Code here required the electricians to balance the load in the lab by putting alternate benches on a different phase. I never had an accident except once bringing in an old TV with a hot chassis.
Can you clarify your thought?
Are you saying that J.C would be dishonest?
Or, in other words, do you place J.C. in the camp of the victims or executioners?
^ Sorry, not going there, muddying water seem common practice to many, when asked to discuss they often quickly loose interest or change the subject. I could point you to a thread recently that could have been interesting and enlightening to some but it was effectively shut down by three members who initially professed interest but when it wasn't going their way changed their tunes, and yes, they are all in the industry
Last edited:
From my investigations it seems that noise is directional ie conductor current noise/scattering is energy flow direction dependent.
Wires of course measure same resistance according to direction, but DC resistance is not the only parameter describing wire.
Dan.
This doesn't sound right.... but I'm sure you will explain it
Are you saying that if I have a wave source consisting of summation of say 1k, 3k and 9k then the mics electrical OP will be equiv of those 3 delayed 90 deg and summed?
This is gross distortion of the IP wave form.
T
You are right that it doesn't sound right because I went a bit (180 degrees)too fast when I wrote this:
The fact that electrical wave form from moving coil mike runs 90 degrees behind the acoustical wave should be obvious from working principles. At zero crossings of the acoustical wave, velocity of the diaphragm is highest and thus output.
Step by step:
Input sine:
A dynamic mike has maximum positive output at zero crossings of the upgoing acoustical waveform because this is where positive velocity is highest. At the crest of the acoustical waveform, the output is zero because velocity is zero. Therefore, the electrical signal runs 90 degrees ahead of the acoustical signal.
A condensor mike has maximum output at maximum excitation of the waveform and so is in phase.
Input real life signal:
A dynamic mike will output an electrical signal that looks very different from the acoustical signal because it measures velocity, not position. In that sense it looks heavily distorted in the time domain. However, an FFT from the dynamic mike's output would look very similar to an FFT of the acoustical signal, because both are composed of an identical set of sinoids (albeit phase shifted). Since the way your ear picks up sound is more like an FFT than an oscilloscope, you don't perceive this distortion.
A condensor mike outputs an electrical signal that looks similar to the acoustical waveform in the time domain.
Since the relationship between electrical and acoustical waveforms is so different between condensor and dynamic mikes, mixing them is not considered to be a good idea, generally speaking, although I understand Tournesol had some successes with it.
Please let me know if my explanation wasn't clear enough.
Last edited:
How much do you think is the noise contribution of a single wire in a preamp, in front of the active devices ? Please, be serious..
What are the other parameters ? (i used the word 'impedance')
When laying charges, it is customary to indicate whether you talk as a prosecutor or defense counsel, or a witness of one or the other.
Reason why I asked-you to clarify your position.
If you do not, your words have no value other than rumors of corridor
I will ask-you the same question I asked to scottjoplin because apart from your only opinion, you are not making any more admissible arguments than J.C.Again, VooDoo, VooDoo is the explanation!
Last edited:
I think there's a good lesson in human nature here. Of course John is being serious and sincere about his claims wrt silver wire and directionality. What is equally interesting is that some of the folks dressing John down, for what in reality is likely nonsense, have and continue to make claims themselves that are equally ungrounded in reality. Just in their own respective pet areas.
That's not a harsh criticism of anyone in specific, but highlights just how easy it is to be blind to our own way of thinking, no matter how rational and examined in our reasoning we think we are. Some surely are more susceptible to the whims of their imagination, but it's universal to our humanity.
That's not a harsh criticism of anyone in specific, but highlights just how easy it is to be blind to our own way of thinking, no matter how rational and examined in our reasoning we think we are. Some surely are more susceptible to the whims of their imagination, but it's universal to our humanity.
If you're trying to throw me under the bus, you might want to read your own posts that basically tried to censor someone sharing about their health by mocking that person. Which is doubly rich given you use this site as a playground, which I have no problem with but also makes your stance extremely hypocritical. You clearly don't see it that way but that was essentially lineage of the conversation and highlights, whether or not you meant it that way, a certain lack of awareness.
I just don't like being falsely accused of things, which I think is reasonable. I did not criticise Richard, I merely agreed with whoever it was that suggested this forum was possibly not the best place to discuss personal medical health issues, that is all. You have twice said I use this place like a playground, which is a lie, pure and simple.
I think blaming the disabled is equally unfair. To those who could not perceive, the only admissible proof is measurement which is not currently available. Only very few are capable to do so, perhaps Ed Simmons, Dan or other capable audio enthusiast who could perceive would help clear the controversial subject when situation permits.
No it isn't, I assume you are preparing a Physics Letters paper to present these extraordinary results.
That is entirely fair, and it is a relief to have you rephrase your stance thusly.
2 points:
1. If your desire was to suggest this isn't the best venue* then the method you chose was wildly callous and insulting by comparing it to a "safe space", which here in the US is almost always pejoratively used.
2. I just searched (not my usual modus operandi) and you've made 512 post since January 1. Whatever sampling of your posts I've read suggest that the majority are non technical in nature. Absolutely nothing wrong with that (I'm hardly different in my technical contribution), but this is on the order of 10 posts a day. Not unfair to say that this is a major social activity of your day, I.e. a playground.
I found your comment obviously extremely out of line, and doubly so given your own prolific nature on this site. Similarly, I wanted (and tried) to let it die, as Scott suggested.
* (and I'd agree from a decorum perspective, with some important caveats borne out of my professional life in medical research that suggest that this is sometimes the only venue certain folks share in, and repercussions of not letting those folks speak has historically had major health consequences. We all have different values here, and I sit on the side of preferring discomfort to discouraging someone from sharing health information)
I think blaming the disabled is equally unfair. To those who could not perceive, the only admissible proof is measurement which is not currently available. Only very few are capable to do so, perhaps Ed Simmons, Dan or other capable audio enthusiast who could perceive would help clear the controversial subject when situation permits.
There absolutely needs to be a "purported" caveat placed in many folks perception, as too many people make statements that exceed the bounds of research into human performance. It's to be expected that some will escape those bounds, but only by a little bit rather than multiple orders of magnitude.
So it's best to take people's perceptions with a grain of salt.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.