That's good to hear ... will be interesting if this develops ...
That's the dilemma with digital - the quality exists on a small plateau, with sides that drop away sharply as soon as you move off it ... and it can be hard to remain positioned in that prime place ...
Wonderful ot discussion to lighten the load. My uncle who is still alive, 90's now, flew Lancaster for RAF, as a navigator, bombed a German dam (no, not a dam buster) and was awarded the DFC. Quite the character, drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney. Everyone (family/friends) thought, he would be the first to go = wrong, he said "I'll out live ya all" and he was so correct, I still laugh today at his crazy way about him. Dad said he was a different man after the war. I wonder why? 
A few years back, me and my dad, a RCN vet, went to see uncle Ted on Remembrance Day, Uncle Ted showed me his metal from King George and his flight logs. It was like yesterday to him. He was promoted to Sargent a few times. He was crazy, so when drunk, obviously did not take any guff from the Brit's, calling him a colonial etc, took to arms, so back to Corporal again.
A few years back, me and my dad, a RCN vet, went to see uncle Ted on Remembrance Day, Uncle Ted showed me his metal from King George and his flight logs. It was like yesterday to him. He was promoted to Sargent a few times. He was crazy, so when drunk, obviously did not take any guff from the Brit's, calling him a colonial etc, took to arms, so back to Corporal again.
No he was stationed in Italy, I had some nice color pictures from Capri. He moved to the UK for "Big Week" and the carpet bombing of Germany. It was the 8th Air Force 362nd bomber group. The patch was great a skull with Roman headress and a bomb, he was the bombardier (Catch 22).
That is the same - the 8th... big patch of an 8 etal. When the war ended, he was the last surviving flyer left from the original group from the beginning of the war. Messed him up though... shell shocked they called it back then. Recved the DFC from Doolittle. Anyone who lived thru those suicide missions deserved a metal. Something like 70 percent didnt make it back on each flight or 'mission'.
Of course killing in mass of mostly innocent civilians is frowned upon today by everyone including USA. Limited collateral damage is the new war.
-Richard M
Dick,
At the start per mission losses were very high. They dropped as the campaign went on. The eighth Air Force suffered losses even greater than the marines who did the beach landings against the Japanese forces.
Normally there was a mission limit, typically 25, allowing some chance of survival. So it sounds like your father volunteered to do more.
Not surprisingly folks change after they kill someone else or watch someone die from violence. Although there is a fancy name for it today, PTSD, anyone who has had the experience and isn't changed....
The only time I ever had some friends and relatives really lose patience is when I didn't understand how risky their battle experience was. These days I have a bit more understanding.
One fellow I knew as a society furrier was on Omaha beach and most of the other European landings.
So yes these folks were quite heroic. And I hope you and all the others never get the first hand understanding of how deep that meaning is.
At the start per mission losses were very high. They dropped as the campaign went on. The eighth Air Force suffered losses even greater than the marines who did the beach landings against the Japanese forces.
Normally there was a mission limit, typically 25, allowing some chance of survival. So it sounds like your father volunteered to do more.
Not surprisingly folks change after they kill someone else or watch someone die from violence. Although there is a fancy name for it today, PTSD, anyone who has had the experience and isn't changed....
The only time I ever had some friends and relatives really lose patience is when I didn't understand how risky their battle experience was. These days I have a bit more understanding.
One fellow I knew as a society furrier was on Omaha beach and most of the other European landings.
So yes these folks were quite heroic. And I hope you and all the others never get the first hand understanding of how deep that meaning is.
Last edited:
Sleeping, he can delete when he wakes up. I am sure he will appreciate my Brit bashing story. These are thing that should be celebrated, men that risked their lives for us, they were kids, at no more than 20, has to be better conversation, than circuit design bashing.
Cool, another DFC, wow!!
I do not know how many mission Ted made, it was a lot, since Canada got in early 1938? It was a couple of log books.
Three Brothers went in,
Gus, Army Core Engineers, part of liberating Holland. He was wounded a few times.
Ted, RAF
Jim(Dad) RCN, Corvette escort duty, north Atlantic(Sackville,Whitby,?)Sackville is in Halifax, we drove once and saw her. Cool trip through Quebec,NB,Cabot Trail,Halifax, Maine,NH,Vermont,Upper NY.
All made it through war = amazing.
I remember Dad telling me he basically lied about his age. One time, early on, training in the Caribbean?, he was on a mutiny ship, with a bunch of convicts( bad a$$e$$). Had to send a escort to save the ship. Order was to recommission (re-name,christen) the ship after a mutiny. An real embarrassment, that was never documented for obvious reasons
Last edited:
??? DBTs have "proofed" that all amplifiers sound the same:
Do all amplifiers sound the same ? (David L. Clark, Stereo Review 1987)
http://webpages.charter.net/fryguy/Amp_Sound.pdf
...out of all those decisions, one could expect 386 correct
choices through chance alone. In fact the overall score was 388.
So for this panel of listeners, overall, and this group
of amplifiers, no statistically significant audible differences
were detected. ...
Controlled listening tests have consistently
shown that electrical components will be audibly
indistinguishable if the have:
(1) flat frequency response,
(2) noise and distortion levels below audible thresholds,
(3) high input impedance and low output impedance
[D. Clark 1982]
"The Acoustical Manufacturing Company (Quad)
commissioned a series of double-blind
group listening trials, reported by
Moirx (Moir, J., Wireless World, July 1978, pp.
55-58.), in which the panel was selected
to include people who had published
their beliefs that there were significant
differences between amplifier types and
that valve amplifiers were superior. In
the event, the conclusions of this trial
were that there was no statistical
significance in the group preferences,
individually or collectively, between the
Quad 303 and 405 transistor amplifiers,
or between either of these and the Quad
II operated amplifiers."
I´m pretty sure there are more to find. So either the method is flawed or all
amplifiers do indeed sound the same, you seem to believe the latter.
And I want to add that I find remarks like "voices in your head" insulting, but probably moderators like you are "more equal"...
Last edited:
The "method" shows all sorts of audible differences in all sorts of things. You've put forth a false dichotomy, and your attribution of an odd belief to me is incorrect and in fact inconsistent with the article you quoted.
Interestingly, John claimed in print that he was able to distinguish the presence or absence of an ABX box under double blind conditions. No details were given, but just because the result is highly convenient to him commercially, this shouldn't cause any skepticism. If we accept his report at face value and take on faith that his unstated controls and procedures were adequate, he has demonstrated that DBTs are perfectly valid for evaluating audio. And thirty years of data since have supported that conclusion.
As you know, I am not moderating this thread.
Wonderful?
Thank you to bombing us to pieces, the apartment building we where living in. We where lucky to survive under the rubble. Just a reminder, not everybody is dancing when hear stories like that.
Wonderful ot discussion to lighten the load. My uncle who is still alive, 90's now, flew Lancaster for RAF, as a navigator, bombed a German dam (no, not a dam buster) and was awarded the DFC. Quite the character, drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney. Everyone (family/friends) thought, he would be the first to go = wrong, he said "I'll out live ya all" and he was so correct, I still laugh today at his crazy way about him. Dad said he was a different man after the war. I wonder why?
A few years back, me and my dad, a RCN vet, went to see uncle Ted on Remembrance Day, Uncle Ted showed me his metal from King George and his flight logs. It was like yesterday to him. He was promoted to Sargent a few times. He was crazy, so when drunk, obviously did not take any guff from the Brit's, calling him a colonial etc, took to arms, so back to Corporal again.
Thank you to bombing us to pieces, the apartment building we where living in. We where lucky to survive under the rubble. Just a reminder, not everybody is dancing when hear stories like that.
You do not consider yourself somewhat of a guru, Mr Wurcer ?
Attachments
I would add in a few other qualifiers to his list (e.g., stability, no input or output overload, levels matched to 0.1dB... you know, dull and basic engineering stuff), but generally, yes, his work has not been contradicted in the nearly 30 years since it appeared. Many handwaving objections, especially among the folks selling boxes of gain or writing imaginative magazine articles in audio comic books, but no-one has stepped up and experimentally demonstrated the contrary, and many people have run similar experiments and gotten the same results.
I know that it's dull that this is a solved problem, but the exciting part is that it freed creative and intelligent engineers to work on unsolved and important problems- I had an example of terrifically creative engineering pass through may house this month, one where the audible effects were astounding. Jan Didden just reported on another one, which I am anxious to hear for myself.
There's some great stuff going on in audio right now, why get bogged down in 1968, except for reasons of nostalgia and historical recollection?
I know that it's dull that this is a solved problem, but the exciting part is that it freed creative and intelligent engineers to work on unsolved and important problems- I had an example of terrifically creative engineering pass through may house this month, one where the audible effects were astounding. Jan Didden just reported on another one, which I am anxious to hear for myself.
There's some great stuff going on in audio right now, why get bogged down in 1968, except for reasons of nostalgia and historical recollection?
In the two large loudspeaker labs I had stuff evaluated and improved, there was an almost complete disregard for the amp being used for measurements or critical ABX listening tests between loudspeakers.
Given that a certain set of conditions is met with respect to FR and distortion, the only relevant parameter of an amp is it's damping factor because this directly interacts with the loudspeaker.
For any given driver, it is equally possible to calculate optimum enclosures for either low or high output resistance amps, but you have to make a design choice here. The loudspeaker research engineers I worked with all based their designs on low output resistance because that is what the majority of amps out there is.
While this is not the case for amps, differences between loudspeakers are on the whole readily distinguishable in ABX testing. There is nothing voodoo about this, because these differences can also be measured easily, using fairly standard measurements. No two different loudspeaker measure the same, much unlike amps. We don't need a new metric for this.
That's why for most part of my audio life, I have been absorbed by speakers . It's the transducers at the beginning and the end of the audio chain where most progress is to be expected, for the simple reason that they still not all sound the same, whereas logic predicts that all perfect speakers or microphones would.
Given that a certain set of conditions is met with respect to FR and distortion, the only relevant parameter of an amp is it's damping factor because this directly interacts with the loudspeaker.
For any given driver, it is equally possible to calculate optimum enclosures for either low or high output resistance amps, but you have to make a design choice here. The loudspeaker research engineers I worked with all based their designs on low output resistance because that is what the majority of amps out there is.
While this is not the case for amps, differences between loudspeakers are on the whole readily distinguishable in ABX testing. There is nothing voodoo about this, because these differences can also be measured easily, using fairly standard measurements. No two different loudspeaker measure the same, much unlike amps. We don't need a new metric for this.
That's why for most part of my audio life, I have been absorbed by speakers . It's the transducers at the beginning and the end of the audio chain where most progress is to be expected, for the simple reason that they still not all sound the same, whereas logic predicts that all perfect speakers or microphones would.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.