Which part of that sentence do you believe? You have to choose because the two parts say opposite things.Max Headroom said:
That is a claim for new physics, unless you can show us the bits which Heaviside allegedly removed and describe how these show up in audio systems but not in LIGO, CERN etc. The story told to physicists is that Heaviside merely expressed Maxwell's theory in much better notation without changing anything. In arriving at his equations, Maxwell made much use of mechanical analogies so that process may have temporarily included ideas which were wrong. Perhaps you are confusing Maxwell's original confusion about the physics with Heaviside's rewriting the maths in a better notation.
Maxwell actually had something like 18 equations. He didn't know they could be reduced to only four. The existing equations are named after him. They hold until one gets down into the, dare I say it, quantum mechanical world where dimensions are very small. But, no problem there: Quantum electrodynamics - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I thought it could all be reduced to one note man...... Wordless!: The One Note Man by H.M. Bateman on Vimeo
Internal ear compounds... hmmm... maybe if you put the goop right in your ears it would solve everything.
Of all the fumb duckers....No, this isn’t the page I recall. This one is even worse. In fact is this even for real. For instance, it doesn’t matter if one cuts one, two, four, etc. strings at one time or all of them. One will not damage the neck or throw anything out of whack by cutting them all at once for a string change. I’ve been playing and “wrenching” on guitars for over 37 and 35 years respectively. This kind of bad info gets new legs every time it get repeated on the web and that it’s on Gibson’s webpage just adds to the mileage.
Another good one. A couple of years ago, Gibson was selling a “reissued” bumblebee type tone pot capacitor for some ungodly amount of money. A buddy of mine bought one to see if it was really that much better. He showed it to me after he installed it in his ‘89 SG. I took a close look at it and my BS meters went off. The capacitor casing looked and felt like PET plastic. I showed him an actual bumblebee capacitor that was one of several I was gifted by an old luthier friend (one of my mentors), shortly before cancer finally took him. Cosmetically the “reissue” Gibson looked right...from about a meter away. I let my buddy swap them out and truthfully there wasn’t a real discernible differvdevthat one would hear outside the studio. I then took the “reissue” and without warning I cracke the casing open. Inside was a very pedestrian polyester cap inside the bumblebee case. To compensate my buddy, I let him keep the real deal. Talk about snake oil and in this case it was fake snake oil. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Gibson over the last ten years or so. These are t the only instances of BS I’ve encountered out of the Nashville firm.
Another good one. A couple of years ago, Gibson was selling a “reissued” bumblebee type tone pot capacitor for some ungodly amount of money. A buddy of mine bought one to see if it was really that much better. He showed it to me after he installed it in his ‘89 SG. I took a close look at it and my BS meters went off. The capacitor casing looked and felt like PET plastic. I showed him an actual bumblebee capacitor that was one of several I was gifted by an old luthier friend (one of my mentors), shortly before cancer finally took him. Cosmetically the “reissue” Gibson looked right...from about a meter away. I let my buddy swap them out and truthfully there wasn’t a real discernible differvdevthat one would hear outside the studio. I then took the “reissue” and without warning I cracke the casing open. Inside was a very pedestrian polyester cap inside the bumblebee case. To compensate my buddy, I let him keep the real deal. Talk about snake oil and in this case it was fake snake oil. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Gibson over the last ten years or so. These are t the only instances of BS I’ve encountered out of the Nashville firm.
Yes. QED and Maxwell are entirely consistent with each other, to the extent that if you changed one you probably would have to change the other. I seem to recall being taught that electromagnetism as we know it (as found from experiment) turns out to be the simplest possible interaction between a massless spin-1 gauge field (photon) and a massive spin-half matter field (electron). We can imagine more complex interactions but Nature seems to have chosen not to do things that way. Hence there are very strong reasons, both scientific (it accords with experiment) and aesthetic (it is a simple and beautiful theory), to not mess with electromagnetism however firmly some audiophiles insist that we do. Anything different would be ugly. Sadly, the beauty of physics is hidden from most people.Markw4 said:
Too bad. I tried to meet him a few times at RMAF but did not succeed. IIRC he was wheel-chair bound after a bicycle accident years ago.
He was passionate alright - he let me know he disagreed with me in no uncertain terms when he thought I wrote something incorrect about his then-new DAC.
Jan
He was passionate alright - he let me know he disagreed with me in no uncertain terms when he thought I wrote something incorrect about his then-new DAC.
Jan
Sorry to see this. I helped him out once with some info on using AD844's open loop which ended up in a rather large email exchange between him and Barrie Gilbert on feedback is bad. Sad in a way, arguments based on sighted listening with your posse did not make a hit to say the least. He was a competent engineer why the eccentric views with no technical basis I could never figure it out.
It's disappointing how engineers that know better will shill themselves in such an obvious scam. Apple invented the business plan make them pay again for what was free.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.