John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 1003 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st February 2011, 11:55 PM   #10021
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Howard, one other source of asymmetry- suppose one end had a poor quality solder joint... In fact, Ed's test conditions are perfect for showing up that kind of defect- with a low source Z and a high load Z, the effect of a few ohms would be swamped.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2011, 01:05 AM   #10022
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Back to MC cartridges, some more information about the Lyra New Angle models. Sorry, that i mention Lyra so often but i am only intimate familiar with those.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Lyra Kleeos New Angle Model.jpg (98.2 KB, 238 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2011, 01:13 AM   #10023
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Thanks Joachim, I appreciate some real, up-to-date input.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2011, 01:13 AM   #10024
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Another thing Howard, as you saw with the Naim folks. Tests like Ed's are meant by some to open the door to challenging the property of symmetry in physics. Due diligence by the experimenter demands the elimination of other possibilities or it is just random data.
__________________
Silence is so accurate.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2011, 02:24 AM   #10025
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
> challenging the property of symmetry in physics

> diligence by the experimenter demands the elimination
> of other possibilities or it is just random data
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2011, 04:00 AM   #10026
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Just tonight I watched several hours of modern physics on a 'Science Channel'. While most of it involved either Hawking or modern astro physics, I could not help but be AMAZED on how our vision of physics has changed in even MY lifetime.
As a boy of perhaps 10, I got my first telescope and checked out my first star gazing book. Later, when in high school, my telescope was stolen out of a back yard, and I didn't think much of astronomy for awhile. However, about 50 years ago, I took a college level astronomy course, and A'd it, finding it so interesting. Of course, then I got the overall view of our galaxy, and star formation. A few years later, in 1963, while working at Lockheed Burbank, somebody forgot to schedule me in for a week, so I went to the astronomy books in the company library and further reinforced my understanding of star formation, etc. Now, by this time I knew more than the average engineer-physicist about astronomy, and like many, on this website, thought I had a true 'bead' on the nature of star and galaxy formation, etc.
However, watching the programs tonight and of course, a number of others over the last 20 years, I never cease to be amazed how astronomy, and the nature of atoms, their creation, neutrinos, etc., etc., have so much changed! It is as if another universe has been generated, once we get outside our local space.
Now why do I bring this up? When people keep ONLY the ideas that they learned in college as virtually sacrosanct or holy, and NEVER changeable or malleable, how can they accept anything new? Often, they do not, and so, assign blame for the 'deviation' to sloppy experiments, defective instrumentation, or even outright fraud.
This was done, and even still believed by a certain proportion of people who are convinced that we have never gone to the Moon. They will even go up and confront an astronaut and accuse him of fraud. Why do they do this? It is because they cannot 'bend' with the change in reality that the years bring.
In fact, about the time I got my first telescope almost 60 years ago, my father told me that "we would NEVER go to the Moon! It was too damn far away!" I had fun teasing him about it, perhaps 18 years later.
Please remember that when people post here, often they have the best of intent, and maybe, just maybe, they know or have even accidently found something that won't necessarily make sense, with what we all learned in college, many decades ago. So be it. Better to ignore it, than make up mean and inaccurate excuses to explain it away.

Last edited by john curl; 22nd February 2011 at 04:29 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2011, 06:45 AM   #10027
diyAudio Member
 
mrfeedback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, Australia.
Quote:
...Please remember that when people post here, often they have the best of intent, and maybe, just maybe, they know or have even accidently found something that won't necessarily make sense, with what we all learned in college, many decades ago. So be it. Better to ignore it, than make up mean and inaccurate excuses to explain it away.
Yes, and that means everybody.

Eric.
__________________
I believe not to believe in any fixed belief system.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2011, 10:32 AM   #10028
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
Just tonight I watched several hours of modern physics on a 'Science Channel'. While most of it involved either Hawking or modern astro physics, I could not help but be AMAZED on how our vision of physics has changed in even MY lifetime.
As a boy of perhaps 10, I got my first telescope and checked out my first star gazing book. Later, when in high school, my telescope was stolen out of a back yard, and I didn't think much of astronomy for awhile. However, about 50 years ago, I took a college level astronomy course, and A'd it, finding it so interesting. Of course, then I got the overall view of our galaxy, and star formation. A few years later, in 1963, while working at Lockheed Burbank, somebody forgot to schedule me in for a week, so I went to the astronomy books in the company library and further reinforced my understanding of star formation, etc. Now, by this time I knew more than the average engineer-physicist about astronomy, and like many, on this website, thought I had a true 'bead' on the nature of star and galaxy formation, etc.
However, watching the programs tonight and of course, a number of others over the last 20 years, I never cease to be amazed how astronomy, and the nature of atoms, their creation, neutrinos, etc., etc., have so much changed! It is as if another universe has been generated, once we get outside our local space.
Now why do I bring this up? When people keep ONLY the ideas that they learned in college as virtually sacrosanct or holy, and NEVER changeable or malleable, how can they accept anything new? Often, they do not, and so, assign blame for the 'deviation' to sloppy experiments, defective instrumentation, or even outright fraud.
This was done, and even still believed by a certain proportion of people who are convinced that we have never gone to the Moon. They will even go up and confront an astronaut and accuse him of fraud. Why do they do this? It is because they cannot 'bend' with the change in reality that the years bring.
In fact, about the time I got my first telescope almost 60 years ago, my father told me that "we would NEVER go to the Moon! It was too damn far away!" I had fun teasing him about it, perhaps 18 years later.
Please remember that when people post here, often they have the best of intent, and maybe, just maybe, they know or have even accidently found something that won't necessarily make sense, with what we all learned in college, many decades ago. So be it. Better to ignore it, than make up mean and inaccurate excuses to explain it away.
"When people keep ONLY the ideas that they learned in college as virtually sacrosanct or holy, and NEVER changeable or malleable, how can they accept anything new? Often, they do not, and so, assign blame for the 'deviation' to sloppy experiments, defective instrumentation, or even outright fraud.
This was done, and even still believed by a certain proportion of people who are convinced that we have never gone to the Moon."

This sinks to a new low for you JC. Comparing people who have not relinquished firm belief in well grounded scientific and engineering principles which remain the bedrock of our technological knowledge with conspiracy kooks who deny reality so that you can sell your products and ideas for which you admit you cannot explain their supposed superiority to those well versed in these disciplines. Why not add in those who believe in ghosts with those who still think Newton's laws are excellent models unless you happen to be dealing with atomic particles moving at nine tenths the speed of light or faster, Fourier analysis, the validity of principles of negative feedback (when skillfully applied which is often rare in audio), and all of the other methods of circuit analysis? The shoe can be put on the other foot. Remember cold fusion craze in the early 90s. Those were the real kooks, the dissenters who charted a path into the absurd only unlike the audiophile fringe, real money was thrown their way for a time until they were discredited.

A few weeks ago I watched an episode of Universe where theories about alternate universes were presented and asserted almost as proven fact even though there isn't one shred of evidence they exist. I wasn't sure if I was watching a program about astrophysics or an episode of Star Trek. Some sci-fi pie in the sky ideas will bear fruition. There was a Nautilus and a Journey from The Earth to the Moon but there will be no Journey to the Center of the Earth and no War of the Worlds, at least not with invaders coming from Mars unless they are microbes. Anyway, I will not be among those rushing down to my local audiophile store to grab up intelligent ICs, cryogenically treated vacuum tubes, or tees to prop up my speaker wires on. I also won't be losing any sleep over the seventh harmonic of 5 khz either even if bats don't particularly care for it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2011, 11:55 AM   #10029
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Some of the details of physics may have changed, but we still believe in symmetry and conservation laws, relativity, quantum mechanics, Maxwell's equations etc. We argue about Schrodinger's cat and multiverses, but they don't affect the calculations. Some believe in strings, while others laugh at them. This is how science works.

The physics of audio amps has not changed, except in the sense that we can now use the results of quantum physics to make semiconductors. Circuit theory is still the same: Kirchoff, Thevenin and Norton still hold sway.

From time to time I read radio amateurs who don't understand how antennas work invoke photons to hide their ignorance of Maxwell's equations. They are usually trying to avoid the restrictions of the Chu-Wheeler limit on small antennas, and don't want to admit that feeder radiation can be dominant. I guess there are audio equivalents! Here is a rather silly prediction: one day someone somewhere will invoke neutrino flavour oscillation in order to explain his cable directionality.

BTW the idea about axial symmetry being an issue is the first sensible statement about cable directionality I have ever seen. It could affect interchannel crosstalk. Unfortunately someone will now start talking nonsense about photon helicity. Ooops, I just did!
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2011, 12:37 PM   #10030
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
I cannot and will not lump everything and every new 'concept' together and defend it. However, look at the damage done, IF you REJECT each and every new concept, out of hand, and furthermore, attempt to act on it by criticizing it out of existence, much like Lord Kelvin tried to do, over 100 years ago, then you are the one who winds up embarrassed, rather than the people you attacked. Then your statements might be used in a future edition of 'The Experts Speak'. '-)

Last edited by john curl; 22nd February 2011 at 12:56 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:11 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2