Fortunately math is not a matter of opinion - its either consistent or there's an error somewhere. Why wouldn't a peer reviewer point out the error and assist the author to correct it?
Suspicion plays no part in math, its in the realm of politics.
Peer reviewers don't reject papers; the most they can do is recommend rejection. The decision is taken by the journal editor. He will require the reviewer to say why he recommends rejection, and the paper author will normally be given opportunity to reply.john curl said:
I have been on both sides of this issue, although not in audio. As an author, I have been surprised at the nitpicking of some reviewers on minor details; others had clearly not understood the paper. I have had difficulty getting inconvenient truths published. I have also had difficulty getting maths published in an engineering journal, even though most of it would have been understandable to a bright undergraduate. As a reviewer, I have been surprised at the garbage which some authors submit, even for the second time after previous review. No system is perfect.
Hi,
I know a case where the foremost reviewer for the publication and the editor are as thick as thieves... And the reviewer(s) at times tend to cite their own published papers (which are not always above criticism) as reason why the paper should be rejected, namely because it does not agree with their paper(s).
I am not surprised on either side.
Peer reviews do exist to weed out dross, which undeniably exists.
However nowadays the academic establishment tends to also use them also as a means to defend orthodoxy and tend to throw out the biggest gold nuggets with the dross, so inconvenient truth have a hard time being published, outside the gutter press, when it is "slow season".
The difficulty for the researchers/authors is that the academic community does frown upon people that go outside the accepted academic journals, especially with anything controversial, yet they equally deny them publication. This is not just a feature of Audio Akademia.
For anyone who feels I may be a bit of colour here, try "Forbidden Science" by Milton and foolow up with background checks on the some of things he mentions, you will be both surprised and concerned.
No, non is and all are open to deliberate abuse.
Ciao T
I know a case where the foremost reviewer for the publication and the editor are as thick as thieves... And the reviewer(s) at times tend to cite their own published papers (which are not always above criticism) as reason why the paper should be rejected, namely because it does not agree with their paper(s).
I am not surprised on either side.
Peer reviews do exist to weed out dross, which undeniably exists.
However nowadays the academic establishment tends to also use them also as a means to defend orthodoxy and tend to throw out the biggest gold nuggets with the dross, so inconvenient truth have a hard time being published, outside the gutter press, when it is "slow season".
The difficulty for the researchers/authors is that the academic community does frown upon people that go outside the accepted academic journals, especially with anything controversial, yet they equally deny them publication. This is not just a feature of Audio Akademia.
For anyone who feels I may be a bit of colour here, try "Forbidden Science" by Milton and foolow up with background checks on the some of things he mentions, you will be both surprised and concerned.
No, non is and all are open to deliberate abuse.
Ciao T
He might, although it is unlikely a reviewer would have time to work through all the calculations in the paper. He might check results for plausibility, and correct dimensions if physical values are involved. It is then up to the author to listen to the reviewer and take his advice. Some authors do not.abraxalito said:
A decent piece of research might have taken 18 months to do, and a few weeks to write up. The reviewer might spend an hour assessing the paper. He is looking for plausibility, obvious mistakes, signs of confusion and poor explanations. He might only be an expert in part of the field covered by the paper, although he should make this clear in his report to the editor. In some cases he might not be an expert at all, just someone who has recently published in a similar field. He won't repeat the research, even if he wanted to: time and money prevent this.
The aim of peer review is not to publish only good stuff which is true. It is to weed out obviously bad papers, badly-written papers, papers which say very little etc. It is expected that published papers will sometime contain errors, which will then be corrected by public peer criticism. Having said that, I have sometimes been surprised by what does get published - compact antennas is a field which seems to attract nonsense from university professors who ought to know better.
Suspicion plays no part in math, but the editor does not need to understand everything that authors write, that's why peer reviews are used. But real practice is, peer reviewers no matter what science or industry it is about, have a common style: they use certain language to influence emotionally the editor, can the article be published, or not. They even do not need to support own point of view by arguments, it is enough to use certain tone to influence the editor. Often if the author presents something that reviewer does not understand he would simply make some sweeping remark about it and go further to discuss in depth details he does understand. Find some non-significant mistake and discuss it in all details, so the editor would get certain impression both how the reviewer is good and how the author is wrong. The author has to prove everything, while the reviewer - nothing.
Are u kidding this is audio we are talking about, even if u only purchased and modified ur units , u could spend the rest of ur life trying to get it right.
The fun is listening to the music after modding, as to the tvr, they have hydraulic clutches now.....
I got to where the clutch even in my RSX was killing me. Like two ice picks run through my knees. Fortunately the dual clutch auto in my GTI is reasonably snappy. Getting old is not fun, but I like the alternative far less. There is great satisfaction in stressful improvements after mod. Until I am at that level, I just listen to the newer systems I have designed by people who already know. I can't second guess the 120 yet, no way am I going to challenge a modern amp. The 120 was designed only 20 years after the first transistor. We have had 35 more years of development.
Exicon transistors came from Profusion in the UK today. Postage was cheaper than some domestic suppliers. They included their line catalog of mostly THAT. I knew about their drivers but they have all kinds of audio specific parts.
Here is my next learning question: I understand how to use load lines to pick a reasonably linear operating area on a tube. Transistors must have similar processes where one can see the trade-offs in linearity, gain and noise. I have not figured that out. It must be in the graphs somewhere. It seems to me, if I am idling at a relatively low current, like half a miliamp, with a transistor that is barely working at that range, a large signal would have quite asymmetrical swing as it would see progressively higher gain on peaks, and progressively less as current is reduced on the dips. By running at higher bias, the difference would not be as great, but the noise higher. Am I speeding down the wrong sidage, or on the track?
"We didn't lie to you, folks. We told you we had living, breathing, monstrosities.
You'll laugh at them, shudder at them, and yet, but for the accident of birth, you might be even as they are.
They did not ask to be brought into the world, but into the world they came. Their code is a law unto themselves.
Offend one, and you offend them all!"
(Separated Out, Marillion
You'll laugh at them, shudder at them, and yet, but for the accident of birth, you might be even as they are.
They did not ask to be brought into the world, but into the world they came. Their code is a law unto themselves.
Offend one, and you offend them all!"
(Separated Out, Marillion
Tvr, I think you are confusing the DYNA 120 with the HAFLER 120. They are different amps, and the Hafler is better by far, BUT not as good as the bigger designs by Hafler.
For the record, I drive a Porsche 944 and an Acura Integra, both with clutches. I am lucky, I guess, no joint problems yet.
For the record, I drive a Porsche 944 and an Acura Integra, both with clutches. I am lucky, I guess, no joint problems yet.
John, Both nice wheels. The Integra has a much better suspension than the RSX. I ran too many miles in X-country in high school and ruined my knees. They kept me out of the draft though.
Only thinking Hafler 120. The Dyna was what, late 60's? I remember when the Haflers came out as I built one of the first preamps. Maybe as late as '80? I guess we could WIKI the history of the company. EB published his 60 and 100 series in AA during 87 and 88, and I think that was well after he did the Haflers. Both with symmetrical input stages. I had already bought my B&K by then. Wife did not like it either.
Only thinking Hafler 120. The Dyna was what, late 60's? I remember when the Haflers came out as I built one of the first preamps. Maybe as late as '80? I guess we could WIKI the history of the company. EB published his 60 and 100 series in AA during 87 and 88, and I think that was well after he did the Haflers. Both with symmetrical input stages. I had already bought my B&K by then. Wife did not like it either.
Estivating bovines. Emerald bagels. Extremely belligerent. Effluent bypass. Extreme Boky. Edinburgh batsmen.
All aluminum wet electrolyte caps dry out with time. They age. The DF and leakage both get worse. Their ability to recover after sitting gets worse. You can kill a big can just putting it on the top bay in a warehouse in the summer for a week. We may think that sealed aluminum can is not porous, but we'd be wrong. Air and vapor does permeate the case. I don't have experience with Japanese parts, mostly Mallory or CD. When I looked at the current datasheets, I was surprised the life expectancy had not improved. I bet we can agree, Hafler would not have spec'd the longer life components. If you check the sheets, typical life is still 5 to 8 years unless abused by high ripple currents or high operating temps. They are usually better than that, but over 20 years, I just have to change them. The other advantage is the performance has improved over time; smaller size and lower esr.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.