Re: So Just Which Reality Are You On, Steve ?.
Hi,
You seem awfully sure about this. Are you perchance familiar with the ideas set out by David Hume? I have a nice quotation here of ideas of his as well as those of Bishop Berkley....
==============================================
Hume, David (1711-1776):
Agreed with Berkeley that we could experience only our own subjective reality but disagreed with Berkeley's contention that we could assume that our perceptions accurately reflect the physical world because God would not deceive us.
For Hume, we can be sure of nothing. Even the notion of cause and effect, which is so important to Newtonian physics, is nothing more than a habit of thought.
Hume distinguished between impressions, which are vivid, and ideas, which are faint copies of impressions.
Imagination: According to Hume, the power of the mind to arrange and rearrange ideas into countless configurations.
Impressions: According to Hume, the relatively strong mental experiences caused by sensory stimulation. For Hume, impression was essentially the same thing as what others called sensation.
Law of Cause and Effect: According to Hume, if in our experience one event always precedes the occurrence of another event, we tend to believe that the former event is the cause of the latter.
Law of Compound Association: Contiguous or similar events form compound ideas and are remembered together. If one or a few elements of the compound idea are experienced, they may elicit the memory of the entire compound.
Law of Constructive Association: The mind can rearrange the memories of various experiences so that the creative associations formed are different from the experiences that gave rise to the associations.
Law of Contiguity: The tendency for events that are experienced together to be remembered together.
Law of Resemblance: According to Hume, the tendency for our thoughts to run from one event to similar events. The same as what others call the law, or principle, of similarity.
==============================================
I would argue that Hume's contentions are very much reinforced by discoveries at the leading edges of modern science.
I suspect that those who are very sure they are within "THE PHYSICAL REALITY" and that they percieve it are in fact deeply caught in a specific illusion just as those who believe that nothing is real and all is illusion are caught up in their illusion.
The illuminated mind of course accepts part of the illusion as neccessary and practically usefull. Case points are such as the illusion of time, space, the illusion of solidity (even solid stell is 99.9% empty space and henceclearly NOT solid), the illusions of electrons in electronics. There are no Atoms, Electrons, Positrons and Neutrons, indeed I'd argue that there are also no Quarks - yet at different stages and levels of experimental and applied physics using the illusion of their existenz will give us a usefull handle on certian much more complex concepts.
The ILLUMINATED MIND is of course equally aware of the nature of the illusion, it percieves that Voltage is an illusion in the context of simple electronics and in reality current is primary, yet current too is illusionary (it can still kill, as can many illusions of course) as the "flow of electrons" the current represents is made up of illusionary particles we now know are made up in reality of quarks and stuff, which I suspect is equally illusionary.
The unilluminated minds will tend to the extremes of mistaking the illusion for reality (they often consider themselves to be "objective", despite the fact that ANYTHING we percieve ist strictly and absolutely subjective) or of mistaking the reality for illusions, instead of having the balance and the concept that REALITY IS AN ILLUSION AND THE ILLUSION IS REALITY AT THE SAME TIME.
It is a fundamental and essential coequal, coincident perpetuation of two polar opposites in one which when mathematically summed will equal ZERO (a nicely balanced Ledger) but give rise to local anomalies which make up our "REALITY/ILLUSION".
Or as it is so nicely put by Ursula K. LeGuin - "Light is the left hand of Darkness".
After this slight discussion of fundamental philosophy (which seems to be underrepresented in "modern" education even on academic level) I beg your pardon for the interruption and suggest a return to scheduled programming, the main event, the fight to the finish about the question:
Directional Resistors - Illusion OR Reality....
Sayonara
Hi,
You seem awfully sure about this. Are you perchance familiar with the ideas set out by David Hume? I have a nice quotation here of ideas of his as well as those of Bishop Berkley....
==============================================
Hume, David (1711-1776):
Agreed with Berkeley that we could experience only our own subjective reality but disagreed with Berkeley's contention that we could assume that our perceptions accurately reflect the physical world because God would not deceive us.
For Hume, we can be sure of nothing. Even the notion of cause and effect, which is so important to Newtonian physics, is nothing more than a habit of thought.
Hume distinguished between impressions, which are vivid, and ideas, which are faint copies of impressions.
Imagination: According to Hume, the power of the mind to arrange and rearrange ideas into countless configurations.
Impressions: According to Hume, the relatively strong mental experiences caused by sensory stimulation. For Hume, impression was essentially the same thing as what others called sensation.
Law of Cause and Effect: According to Hume, if in our experience one event always precedes the occurrence of another event, we tend to believe that the former event is the cause of the latter.
Law of Compound Association: Contiguous or similar events form compound ideas and are remembered together. If one or a few elements of the compound idea are experienced, they may elicit the memory of the entire compound.
Law of Constructive Association: The mind can rearrange the memories of various experiences so that the creative associations formed are different from the experiences that gave rise to the associations.
Law of Contiguity: The tendency for events that are experienced together to be remembered together.
Law of Resemblance: According to Hume, the tendency for our thoughts to run from one event to similar events. The same as what others call the law, or principle, of similarity.
==============================================
I would argue that Hume's contentions are very much reinforced by discoveries at the leading edges of modern science.
I suspect that those who are very sure they are within "THE PHYSICAL REALITY" and that they percieve it are in fact deeply caught in a specific illusion just as those who believe that nothing is real and all is illusion are caught up in their illusion.
The illuminated mind of course accepts part of the illusion as neccessary and practically usefull. Case points are such as the illusion of time, space, the illusion of solidity (even solid stell is 99.9% empty space and henceclearly NOT solid), the illusions of electrons in electronics. There are no Atoms, Electrons, Positrons and Neutrons, indeed I'd argue that there are also no Quarks - yet at different stages and levels of experimental and applied physics using the illusion of their existenz will give us a usefull handle on certian much more complex concepts.
The ILLUMINATED MIND is of course equally aware of the nature of the illusion, it percieves that Voltage is an illusion in the context of simple electronics and in reality current is primary, yet current too is illusionary (it can still kill, as can many illusions of course) as the "flow of electrons" the current represents is made up of illusionary particles we now know are made up in reality of quarks and stuff, which I suspect is equally illusionary.
The unilluminated minds will tend to the extremes of mistaking the illusion for reality (they often consider themselves to be "objective", despite the fact that ANYTHING we percieve ist strictly and absolutely subjective) or of mistaking the reality for illusions, instead of having the balance and the concept that REALITY IS AN ILLUSION AND THE ILLUSION IS REALITY AT THE SAME TIME.
It is a fundamental and essential coequal, coincident perpetuation of two polar opposites in one which when mathematically summed will equal ZERO (a nicely balanced Ledger) but give rise to local anomalies which make up our "REALITY/ILLUSION".
Or as it is so nicely put by Ursula K. LeGuin - "Light is the left hand of Darkness".
After this slight discussion of fundamental philosophy (which seems to be underrepresented in "modern" education even on academic level) I beg your pardon for the interruption and suggest a return to scheduled programming, the main event, the fight to the finish about the question:
Directional Resistors - Illusion OR Reality....
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang
Thanks for the lesson!
Johan Wolfgang von Goethe did some real interesting work upon colours wich deals with this.
Thanks for Ursula K. LeGuin.
Thanks for the lesson!
To understand the equality of the lightness and the darkness takes more than a physical singular approch the phenomena.
Johan Wolfgang von Goethe did some real interesting work upon colours wich deals with this.
Thanks for Ursula K. LeGuin.
(I hope my translation is oK.)
I don't think that those illusion-reality environments are so easy to define. Everything is relative and while it is easy for illuminated mind to claim that what most of humans perceive as reality is just an illusion, for most of those humans however, it's much easier to live and understand that illusionary environment, because that's what they were supposed to do. Take it away from them and they might feel lost.
So while some of us may claim a bit of illumination, yet the majority prefers more simple concepts and better grasp on everyday's reality. Let's face it, if it's not for them, illuminated mind would'n exist or would have to creaty another form of illusion.
So while some of us may claim a bit of illumination, yet the majority prefers more simple concepts and better grasp on everyday's reality. Let's face it, if it's not for them, illuminated mind would'n exist or would have to creaty another form of illusion.
Remember good old Plato's 'grotto' :
Simply knowing the physical and social world around us is not true knowledge; only knowledge based on a recollection.
The world around us which we comprehend with our senses is not reality, but merely a collection of phenomena that are defective copies of their corresponding eternal, perfect Forms.
Maybe the sound of BG is nohing more than a recollection of what the perfect sound was like. And that makes it quite possible that Elna Cerafines might ring the same bell...
Vriendelijke groeten!
Marc
Simply knowing the physical and social world around us is not true knowledge; only knowledge based on a recollection.
The world around us which we comprehend with our senses is not reality, but merely a collection of phenomena that are defective copies of their corresponding eternal, perfect Forms.
Maybe the sound of BG is nohing more than a recollection of what the perfect sound was like. And that makes it quite possible that Elna Cerafines might ring the same bell...
Vriendelijke groeten!
Marc
Re: So Just Which Reality Are You On, Steve ?.
Er, next time can you refrain from replying within a quote? When someone replies, the system here leaves out all the material quoted. With this post, the only text that was quoted was "regards, Eric."
Subjective perceptions CAN stem from actual physical realities, but not always. In fact it's trivially easy to produce a subjective perception of a change even when no actual physical change has been made.
Whatever Belt may be, he does serve the useful purpose of providing excellent examples of the fact that it's trivially easy to produce a subjective perception of a change even when no actual physical change has been made.
Sure. The nucleus has a magnetic moment and the electrons have magnetic moments. But that's meaningless. Unless the spins are somehow aligned in the same direction, there won't be any residual magnetization. And if they are aligned, then the result would be a permanent magnet.
I have some exceedingly strong rare earth magnets here yet they're incapable of picking up (or even moving) even the smallest scrap of copper. If there were any significant amount of net spin alignment in a particular direction, these magnets should have at least some influence.
I haven't said that it cannot be possible. I simply asked how it comes to be directional. But with all due respect, your "careful experimenting" is at this point anyway, nothing more than anecdote.
Chatting with a nuclear physicist confirms absolutely nothing regarding your subjective perceptions. At best, it can only confirm that there MAY BE something going on which MIGHT manifest itself in an audible fashion.
You're putting the cart before the horse here. After you visited the nuclear physicist, you perhaps should have visited a logistician to help out with some critical thinking skills.
Dummy? Uh, go back and read what I wrote. I specifically asked you what "magnetizing processes" you were referring to seeing how vague your mention of it was. I mentioned copper being paramagnetic as a side comment in the event that you were referring to conductors which was what was being discussed at the time.
And after you visit the logistician, visit a comic to get some help with a sense of humor. I knew exactly what you meant. The comment about crescent wrenches was merely a joke, as indicated by the smiley I added at the end.
Excuse me? You're swimming against a stream of research which for over 100 years has confirmed just the opposite. Are you pulling my leg here or what?
I'm sorry, but the only concrete I see here seems to be between your ears.
I'll let you have the last word here as it seems others aren't particularly interested.
se
Er, next time can you refrain from replying within a quote? When someone replies, the system here leaves out all the material quoted. With this post, the only text that was quoted was "regards, Eric."
mrfeedback said:
Subjective perceptions CAN stem from actual physical realities, but not always. In fact it's trivially easy to produce a subjective perception of a change even when no actual physical change has been made.
Whatever Belt may be, he does serve the useful purpose of providing excellent examples of the fact that it's trivially easy to produce a subjective perception of a change even when no actual physical change has been made.
Sure. The nucleus has a magnetic moment and the electrons have magnetic moments. But that's meaningless. Unless the spins are somehow aligned in the same direction, there won't be any residual magnetization. And if they are aligned, then the result would be a permanent magnet.
I have some exceedingly strong rare earth magnets here yet they're incapable of picking up (or even moving) even the smallest scrap of copper. If there were any significant amount of net spin alignment in a particular direction, these magnets should have at least some influence.
I haven't said that it cannot be possible. I simply asked how it comes to be directional. But with all due respect, your "careful experimenting" is at this point anyway, nothing more than anecdote.
Chatting with a nuclear physicist confirms absolutely nothing regarding your subjective perceptions. At best, it can only confirm that there MAY BE something going on which MIGHT manifest itself in an audible fashion.
You're putting the cart before the horse here. After you visited the nuclear physicist, you perhaps should have visited a logistician to help out with some critical thinking skills.
Dummy? Uh, go back and read what I wrote. I specifically asked you what "magnetizing processes" you were referring to seeing how vague your mention of it was. I mentioned copper being paramagnetic as a side comment in the event that you were referring to conductors which was what was being discussed at the time.
And after you visit the logistician, visit a comic to get some help with a sense of humor. I knew exactly what you meant. The comment about crescent wrenches was merely a joke, as indicated by the smiley I added at the end.
Excuse me? You're swimming against a stream of research which for over 100 years has confirmed just the opposite. Are you pulling my leg here or what?
I'm sorry, but the only concrete I see here seems to be between your ears.
I'll let you have the last word here as it seems others aren't particularly interested.
se
Last one on non-audio matters in this thread from me - I promise....
Hmmm. You cannot DEFINE reality. Simply because by defining, meaning limiting it you take an interpretation or in fact an illusion for reality. I do appreciate that it makes life easy, however even with gainclones life is no really easy, if we wanted an easy life we'd all own Sony plastic boom boxes and be done with.
By already having recognised the Illusion of commercial gear giving really good sound at affordable cost we meet here to discuss oru own particular illusions, rather than to partake of the more general one. In this direction lieth more of the truth and reality and madness of course. I always have believed that madness should be embraced and experienced to the limits, otherwise you might as well be what passes these days as normal.
Well, I for one claim very little illumination (but even Goethe asked for "more light" before passed out of this plane of existence). If I speak of "the illuminated mind" I really refer to a specific state that some have also described as "completely competent mind" (Doc EE. Smith in fact) and all we can achieve even in many lifetimes is a very small corner of such a truely illuminised stae.
As to the words "definition" and "reality", they are spikey, *****ely and inconvenient things. If you define something you limit it. You define it (for arguments sake) A and Not-A. Yet, at what point in time/space/reality/illusion does A stop being A and becomes Not A. Is there a point were our "defined" subject is about halve A and Halve Non-A? And if so, does this not make our definition a mockery?
As to reality - remeber, reality is just an illusion. It is what your own inborne, learned and aquired reactions, prejudices and the like make out of the original Rorschach test, namely life. What you percieve as reality is no more and no less than the meaning supplied by your "mind" towhat as "thing in itself" is of course just a bunch of almost random coloured blobs.
And it should be obvious that two different people looking at it will see different things, from a little different to complete and polar opposites. Which reality is real than? The "democratic" solution is to say "what the majority agrees on" and often the "democracy" becomes a tyrany by simply denying the right of other realities, calling them Mental Illnesses, or religious fanatism or any number of things, all with the upshot that you either readjust your illusion to agree with those of all others or you are obstracised, persecuted and even in modern "democracies" tortured (ECT anyone - we have plenty of Voltz where those came from - no worries mate - we will cure you).
And in a few ways all that has a very substantial bearing on audio. There are many different illusions and they all have their merit. Sadly the majority still seeks safety in numbers and implicitly believes that what majority agrees with is "right".
Fiat
L.'. V.'. X.'.
Peter Daniel said:
Hmmm. You cannot DEFINE reality. Simply because by defining, meaning limiting it you take an interpretation or in fact an illusion for reality. I do appreciate that it makes life easy, however even with gainclones life is no really easy, if we wanted an easy life we'd all own Sony plastic boom boxes and be done with.
By already having recognised the Illusion of commercial gear giving really good sound at affordable cost we meet here to discuss oru own particular illusions, rather than to partake of the more general one. In this direction lieth more of the truth and reality and madness of course. I always have believed that madness should be embraced and experienced to the limits, otherwise you might as well be what passes these days as normal.
Well, I for one claim very little illumination (but even Goethe asked for "more light" before passed out of this plane of existence). If I speak of "the illuminated mind" I really refer to a specific state that some have also described as "completely competent mind" (Doc EE. Smith in fact) and all we can achieve even in many lifetimes is a very small corner of such a truely illuminised stae.
As to the words "definition" and "reality", they are spikey, *****ely and inconvenient things. If you define something you limit it. You define it (for arguments sake) A and Not-A. Yet, at what point in time/space/reality/illusion does A stop being A and becomes Not A. Is there a point were our "defined" subject is about halve A and Halve Non-A? And if so, does this not make our definition a mockery?
As to reality - remeber, reality is just an illusion. It is what your own inborne, learned and aquired reactions, prejudices and the like make out of the original Rorschach test, namely life. What you percieve as reality is no more and no less than the meaning supplied by your "mind" towhat as "thing in itself" is of course just a bunch of almost random coloured blobs.
And it should be obvious that two different people looking at it will see different things, from a little different to complete and polar opposites. Which reality is real than? The "democratic" solution is to say "what the majority agrees on" and often the "democracy" becomes a tyrany by simply denying the right of other realities, calling them Mental Illnesses, or religious fanatism or any number of things, all with the upshot that you either readjust your illusion to agree with those of all others or you are obstracised, persecuted and even in modern "democracies" tortured (ECT anyone - we have plenty of Voltz where those came from - no worries mate - we will cure you).
And in a few ways all that has a very substantial bearing on audio. There are many different illusions and they all have their merit. Sadly the majority still seeks safety in numbers and implicitly believes that what majority agrees with is "right".
Fiat
L.'. V.'. X.'.
Professors Of Hot Air......
I'm bored as hell with all this philosophical BS.
Next time one of you guys builds a 3 dimensional P-P wired dac/filter stage, that is totally component to component wired except 2 wires about 10mm long carrying left and right, have a check to see if those two wires are audible.
By that I mean, try 6 different pairs of wires and see if you get six different sounds - I did.
Then reverse the directions of those two wires and see if you get another six sounds - I did, and so did my friends who witnessed this experimenting.
Either myself and my friends are all tripping off our nuts, or we were in the midst of reality - I understand it to be the latter.
Also, ask my friends if they can hear the effects of my most recent experimenting - none of us have a concrete explanation of the mechanics or physics, but we sure can hear it, and this is just as real as day is day, and night is night.
When some of you guys pull your heads out of your a*ses, you might just have a chance of seeing daylight, real daylight with no illusions.
When I reveal this invention, all you guys are going to slap yourselves stupid for being so unreceptive, so constrained by dogma, and for being so stupid in missing some of the completely obvious, as regards audio equipment and audio reproduction.
The reasons that a wire, resistor or capacitor is directional does not actually matter - it is much better to understand the sonic effects, and how to use or negate them is rather more productive than endless BS debate and wank about reality vs perception.
"As I see it, when I am able to establish a concrete subjective correlation, I expect that there is a concrete physics explanation - even if I do not have it yet."
I have established a water tight and concrete sonics correlation for this invention over hundreds of experiments, and on dozens of systems, and no, I do not have a concrete explanation as to why, but other people can hear the effect perfectly well too.
In a couple of weeks, 5000 people will hear the sonic effects too.
Oh, and all the PA and muso people that I know hear this thing too, and more so are asking when it will be available.
"Chatting with a nuclear physicist confirms absolutely nothing regarding your subjective perceptions. At best, it can only confirm that there MAY BE something going on which MIGHT manifest itself in an audible fashion.
You're putting the cart before the horse here. After you visited the nuclear physicist, you perhaps should have visited a logistician to help out with some critical thinking skills."
Ok give me a break here.
The questions were posed to the NP well after I had come to subjective conclusions that resulted from vigorous and controlled experimentation.
It does confirm to me that there are things going on that manifest audibly, even if standard theory does not explain the mechanism, and the recent invention work is an extension and product of these earlier findings.
Drop the philosophy books, and start listening, really listening, and your world will change for the better.
Eric.
I'm bored as hell with all this philosophical BS.
Next time one of you guys builds a 3 dimensional P-P wired dac/filter stage, that is totally component to component wired except 2 wires about 10mm long carrying left and right, have a check to see if those two wires are audible.
By that I mean, try 6 different pairs of wires and see if you get six different sounds - I did.
Then reverse the directions of those two wires and see if you get another six sounds - I did, and so did my friends who witnessed this experimenting.
Either myself and my friends are all tripping off our nuts, or we were in the midst of reality - I understand it to be the latter.
Also, ask my friends if they can hear the effects of my most recent experimenting - none of us have a concrete explanation of the mechanics or physics, but we sure can hear it, and this is just as real as day is day, and night is night.
When some of you guys pull your heads out of your a*ses, you might just have a chance of seeing daylight, real daylight with no illusions.
When I reveal this invention, all you guys are going to slap yourselves stupid for being so unreceptive, so constrained by dogma, and for being so stupid in missing some of the completely obvious, as regards audio equipment and audio reproduction.
The reasons that a wire, resistor or capacitor is directional does not actually matter - it is much better to understand the sonic effects, and how to use or negate them is rather more productive than endless BS debate and wank about reality vs perception.
"As I see it, when I am able to establish a concrete subjective correlation, I expect that there is a concrete physics explanation - even if I do not have it yet."
I have established a water tight and concrete sonics correlation for this invention over hundreds of experiments, and on dozens of systems, and no, I do not have a concrete explanation as to why, but other people can hear the effect perfectly well too.
In a couple of weeks, 5000 people will hear the sonic effects too.
Oh, and all the PA and muso people that I know hear this thing too, and more so are asking when it will be available.
"Chatting with a nuclear physicist confirms absolutely nothing regarding your subjective perceptions. At best, it can only confirm that there MAY BE something going on which MIGHT manifest itself in an audible fashion.
You're putting the cart before the horse here. After you visited the nuclear physicist, you perhaps should have visited a logistician to help out with some critical thinking skills."
Ok give me a break here.
The questions were posed to the NP well after I had come to subjective conclusions that resulted from vigorous and controlled experimentation.
It does confirm to me that there are things going on that manifest audibly, even if standard theory does not explain the mechanism, and the recent invention work is an extension and product of these earlier findings.
Drop the philosophy books, and start listening, really listening, and your world will change for the better.
Eric.
Re: Professors Of Hot Air......
Or, number three, you and your friends are just normal, mortal human beings whose subjective perceptions can easily be influenced by things other than actual physical phenomena as has been established over and over and over again for well over 100 years.
It seems your ego simply won't allow you to so much as consider even the possibility that you're just human.
There's no shame in simply being human you know.
se
mrfeedback said:
Or, number three, you and your friends are just normal, mortal human beings whose subjective perceptions can easily be influenced by things other than actual physical phenomena as has been established over and over and over again for well over 100 years.
It seems your ego simply won't allow you to so much as consider even the possibility that you're just human.
There's no shame in simply being human you know.
se
My last out of topic comment:
A very common mistake is, that we claims to se the light (itsef, matter like), what actually happens is that you can se somethig like a tree, your mother, fog, lightsource or what ever, and the light simply becomes a principle by wich the world becomes visible. So when we claims to see the light, you have to ask your self once more what this really means.
mrfeedback, otherwise i like your experimens very much.
A very common mistake is, that we claims to se the light (itsef, matter like), what actually happens is that you can se somethig like a tree, your mother, fog, lightsource or what ever, and the light simply becomes a principle by wich the world becomes visible. So when we claims to see the light, you have to ask your self once more what this really means.
mrfeedback, otherwise i like your experimens very much.
Some Are More Human Than Others, And Some Are Retards.
Henrik,
thanks for your compliment.
The experiments that I speak of (and others), are always done carefully and rigourously, in order to eliminate the preconception and prejudice that Steve Eddy talks of.
When you learn how to listen, and what to listen for, and are well familiar with repeated (ad nauseum) A/B comparisons, and on different systems, correlations are revealled, and this is the proof in itself.
Unlike Steve, my own and my friends self ego does not enter into this equation.
Further proof is when other listeners instantly hear the same effects, and also that the describe these effects in the same manner, and without suggestion or prompting.
It seems that our Steve is still at The Sunday Pre-School of Audio, and has not yet advanced to higher levels of understanding, and consequent musical enjoyment.
Steve manufactures a nicely made and expensive line-level transformer isolation/coupling box.
His arguments and explanations of the benefits of such a device regarding isolation from ground loops are true and accurate, but are not rocket science - this is an old and well known technique, and nothing new whatsoever.
You see Steve has not learned to see the bigger picture, or think out of the box, and as such is constained in his views and understanding of audio, and thinks that all other listeners are like him - as a matter of course I have learned to self eliminate expectations and subjective biases in order to more properly listen and hear.
I meant seeing the light in a metaphorical sense - "When some of you guys pull your heads out of your a*rses and drop some of the dogma that constrains your minds, then you have a chance of being in a position to properly hear and more properly understand the causes of the colourations in recordings and equipment".
This requires looking at audio equipment from whole new angle, and is indeed enlightening when you get there.
Regards,
Eric / - Enlightened.
Henrik,
thanks for your compliment.
The experiments that I speak of (and others), are always done carefully and rigourously, in order to eliminate the preconception and prejudice that Steve Eddy talks of.
When you learn how to listen, and what to listen for, and are well familiar with repeated (ad nauseum) A/B comparisons, and on different systems, correlations are revealled, and this is the proof in itself.
Unlike Steve, my own and my friends self ego does not enter into this equation.
Further proof is when other listeners instantly hear the same effects, and also that the describe these effects in the same manner, and without suggestion or prompting.
It seems that our Steve is still at The Sunday Pre-School of Audio, and has not yet advanced to higher levels of understanding, and consequent musical enjoyment.
Steve manufactures a nicely made and expensive line-level transformer isolation/coupling box.
His arguments and explanations of the benefits of such a device regarding isolation from ground loops are true and accurate, but are not rocket science - this is an old and well known technique, and nothing new whatsoever.
You see Steve has not learned to see the bigger picture, or think out of the box, and as such is constained in his views and understanding of audio, and thinks that all other listeners are like him - as a matter of course I have learned to self eliminate expectations and subjective biases in order to more properly listen and hear.
I meant seeing the light in a metaphorical sense - "When some of you guys pull your heads out of your a*rses and drop some of the dogma that constrains your minds, then you have a chance of being in a position to properly hear and more properly understand the causes of the colourations in recordings and equipment".
This requires looking at audio equipment from whole new angle, and is indeed enlightening when you get there.
Regards,
Eric / - Enlightened.
Re: Some Are More Human Than Others, And Some Are Retards.
I was expecting opinions about the musical satisfaction with OP amps, not only the cosmetic surgeries with different wires, resistors, capacitors and solders. How about the musical satisfaction? OP amps are good as much as the high quality class-A amps in the end results?
JH
mrfeedback said:
I was expecting opinions about the musical satisfaction with OP amps, not only the cosmetic surgeries with different wires, resistors, capacitors and solders. How about the musical satisfaction? OP amps are good as much as the high quality class-A amps in the end results?
JH
Mr. Kuei, could you please explain me the difference between three of your attenuation options, namely:
-Single Series Resistor Single Shunt Resistor Attenuator
- True "Ladder" Attenuator
- Series Resistor Chain Attenuator
I suspect that the series resistor is the option that 47 labs uses, with a single deck. The other option I am aware of is the double deck configuration. Is this the ladder option or the first option ? Then I still miss one!?
BTW: I am looking for some info about choosing the right resistor values. I have 92-93 dB/W speakers and a 23 4-deck ELMA step switch. Plus 22x gain. I wonder how I could determine a sensible resistor configuration !?
(that would work both with 2 Vrms and 0.8 Vrms)
-Single Series Resistor Single Shunt Resistor Attenuator
- True "Ladder" Attenuator
- Series Resistor Chain Attenuator
I suspect that the series resistor is the option that 47 labs uses, with a single deck. The other option I am aware of is the double deck configuration. Is this the ladder option or the first option ? Then I still miss one!?
BTW: I am looking for some info about choosing the right resistor values. I have 92-93 dB/W speakers and a 23 4-deck ELMA step switch. Plus 22x gain. I wonder how I could determine a sensible resistor configuration !?
(that would work both with 2 Vrms and 0.8 Vrms)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.