Hi,
Hypothetically speaking, most current low distortion measurement systems average large numbers of wavelets to reach towards low levels of measurements. This naturally makes them blind to certain phenomena and reducing the time window is not really helpful.
Systems that do not rely on this method are now extremely rare, even more so then when they where available if highly uncommon.
Ciao T
Hypothetically speaking, most current low distortion measurement systems average large numbers of wavelets to reach towards low levels of measurements. This naturally makes them blind to certain phenomena and reducing the time window is not really helpful.
Systems that do not rely on this method are now extremely rare, even more so then when they where available if highly uncommon.
Ciao T
SY,
Just as it is in fashion to ask for rigorous scientific evidence. The local PBS station ran an interesting piece with among other tidbits a fellow who FOUR (3 FBI) fingerprint examiner's insisted was his fingerprint (No dissenting opinions) and only when the Spanish police arrested the right guy did he get released.
Seems that fingerprints in theory, once said to be unique to each individual, needs a revised theory! (One apparently based on real scientific method!)
ES
please give references, example measurements of these "uncorrelated" errors
for hysteresis why would it not be highly retraceable, give conventional harmonic and IM components?
I'm happy to learn new stuff in signal theory, but my understanding is that signal correlated noise is "visible" to "continuous" measurements - change the signal level and the noise level changes, 2-tone test signals are "continuous" and can give large envelope modulation
due to early delta-sigma converter problems in this area it has been extensively tested for, improved in recent generation modulators, multi-bit delta sigma converters
unless the level is gross as in Dolby processing there is the additional question of audibility threshold when any “noise modulation” is well below other source, thermal, venue noise in a recording
for hysteresis why would it not be highly retraceable, give conventional harmonic and IM components?
I'm happy to learn new stuff in signal theory, but my understanding is that signal correlated noise is "visible" to "continuous" measurements - change the signal level and the noise level changes, 2-tone test signals are "continuous" and can give large envelope modulation
due to early delta-sigma converter problems in this area it has been extensively tested for, improved in recent generation modulators, multi-bit delta sigma converters
unless the level is gross as in Dolby processing there is the additional question of audibility threshold when any “noise modulation” is well below other source, thermal, venue noise in a recording
This is utter nonsense Ed. It is well known that differences in fingerprints is a statistical issue. The chances that two fingerprints from different persons match to a specific degree are very small but not zero. Once in a while two DO match, with unfortunate consequences for the innocent person.
DNA differences are much more pronounced, but you can just wait for the case that an innocent guy/girl gets hanged because he /she was unfortunate enough to have the same DNA (within the bounds of detectability) as the real offender.
Another reason not to hang people.
jan
Law enforcement rarely relies on actual science. Polygraphy, dogs, fingerprints, and bite mark analysis (among other things) have been shown over and over- by actual scientists- to be badly flawed. And of course eyewitness testimony is far and away the most flawed. This does not stop lawyers.
Knowing this has kept me off jury duty.
Here's a list of the actual listening tests that confirmed audibility of magnetic leads in components:
.
.
.
.
(sound of crickets chirping)
Knowing this has kept me off jury duty.
Here's a list of the actual listening tests that confirmed audibility of magnetic leads in components:
.
.
.
.
(sound of crickets chirping)
Law enforcement rarely relies on actual science. Polygraphy, dogs, fingerprints, and bite mark analysis (among other things) have been shown over and over- by actual scientists- to be badly flawed. And of course eyewitness testimony is far and away the most flawed. This does not stop lawyers.
Knowing this has kept me off jury duty.
Here's a list of the actual listening tests that confirmed audibility of magnetic leads in components:
.
.
.
.
(sound of crickets chirping)
You forgot the biggest fraud of all, forensic ballistics.
Well SY, I can only offer what has worked for me. Actually, I did not specify magnetic leads as the most problematic. I mentioned magnetic CONNECTORS, a much larger bit of iron, in a concentrated area. Actually, I am told that COPPERWELD, which is a steel core with copper cladding, that is often used in military grade resistors, is OK, up to a point. That is why Jack Bybee used COPPERWELD wires on his cheapest grade of Bybee devices. However, for his more 'uptown' clients, he removed the COPPERWELD and added silver or gold alloy wires by laser welding. Still, all else being equal, less iron is best.
I did, actually. Right before your post.
It is all in chemistry. Adhesion of materials that cover the base to material of the base. How can you cover copper by gold? And how can you cover iron by gold? What technology is used? What is between them? Now, what is needed for good adhesion of nickel layer to iron and copper? Are they simply interchangeable? How good will be contacts in soickets and plugs that use such sandwiches? What will be ther properties now? 5 years later?
Think about this questions, instead of what does the fact that materials are magnetic. Myths are myths because they have some foundation: something that worked in one particular context people assume to work in another contex where it has no reason to work, and attribute the fact to some irrelevant properties.
Last edited:
You must have read Johns' hero Richard Feynman on 'Cargo Cult'
I don't remember about Cargo Cult, but I have to admit I read all Feinmann's popular physics' books when I was a teenager.
I will try to summarize my recent input here:
I have shown, from my experience, how to turn a 'marginal' product into something that we could take to CES and show it with the CTC Blowtorch preamp. It worked for us, and it could work as a DIY project for someone who was willing to invest perhaps $500 into a project, along with their time, and get what we could sell for $5,000. You just have to buy a used HCA-3500, and go through the modifications. You don't have to do ALL the modifications, to get most of the way, there, but you won't get full $5,000 of value, unless you do. However, you might get $3,000 in value, and that should be enough for most people. It is up to the individual. I am only putting it out as an example, and you can take it or leave it. I am glad that I could actually get the info out there, before the 'criticism' descended on the project. Now I get to sit back and watch. '-)
I have shown, from my experience, how to turn a 'marginal' product into something that we could take to CES and show it with the CTC Blowtorch preamp. It worked for us, and it could work as a DIY project for someone who was willing to invest perhaps $500 into a project, along with their time, and get what we could sell for $5,000. You just have to buy a used HCA-3500, and go through the modifications. You don't have to do ALL the modifications, to get most of the way, there, but you won't get full $5,000 of value, unless you do. However, you might get $3,000 in value, and that should be enough for most people. It is up to the individual. I am only putting it out as an example, and you can take it or leave it. I am glad that I could actually get the info out there, before the 'criticism' descended on the project. Now I get to sit back and watch. '-)
Last edited:
Wavebourn, the 'Cargo Cult' was initially a group of villagers who noted airplanes flying over their land for the first time, back in WW2. Further investigation on their part showed that these airplanes, which they thought were alive, gave out all kinds of interesting things from their bellies. Therefore, they hoped to attract some of these airplanes to their village by making a sort of runway, and a decoy airplane, much like we might try to lure ducks with decoys, in order to shoot them.
It was very logical to them and from their world view, it made sense.
It was very logical to them and from their world view, it made sense.
Last edited:
From Wikipedia:
"Cargo cult activity in the Pacific region increased significantly during and immediately after World War II, when the residents of these regions observed the Japanese and American combatants bringing in large amounts of material. When the war ended, the military bases closed and the flow of goods and materials ceased. In an attempt to attract further deliveries of goods, followers of the cults engaged in ritualistic practices such as building crude imitation landing strips, aircraft and radio equipment, and mimicking the behavior that they had observed of the military personnel operating them."
jan
John,
What kind of worries me is if our so-called science and understanding of the real compares to actual reality in precisely the way these villagers understood Airplanes. Most scientists and those who profess a supposedly scientific world view categorically arrogantly deny such a possibility, which is highly unsafe given the history of science.
Who knows, a few hundred years from now today's science may look to then humanity the way we (well not me actually) now often view Newton's Alchemy and how we laugh at these primitives and their "Cargo Cults"... Who knows, the LHC may strike them in precisely the way the fake runway and decoy plane strike us now...
Ciao T
What kind of worries me is if our so-called science and understanding of the real compares to actual reality in precisely the way these villagers understood Airplanes. Most scientists and those who profess a supposedly scientific world view categorically arrogantly deny such a possibility, which is highly unsafe given the history of science.
Who knows, a few hundred years from now today's science may look to then humanity the way we (well not me actually) now often view Newton's Alchemy and how we laugh at these primitives and their "Cargo Cults"... Who knows, the LHC may strike them in precisely the way the fake runway and decoy plane strike us now...
Ciao T
This is, of course, proper and excellent methodology.
The 'falling down' part usually enters the equation shortly after we understand that we have an anomaly of sort in our given logic chain, and that we have created a hypothesis to initially frame the unknown.
Then we devise a test based on known parameters and see how that hypothesis functions or 'pans out' in those given tests or test.
The falling down part comes when we do not understand or take into account that the initial starting point is an unknown, and thus we can walk into a logic trap of applying tests of a known nature to an unknown.
The disconnect is any fallacy toward an empirical mindset that 'states' that null results or negative results are somehow an explanation of the unknown, in all cases or examples of these tests.
This is where the tail of science can try to wag the dog of reality.
This is the primary danger point in applying known frameworks.... in testing unknowns.
A common logic trap that must be kept in mind at all stages when one is attempting to form an understanding of unknowns.
The problem with the 'Cargo Cult' model is that they did NOT have any success with it. IF they had attracted airplanes, then their 'model' would have been successful, and they would have been praised. The only problem that I see with their belief, if that they stuck with it, even when it was shown to not work. (A few years should have been good enough.)
Now, what about quality hi end design? Does it work? Well, it seems to work for the reviewers and customers that we associate with, and that is all that counts. Who cares if some 'scientist' somewhere discounts our efforts, let interested audiophiles decide.
Now, what about quality hi end design? Does it work? Well, it seems to work for the reviewers and customers that we associate with, and that is all that counts. Who cares if some 'scientist' somewhere discounts our efforts, let interested audiophiles decide.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.