fas42,
I haven't changed my opinion, just sometimes we are not going to agree. I would not argue circuit design with John, I would only make a fool of myself there. But if you are going to make a point that is based in a study it better be done correctly. And a printed article by anybody does not make them a scientist or a statistician. I do have a good understanding of the English language and the games that can be played in a statistical analysis. Just because the Coriolis affect spins the water down the toilet opposite of here doesn't mean the water still doesn't goes down hill.
I haven't changed my opinion, just sometimes we are not going to agree. I would not argue circuit design with John, I would only make a fool of myself there. But if you are going to make a point that is based in a study it better be done correctly. And a printed article by anybody does not make them a scientist or a statistician. I do have a good understanding of the English language and the games that can be played in a statistical analysis. Just because the Coriolis affect spins the water down the toilet opposite of here doesn't mean the water still doesn't goes down hill.
Last edited:
I would just see a lot of what is presented in audio discussions, as empirical evidence for some phenomenon, some causality in the picture which is not fully understood. So, rather than disparaging the person suggesting that there is something of substance here, would be nice if some theories are offered up which could explain the events. Other than, "The people who think they've experienced this are numbskulls!!" ... vedy scientific ...
BTW, that water down the plughole is a beauty, excellent example of what needs to be considered here more often: the mass of water has a "memory" so to speak of everything that has occurred to it up to the point when the plug is pulled, and the direction it spins is dependent on that history ...
Frank
BTW, that water down the plughole is a beauty, excellent example of what needs to be considered here more often: the mass of water has a "memory" so to speak of everything that has occurred to it up to the point when the plug is pulled, and the direction it spins is dependent on that history ...
Frank
Last edited:
Typical example of mistaken analysis of a phenomena.
First to affirm the water turn always the same sens,
Second to affirm any other reason (like some kind of water memory) than the good one. The good answer (everybody can verify) is: It depends.
For big surfaces (miles of water), it is the Coriolis sens, depending if you are north or south from equator, induced by the earth rotation.
In your sink, it depend of your sink geometry or initial impulse because the Coriolis force is too low to have any effect here.
Now, we can believe in wrong causes for some listening experiences, the same wrong ways, about sound of cables or resistances, etc.
All wrong audiophile legends are based on stupid generalization of some kind of real phenomena.
No need to be a graduated scientist with a Nobel price to have a minimum of common sens and enough curiosity to can learn when we have a question.
Again and again, we have enough real problems to solve in analog audio to do not lose our time with stupid middle aged and pseudo scientific believes.
Noise Ain't Noise ???
Could this be a factor in subjective differences between audio gear, even though standard D&N testing generally does not reveal it ?
Dan.
Is 1/f noise really as simplistic as that?...meaning the relatively high (wrt white noise) low frequency 1/f noise would constitute a modulation source, causing intermodulation of the audio (in circuits so prone) even though it is itself generally out of audio band, would it not ?.
Could this be a factor in subjective differences between audio gear, even though standard D&N testing generally does not reveal it ?
Dan.
No Max, 1/f is not THAT simple, Jack Bybee takes it VERY SERIOUSLY. And I hope that you continue to concern yourself with it. However, it is difficult to PROVE IT to this crowd, and you will get your fingers burned trying to petition your case here.
Now, what about these 'scientific studies' about wine tasting? OF COURSE, they are bogus or at least, WAY OUT OF LINE from our group experience. Do you not think that Jack Bybee and I have NOT tasted some of the finest wines and Cognacs in the world and have appreciated the experience? Of course we have!
Do I think that this French detective movie was based on BS? Well, I just got off the phone with Jack Bybee, and last night, completely separately, he happened to tune in the same channel and he saw the SAME program about the 'Wine tasting detective'.
I asked his opinion about these sort of people, and he started naming names of famous people who can do this sort of wine tasting, fine points of the movie, and HOW he wished he could taste all those fine wines for a living. You see, he is HUMAN! Not some cretin, obsessed in fooling the public.
In any case, STRICTLY SPEAKING, if this 'scientific' analysis of wine tasting is part of being rational and scientific, then you are all being 'mislead' by evil wine merchants and even friends trying to find joy in wine 'differences'.
Sounds a bit like hi end audio, huh? '-)
Now, what about these 'scientific studies' about wine tasting? OF COURSE, they are bogus or at least, WAY OUT OF LINE from our group experience. Do you not think that Jack Bybee and I have NOT tasted some of the finest wines and Cognacs in the world and have appreciated the experience? Of course we have!
Do I think that this French detective movie was based on BS? Well, I just got off the phone with Jack Bybee, and last night, completely separately, he happened to tune in the same channel and he saw the SAME program about the 'Wine tasting detective'.
I asked his opinion about these sort of people, and he started naming names of famous people who can do this sort of wine tasting, fine points of the movie, and HOW he wished he could taste all those fine wines for a living. You see, he is HUMAN! Not some cretin, obsessed in fooling the public.
In any case, STRICTLY SPEAKING, if this 'scientific' analysis of wine tasting is part of being rational and scientific, then you are all being 'mislead' by evil wine merchants and even friends trying to find joy in wine 'differences'.
Sounds a bit like hi end audio, huh? '-)
Complex Noise.....
This would add a random 'haze' to the audio, diminishing depth information, and generally screwing up audio signals.
It sounds like I am in good company, and thanks for the encouragement.
Running and ducking for cover....
Dan.
I would expect 1/f noise to add 'jitter like', 'intermodulation like' products, except the modulation source is constantly moving/changing.
This would add a random 'haze' to the audio, diminishing depth information, and generally screwing up audio signals.
It sounds like I am in good company, and thanks for the encouragement.
Running and ducking for cover....
Dan.
There's company around to distract the snipers ...
The symptoms are right, whether it's 1/f I can't say. Just be aware that there are many sources of the 'muck' ...
Frank
Let's make some clarifying distinctions about noise here. Seems to me:
There is "offset" noise (additive).
There is gain variation noise (multiplicative --- you need a deterministic signal present to see/have effects).
In any physical system there is always a little of each. To make an assessment of importance we must know the relative effects. And the shape of the noise spectrum is another (conceptually independent!) issue.
Typically we treat (additive) noise sources as obeying linear superposition. The result of one measured independently and producing a given output, and another independently producing another output, can be treated as if the two inputs summed together produce the sum of the two aforementioned outputs. And then we may add in a (usually much larger) "signal".
This is not usually a bad approximation because the noise(s) is usually small compared to the signal. Meanwhile the distortion components in the output, linear (frequency response alterations) and nonlinear (buncha harmonics and sum/difference products of various orders etc.) are primarily due to the signals. So we don't often say that we're very concerned about a ~microvolt r.m.s. noise signal in a band from F1 to F2 producing nth-harmonic distortion, when at the same time we're amplifying hundreds of millivolts. Or that we are concerned about intermodulation distortion between/among the simultaneous noises and signals. The effects are there though. But how important?
And returning to the gain modulation effects, these too need to be assessed, but their effects are usually very small.
Now we can say that, at some level, we are concerned with small effects. But we have the tools now to evaluate these things quantitatively, and we should do so. Let's get a perspective, for openers.
Speculation is (properly) encouraged. And it's nice to develop a fluid and flexible conceptual apparatus to frame the problems and contemplate the possibilities. And nonlinear dynamics, let alone quantized/entangled etc. dynamics, is an exciting enhancement of the realm, a crucial component of the "final frontier". But I think aiming at least at conceptual precision is crucial, lest we pass into a haze (inhales here) of sempiternal confusion.
Sempiternal, eh - a good whiff of that should keep me high for at least a day, I reckon ...
Frank
SY, thanks for the link
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0002/T0900200/001/current_noise.pdf
I’ll induce a diarrhea in me, so I can justify the time I’ll spend in the toilet studying the phenomenon.
Exactly my case during the last four weeks (TAS5704 MiniAmp biting some much stronger and larger separate amplifiers connected after the miniDSP x-over). For the sake of mind piece, I tend to attribute the overall embarrassing superiority to the I2S connection btn x-over and MiniAmp.
George
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0002/T0900200/001/current_noise.pdf
I’ll induce a diarrhea in me, so I can justify the time I’ll spend in the toilet studying the phenomenon.
Exactly my case during the last four weeks (TAS5704 MiniAmp biting some much stronger and larger separate amplifiers connected after the miniDSP x-over). For the sake of mind piece,
I tend to attribute the overall embarrassing superiority to the I2S connection btn x-over and MiniAmp.George
Last edited:
Ah, now I see were you do come from. This is in line with all the other irrational claims you make here and in other threads.
Do the Bybee Quantum Purifier keep the 1 and remove the f ?
Last edited:
Yes. The missunderstanding of second degree is a good indication of the lack of consideration of somebody to others. When he believe in this second degree, it is a more global misunderstanding.
By example, when i read posts of John about Jack Bybee, i know he is joking.
Sure.
First off what is 'gain variation noise', in relation to audio ?.
From the graphs I have seen, 1/f noise at very low frequencies (sub audio band) can be 30+dB greater than the white noise level caused by devices.
This might be relatively significant, especially when compared to other noises and distortion mechanisms.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.