Well, imagine they landed in the desert of Goby. They would return home immediately, thinking that there is nothing to destroy, and Bruce Willis would be a tramp !
(One odd space bunch already did, but concluded that the critters there were already at it themselves, with a little help by a climbing thermometer. Why bother if desertification and erosion take a while longer, but lead to the same result, waste of ammo)
Yes, thank you. I neglected 50pf by instinct. However, as you say, it is adequate to form an effective LPF for resistor noise, with such high resistance. How bizarre !
See Fig. 11 and the text above and below (pages 15, 16).
Scott, thank you for that great link (still reading)
http://isis.poly.edu/~kurt/barrie_gilbert.pdf
George
I remember buying the original! Best piece of advise for audio folks...Don't Use a Very Big Knob! It will break the control's end stop.
Sad ending. Reminds me of an African saying --- when a man dies a library is burnt to the ground.
THx-Richard
That’s why there exist the belief in immortality of the soul
(but there is no mention of engineers at 248d-249b
)
Plato's Chariot Allegory
-------------
The sense of mortality sets me straight.
I find it fair that we will be remembered only through the things we’ve said and done.
George
(but there is no mention of engineers at 248d-249b
)Plato's Chariot Allegory
-------------
The sense of mortality sets me straight.
I find it fair that we will be remembered only through the things we’ve said and done.
George
It is an universe that disappear. Knowledge (not the one we can write on papers, but something that is part of soul), memories (same thing), and love. And often, when we die, we are not alone. Will die definitively all the missing people that we were the last to love.
And this little part of the universe that we had in our eyes and conscience.
"...there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns;
that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns –
the ones we don't know we don't know."
rayma,
the unknown unknowns are what is missing in that final part of audio reproduction that brings all the objective information and whatever everyone is looking for to bring the objective and subjective into correlation with sound quality. We know what we know but we surely don't know what we don't know.
the unknown unknowns are what is missing in that final part of audio reproduction that brings all the objective information and whatever everyone is looking for to bring the objective and subjective into correlation with sound quality. We know what we know but we surely don't know what we don't know.
Yes, and the always left out, but clearly implied by the conceptual 2x2 matrix are, unknown knowns. These would be thing we know, but apparently don't realize that we know. I always wondered whether there are any real world examples fitting this oxymoronic sounding category? Is it possible to know something yet not be aware of that fact?
Perhaps, instinctual behavior qualifies. Also, some large corporations make use of data-mining to determine whether any useful organizational knowledge is buried in the firms many records. Another possibility, which just now occurs to me, is when one department of a larger organization possesses information or knowledge which would be of use to a sister department, yet the sister department is unaware of that fact.
Last edited:
Sorry, but i find your remark a little stupid and its repetitive aspect boring.
Between our ears and our 'perception', there is a brain. Do you know how and what he processes ?
Sounds are mixed and diffused by two sources, while they are separated and more or less punctual from instruments IRL. And, you listen in an other acoustic environment. A make believe game: a good hifi system is one whitch "fools" you.
I have a problem with my right eye, since some times, a beginning of cataract.
Everything is diffused with a white flare. Do-you believe that, when I look with my two eyes, my brain remove this flare so well that i never noticed the problem before to go to my ophthalmologist ?
Objectivists in audio are simplifying things in excess, with their quest of reassurance. Simple minds want simple ideas.
Measurements, when they are correctly done tells the truth, and that helps a lot, but don't tell everything.
Last edited:
The real problem is people thinking that just because they took some courses in college, that they know just about anything that could be useful or even real. I certainly started out that way in the middle 1960's. However, I had a few setbacks in audio design that made me re-think what works and what doesn't work. I was surprised by ceramic caps, IC's, phono cartridges, and a number of other things, presuming that the data sheets told me everything that I needed to know, and that SMPTE IM measurement was wonderful confirmation that I got things right.
However, distortion measurement was not on the cap data sheet. IC slew rate was kind of ignored back then. And moving magnet phono cartridges had perfectly good specs up to 20KHz or so.
In making a portable solid state mixer, we used 2.2uF ceramic coupling caps between stages to keep the size down. We used IC's for the gain stages, and we used SMPTE IM testing to 'prove' that our design was a success. Unfortunately, the Grateful Dead, taking the unit on the road, found it wanting, and they went back to tubes. WHY? I had to ask, and ultimately I found the answers.
I HAD to compare the successful (open loop tubes) with Mylar coupling caps, mixer, to the ceramic coupled IC design, fully knowing that with IM testing, the IC design measured better. What was going on? I found that super open loop clean circuits, with high open loop bandwidth and extremely high slew rate (for the time) 100V/us and linear coupling caps really sounded good, and the GD were made happy, Mark Levinson was happy, and my audio reputation was vastly increased.
Later, of course, I got rid of even the linear coupling caps. but my early designs still sound darn good, so good that the Chinese even copy them today for sale with my initials on them.
TIM was an unknown quantity back in the early 60's, and no amount of redefining history will change that. It took years of effort to PROVE what our ears told us, with more advanced measurements, and the quiet retirement of SMPTE IM distortion as the standard measurement in the industry as it was for decades.
However, distortion measurement was not on the cap data sheet. IC slew rate was kind of ignored back then. And moving magnet phono cartridges had perfectly good specs up to 20KHz or so.
In making a portable solid state mixer, we used 2.2uF ceramic coupling caps between stages to keep the size down. We used IC's for the gain stages, and we used SMPTE IM testing to 'prove' that our design was a success. Unfortunately, the Grateful Dead, taking the unit on the road, found it wanting, and they went back to tubes. WHY? I had to ask, and ultimately I found the answers.
I HAD to compare the successful (open loop tubes) with Mylar coupling caps, mixer, to the ceramic coupled IC design, fully knowing that with IM testing, the IC design measured better. What was going on? I found that super open loop clean circuits, with high open loop bandwidth and extremely high slew rate (for the time) 100V/us and linear coupling caps really sounded good, and the GD were made happy, Mark Levinson was happy, and my audio reputation was vastly increased.
Later, of course, I got rid of even the linear coupling caps. but my early designs still sound darn good, so good that the Chinese even copy them today for sale with my initials on them.
TIM was an unknown quantity back in the early 60's, and no amount of redefining history will change that. It took years of effort to PROVE what our ears told us, with more advanced measurements, and the quiet retirement of SMPTE IM distortion as the standard measurement in the industry as it was for decades.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.