I read the latest car analogy as supportive of the preface quote. I hope I'm not the only one.
There was a key combination of actions and timing which started the engine (ie, the Heaviside, Newton, et al part). Everything else in the sequence of steps was the nonsense (ie, the green pen, silver cables, etc part).
From a reasonable perspective, no.
But aren't you discrediting them by calling them dumb?
There was a key combination of actions and timing which started the engine (ie, the Heaviside, Newton, et al part). Everything else in the sequence of steps was the nonsense (ie, the green pen, silver cables, etc part).
From an unreasonable perspective, yes. I can agree.
From a reasonable perspective, no.
But aren't you discrediting them by calling them dumb?
However I now understand thosethat claims that there is no differences 😱
Who is calling who a troll?
RayCtech your pictures that you have posted by basic physics do not support flat SPL to 8 Hz, could you post some some pictures and/or theory that support your claims? I'm interested in front to back cancellation and the fact that 8Hz has a rather large wave length.
I will bet you cold hard cash that you can not tell copper wire from mud, or a potato, or even from the original file. Using software you "might" suss it out, but by ears only, no. I have a thread on the subject.However I now understand those
Before I believe anyone who claims to hear differences between metals, or operating systems for playback - I ask that they sort mud from metal. I'll bet you can't.
I'm sorry, but that is such a straw-man argument that I cannot hold my peace. Who ever said that? What people say is "OK, great, the car started after you did ten things (including wiggling the rear-view mirror and deploying the cup holder). Now show me that any one of those things actually affected the car starting, and while you're at it explain to me again why you think it sometimes doesn't start."
Everything else you wrote was pure BS not related to anything anyone else said, and which does not support your statements.
The car starting is analogous to the system quality substantially improving, and I'm sorry, but this is what people are quibbling about - the inference by many is that there is no actual improvement in quality when the ten things are done, let alone isolating the 'active ingredients'
"The engine started" is fairly easy to objectively verify. 'The cymbals had more sparkle' may or may not be a statement about HF level or HF distortion and could be very difficult to objectively verify. Hence cars are a bad analogy.fas42 said:
However, I take your point that some people do daft things which may, sometimes, by accident happen to include something useful even when their explanation is complete nonsense. It is the nonsense explanation which puts off scientists - it shows the seller/enthusiast to be either ignorant or dishonest.
I think it is a good thing to laugh at fools.
Beating them up is socially unacceptable, may lead to legal proceedings and produces stress hormones which suppress the body's natural defences against disease.
Well, I once had a very lengthy discussion with a colleague about how electronics are basically modern magic; You know, making "subatomic particles" that we call "electrons" "flow" through a solid substance (cables)? And having a nearly solid mini-monolith, made of steel, plastic and glass conjure up moving images AND sounds "wirelessly" from a "remote host". "Processing" it all in a plethora of "integrated circuits"?! Ever seen the innards of an "IC", and I mean really seeing it with your own eyes, not those propaganda images they conjured up to make us *waving hand in Jedi mind-trick manner* believe they're real?
So yeah, with the use of al lot of emphasis and air-quoting I actually had him convinced that tech is just wichcraft...
But yeah, a lot of time I explain a lot of systems as "yeah, it's magic" or "yep, high tech'll do that" or in the case where someone really tries hard to feign interest I'll explain the really easy basics, throw in 2 or 3 (applicable, of course) technical terms and just say that it's too horribly complicated to be interesting, instantly producing a relieved "ah" and steering the conversation to some other subject.
So yeah, with the use of al lot of emphasis and air-quoting I actually had him convinced that tech is just wichcraft...
But yeah, a lot of time I explain a lot of systems as "yeah, it's magic" or "yep, high tech'll do that" or in the case where someone really tries hard to feign interest I'll explain the really easy basics, throw in 2 or 3 (applicable, of course) technical terms and just say that it's too horribly complicated to be interesting, instantly producing a relieved "ah" and steering the conversation to some other subject.
Overall, the aim of the game, for everyone, is to make good things happen - and in the area of audio that's to get a really good vibe happening when you listen to sound reproduction. I've noted that a lot do it by dulling their senses, the old red liquid and similar techniques, but I prefer it au natural ...
I was fortunate enough to get the engine started, so I know exactly what I'm looking for, every time - the signature of the motor turning over with its own sweet momentum is so distinctive, such a contrast to the various cranking noises; when I come across a system that's what I'm listening for - the rhythm of the cylinders each cleanly firing ... the "fools" are just scrambling around, trying to find an off the shelf shortcut to that space.
I agree it's hard to quantify what that really means, it's all tied up with the interface to inside one's head - but once experienced you never lose the sense of it, everything from then on is automatically measured, subjectively, against that. To be able to objectively measure it would be tremendous, but that's no throwaway - I reckon there would a PhD or two going begging right there ....
I was fortunate enough to get the engine started, so I know exactly what I'm looking for, every time - the signature of the motor turning over with its own sweet momentum is so distinctive, such a contrast to the various cranking noises; when I come across a system that's what I'm listening for - the rhythm of the cylinders each cleanly firing ... the "fools" are just scrambling around, trying to find an off the shelf shortcut to that space.
I agree it's hard to quantify what that really means, it's all tied up with the interface to inside one's head - but once experienced you never lose the sense of it, everything from then on is automatically measured, subjectively, against that. To be able to objectively measure it would be tremendous, but that's no throwaway - I reckon there would a PhD or two going begging right there ....
There are ways of measuring it in terms of the normal senses, which could then be incorporated in DBT and other situations. The 'invisible speakers' behaviour as one component is a straightforward one - use the blindfold - which I note some violently object to, 🙂 - place the subject on a platform which can be moved and rotated wrt a speaker. The measurement is the precision of angle with which the subject can point to the drivers, with other variables being the distance between speaker and subject, and the volume of replay.
Last edited:
But Trolls can be amusing, they do need feed occasionally though. If I still worked with cars i'd connect Franks motor up to my old engine analyzer, it cost £14000.00 back in the mid 80s. If I had Franks ears I could have saved a load of cash 😀
Invisible speakers and revolving platforms......... i'm off to bed, maybe I can dream me up a better system.
Davym, audio test equipment does a similar job as your Automotive engine analyzer, but a good 'feel' for auto engine performance can go quite far.
For example, in 1974, while living in Switzerland I bought an Opel GTE, which was a sports sedan with fuel injection. (my first, and the first from Opel, I think).
In any case, after a few thousand miles, the car did not run right. The local Swiss mechanics were not used to fuel injection, so they brought in a factory guy to access the problem. He took it out, ran it over 100mph, and returned it to the garage.
I mentioned to him that it appeared to be running 'lean' and that the spark appeared 'retarded'. Was he impressed! That's what you get from 'experience'. '-)
For example, in 1974, while living in Switzerland I bought an Opel GTE, which was a sports sedan with fuel injection. (my first, and the first from Opel, I think).
In any case, after a few thousand miles, the car did not run right. The local Swiss mechanics were not used to fuel injection, so they brought in a factory guy to access the problem. He took it out, ran it over 100mph, and returned it to the garage.
I mentioned to him that it appeared to be running 'lean' and that the spark appeared 'retarded'. Was he impressed! That's what you get from 'experience'. '-)
Harman believes in revolving speakers - but that's OK, they're making money from what they're doing ...
If you're going to prod a very rusted on comfort zone, it usually takes a remarkable effort to force the first nut to just barely start to move ...
If you're going to prod a very rusted on comfort zone, it usually takes a remarkable effort to force the first nut to just barely start to move ...
To pull out yet another, I sorry, car analogy - what makes a good vehicle is also one that is 'invisible' - a premium transport mechanism is one where one is hardly aware of the machinery doing the job, unless it is very specifically intended for that to be part of the experience, the exhaust note as an obvious example. A lessor vehicle starts to give the game away, vibration coming through the steering wheel, engine noises that shouldn't be there, screeching of the brakes on aggressive stopping, odd rattles and squeaks from the body depending upon precisely what's going on. Everyone remarks upon the car that does its job seemingly effortlessly, 'invisibly', no matter how the driver chooses to drive it.
So should it be for ...
So should it be for ...
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.