Swing away. *crash*, *snap* fizzle*, *hummmmmmm*
See. The measurements are easier now. 77 volts DC and some 120 Hz ripple. Nothin subjective about it.
I've got many huge rants in this area. The "DIY audio community" here apparently has its share of spec-eshewing subjectivists but at least they respect measurement (or they manage to respect those who respect measurement, I'm not sure), so it isn't nearly as bad as general hifi.
I've been on a forum (I hesitate to say its name, that might be bad karma), on which a thread starter very carefully claimed differences between two speaker cables, both much more expensive than what I'd bother to pay for such. I recall he said he was a scientist, did careful evaluation, bla bla bla, but he couldn't tell me the resistance, capacitance or inductance of either cable, and dismissed such questions. He may well be a "good scientist" in his field but I find it hard to believe - the scientific method can reductionistically be used to do an evaluation to say "in this system, brand x speaker cables sound different than brand y speaker cables" (but NOT which on is better, as that is a subjective claim!), but if that's all the inquisiter wants to know (that the claim that different speaker cables can have audible differences is true), I question his (or her) dedication to science.
The next obvious question is "Why?" and this can further be investigated scientifically, though it may take knowledge of Ohm's Law, AC circuit analysis and many other associated things to be able to investigate what causes such audible differences. Not only do these people not care, they'd rather not hear it.
As far as this DHMO stuff, even the most dangerous chemicals have their uses. I must admit to having used a fair amount of DHMO myself, though I've NEVER FOR A MOMENT believed that it, or that even the more complex chemical DMSO, would cure cancer.
I've been on a forum (I hesitate to say its name, that might be bad karma), on which a thread starter very carefully claimed differences between two speaker cables, both much more expensive than what I'd bother to pay for such. I recall he said he was a scientist, did careful evaluation, bla bla bla, but he couldn't tell me the resistance, capacitance or inductance of either cable, and dismissed such questions. He may well be a "good scientist" in his field but I find it hard to believe - the scientific method can reductionistically be used to do an evaluation to say "in this system, brand x speaker cables sound different than brand y speaker cables" (but NOT which on is better, as that is a subjective claim!), but if that's all the inquisiter wants to know (that the claim that different speaker cables can have audible differences is true), I question his (or her) dedication to science.
The next obvious question is "Why?" and this can further be investigated scientifically, though it may take knowledge of Ohm's Law, AC circuit analysis and many other associated things to be able to investigate what causes such audible differences. Not only do these people not care, they'd rather not hear it.
As far as this DHMO stuff, even the most dangerous chemicals have their uses. I must admit to having used a fair amount of DHMO myself, though I've NEVER FOR A MOMENT believed that it, or that even the more complex chemical DMSO, would cure cancer.
Perhaps the measurement vs. sounds good, debate is doomed to failure because of how many variables exist in the whole chain of sound reproduction.
From the musicians(assuming "real humans", or ??), musician placement, acoustical venue, microphone placement, thru the microphones, mixing, mastering, CD(or ??) production.......... See? Where do we pick it up at? The CD & et. al. in our hands?..& then go from there?, into our ears?
____________________________________________________Rick.........
From the musicians(assuming "real humans", or ??), musician placement, acoustical venue, microphone placement, thru the microphones, mixing, mastering, CD(or ??) production.......... See? Where do we pick it up at? The CD & et. al. in our hands?..& then go from there?, into our ears?
____________________________________________________Rick.........
Chemists? Really? Don't you have to go to college for that?
I'm pretty sure we covered the basic naming schemes in Grade 7 or 8 "science" class and then again in Grade 10 (Chemistry 10, first year). I've seen it before, so I recognized it when I saw it here, but I have to say armed with nothing more than High School chemistry I nailed it the first time I saw the phrase. It's trivial, and according to the exercises the kids brought home from HS ... this would be 1999 to 2004 depending on which kid in our house ... they were still teaching it. Is the state of science education in schools elsewhere really that bad?
Anyway, somewhat more on topic ...
Measurements are important, but DIYers run the gamut from those who can, and have, manufactured audio to people who need severe hand-holding, and everything in between. You can't expect everyone to have quality test equipment or know how to use it, but I think you can expect people to be willing to learn and to invest $20 in a meter and something more in a decent soldering iron. I do expect people to search for answers; a test and the results someone else did may not be as valuable as one I've done, but it's far from useless.
Having the data, regardless of how comprehensive it may be, doesn't preclude listening tests either. They are both not only valuable, but are completely complementary ... they both raise questions and are part of the journey to find answers.
Nor am I troubled by subjective evaluations; in fact I find it stunning that anyone would be. Certainly if we were to compare a 3-D (stereo) photographic image to reality, we'd recognize it looks less "real" in our viewer than the original scene outside our window. It shouldn't be subject to attack to say so; I don't see how audio could be different.
I'm pretty sure we covered the basic naming schemes in Grade 7 or 8 "science" class and then again in Grade 10 (Chemistry 10, first year). I've seen it before, so I recognized it when I saw it here, but I have to say armed with nothing more than High School chemistry I nailed it the first time I saw the phrase. It's trivial, and according to the exercises the kids brought home from HS ... this would be 1999 to 2004 depending on which kid in our house ... they were still teaching it. Is the state of science education in schools elsewhere really that bad?
Anyway, somewhat more on topic ...
Measurements are important, but DIYers run the gamut from those who can, and have, manufactured audio to people who need severe hand-holding, and everything in between. You can't expect everyone to have quality test equipment or know how to use it, but I think you can expect people to be willing to learn and to invest $20 in a meter and something more in a decent soldering iron. I do expect people to search for answers; a test and the results someone else did may not be as valuable as one I've done, but it's far from useless.
Having the data, regardless of how comprehensive it may be, doesn't preclude listening tests either. They are both not only valuable, but are completely complementary ... they both raise questions and are part of the journey to find answers.
Nor am I troubled by subjective evaluations; in fact I find it stunning that anyone would be. Certainly if we were to compare a 3-D (stereo) photographic image to reality, we'd recognize it looks less "real" in our viewer than the original scene outside our window. It shouldn't be subject to attack to say so; I don't see how audio could be different.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.