You mean you got defeated by this one? What lessons were learned? One thing that I've learned is that its very important to pick one's challenges carefully - as Dirty Harry so succinctly put it 'A man's got to know his limitations'.
Well I can only suggest getting a better digital front end then you might start to notice other recordings sounding even more dynamic than RR. That was my experience anyway, FWIW.
No, it's an energy thing - my computer years "cooked" the brain, and I have poor mental stamina now - it's a family problem, two relatives also had it but I didn't appreciate what it was really all about until it happened to me.
This also has meant extremely meagre financial resources, because the conventional 9 to 5 has been impossible for a long time - a steady decline over a number of years made it very obvious ...
Frank has no limitations , he's the only one returned after being abducted by aliens without being probed.
They were very afraid and did not want to know ...
Telarc digital yes not telarc analog presses , better than their digital releases and it varies really some are more so than others. I have a few Telarc digital that gives up nothing to RR Dynamically and a few that are pretty lame .
Their digital release of Carmina Burana is pretty lame the LP wipes it ...
Last edited:
This thread keeps our minds working. As I said , your comment led me down my own track. Something only a small step from " the reality " we know here yet important. Something logical, cheap and reassuring. I dare say Joseph Priestly was very challenged by his world? One very small step to define it. Priestly's problem was he was only 3/4 of the way to announcing it. The man who did lost his head because work came first. We Brits tried to rescue him.
Doubtless in the world you speak of some effects might be observed. Mostly in amplifiers issues of signal transfer if that's what you are saying is hampered not be speed so much as stability. Sure the device speed comes into it. About 15 years ago I was told that heat was now secondary to field effects in chips like Intel. I am now told Quantum effects the greater. That almost suggests our computers are lifeforms when the impossible matters so much.
In a sound card I see some possibility especially if we move the goal posts and call video a more complex audio. My main concern about sound cards is the dark sewer they live in. They work very well indeed seeing as even the most basic hi fi starts working from a better environment.
I went to the Bristol hi fi show and was sat next to people I didn't know. My boss too far gone to know. I made my introductions and the guy next to me said he knew of me. His very first question was " Nige what on Earth is Quantum mechanics all about "? Easy I said " It's God messing with our minds for our protection". The evening went very well after that with all on the table. Between us we had examples of it working and my belief in parallel universes briefly glimpsed as my best indication. The quote I liked was " Nige , I think Feynman said for it to be true an electron ( or whatever) must be simultaneously everywhere in the Universe at one and the same time". To which I said " It can only be true". From that we must infer that time is a human abstract. LHC is the vanity of man to solve mathematical problems obscured by Chaos ( note capital C ). The stupidity of us all is not to question what is intended by doing this? It isn't the Higg's particle I can assure you. To my best understanding the device will fail as it's concepts are wrong. What they haven't understood is that linearity is highly unusual.
The point to make is the seemingly ridiculous is plausible and now accepted as fact. It doesn't matter that I get my points of reference wrong as a more intelligent person will feel duty bound to tell me and me being the sponge I am will listen. Important we allow some open mindedness to progress.
The rude Gentleman I suspect is only forcing rigor. That's accepted practice. Mr DF 96 taught me plenty in few words. I accused him of being the lady Mrs Grundy who taught me general science when 15. The " picture " he gave me is that the the signal has to jump a number of fences as it goes through the amplifier (filters). Thus colouration and stability issues. Sure he will hate that. Helps me visualize it. Also high order distortion appearing in an amplifier is just numbers and was always there. With a little care I found that to be true. Put an output transformer in and the picture is difficult.
Someone said James Watt changed the world with not one piece of science as we now would recommend for a project. Empirical engineering. I hold that the fastest track might include a little of that.
Hopefully this image comes out ?
This is my silly tag strip sub woofer amp. It is no better than it needs to be. You all saw it as the Worlds worst bird nest amp. It worked first time and no stability problems. Built from what I had more than a plan. Note it is unity gain stable which is no bad thing.
It has two ares of positive feedback that works very well. The 22uF bootstrap seems far too low. In fact it is just fine. No maths used , just analyzer. Slewing is not an issue as it is for a sub woofer. Not too bad at 22 kHz when tested.
The input bootstrap is to see if I understand how an amp like this works. If happy with it I might optimize the noise of the amp by moving 2 x 24K down to 2 x 1K. It is argued that the 16 R emitter resistor is not negative feedback as usually understood. I use it so as to aid the driving of the base and take it out of strict trans-conductance. No active current sources used. The amp worked without any problems.
I am half idiot, half genius! I went to remedial classes for 3 years in primary school. I have a disability I can't do anything about. I got 2 degrees, one in chemistry, one in mechanical engineering. I blagged half of it! I forget most of it. Sometimes I over-think something and I come to the conclusion that I KNOW that I do not know! Electronics and electrical engineering were not my best subjects. Most of you know a lot more than me.
I ventured a theory. Could be right. Could be wrong. A caveman lights a fire. He does not know, the chemistry, the thermodynamics, kinetics, enthalpy, etc. It still works though.
Modern physics has planes that have zero thickness, that interact with lines that have zero thickness, that interact with points that have zero radius... entities that cannot exist in the real world.
Maths is a language. They put their equations up on the board and the nouns randomly become verbs and the verbs randomly become nouns. They use circular definitions, much like a circular argument. Just like lawyers. When you ask for an explanation of an observation, you get another observation. Then you ask for an explanation of the observation they just gave you and they give you another observation. You end up with a circle of observations.
Everybody wants to pass their exams. 99.99% will just settle for the observation as an "explanation". When does an observation become an explanation? I learned about electron orbitals when I did my chemistry degree... never really got an explanation, just had to take their word for it. Lots of people have good careers, good money and prestige.... why rock the boat!?
They invent "dark energy" because their equation doesn't work. Then they invent "dark matter" because their "dark energy" doesn't work. Back when I worked in the pharmaceutical industry, that type of thing was called CHEATING... you would lose your job and possibly face prosecution.
I'm coming at this from the physics side. Physics needs to be about the physical. There needs to be an invocation of some kind of physicality. Back in the old days, natural philosophers did not have textbooks to tell them how to think. There were no scientific military secrets because there was no science. Now that we all have plenty of science, we also have plenty of scientific military secrets. The textbooks MUST protect these secrets or someone important will get annoyed. There is no way in hell that academic purity is going to come before military secrets. To assume that the textbooks are not compromised by the real world is naive. I shouldn't even have to make this point!
If I was an expert, like the regulars on this forum, then I would be doing and saying roughly the same things as everyone else. The problem with being an expert is that it narrows your focus. If I was an expert, I would never have discovered what I discovered. If I was an expert, I would have a slavish devotion to the textbooks and would never be able to try anything new.
Ideally, to move things forward, I would need an electrical engineering expert and a financier. At the moment, I have neither. What I have is people who pass judgement on something they know nothing about... cause they don't have the details!
The magnet's magnetic field hits the voice coil at 90 degrees. The signal through the voice coil has a magnetic field. What is the geometry of the magnetic field of the signal through the voice coil? What is the geometry of the magnetic field of the signal through the voice coil EXACTLY? What are magnetic field lines? Are they notional, illustrative, concepts? Do they exist as a physical thing? Is a line with zero thickness still a line? What is its cross section? Do the equations tell you, or do the equations invoke a magical fairy tale world of blackholes and parallel universes?!
Whatever distortion you THINK you have, you should probably add a minimum of 10% !
You may want to look up what "theory" means in a technical context.
I think Euclid managed that a few thousand years ago.
I suspect you didn't learn about orbitals. You may have been in class that day, perhaps.
Evidently not.
Yes, but you have to know them and use them.
I think we already realised that.admc007 said:
Most crank science websites include some version of these sentences, when the lone genius announces to the world the great 'discovery' he has made which has been ignored or suppressed for years by conventional educated scientists.admc007 said:
The EE, if competent and impolite, will laugh. If unethical, he may take your money and tell you whatever you wish to hear - a reverse snake oil scam.
Any good EM or multiphysics field simulator will be able to answer your question in as much detail as you require.
They are helpful conceptual tools to enable concrete thinkers to do useful work with fields, despite not really understanding them. Abstract thinkers solve equations instead, having no problem with the concept of fields.
I think something we could work with would be useful admc007.
I posted my silly diagram. Not silly at all because it shows the ancient art of bootstrapping or < 100% positive feedback. That responded to the question " why is all feedback negative " which I pretended not to be referring to negativity of the concept.
Dark matter. Is the Phlogiston of our age as I have said before. Phlogiston wasn't too wrong.
Most of us here pretend to be entirely skeptical of everything. I put the heavy emphasis on pretend. I pretend not to believe is high slew rates just to be argumentative. I detect some Phlogiston in how it is thought through.
For all that I expect you to shoot us down in flames with new and better ways . Share what you can afford to give as my father always says.
I am dyslexic and I have struggled to get thoughts onto paper since forever. I couldn't read nor write until 11. To be honest I still can't at 60. Math's was never a problem and was school chess champion. I remember teachers saying despite being educationally subnormal my maths was an anomaly. I came top of the county ( Oxfordshire ) in maths yet was still classified educationally subnormal. Funny thing is I didn't care. I could read by then but kept it to myself . When I did learn to read nothing could stop me. When I found out Alan Blumlein my hero did no better I relaxed.
I posted my silly diagram. Not silly at all because it shows the ancient art of bootstrapping or < 100% positive feedback. That responded to the question " why is all feedback negative " which I pretended not to be referring to negativity of the concept.
Dark matter. Is the Phlogiston of our age as I have said before. Phlogiston wasn't too wrong.
Most of us here pretend to be entirely skeptical of everything. I put the heavy emphasis on pretend. I pretend not to believe is high slew rates just to be argumentative. I detect some Phlogiston in how it is thought through.
For all that I expect you to shoot us down in flames with new and better ways . Share what you can afford to give as my father always says.
I am dyslexic and I have struggled to get thoughts onto paper since forever. I couldn't read nor write until 11. To be honest I still can't at 60. Math's was never a problem and was school chess champion. I remember teachers saying despite being educationally subnormal my maths was an anomaly. I came top of the county ( Oxfordshire ) in maths yet was still classified educationally subnormal. Funny thing is I didn't care. I could read by then but kept it to myself . When I did learn to read nothing could stop me. When I found out Alan Blumlein my hero did no better I relaxed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.