Sorry myhr, I have no idea what this means. Are you trying to put something in my mouth?
So far the only thing that has been claimed is that when you can't prove it, it's unproven. Is that incorrect?
jd
Not presumptuous at all.
Over the years John has routinely misstated, misquoted and misrepresented things that I have said, even when he'd read what I had said just moments before.
So why should I put any faith in his recollection of what someone said to him 40 years ago?
se
It's not presumptious at all. It recognizes that memories 40 years old are notoriously unreliable. John should be more careful as well to state off the cuff what happened 40+ years ago.
SE was the one that looked up the stuff. He found evidence for a 'thought experiment', a 'hypothetical' box. Nowhere is evidence that it was ever build (I looked hard as well).
The box would have a computer of which John himself says that it would not exist 40+ years ago. So far the overwhelmimg evidence is that indeed it has not been build.
Couple that with the mentioned notorious unreliability of memory and it is unavoidable that John's recall of it is flawed.
Why would that be insulting? We're all subject to these things, one time or other.
jd
This is amazing. Richard Heyser has been dead for approximately 25 years. Whether he actually made the box or not is of lessor importance than the concept.
However, the idea that it would be based on any computer analysis is absurd, because computers were not in the home at the time, and we generally relied on batch processing or modems, where you would call out to a central mainframe. We didn't even have electronic calculators to any extent.
I recall Richard Heyser telling me about the 'box' and challenged me to figure out how it worked. I couldn't figure it out, so he told me. What I don't recall is what he actually did to make the relay trip with asymmetrical circuits. I suspect that it was some sort of diode steering network, but I couldn't do it off hand.
Richard Heyser was like that, and he was brilliant. He often went over our heads in explaining something, but sometimes he could be very patient in conveying a difficult concept. Richard Heyser was the first person to warn me that standard measurements were very limited, and that negative feedback was a big problem. I wish he were still with us.
However, the idea that it would be based on any computer analysis is absurd, because computers were not in the home at the time, and we generally relied on batch processing or modems, where you would call out to a central mainframe. We didn't even have electronic calculators to any extent.
I recall Richard Heyser telling me about the 'box' and challenged me to figure out how it worked. I couldn't figure it out, so he told me. What I don't recall is what he actually did to make the relay trip with asymmetrical circuits. I suspect that it was some sort of diode steering network, but I couldn't do it off hand.
Richard Heyser was like that, and he was brilliant. He often went over our heads in explaining something, but sometimes he could be very patient in conveying a difficult concept. Richard Heyser was the first person to warn me that standard measurements were very limited, and that negative feedback was a big problem. I wish he were still with us.
There's some nice examples of asymmetric musical waveforms here: Asymmetric musical waveforms
e.g. The pic below is Miles Davis' trumpet.
Seems it's not unusual for positive peaks to be three times the size of negative peaks (or vice versa).
e.g. The pic below is Miles Davis' trumpet.
Seems it's not unusual for positive peaks to be three times the size of negative peaks (or vice versa).
Attachments
John, don't give that simple solution. The point of this thread is to debate and go around in circles, pretending to do some real work. Don't spoil that
jd
It's related to the so-called crest-factor, the ratio of peak to average value. Usually music is thought to have crest factors of up to 7.
jd
Not these days, what with so much recorded musing being compressed to hell and back.
se
John, don't give that simple solution. The point of this thread is to debate and go around in circles, pretending to do some real work. Don't spoil that
Not to mention it's ultimately irrelevant exactly how it worked if it was ever even built in the first place.
Whether an actual black box or merely a hypothetical, its entire purpose was to make a point. Which seems to have been lost amidst the assumption that it was actually built and how did it work.
se
John, don't give that simple solution. The point of this thread is to debate and go around in circles, pretending to do some real work. Don't spoil that
jd
Ah, my error...
Guess I'll go back to sleep..
Cheers, John
Yes you have a point there. Most recordings since say 2000 are so heavily compressed that they're down to a dynamic range of 30dB or less. Google 'loudness wars'.
jd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.