poobah said:
hmmm. Somewhat. Doppler is of course dependent on the velocity of the diaphram, while this effect is just as effective at DC, which would be more along the lines of position dependence.. Measurement would be difficult if we looked for the offset sine distortion with two frequencies, using DC makes the measurement so much easier.
Cheers, John
poobah said:
No. That is the actual verbage from Peter Aczel under the "bi-wiring lie". I guess I should have ascribed that statement to him, but I figured you had read the article. Sorry about that.
poobah said:
Oh great..more zip cord..
They won't bother with either. If they want it, they would take it, and call it their own.
Besides, this stuff is just small potatoes...it's just audio, for goodness sake....I have bigger fish to fry...
Cheers, John
I would say that most myths have a grain of thruth.
This two ways of thinking (sceptical and 'naive') did compete in history with different results. N-rays is a nice example (SY reminded me this, first read about it in D.Delf
.)
But on the other hand 99.9% physisists in late 19th century were 99.9% sure they know and understand 99.9% physical phenomenons, not sure of black-body radiation and some other minor ones.... Then came Einstein, quantum guys and the long story was begined...
There were even more spectacular occasions, like discovery of mythical city of Troy, or the development of alchemy into chemistry....
This teaches that these dead sure about their knowledge and reluctant to think about other, even not scientific theory are narrow minded. Scio me nihil scire.
This two ways of thinking (sceptical and 'naive') did compete in history with different results. N-rays is a nice example (SY reminded me this, first read about it in D.Delf
.)But on the other hand 99.9% physisists in late 19th century were 99.9% sure they know and understand 99.9% physical phenomenons, not sure of black-body radiation and some other minor ones.... Then came Einstein, quantum guys and the long story was begined...
There were even more spectacular occasions, like discovery of mythical city of Troy, or the development of alchemy into chemistry....
This teaches that these dead sure about their knowledge and reluctant to think about other, even not scientific theory are narrow minded. Scio me nihil scire.
Urban Legend. There were piles of ill-understood problems at that time that every physicist knew about. Every physicist knew about the black body problem (big issue, not a minor one). Every physicist knew that the Maxwell equations worked, but that they weren't invariant with a Galillean transformation. They were invariant under a Lorentz transformation, the physical significance of which was unclear. And Michelson/Morley had just kicked the props out from under the idea of ether.
So you had two wildly successful theories (Newton and Maxwell) that were mutually incompatible. You had some very puzzling experimental results (M/M, Rutherford, Becqerel) that everyone knew were important but didn't know why. Atomic spectra were well-characterized but completely mysterious. It was the very existence of this active ferment which gave the impetus to Einstein and others. The idea that physicists at the turn of the century were fat, happy, complacent, and thought they knew it all is not even vaguely true. But this notion does get trotted out regularly when people discuss superstition and want to believe that the basic tenets of physics are being challenged by some guy making hifi gadgets..
Thank you SY
nice lesson
However I am still not sure if You NOW see the holes in their knowledge, which were not so vivid then, because of science has developed.
This issue does not deserve to be called only a legend.
When the problem of 3 bodies (or 3 planets) was first raised it didn't get much attention, it was detemined by Newton, but 'hard' to count. It was 80's of 20th century when a simplified computer model of air convection started a huge piece of physics now called 'deterministic chaos' and 3 bodies problem got nice maths describing it and answering some questiones from many years before. And what meanwhile? Did scientists work on this 3 bodies problem or was ignored?
nice lesson
However I am still not sure if You NOW see the holes in their knowledge, which were not so vivid then, because of science has developed.
This issue does not deserve to be called only a legend.
When the problem of 3 bodies (or 3 planets) was first raised it didn't get much attention, it was detemined by Newton, but 'hard' to count. It was 80's of 20th century when a simplified computer model of air convection started a huge piece of physics now called 'deterministic chaos' and 3 bodies problem got nice maths describing it and answering some questiones from many years before. And what meanwhile? Did scientists work on this 3 bodies problem or was ignored?
SY said:
Not sure the historical data supports your assertion, SY. Certain physicists in the 19th century, and quite successful physicists at that, actually discouraged students from entering the profession because physics, as a profession, in their view, was pretty well sewed up. Kelvin was one of them, who said in a manner of speaking that physics was a clear sky with two little clouds (Michaelson-Morley and black-body radiation). Those clouds, of course, led to relativity and quantum mechanics which, I think to put it fairly, cannibalized the discipline of physics and put it on an entirely new foundation.
I think Steven Hawking is perhaps the most recent physicist saying the modern version of the discipline leaves only further refinements in a decimal place. I mean, how else, except by holding such view, could a person write a book called The Theory of Everything. I think history could rightly be heard to say, you must be kidding me.
That's been an extremely active research area for at least the past 200 years.
If you're speaking of Lorenz and the origins of so-called Chaos Theory, it was quite a bit before that. I was a student of Jim Yorke's back in the early '70s (his sister, Ellen, was my undergrad advisor), and nonlinear dynamics was a pretty active topic at that time. Lorenz's work on air convection and climate was done in 1960-63.
Tom, there are some out-of-context quotes from Kelvin flying around the 'Net, trotted out mostly when pseudoscience advocates start typing. There is no credible evidence whatever that he believed that physics was "over," nor is there anything to suggest that the mainstream of physicists believed that. On the contrary, reviewing the literature at the turn of the century (19th to 20th!) gives one the impression of great confusion and turmoil.
How did we ever get from a mundane discipline of a domestic audio reproduction to (sub)particle physics and cosmology ?
For eff'n sake, you're sitting at home trying to recreate musical event or emotion or whatever - have a glass of your preferred drink, sit back and enjoy it. If you want ultimate in sound reproduction, well get your backside off the armchair and listen to some live music. You may like it, even if it lacks silver wires, single ended triodes, C42 or Mpingo blocks.
Phew !
Have a good holidays guys. I certainly plan to. Cold beer in my hand and lots of sunblock on my nose
Cheers!
Bratislav
For eff'n sake, you're sitting at home trying to recreate musical event or emotion or whatever - have a glass of your preferred drink, sit back and enjoy it. If you want ultimate in sound reproduction, well get your backside off the armchair and listen to some live music. You may like it, even if it lacks silver wires, single ended triodes, C42 or Mpingo blocks.
Phew !
Have a good holidays guys. I certainly plan to. Cold beer in my hand and lots of sunblock on my nose
Cheers!
Bratislav
SY said:
SY, my understanding comes primarily from David Bohm, who thought deeply about these questions and whose many books discussing such subjects I've read with interest. The search for a grand unified theory, or theory of everything, or the final theory, or for the basic building blocks of matter, or the search for any of the many variants of some ultimate view implies, in the mind of the person thinking those thoughts, something analogous to Hawking's view that we've pretty much bagged the universe, or at least could, the latter being but a variant of the former.
Quantum physicists, for their part, numerously say things like "there are no hidden or unfound variables, we have a complete theory" or some similar such statement. I imagine that some unexplained little cloud (non-locality?) will some day cannibalize quantum physics.
The no-hidden-variable stuff (a la Bell) looks pretty solid. That's the part which is unlikely to change. More likely, general relativity will have to be modified, and most likely of all, a lot of now-missing interconnections will have to be created.
All of this progress is unlikely to result from a guy selling jars of magic rocks or secret quantum chips to gullible audiophiles. Progress in the past has come on the basis of solid evidence. So far, the "evidence" for spooky stuff in audio is extremely non-solid.
All of this progress is unlikely to result from a guy selling jars of magic rocks or secret quantum chips to gullible audiophiles. Progress in the past has come on the basis of solid evidence. So far, the "evidence" for spooky stuff in audio is extremely non-solid.
lineup said:There are many, many more myths
that has been proven to be only myths and superstition.
If we go through human history.
They were only a product of human imagination.
Myths that no sensible and sound person would still want to believe in.
Imgination is a beautiful thing, if we use it right.
i once posted a reply simmilar to yours, in another forum
.....i got ganged up!imagine, them claiming that electrons inside the cables'insulation needed burn-in!
what people can come upt to justify their acts.
Poobah, yes, Bohm refused to give names, so his Princeton professorship was revoked.
Now, Oppenheimer, there's a different story.
Sy, I agree snake oil peddlars don't aid the goal of reducing the difference between reproduced and live (or whatever-went-into-the-microphone) audio. But if progress necessarily ventures, as I think it does, into the not-well-understood to discover and ferret relevant from irrelevant variables (which is to say, to develop a scientific understanding), snake oil peddlars will perhaps of necessity appear *in that very place* to exploit the uncertainty involved. However, those who participate in the speculation necessary to advance the audio art shouldn't be tagged by association with peddling.
Now, Oppenheimer, there's a different story.
Sy, I agree snake oil peddlars don't aid the goal of reducing the difference between reproduced and live (or whatever-went-into-the-microphone) audio. But if progress necessarily ventures, as I think it does, into the not-well-understood to discover and ferret relevant from irrelevant variables (which is to say, to develop a scientific understanding), snake oil peddlars will perhaps of necessity appear *in that very place* to exploit the uncertainty involved. However, those who participate in the speculation necessary to advance the audio art shouldn't be tagged by association with peddling.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.