fine example. But I think those models are founded, accepted and/or rejected on observable data and consequence. So harping on observable unobservable is pointless IMO.
I did not see this, do you have a link to where you posted this? Not least so we can see who you think is treating you so badly.
Yes, it works. And, yes Steven, it helps a lot the amp witch has not to deal with brutal voltage/current disparities.
i can't even understand how manufacturers can sell speakers with flat response curves and impedance response curves looking like mountains.
And it helps to design passive filters, working as expected upon calculations. You do not have to lose such time in trying and modify the values, more or less blind, looking at the response curves ;-)
Thanks, Dimitri
- Status
- Not open for further replies.