I may not have done any important research myself, but I've observed much being done while I was at university, and I know that a flaw in an experiment unspotted can render months of work invalid.leadbelly said:When you grow up you will stop seeing the world as black and white and if you ever get the chance to work in scientific research as I have your eyes will open wide....
Mr Evil said:
Cannot argue with that. But point is that this simplistic view of truth=reproducibility is a juvenile definition of science. For one, that can only apply to a physical science. For another, real scientists rarely work that way at the day to day level, even in the physical sciences. And lastly, what of the social sciences? There is a lot of stuff I have read from scientific historians that I have more faith in than some of the .... I have read in engineering journals.
This is just like the thread on cable directionality. What more have we? The magnetic field of the earth? The earth spinning around its axis? The Transparent box of air? MAYBE they all affect the signal, no matter how slightly. But aren't there bigger sources of interference, like the inherent circuit noise, that cancel out whatever those other things MIGHT do? Given the knowledge we have, and we've got a lot, why do we even bother about those things?
Isn't it enough with the psycho babble of Stereophile? I have said this before. Being that this forum is about DIY, we should be concerned with how things actually are. Not with what somebody thinks. The Transparent box or some other hype won't help you make better gear. Get over yourself. Sterophile isn't there for you. The people there don't even know you exist. You are just another sucker with money to spend for them. Stereophile is there to sell ads. Period.
Of course, it's not that I expect the believers to listen to reason. On that other forum I linked to a gutted Transparent cable, which exposes what fraud the "Transparent box" is. To no avail. I bet that even if all cable makers came clean and said it was all a big joke, the believers would still buy their cables. In fact, that's not even a question. The believers have to continue believing or their whole world comes tumbling down.
Tell that to the FDA. I have a background in humanism, and there's no difference between humanist and physicist studies. The humanists or scientists are there because they have the knowledge to interpret the date. And then we have the hypothesis thing. But it's not any less scientific. It must all survive the same level of scrutiny. If you're a scientist, be prepared to back up your findings.
No, I'm not. The engineers make the medical equipment, but can't read an x-ray plate. While it takes a fallible expert to read the plate, the plate is reproducible.
So now maybe you would be so kind to explain what Transparent Cable's famous box of air does. Maybe you could start with
this?
Let's talk seriously for a minute here. You are not going to change my mind (and others) and I am not going to change your mind (and others). So how about you guys actually grow up enough to not spam this thread to impose your view of the world on everybody? This thread was started by someone honestly interested in exchange of these types of ideas, and frankly I thought that was the point of this forum. But you had to come in, offer nothing technical in content, and just drown out the topic at hand with your opinion. I have never spammed your "debunking cables" threads.
Actually, i was an X-ray technician before i went to engineering school.
A lot of audio designers were musicians first, engineering came second.
In my view, with the transfer from tubes to solid state came an era of reproduceable numbers instead of good sound.
Many of the innovations in solid state technology had their origine in "trial and error" , a lot pioneered by diy fanatics, backup by scientific theory came later.
Most inventions came by accident, not by methological science.
Da Vinci was a scientist, his strength however was his imaginative mind, often his imagination went way over the top.
Guys like Newton were day dreaming under trees observing apples and bird feathers.
People who respect science only, with little to none appreciation for creativity, do not have the historic picture right.
Music is about emotion, not numbers.
Art is about emotion, the artist may have an eye for technology but dare not call him a scientist.
A lot of audio designers were musicians first, engineering came second.
In my view, with the transfer from tubes to solid state came an era of reproduceable numbers instead of good sound.
Many of the innovations in solid state technology had their origine in "trial and error" , a lot pioneered by diy fanatics, backup by scientific theory came later.
Most inventions came by accident, not by methological science.
Da Vinci was a scientist, his strength however was his imaginative mind, often his imagination went way over the top.
Guys like Newton were day dreaming under trees observing apples and bird feathers.
People who respect science only, with little to none appreciation for creativity, do not have the historic picture right.
Music is about emotion, not numbers.
Art is about emotion, the artist may have an eye for technology but dare not call him a scientist.
Indeed, music is the most Dionysian of art forms. Dionysian, for those that don't know, means a rejection of structure and rationality. It's the creative force that seeks joy in life. Drunkenness and madness, enthusiasm and ecstasy are Dionysian. It's pre Socratic, hedonist. It roughly corresponds to Schopenhauer's conception of the Will, and Nietzsche's "Will To Power." The opposite of Dionysian is Apollonian. The Apollonian seeks logic and order and abides by a strict structure and rationality. Sculpture is the most Apollonian of art forms.
There's nothing Dionysian about being a slave to the marketing departments and paying thousands for a Transparent box of air. The Dionysian has no time to bother about what material some enclosure is made of. The Dionysian is too caught up with life, with living. Transparent boxes and Stereophile are Apollonian. In other words, music lovers are Dionysian and audiophiles are Apollonian.
There's nothing Dionysian about being a slave to the marketing departments and paying thousands for a Transparent box of air. The Dionysian has no time to bother about what material some enclosure is made of. The Dionysian is too caught up with life, with living. Transparent boxes and Stereophile are Apollonian. In other words, music lovers are Dionysian and audiophiles are Apollonian.
I don't think that's very important. But the Dionysian, I guess, would be somebody like Jack Kerouac. I don't think there are many like that here. Unlike what some people think, I'm not judgmental. I do not have any problem with people buying Transparent cables. I just want people to sometimes stop and think and, not least, ask questions.
There's so much competence and creativity on this forum. To try to quench that would be stupid and wrong. Experimenting with boxes isn't any different than experimenting with shielded and unshielded cables. But there is a point where it stops being creative.
There's so much competence and creativity on this forum. To try to quench that would be stupid and wrong. Experimenting with boxes isn't any different than experimenting with shielded and unshielded cables. But there is a point where it stops being creative.
I think it's different.phn said:
Can we get back onto those 'boxes' now please? And off the Greek gods or whatever philosophical thread filler **** we keep spouting? And please STFU about wires and cables, there are other threads for that.
I want to see conversation about the topic, and it's a waste of my time and others' to have to trawl through the off-topic arguments.
Well, I think an unshielded enclosure is the same as an unshielded cable.
Us "critics'" complaint about this is that we want to see real advancement. And that can only be done thru reproducibility. What's the use of some alleged improvement if nobody else can reproduce it? The fact that there are people that have been cured from illnesses while taking placebo doesn't make the placebo anything more than placebo.
Philosophy (i.e. logic and reason) is very important, if not crucial, to scientists. Mathematicians aren't seldom also philosophers since the two disciplines go hand in hand. But it's evident that science is the least thing this thread is about.
Us "critics'" complaint about this is that we want to see real advancement. And that can only be done thru reproducibility. What's the use of some alleged improvement if nobody else can reproduce it? The fact that there are people that have been cured from illnesses while taking placebo doesn't make the placebo anything more than placebo.
Philosophy (i.e. logic and reason) is very important, if not crucial, to scientists. Mathematicians aren't seldom also philosophers since the two disciplines go hand in hand. But it's evident that science is the least thing this thread is about.
So, since there is no explanation of how the effect works, I think we need to call this "experimentation" rather than a "tweak." To me, at least, tweak refers to improvement, which an experiment may yield, but it will just as likely (if not more likely) yield no improvement, or even a degredation in sound. We all hope for the improvement. Let's start posting our successes and failures and try to build a knowledgebase. That way we can say x improves sound, y do nothing and z is a big problem.
Science and creativity are not opposite sides of a coin. Science would be nowhere without imagination and creativity. One gives you theory, the other supports or debunks the theory.
-b
Science and creativity are not opposite sides of a coin. Science would be nowhere without imagination and creativity. One gives you theory, the other supports or debunks the theory.
-b
I agree it would be ideal if we could do this, but in my experience (which is albeit limited compared to some older contributers, and I wish they'd speak up and share their experience) is that different materials offer a different sonic signature. This is often not worse or better, certainly not universally! As has been said time and time again - if one size did fit all then everyone would use that same size.WorkingAtHome said:
I think the reality is this: enclosure materials, damping, platforms, racks, and other support all influence the sound to some degree. When degrees of effectiveness, distortion in other areas, personal preferences, other equipment in the system etc. are introduced, the idea of one particular material offering the best sound becomes unlikely, at best. Furthermore, I believe resonant frequency comes from mass, not just a material's properties, so a thick piece of metal might not give the same character as a thin one. I am not an engineer, so please don't waste time picking holes in that interpretation.
Russ Andrews believes it's all about 'acoustic feedback' and energy storage. And why not? If our capacitors etc. really are microphonic...
http://www.russandrews.com/viewinde...&customer_id=PAA1213022705564FOFFUSQCTNOUKNKD
http://www.russandrews.com/viewinde...&customer_id=PAA1213022705564FOFFUSQCTNOUKNKD
I think anyone who has listened extensively to commercial amps and cd players (solid state kit) on metal and glass racks, with the standard soft feet could quickly identify the changes brought about by listening to that same kit on a low-mass rack, spiked to the floor, where each component is 'coupled' to its shelf via three cones. I think if you went from one extreme to the other like this there'd be no turning back, or at least you would hear the changes, even if you prefer the sluggish sound of the former (typical hi-fi chain shop) sound...
As said time and time again, I'm not out to stop anyone. In my profession, the engineers are usually the naysayers. They are the ones saying, "You can't do that."
If I sound pragmatic here, I'm also one of the first to criticize engineers. I sometimes feel they are too rigid and stuck in old tracks. And that's not meant personally. I equally admire what they do. But I don't think we have to be nuthuggers to have a meaningful exchange of ideas. And the engineers are invaluable in my profession. They force us to rethink our ideas. And sometimes they may prevent impossible, and costly, projects from taking off.
It's sometimes hard to strike the right balance of choice of words. But I do my best to be factual, and I do not resort to personal attacks. (Yes, I do find pleasure in poking at Stereophile and the audio manufacturers. But those are the establishment. They are in charge of the big propaganda machine. They aren't separate entities. They are a symbiosis.) And as long as a naysayer is fair, I think he or she benefits everybody. I mean, surely there are people reading this that aren't sure in what camp they belong. As I see it, if an idea can't stand up to scrutiny, the idea wasn't that good in the first place.
Feel free to prove us naysayers wrong. I've been wrong before and old enough to confess to it. Not that I think you can in this particular case.
If I sound pragmatic here, I'm also one of the first to criticize engineers. I sometimes feel they are too rigid and stuck in old tracks. And that's not meant personally. I equally admire what they do. But I don't think we have to be nuthuggers to have a meaningful exchange of ideas. And the engineers are invaluable in my profession. They force us to rethink our ideas. And sometimes they may prevent impossible, and costly, projects from taking off.
It's sometimes hard to strike the right balance of choice of words. But I do my best to be factual, and I do not resort to personal attacks. (Yes, I do find pleasure in poking at Stereophile and the audio manufacturers. But those are the establishment. They are in charge of the big propaganda machine. They aren't separate entities. They are a symbiosis.) And as long as a naysayer is fair, I think he or she benefits everybody. I mean, surely there are people reading this that aren't sure in what camp they belong. As I see it, if an idea can't stand up to scrutiny, the idea wasn't that good in the first place.
Feel free to prove us naysayers wrong. I've been wrong before and old enough to confess to it. Not that I think you can in this particular case.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.