| GRollins |
I find it amusing that he says that Golden Ears don't exist...then that they do.
How typical.
I have long said that hearing is based largely on education. There's no need to assume an inherent physiological mechanism (Although there is emerging evidence that there are "super tasters," people who can, in fact, taste more acutely than others. Interestingly enough, 'super tasters' appear to produce more saliva, which in turn carries more flavor molecules to their taste buds, which gives them an edge on perceiving more subtle flavors. It's fascinating research. Whether physiological differences will ever be found in otherwise normal listeners is an open question.) when so much can be accomplished simply by teaching people to actually pay attention to what their ears are trying to tell them.
In the real world, you see this when people lose their sight. Their hearing 'becomes more acute' to compensate. Whether there is a physiological change is unimportant, at least to a first order approximation. What matters is that they hear better. Leave the how and why for later.
The trick is to learn to hear without having to lose your eyesight. I used several methods to this end, one being that I taught myself to walk through the house at night with no lights on, using only my hearing for guidance. Warning: You'll collect a fair number of bruises on your shins at first. Keep at it and you'll get better.
Although I do not bill myself as a Golden Ear, I do hear things that others do not seem to hear. I do not, and never have, claimed that my ears are superior, per se, only that I have taught myself to hear.
To say that Golden Ears do not exist, then to say that you can teach yourself to be...well, what? What do you call someone who hears well?
Er, um...might I suggest the term Golden Ear?
As for his other points, I leave them as exercises for the reader, but I will note in passing that acuity of hearing is useful in distinguishing the truth or falsehood of claims in audio. In other words, learn to hear before you mock others for hearing things. You may find yourself learning new things.
Grey |
|
|
| lineup |
Interesting and maybe controversial article
to explore and maybe discuss.
If this article is a lie or not is hard to say.
If it is a total lie, there are no 'Audio Lies' at all.
If this is total truth there are at least 10 'Audio Lies'.
I think it is no lie to say some of it may be true.
How much it is up to us to find out.
If we are interested.
I am.
GRollins is at least intersted in one of these statements, too.
A little bit for those who are lazy downloading PDF:| quote: | The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio
by PETER ACZEL http://www.theaudiocritic.com/
...
At the dark end of that spectrum, however,
a new age of ignorance, superstition,
and dishonesty holds sway. Why
and how that came about has been
amply covered in past issues of this
publication; here I shall focus on the
rogues’ gallery of currently proffered
mendacities to snare the credulous.
1. The Cable Lie
2. The Vacuum-Tube Lie
3. The Antidigital Lie
4. The Listening-Test Lie
5. The Feedback Lie
6. The Burn-In Lie
7. The Biwiring Lie
8. The Power Conditioner Lie
9. The CD Treatment Lie
--------
10. The Golden Ear lie
The best defense against the Golden
Ear lie is of course the double-blind
ABX test (see No. 4 above). That separates
those who claim to hear something
from those who really do. It is amazing
how few, if any, GE’s are left in the
room once the ABX results are tallied.
-------------------------------------
There are of course more Big Lies in
audio than these ten, but let’s save a few
for another time. Besides, it’s not really
the audio industry that should be
blamed but our crazy consumer culture
coupled with the widespread acceptance
of voodoo science. The audio industry,
specifically the high-end sector, is merely
responding to the prevailing climate. In
the end, every culture gets exactly what
it deserves. |
|
|
|
| hongrn |
After reading Zaph's tests on ribbon tweeters, may be we can add an eleventh lie:
"Ribbon tweeters sound better than dome tweeters".
Hong |
|
|
| mikeks |
| quote: | Originally posted by GRollins
I find it amusing that he says that Golden Ears don't exist...then that they do.
How typical.
...........In other words, learn to hear before you mock others for hearing things. You may find yourself learning new things.
Grey |
All rather misleading...and wrong to boot... |
|
|
| Kevinbd |
Hello Mikeks,
I recently asked in another thread whether anyone could please send me a PDF or DOC file on your article on Triple VI protection. I have the original Electronics World article here, but I seem to recall you saying there was errors in it.
Would be much appreciatted. Thanks
Kevin
Email is kevin.d@dnc-electronics.com |
|
|
| widowmaker |
citation:
"Tubes are great for high-powered
RF transmitters and microwave ovens
but not, at the turn of the century, for
amplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!)
digital components like CD and DVD
players."
Many deaf and stupid engineers write a lot of meaningless nonsenses... |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
Can I play devils advocate here and say I love articles like that?
While I can't say I agree with all the points, I do like his choice of subjects.
There is nothing concrete to prove or dispute any of his points, only subjectivity. |
|
|
| Tweeker |
| This insert relabeled production part here is special. |
|
|
| RetroAudio |
| Years ago I subscribed to the AudioCritic when it was new. One year I sent in my money and never received a refund after learning it went out of business. Mr. Aczel, or whoever the jerk was, took my money with no problem. I never thought too much of the man's character after that. People like that are not usually much trustworthy in anything they have to say I have learned throughout the years about human behavior. |
|
|
| lohk |
| So many articles are still like that - and so completly useless for discussing the problems of hypes and lies - because they are full of lies and non-information themselves. The discussion is actually so far beyond that already, thats a laugh. People like the writer of this "article" pamphlet is hardly more than the music critics, who have never been in the concert, judging music by talking, movies by reading and books by listening to gossip. |
|
|
| lineup |
Another problem and a mystery:
This last complaint is for me the most revealing, since it connects to something I've known for years. My friend asks, Why do dark-sounding units have dark cases and bright, metallic-sounding units silver chassis? The dark thing, the solid-state thing, the "real" real thing, it's simply not credible. And so predictable.
Two points here. My friend's complaint about predictability calls to mind that sad sack of audiophile clichés into which the observationalist too often reaches for inspiration. We tend to model the vocabulary of our perceptions on that of colleagues, no few of whom are, in my opinion, inept or worse. Point two: this business about dark box, dark sound, etc.
An experiment some years back had the testers painting identical loudspeakers different colors.
Subjects reported the speakers sounding dark, bright, and so on, depending on the enclosure's color.
Is silver wire sounding bright and with a clarity in the upper range
while copper more warm and with a musical mid range?
Will cotton wrapped silver get a soft and natural tone?
While PVC plastic wrapped wire get a more artificial clinical soundstage.
:confused: |
|
|
| mastertech |
Hi Mikeks what a come back with a very provocative thread!
you should take it easy guys
cheers
ps:ill be at the output distortion thread if you'd like to chat with
me
merry xmas to all!, never mind be happy....cheers :D |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Is silver wire sounding bright and with a clarity in the upper range
while copper more warm and with a musical mid range? |
Interesting that you should mention that, even as a joke. I was at a wire demonstration recently and that was exactly the difference that we "heard." Who knows, maybe it's true, but I sure wouldn't assert it as "fact" without doing a properly controlled test. If the difference we heard was real, then I am at a loss as to why it wouldn't be audible blind. Unless, of course, it's not real, just my human brain playing tricks on me. Naughty, naughty brain. Thinks about girls, then goes and fools me about wire. |
|
|
| sam9 |
I have a certain amount of sympathy with some of his opoinions but not necessarily the way they are presented. It just takes the discussion into the "Yes, it is!" --- "No, it isn't." sort of p***ing contest. I much prefer, for example, Rod Elliot's approach when he is challenging a a point of view. Namely, actual experimental data or at least a simulation. That gives you something of substance to debate.
There are somethings I won't talk about anymore. For example, if asked my opinion on cables these days, my stock (and true) answer that they bore me. And my advice is to use coat hangers or $1,000 per foot platinum plated thingees or anything in between your heart desires and leave me alone. Please. |
|
|
| poobah |
hmmm....
Do i have the guts?????????????????????????????/ |
|
|
| poobah |
SY,
Who had a remote in his pocket??? |
|
|
| Tweeker |
| quote: | | his last complaint is for me the most revealing, since it connects to something I've known for years. My friend asks, Why do dark-sounding units have dark cases and bright, metallic-sounding units silver chassis? The dark thing, the solid-state thing, the "real" real thing, it's simply not credible. And so predictable. |
Well, I can tell you that from working with computers, dark cases help keep the bogomips from getting out. This is going to be important with any digital source.
It could be that they are responsible for the metallic sound. |
|
|
| poobah |
| Yellow wires are less dynamic... because they lack courage... |
|
|
| bmcevers |
I appreciate when people like mikeks have the courage to speak their mind and go against the status quo to raise valid points. My problem with subjectivism as a viable method of audio component analysis boils down to these points:
1.what sounds good to you, may very well sound bad to me. How do you discern who has the "Golden Ears" and who is an "Uneducated Listener" especially when discussing topics like we do on this forum.
2. How do you know if your design is moving in a positive direction. You may think your current version of a 'audio widget' is better than the last, but an audiophile critic may shun your latest work for some subjective reason, killing some of its commercial appeal.
3. Other fields show clear quantifiable advancements. Car manufacturers boast better MPG, more HP, etc.. Digital electronics designers show improvement in instructions executed per second. Why does the audio community shun measurement as the only viable method that shows clear advancement of the discipline.
Why is it so hard to believe it is a good thing if an amplifier passes a signal from input to output adding only minute amounts of harmonic content and noise? It's not a conspiracy, black magic, or a trick. It can be proven and has repeatibility. It shows advancement of the science.This is undoubtedly and undeniably a GOOD THING! |
|
|
| motherone |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Unless, of course, it's not real, just my human brain playing tricks on me. Naughty, naughty brain. Thinks about girls, then goes and fools me about wire. |
Thank god someone else thinks that as well (and mentioned it). I'm a believer that many subjective differences are all in the head.
One of my favorites of audio reviewers is ones who write in their article that they immediately disliked "X" product, but after burn-in (say, 200 hours), it sounded wonderful.
Durr.. No kidding, maybe it's because you're used to hearing it now.. You know, that you've listened to it long enough that your brain has acclimated itself to whatever differences there were before it.
I don't agree with everything in the article, but a lot of it really holds true in my mind :D |
|
|
| poobah |
THIS thread seems to have a GOOD begining...
I especially like the remark about "burn in"... |
|
|
| lineup |
I have thought about this way we can do some 'real life' testing.
Say you have a friend that is very happy, because he has installed some new 'audiograde' caps in his amplifier. He says it sounds so much better now. Definitively an improvement!
You buy some 'no-name' normal quality caps with same size, some caps of the audiograde brand and exchange the plastic wrapping with label on.
Now you have 'no-name' caps with 'audiophile' and identical look.
Say you know someone in his family and are allowed to get in to his amplifier.
You exchange his caps in amplifier when he is at work.
Now just wait.
Maybe he starts posting here his amplifier does not sound as good.
And needs advice about what is the matter with his amplifier.
Maybe he doesnt notice a thing.
After a couple of years, you can reveal the truth about his audiograde' caps.
I have my own opinion of the probability he would notice anything.
:) |
|
|
| Tony |
| quote: | | One of my favorites of audio reviewers is ones who write in their article that they immediately disliked "X" product, but after burn-in (say, 200 hours), it sounded wonderful. |
i see this posted every now and then, but the opposite seems to work with me, first time hearing an amp, i get goose pimples, hair standing on end! elated!
but several sessions later with the amp, the magic wears off!
wonder if others experience the same!
that is why i can not relate to that 200hour burn in thing!:D :D |
|
|
| sam9 |
| quote: | | i see this posted every now and then, but the opposite seems to work with me, first time hearing an amp, i get goose pimples, hair standing on end! elated! |
I think the condition is called "being a gearhead". I.e., anything new is exciting but as time passes it isn't so new and the excitment wanes. At various times for me this has applied to cars, boats, PC's, . . . the list is endless. |
|
|
| lineup |
I am also very skeptical to electronic components need a burn in.
I think most of it will work as good from start.
Trafos, transistors, resistors, wires and cables.
When it comes to loudspeaker woofers, I am not so sure.
They are mechnical constructions that are moving.
Maybe the suspension can change some after some use. |
|
|
| rdf |
Well poobah, it probably doesn't surprise you I don't. :) Once again the presumption is people who've written published reviews of equipment for years, in some cases decades, are rubes who would never have considered this. It's uncharitable at best. Some of these people, Cordesman for example, are very intelligent and accomplished individuals outside of the audio industry. I'm not sure how many of us have provided military analysis on Nightline. They are not uniformly dumb.
It a common problem with authors like Aczel and Elliot who claim to represent reason and science, they often throw the method out the window in regards to the characters, motivations and capabilities of those with whom they disagree. Take his comments about Golden Ears, which describes no one I know on this forum. Here's a worthwhile exercise: prove his conjecture 10. Demonstrate how the majority of those who claim to hear things he considers impossible also claim it's the result of 'special auditory powers'. Plenty here ascribe it to the same learned skill and experience Aczel describes, none I know claim otherwise. There's mountain of material here, on usenet, on other forums, it should be a cakewalk to cull dozens of such comments from the cable thread alone if Peter is right. |
|
|
| Tony |
| quote: | | I am also very skeptical to electronic components need a burn in. |
i worked for AMD Advance Micro Devices here in manila from 1979 to 1988, and i know for a fact that we do burn-ins on ic's prior to shipment to end costumers.
so i see no point in burning them again once the amps are construted. |
|
|
| Jay |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Interesting that you should mention that, even as a joke. I was at a wire demonstration recently and that was exactly the difference that we "heard." |
I believe you heard the real thing, SY. And I thought that the original statement was just a typo.
There's a brand known as Shark. They have silver speaker cable called "Musical Love" and a copper cable called "Fullrange (?)". Having used their products, I don't think they are stupid in term of listening ability.
I'm also agree with GRollins about hearing compensation for the blinds. I have audio hobby for more than 15 years, but I have a very limited knowledge related to audio. So I have been pushed to use my ears.
About "taster". I'm not only sensitive with sound but also with everything. I don't like drinking (pure) water. But I know that it is good for kidney health. So there are brands that my "mouth" cannot accept, and there are brands that I like better. I have done AB test to prove this. I don't drink sparkling water because I have too much money. Many here boil their drinking water. |
|
|
| Jay |
Sorry, may be I misunderstood SY.
The sound of speaker cables (silver or copper) may have relationship with braided or not (or AWG). But this doesn't matter as that's not my expertise to explain why. |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
What I don't like about this article is that he leads the unaware reader to be 100% scientific in his reasoning.
There are things however that can be disproven:
Cables:
No, I wouldn't buy the most expensive cables (not even moderately expensive ones to be precise) myself nor would I try to voice a system that way. But cables do fefinitely interact with the electronics they are connected to and can make an audible difference.
Tubes:
They do definitely (and scientifically proven) have different transfer functions than silicon (BTW: did anyone ever mention that tube amps contain much mure Silicon than SS amps ususally ???) with different distortion characteristics. While I agree that distortion should be as low as possible one must not forget (and this guy should definitely know) that perception of distortion is not depending on amount alone but on spectral distribution as well.
Bi-wiring:
I don't do this either personally (it simply makes no sense since I am running active !) but claiming to be able to disprove it by oversimplifying things like he does is as unscientific as could be. There are indeed scientific reasons why it COULD make a difference. Hint: Voltage dividers and nonlinear loads !
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| davidsrsb |
| What annoys me is those "audiophile" cd players that produce 3 or even 4V outputs. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tony
i see this posted every now and then, but the opposite seems to work with me, first time hearing an amp, i get goose pimples, hair standing on end! elated!
but several sessions later with the amp, the magic wears off!
|
Yes, what is very strange with the burn-in theory is that all who believe in it seem to get improvements after burning in their equipment. If burning in could change the sound, wouldn't it be just as likely that the sound gets worse?
Anyway, with the exception of a few components types, there is still no technical explanation why burning in could change the sound. On the other hand, human hearing is very adaptive and deliberate modifications of the sounds we hear can give measurable alterations to our hearing, clearly visible in audiograms (it is not the physical ear that changes, but the filter functions in the brain). If there is anything more than pure psychological bias to burning in, my bet is that it is the hearing that changes, since this seems much more likely. |
|
|
| dhaen |
New kit, first impression divergence:
Good (burn-in):
mm, quite good
actually very good
I love it
It's the best
Bad (burn-out):
oh, not sure
something's quite not right
definately bad
I can't stand it |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
| quote: | | If burning in could change the sound, wouldn't it be just as likely that the sound gets worse? |
Ahhhhhh ! Audio equipment is also prone to BURN-OUT syndrome !!
Fun aside, I belive that most of the really good equipment pleases you at the first listening but more importantly stays that way afterwards.
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| ron.eddy |
Not to get into any really deep thoughts or anything, but lets say for argument's sake all of the so called "magic" in audio IS completely false and is actually all in your brain, then why does it matter? Doesn't it still provide you with more joy this way, at least in your head, and isn't your head where YOU truly exist?
Wierd example: Sometimes when I have a headache (which is pretty rare) I take an ibuprofen tablet to help alleviate the pain, yet my headache goes away literally within a minute after taking it. I know for a fact the medicine did not get dissolved and put into my bloodstream yet, so it has to be in my head, but if this is the case then it is great, because it only means I am pain free faster. When I tell people ibuprofen takes my headache away almost instantly they never believe me of course and say that I am wrong, but on the other hand I refuse to listen to them (essentially lying to myself) because if I convinced myself that it doesn't help instantly then I am quite sure it will stop working so fast, which in turn will have a negative impact on my life - especially when I get headaches. Why would I ever believe something if it means my quality of life will go down because of it? I know, kind of wierd...
I think this article was put out to deliberately be blunt against the people who believe these alleged myths are true, maybe to start firefights and threads on audio forums. While I do not yet have enough experience to comment on the validity of the so-called myths, I can say the brain is a lot more complex than any piece of equipment you will ever listen to, so maybe the argument really shouldn't be directed toward the components, but rather to the REAL signal processor in our lives, the one between our ears.
My 2 cents.
Ron |
|
|
| darkfenriz |
| If one condemns something as a lie than they should go with "innocent until proven guilty" principle, not the opposite. Otherwise it is relatively easy to logically tell the whitch from a non-whitch (like Sir Bedevere from 'The quest for the holy Grail') |
|
|
| ron.eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by darkfenriz
If one condemns something as a lie than they should go with "innocent until proven guilty" principle, not the opposite. Otherwise it is relatively easy to logically tell the whitch from a non-whitch (like Sir Bedevere from 'The quest for the holy Grail') |
Good movie, nice reference - very relevant to this thread. I agree. Maybe if some logic and scientific methods were applied we could stop accidentally burning the non-witches at the stake, and get rid of all those pesky real witches. Maybe that should be the slogan on this thread, "What would Sir. Bedevere do?", but good luck convincing people amplifiers are made of wood and weigh the same as a duck. :cool: |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | Once again the presumption is people who've written published reviews of equipment for years, in some cases decades, are rubes who would never have considered this. It's uncharitable at best. Some of these people, Cordesman for example, are very intelligent and accomplished individuals outside of the audio industry. I'm not sure how many of us have provided military analysis on Nightline. They are not uniformly dumb. |
It's not that they're rubes, it's that they have no particular expertise other than the ability to write in an entertaining way and churn out copy on a regular basis. Some are deluded, some are cynical, but none of the reviewers I have known (including Tony) are dumb. But they're no more often right than a coin flip. |
|
|
| Bas Horneman |
| Mmm...Der Spiegel article is 0,50 euro cents..but what is worse is the registration process ;) |
|
|
| jneutron |
Why is Bi-wiring a lie:confused: :confused:
Cheers, John |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
Ask him :confused:
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by phase_accurate
Ask him :confused:
Regards
Charles |
Why?
He confuses linearity of superposition with power loss through a conductor feeding a two or three branch system via a single node..
The article is rant fodder. a mix of correct and incorrect. I was hoping someone here could speak a little more eloquently..
Cheers, John |
|
|
| rdf |
| quote: | | "But they're no more often right than a coin flip." |
Ouch! :whip: |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by jneutron
I was hoping someone here could speak a little more eloquently. |
John,
We rely heavily on you to add eloquence to the convoluted explanations. |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal Weldon
John,
We rely heavily on you to add eloquence to the convoluted explanations. |
Then you are in trouble..:bawling: I seem to only add to the convolution..:angel:
The power dissipation within a resistor is P = I2R.
Assume a two way crossover, 8 ohm independent loads, two sine waves, each directed to it's driver.
The current within the cable is A plus B, A being sin(2 pi 50 t), B being sin(2 pi 5000 t).
The power dissipated within the cable is:
Pc = I2Rc
Pc = (A + B)2Rc
(A + B)2 = A2+ B2 + 2 AB.
Pc = (A2+ B2 + 2 AB)Rc
Pwoofer = A2R
Ptweeter = B2R
As can be seen, the wire has an additional component of dissipation, the 2AB component, whereas the loads each have only the A or B squared component.
So where is the power that is represented by that 2AB coming from?? And, why is it different from what is being dissipated at the loads?
Cheers, John:angel: |
|
|
| jneutron |
Read it years ago.
Note this:
If the sound power produced depends upon the square of the current fed to the system, this implies that the frequency response may perhaps be changed by bi-wiring as a result of interactions between the choice of cabling arrangement and the input impedances/networks of the loudspeaker units.
Well, the square part is correct. Unfortunately, he does not delve into the instantaneous power dissipation of the conductor for offset sines.
Hopefully, in the future, he will correct his article..;)
Cheers, John
PS..his skin theory article math is to die for..very well done. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
But they're no more often right than a coin flip. |
And how would you *know* that, SY? (I love how the science just fades away for certain purposes.) I'd say SY's statement is as improbable as Robert Partker or Hugh Johnson's views on various wines being no more probable than a coin flip. |
|
|
| poobah |
Hugh Johnson makes his money telling other's what tastes good... his service may be valuable to those who share his opinions and especially trust his tastebuds more than their own. Wine remains art, its beauty belonging to the beholder.
Audio reproduction is about just that... reproduction... less room for artistic interpretation... or at least that's how it should be.
Are's SY's observations less credible because he isn't paid for them? |
|
|
| Tweeker |
| Yes, it might be that a million monkeys at typewriters are correct just as often, rather than a coinflip. Or perhaps Sy has done an statistical analysis of these periodicals and compared it against a wooden nickel. 4 out of 5 dentists agree that this is the best method. |
|
|
| jneutron |
Here's the dissipation that occurs within a wire of .1 ohm total loop resistance for two cases...one case is the sine wave by itself, that is the blue line..the second is the sine wave added to a dc current. This case represents an offset sine being fed into 16 feet of #18 wire terminated in a crossover feeding two 8 ohm loads, 1 ampere drives.
Note the discrepencies between the two??
Now, why is Bi-wiring a sham??
Cheers, John
PS..horiz axis is degrees. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
And how would you *know* that, SY? |
Cogito, ergo agnosco bs. |
|
|
| rdf |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
(I love how the science just fades away for certain purposes.) |
'Ouch' was my third response. The first was eaten by a brownout, the second I just got tired, but essentially both said the same as you in regard to earlier posts, specifically the notions that reviewers rate equpiment in dark cases dark sounding and bright as bright, and that break-in is acclimation. The most cursory examination of three decades of Stereophile and Absolute Sound renders the first conjecture obviously untrue. Start by examining reviews of Audio Research and Conrad Johnson gear and demonstrate they're consistently described as brighter than the black Rotels, Adcoms, and other solid state gear of the period.
As per break-in, it's my recollection that most every reviewer takes it as a given - for example when reviewing speakers, arguably the most relevant circumstance - and run-in equipment un-auditioned and outside their main system before review. At most they'll do a cursory listen beforehand. Speakers are also often compared directly against familiar references or other models in the same price bracket afterwards to assess overall value. They're not listening during the break-in period, and post-comparison would quickly reveal if the perceived change was due to acclimation.
Again, this isn't to say reviewers are honest, intelligent, or have no involvement with the general Decline of Western Civilization or Hoffa's disappearance. It is to say that the rationalizations presented here in the name of science aren't based on the written evidence. At best they're uninformed conjectures, but not science. |
|
|
| Peter M. |
| In that article it seems that the coin is flipped several times...:Golden ears is a myth, they don`t exist,., yes they do, no they don`t, yes if they know what to listen for, no they don`t exist....yes...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| ron.eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by jneutron
The power dissipated within the cable is:
Pc = I2Rc
Pc = (A + B)2Rc
(A + B)2 = A2+ B2 + 2 AB.
Pc = (A2+ B2 + 2 AB)Rc
Pwoofer = A2R
Ptweeter = B2R
As can be seen, the wire has an additional component of dissipation, the 2AB component, whereas the loads each have only the A or B squared component.
So where is the power that is represented by that 2AB coming from?? And, why is it different from what is being dissipated at the loads?
|
Forgive me, but I am a little confused by what you are saying, since A2+ B2 + 2 AB has no extra components versus A2R or B2R when you take into account that you are comparing a lumped together square versus individual squares... After all, (5 + 5) squared will always be bigger than 5 squared plus 5 squared (by an amount that happens to be 2*5*5 (2AB in this case). Or perhaps I don't understand what you mean. Without bi-wiring, the cable going from the amp to the speakers would have a current of A+B, with each current getting split into its own driver after the crossover, resulting in say A at the tweeter and B at the woofer. Lets assume the crossover splits the amperage directly in half for simplicity sake, you would then have (A+B)/2 at each driver.
While (A+B)/2 + (A+B)/2 does indeed equal the current coming in at (A+B), the same cannot be said for the squares, as if you added up the power individually:
R * ((A+B)/22 + (A+B)/2)2) it would not be equal to R * (A+B)2
And if you think about it in real terms, with your math you are squaring the total current to get the power dissipated by the cable and squaring the individual currents to get the power dissipated by the drivers, and there is no law that says power dissipated must be equal between components, just the amperage. The power is all variant on the load. Numerically it wouldn't make sense either since if A was 4 amps and B was 2 amps, you would know 2 amps goes to the tweeter and 4 amps goes to the woofer, each having their own unique power dissipation based on their load. The 6 amps going through the initial conductor may as well just be another variable, like C, so then you would have:
Pc = C2*Rc
Ptweeter = B2*Rb
Pwoofer = A2*Ra
Now there is no additional component, and A, B, C are all different anyway. In the case of the power dissipated it is irrelevant that C = A+B because of the squaring.
Forgive me if I completely misinterpreted your point.
I feel that if you are already using a sufficient guage cable to connect your amp to your loudspeakers then bi-wiring is simply an act of overkill, and should not make too much of a difference. All you are doing is dividing up the current draw to 2x the cross-sectional area of wire, am I correct? And if the argument is that bi-wiring eliminates the interactions between the high and low or what have you frequencies why would this be the case at all? Unless you were biamping as well? I guess I am a little lost on all of this... :xeye: :xeye: :xeye: |
|
|
| poobah |
Ron,
This was essentially the conclusion reached by the link I posted. Biwiring was only appreciable when the cables were smaller than they should be in the first place. |
|
|
| ron.eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by jneutron
Here's the dissipation that occurs within a wire of .1 ohm total loop resistance for two cases...one case is the sine wave by itself, that is the blue line..the second is the sine wave added to a dc current. This case represents an offset sine being fed into 16 feet of #18 wire terminated in a crossover feeding two 8 ohm loads, 1 ampere drives.
Note the discrepencies between the two??
Now, why is Bi-wiring a sham??
Cheers, John
PS..horiz axis is degrees. |
I am sorry, maybe I am having a bad day, but I don't understand this either. What does this show? These signals would have been combined at the amplifier anyway, so biwiring them would not separate them and result in such dramatically lower losses... It would only lower the losses by how much less resistance the signal would see, since you are doubling the available wire. This would not amount to too much savings (well with 18 ga. running 16 feet it may) but not if you already have a good sized wire.
Wait a minute, what the heck is bi-wiring? Maybe I have it all mixed up. |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by ron.eddy
I feel that if you are already using a sufficient guage cable to connect your amp to your loudspeakers then bi-wiring is simply an act of overkill, and should not make too much of a difference. All you are doing is dividing up the current draw to 2x the cross-sectional area of wire, am I correct? And if the argument is that bi-wiring eliminates the interactions between the high and low or what have you frequencies why would this be the case at all? Unless you were biamping as well? I guess I am a little lost on all of this... :xeye: :xeye: :xeye: |
It does indeed get confusing..
Ok..first, consider the .1 ohm wire with a 1 ampere sine wave going through it. The dissipation when the sine is at the positive peak is, 1 squared times .1, or .1 watt...100 milliwatts. and, at the negative peak, again...100 milliwatts.
Now, increase the DC current on that wire until it is 1 ampere. the waveform now has 2 amperes as the peak current, and when the sine is at the negative peak, the wire has zero amperes current.
When the sine is at it's positive peak, the current is two amps total. The wire dissipates 2 squared times .1, or 400 milliwatts.
When the sine is at it's negative peak, there is no current. So, at this point there is no dissipation.
The introduction of the DC current has changed the amount of instantaneous power that has been dissipated within the wire that carries both the signals.
Is a distortion component that is 3.7% of the signal considered audible?
The amplifier has zero output impedance, and it is a voltage source..so where does that extra power at the positive peaks come from?
Note that the substitution of the single .1 ohm wire by two independent .2 ohm wires, or even two .1 ohm wires, does not create the same dissipation as the one wire with the two signals..
We are talking about two 8 watt signals here, the difference in dissipation between the dc signal on and off (.3w) represents 3.7% of the total power signal.
Hey, maybe I did the math wrong?? Then again, maybe not?:devilr:
Cheers, John |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by ron.eddy
I am sorry, maybe I am having a bad day, but I don't understand this either. What does this show? These signals would have been combined at the amplifier anyway, so biwiring them would not separate them and result in such dramatically lower losses... It would only lower the losses by how much less resistance the signal would see, since you are doubling the available wire. This would not amount to too much savings (well with 18 ga. running 16 feet it may) but not if you already have a good sized wire.
Wait a minute, what the heck is bi-wiring? Maybe I have it all mixed up. |
No. Assume that the amp out is either the sine, or the offset sine.
The single wire feeding a multiple branch splitter is what is causing the dissipation variation.
For multiple signals that all go to the same branch, the loss in the wire is exactly a fraction of the load power dissipation, so no other dissipation components show up.
This shows that the crossover must go at the amp terminals, with individual wires to each driver.
Of course, it is much simpler to re-calculate the wire guage minimum for percentage distortion vs wire run...as the current tables used are only fraction of power lost by IR.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| Christer |
How hard can it be to find out if burning in has any effect?
Take two identical, brand new pieces of equipment, that are supposed to benefit from burn in. Listen to them and confirm you can't hear any difference. Then burn in one of the pieces, but not the other one. After that, perform a DBT.
Of course, this assumes that brand new equipment of the choosen type are not audibly different, which could be a problem, perhaps. However, there ought to be a lot of equipment that would sound identical in a DBT. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
Re burn-in, I once replaced two 2uF mylar for metallized polypropylene capacitors in the reference AC circuit board of an Elgar line conditioner. The reference board in the Elgar generates a reference AC signal that is summed with the output of the unit as taken through a resistor; the remainder---the difference, essentially, between the reference and the output---is amplified as NFB to reform the output AC to match the reference sine. After swapping out the mylars, the Elgar generated a serious 15V spike on its output. :eek: This spike reduced over the course of two days and finally disappeared. Of course, being the non-scientist I am, I thought the sound of my audio system, fed by the Elgar, sounded worse before the spike disappeared, but sounded better than the mylar-Elgar once the spike disappeared.
I have two Elgars operating in my system. I replaced the mylar caps in Elgar #2 with metallized polypropylenes (same make as went into Elgar #1). Elgar #2 then generated the same fright spike, which then slowly disappeared as the new capacitors ..... drum roll ..... broke in. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| By the way, Elgar uses mylar capacitors exclusively for coupling capacitors (2 x 10uF, 2 x 1uF, 4 x 2uF) --- as opposed to electrolytics, presumably --- because mylars are more accurate, presumably (or in audio terms, sound better). |
|
|
| ron.eddy |
| quote: | | Is a distortion component that is 3.7% of the signal considered audible? |
But it isn't really a distortion component, is it? If we assume a very low inductance/capacitance in the wire, relative to its resistance, it would simply be a 3.7% attenuation, would it not? Since resistance is not dependent on frequency, the whole signal, sine wave and DC will be attenuated power wise by 3.7% so that the power into the load will equal power delivered by amp minus the power dissipated by the wire as heat.
That graph is absolutely correct in that a sine wave on its own on that wire will have a dissipation four times less than with both (assuming 1A signals) since (1+1) squared is 4 and 1 squared is 1.
But yea, I think we are agreeing now that I read through it all, I was just confused to all hell for a while there. It would be much simpler to calculate out a bigger guage wire and not worry about putting the xover right at the amp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for burn-in how would this work physically? I have had many audio product (non mechanical such as speakers) that I did not like at first but after it burned in I swore it sounded better. But I keep doubting myself because I cannot explain it. The caps should form within seconds of first power on (although reading the above post makes me reevaluate that opinion), the resistors and inductors are wires, the silicon is a pure element doped with molecules which are all made of the same bits of protons and electrons, forming depletion regions and moving holes and electrons around at will. What in there would cause any solid state electronic device to need a break-in? (Mind you I am neither denying or supporting it, I am curious is all)
- Ron |
|
|
| ron.eddy |
Just a couple short notes on each of the myths:
1. The Cable Lie - Not gonna touch this one here.
2. The Vacuum-Tube Lie - Nope, not this one either.
3. The Antidigital Lie - I do see where he is coming from in a way, but for him to say (referring to 44,100 hertz sampling) "It will not cause any loss of information in the audio range—not an iota, not a scintilla", if I were to believe it, would lead me to the natural question that comes of it: Why do we now have 96kHz sampling rates? Bet he can't answer that.
4. The Listening-Test Lie - This I agree with, I wish tests which are then published or even put on good looking websites would be more consistent and formal.
5. The Feedback Lie - No comment, I have not gained enough experience.
6. The Burn-In Lie - I would like to find out about this one.
7. The Biwiring Lie - Still confused... ;)
8. The Power Conditioner Lie - I agree with this to a point as well, unless your house has really bad power quality for some reason.
9. The CD Treatment Lie - I have never heard of this stuff but if someone somewhere says it makes a difference in the sound they are, unequivocally, crazy.
10. Golden Ears - Ah yes, as GRollins pointed out, the better educated your ears are the better you'll hear all those expensive circuits you've been working on in your basement :cool:
- Ron |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by ron.eddy
But it isn't really a distortion component, is it? If we assume a very low inductance/capacitance in the wire, relative to its resistance, it would simply be a 3.7% attenuation, would it not? Since resistance is not dependent on frequency, the whole signal, sine wave and DC will be attenuated power wise by 3.7% so that the power into the load will equal power delivered by amp minus the power dissipated by the wire as heat. |
ARRRGGGGGHHHHH:hot: :hot: :eek: :eek:
No,no.no,no...(he he, just funnin ya..)
Seriously...look at the graph again. For the single sine wave signal in the wire, the dissipation is a function of frequency times two (blue)...but with the offset sine, the bulk of the dissipation is a function of frequency. So the loss is NOT of the same spectra as either of the branch dissipations.
the math gets worse if you add two sines of different frequencies, for the 2AB thing is the multiplication of two sines. And then, three loads??
OH...I almost forgot...What happens when both channels have the hf signal, say a voice, or a bell, at center stage, equal intensity, and then an equal sized bass note occurs in one channel only? Does the 3.7% error in power being delivered to the channel with the bass note cause the center image to shift away from the bass? Hmmmm.
| quote: | Originally posted by ron.eddy
That graph is absolutely correct in that a sine wave on its own on that wire will have a dissipation four times less than with both (assuming 1A signals) since (1+1) squared is 4 and 1 squared is 1. |
Yup.| quote: | Originally posted by ron.eddy
But yea, I think we are agreeing now that I read through it all, I was just confused to all hell for a while there. It would be much simpler to calculate out a bigger guage wire and not worry about putting the xover right at the amp.
- Ron |
Confusion is a way of life for me..
This incredibly crude and simple analysis points out the need to revisit the wire guage vs wire length, and can be done for specific distortion figures..for example, 8 ohm, 16 feet, 4% max distortion, two way crossover, ya need #18 or better wire. I won't even touch on how the dissipation error causes the shifting of virtual images within the soundstage as a result of the power modulation caused by the crossover branches..
Cheers, John |
|
|
| mastertech |
as to what effect burn in has in terms of being audible or not
perhaps many experts here would agree that objectivism could
show that to be the case or not, how do you define burn-in and
what purpose it has is another matter, for example some equipement take time to settle in while others take less, and to
some burn-in is just a test at the end of manufacture
regards |
|
|
| ron.eddy |
| quote: | | Seriously...look at the graph again. For the single sine wave signal in the wire, the dissipation is a function of frequency squared (blue)...but with the offset sine, the bulk of the dissipation is a function of frequency. So the loss is NOT of the same spectra as either of the branch dissipations. |
Clearly I am in over my head. I know the sine wave is a function of frequency but how is power a function of frequency? But maybe this is where I got confused, as I have been talking about the rms power this whole time, which is not a function of frequency and no matter what signal you have, it can be broken into sine waves and using superposition can be analyzed, therefore the currents all added up will still not be frequency dependent (rms). A 20khz sine wave going through a non-inductive, non reactive load will dissipate the same power as a 60Hz wave through the same resistor, right (same amperage for each of them of course)? Throw in those pesky inductances and capacitances of the cable and THEN I quit! Hehe
So what you are asking about is the dissipation at the peaks of those sine waves and how they compare with individual branches and where that extra power comes from and how bi-wiring helps (or does help)? Haha, I am gonna swallow my pride fully and say I have no idea what we are talking about anymore. I don't think I know as much about AC waveforms as I should. I have a bunch of papers in front of me I have been scribbling calculations on to try to understand, but alas, haha :D. |
|
|
| Tweeker |
| quote: | | It will not cause any loss of information in the audio range—not an iota, not a scintilla |
Yes, well, energy can neither be created or destroyed. Its all there, all 5 dynamically overcompressed bits of it, but is there any, say, for example, phase shift? |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by ron.eddy
Clearly I am in over my head. I know the sine wave is a function of frequency but how is power a function of frequency? But maybe this is where I got confused, as I have been talking about the rms power this whole time, which is not a function of frequency and no matter what signal you have, it can be broken into sine waves and using superposition can be analyzed, therefore the currents all added up will still not be frequency dependent (rms). A 20khz sine wave going through a non-inductive, non reactive load will dissipate the same power as a 60Hz wave through the same resistor, right (same amperage for each of them of course)? Throw in those pesky inductances and capacitances of the cable and THEN I quit! Hehe
So what you are asking about is the dissipation at the peaks of those sine waves and how they compare with individual branches and where that extra power comes from and how bi-wiring helps (or does help)? Haha, I am gonna swallow my pride fully and say I have no idea what we are talking about anymore. I don't think I know as much about AC waveforms as I should. I have a bunch of papers in front of me I have been scribbling calculations on to try to understand, but alas, haha :D. |
Welcome to my world dude. You have no idea what it's like for me at work. In the 13 years I've been here, I am now capable of pronouncing half the words they use here. I figure that I'll know maybe 75% of the words..by the time I retire.
Ah, I see your confusion..no I am not talking about the integrated losses, but the instantaneous ones.
A simple sine wave has both a positive and negative peak. Power is the square of that sine, and squares cannot be negative here..so the blue line on the graph shows twice the frequency, but with a dc offset. I see where I messed up, I did not include the simple sine wave for reference..here it is.
Sorry for changing colors on ya, excel...
Ok...now, the sine wave is blue..provided for reference. It is amperes...The magenta line is the current squared times .1, so it is in watts. Note that when you square the negative lobes of the sine, the result is positive.
The yellow line is the result of the offset sine when you square it. As you can see, it has the same period as the fundamental sine wave.
The introduction of the dc offset signal has caused the loss in the wire to morph from the magenta waveform, to the yellow one.
That is the difference a biwire setup removes..
THAT difference must be tested as to audibility.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| mzzj |
| quote: | Originally posted by ron.eddy
Just a couple short notes on each of the myths:
Why do we now have 96kHz sampling rates? Bet he can't answer that.
- Ron |
Without commenting on actual audibility of 48/96 i can see it as
marketing department numbers game. Why do we have cars with over 200km/h top speed if maximum speed limit on public roads is 120km/h? Why do we have 400hp car engines when 40hp would be enough to carry 4 persons over 120km/h?
Or why do we have 4 megapixel sensors on cellphone cameras even that lens is limiting resolution to 1 megapixel and noise from 4 megapixel sensor makes it actually worse and less usefull than 1 mpix sensor? |
|
|
| ron.eddy |
LOL. I see now. WOW.
Yea, I think it may be easier to just recalculate wire run/wire gauge, since most of the time the crossover is already in the speaker. Although you could get really crazy and build all your crossovers and amps into one enlosure custom made for your speaker set. I don't know how practical that would ever be... ;)
And your bell/bass question is an intriguing one. Hopefully if everything is calculated right you shouldn't have these errors in such a degree where it would effect the audible sound, but perhaps it does, in that case you may have just come up with a measurement to go along with the thought that these things make a difference.
- Ron |
|
|
| ron.eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mzzj
Without commenting on actual audibility of 48/96 i can see it as
marketing department numbers game. Why do we have cars with over 200km/h top speed if maximum speed limit on public roads is 120km/h? Why do we have 400hp car engines when 40hp would be enough to carry 4 persons over 120km/h?
Or why do we have 4 megapixel sensors on cellphone cameras even that lens is limiting resolution to 1 megapixel and noise from 4 megapixel sensor makes it actually worse and less usefull than 1 mpix sensor? |
Very true, very true, I just wonder because to me and to my ears it SEEMS as though DVD's sound quite a bit better than CD, but again it could definitely be a combination of things like the studio equipment used to record the sound being better, the production, the A/D converter quality and then the D/A converter in my unit. So its another one of those catch-22 questions, since it can always be answered by spinning it on other things.
But yea, good point.
I found this at MathWorld:
In order for a band-limited (i.e., one with a zero power spectrum for frequencies nu>B) baseband (nu>0) signal to be reconstructed fully, it must be sampled at a rate nu>=2B. A signal sampled at nu==2B is said to be Nyquist sampled, and nu==2B is called the Nyquist frequency. No information is lost if a signal is sampled at the Nyquist frequency, and no additional information is gained by sampling faster than this rate.
So I am wrong, there is no benefit to higher than 44kHz (actually 40kHz would be sufficient), given that they chop the sound off at 20khz anyway. Now if they would only chop the sound at 48kHz instead when using 96k sampling maybe there would be a difference, since those higher order harmonics would still be in the signal, as they were when it was originally sang (or played, or beat on, or however the sound was created) |
|
|
| lineup |
8. The Power Conditioner Lie
Just about all that needs to be said on
this subject has been said by Bryston in
their owner’s manuals:
“All Bryston amplifiers contain
high-quality, dedicated circuitry in the
power supplies to reject RF, line spikes
and other power-line problems. Bryston
power amplifiers do not require specialized
power line conditioners. Plug the
amplifier directly into its own wall
socket.”
What they don’t say is that the same
is true, more or less, of all well-designed
amplifiers. They may not all be the Brystons’
equal in regulation and PSRR, but
if they are any good they can be plugged
directly into a wall socket. If you can afford
a fancy power conditioner you can
also afford a well-designed amplifier, in
which case you don’t need the fancy
power conditioner. It will do absolutely
nothing for you.
The biggest and stupidest lie of
them all on the subject of “clean” power
is that you need a specially designed
high-priced line cord to obtain the best
possible sound. Any line cord rated to
handle domestic ac voltages and currents
will perform like any other. Ultrahigh-
end line cords are a fraud. Your
audio circuits don’t know, and don’t
care, what’s on the ac side of the power
transformer.
On this one I would agree with him.
Fact is I have never ever invested in anything on Mains AC side
to get better audio performance.
An ordinary small LC filter at mains AC input of amplifier.
This is all.
Any good amplifier will have this.
Otherwise I would put it in myself.
You can find readymade AC inlets that have this filter.
Most used is a dual coil and 2 or 3 capacitors rated for mains use.
There has been no research that I know of
that has shown what comes in at mains voltage
will effect what comes out of amplifiers,
and so even less likely it can pass loudspeaker coil.
I would say,
if this is the case,
power supply in ampifier is of the worst sort
and who did it, doesnt know elementary supply basics. |
|
|
| poobah |
John,
I think are onto something here... perhaps if you were greedier you wouldn't air it here.
Your basically saying that a higher frequency wave is being disproportionately robbed off power when it is riding the peak of a lower frequency wave?
Hmmmm....................
I am running sims here as well.
This is akin in some ways to the doppler effect imposed on higher frequencies emitting from a diaphram primarily moving with a lower frequency. |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by ron.eddy
LOL. I see now. WOW.
Yea, I think it may be easier to just recalculate wire run/wire gauge, since most of the time the crossover is already in the speaker. Although you could get really crazy and build all your crossovers and amps into one enlosure custom made for your speaker set. I don't know how practical that would ever be... ;) |
Yes, it's far better to just go heavier on the wire.
It does, however, point to the possibility that bi-wiring is indeed justifiable, and really silly guage wires like #6 or 8 for low impedance multiway systems is justified. | quote: | Originally posted by ron.eddy
And your bell/bass question is an intriguing one. Hopefully if everything is calculated right you shouldn't have these errors in such a degree where it would effect the audible sound, but perhaps it does, in that case you may have just come up with a measurement to go along with the thought that these things make a difference.
- Ron |
Once the effect is more fully understood, it will be trivial to calculate out the guage required to remain below some threshold of distortion.
The easy thing about this analysis is that by using DC as the second signal, it is trivial to look at the hf signal at the "driver", or dummy load, and look for shifts in the waveform. An easy thing to do would be have two cables side by side into two two way crossovers, and inject a dc bias into one side, using a differential comparison of the hf signal at the load. Even put a half or 1 hz square wave into one side to look for the change..
Alas, I don't think anyone here will take the time or effort to try the test...sigh.
Can't wait for my basement to be complete.
Cheers, John
ps...I'm tossed as to whether or not to engage in the power conditioner point..maybe next year.. |
|
|
| Tweeker |
Theres one thing that can be noticed by most amps that we'd call "good" on the AC line, but no power cord will fix. DC.
| quote: | | Why do we have 400hp car engines when 40hp would be enough to carry 4 persons over 120km/h? |
Have you driven a fully loaded VW Beatle lately?
It might not just be the better sampling rate your hearing, it could also be the bitrate. 16 bits might be "good enough", but not if you throw 7 away for loudness. |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by poobah
John,
I think are onto something here... perhaps if you were greedier you wouldn't air it here. |
It's not breaking the laws of superposition, it's not some new physics.... and contrary to what he said, I am not going to be "an instant candidate for some truly major scientific prizes and academic honors.."..all that verbage is is just blustery yada yada in the attempt to justify his "analysis" so to speak..| quote: | Originally posted by poobah
Your basically saying that a higher frequency wave is being disproportionately robbed off power when it is riding the peak of a lower frequency wave? |
It would appear that that is the case..I've wrung my brain cells over what could possibly be incorrect with my analysis, as well as speaking of this to a few of my collegues here, but I've not found anything wrong yet...there may be, I just haven't found it..
It just seems so trivially simple to have been overlooked for so many years..:confused: :confused:
Hmmmm....................| quote: | Originally posted by poobah
I am running sims here as well. |
Good. Independent verification is a wonderful thing. Test verification will also have to be done as well.
I've already worked out those details..
Cheers, John |
|
|
| poobah |
John,
We posted at the same time... please respond to my post just prior to yours.
And yeah, I'll test this... I'll run alot more sims first to target the measuements correctly though. |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by poobah
John,
This is akin in some ways to the doppler effect imposed on higher frequencies emitting from a diaphram primarily moving with a lower frequency. |
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 |
Did I say you would be, "an instant candidate for some truly major scientific prizes and academic honors"?
I s'pose the Monster Cable people might want an interview... and give you a free roll of wire or something... |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by poobah
Did I say you would be, "an instant candidate for some truly major scientific prizes and academic honors"? |
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.| quote: | Originally posted by poobah
I s'pose the Monster Cable people might want an interview... and give you a free roll of wire or something... |
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 |
|
|
| poobah |
Yeah,
Your frying secret gluons and cr$p right? |
|
|
| darkfenriz |
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. |
|
|
| destroyer X |
But if you switch A to B...well, this way brain have not time to adjust...so....i decided not to switch.
Now everything turns fine to me.
regards,
Carlos |
|
|
| lineup |
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.
:) |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | But on the other hand 99.9% physisists in late 19th century were 99.9% sure they know and understand 99.9% physical phenomenons |
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.. |
|
|
| darkfenriz |
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? |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
The idea that physicists [...] thought they knew it all is not even vaguely true. |
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. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | Did scientists work on this 3 bodies problem or was ignored? |
That's been an extremely active research area for at least the past 200 years.
| quote: | | It was 80's of 20th century when a simplified computer model of air convection |
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. |
|
|
| darkfenriz |
Then....
sorry for introducing this off-topic issue without adequate historical knowledge.
It was meant to be only an example, I didn't think it would be sooo missed. |
|
|
| Bratislav |
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 |
|
|
| RetroAudio |
| Hurray for Bratislav!!! That's the first non-geek post I've seen for a long while.......lol!!!! Cheers mate!! Merry Christmas!!!!!! |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
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. |
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. |
|
|
| SY |
| 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 interconne | | | |
