Mark, I wish you luck. Some people conflate hearing with their imaginations with the real thing, even if such suggestions are terribly improbable.
Not that we shouldn't design/build our playback systems (or live sound for some of us) to our subjective liking. That's one's prerogative, but indefensible and not terribly useful to others.
And my post is 11 x 7591! Whoa. I was wondering if it was prime, but Morinix gets the prize for the most recent prime (83497).
Not that we shouldn't design/build our playback systems (or live sound for some of us) to our subjective liking. That's one's prerogative, but indefensible and not terribly useful to others.
And my post is 11 x 7591! Whoa. I was wondering if it was prime, but Morinix gets the prize for the most recent prime (83497).
I am merely talking about learning and testing, not agreeing as to what is or is not hearable. Regarding foibles of the human mind, yes, I know.
Can only find these for other models, but they may be of some help.
http://kenrockwell.com/audio/panasonic/images/vp-7721a/vp-7721a-manual.pdf
Panasonic VP-7723A Service Manual free download,schematics,datasheets,eeprom bins,pcb,repair info for test equipment and electronics
WoW. that is a really old picture. Back in the day, stuff. MSD Inc is no longer.
In case anyone missed it, else-where, I used to be the company CEO of that factory, shown.
It's good, Waly, to make and keep friends.
THx-RNMarsh
The burden of proof is on the person who claims that existing well-established science is wrong, not the person who asks for such evidence.john curl said:
VdH I can't comment on. MH has a history of being confused e.g. he talks about partition noise where there is no partition ("fuzzy distortion"). ES is I believe simon7000, who often seems to stumble over experimental details, and who also enjoys setting puzzles?
You have long noted that ABX delivers different results from the ones you prefer, but then you draw the wrong conclusion from this.
In most cases "wire differences" do not exist. Where they do exist there is a perfectly sensible explanation, based on boring things like L and C and R.
I have no interest in talking about faulty wiring.
Some reliable evidence would be nice instead of words of encouragement for the true believers.....
Nope... this has been discredited, why has no other field of electronics picked up on this.
Did you read the audioquest link, if so and you still posted it then I am disappointed.
So nothing but the usual rubbish.....
Last edited:
When your paycheck depends on convincing people of the palpably untrue, it's unlikely that you'll suddenly decide to encourage rationality.
Ok, I just read the Hawksford article at the link given. Having worked with RF and microwaves for many years, the basic claims about transmission lines, skin effect, etc. appear reasonably correct, with some assumptions have been made along the way. However, the questions remains, can you reliably hear it? Human hearing is good at some things and not so good at others. After all, connected bundles of neurons operating in the brain also have their imperfections. Much more so than wires, for the most part. Still, we have good evidence that seemingly small imperfections in things like clock jitter in data converters are hearable in terms of spacial localization perception and so on. We don't have equally good evidence that transmission line effects in wires are hearable in most cases of audio amplification and reproduction systems (neglecting things like long distance telephone signals).
Unfortunately, once he reviews the basics, he goes terribly wrong. The math is fine, the interpretation is totally wrong. We've posted some pretty devastating critiques, and no-one who understands E&M thinks he's even vaguely correct. (hint: what direction is the Poynting vector?)
It seems that, once again, MH knows just enough physics to confuse himself and impress others (who know even less physics). I had forgotten this particular article. I was thinking of the 'fuzzy distortion' article where he claims that highly correlated electrons will behave like individual charges when on an FET gate, which is equivalent to believing that we get partition noise at every junction in a circuit or shot noise where there is no potential barrier to cross.
It may shock some people to hear that one of the reasons we have peer review is that the fact that someone has a professorship in a reputable university is not a guarantee that everything he says within his own field of expertise is sensible and true. It is interesting that 'true believers' will quote a Prof when it suits them, but dismiss a whole body of knowledge (developed by the same sort of people in the same sort of universities) when it contradicts the 'one true story'.
It may shock some people to hear that one of the reasons we have peer review is that the fact that someone has a professorship in a reputable university is not a guarantee that everything he says within his own field of expertise is sensible and true. It is interesting that 'true believers' will quote a Prof when it suits them, but dismiss a whole body of knowledge (developed by the same sort of people in the same sort of universities) when it contradicts the 'one true story'.
Carver Mead is no MH, what do you think of this article?
http://www.rle.mit.edu/acbs/pdfpublications/journal_papers/journal_16.pdf
- Status
- Not open for further replies.