So basically the idea is to make the complete bs complicated enough that no one can really call or cull it out without appearing ignorant to the large majority which have no hope of understanding the "theory" . That is very nasty, really
The crazy thing about all this "discussion" is the obsession about the cost of the items, and that the explanations, crafted to entice curious experimenters, make little or no sense, usually. Now, anyone who has seriously investigated the audible impact of doing various, very rational things knows that that every alteration has an effect, causes a change in the sound - if one then goes about fiddling in a disorganised, chaotic way then you get caught up in an endless chain of leapfrogging from one 'different' sound to the next; the real point, which is to genuinely improve the sound gets lost in the excitement of seeing what the next 'toy' does ...
So, the real aim should be to properly investigate whether something, expensive or cheap as chips, really improves the sound - ignore silly explanations, just do it, with an open mind check it out! Then, some progress can start to happen - this running around in circles, barking at each other, is just as silly as people mindlessly adding dumb, expensive gizmos to their system ...
So, the real aim should be to properly investigate whether something, expensive or cheap as chips, really improves the sound - ignore silly explanations, just do it, with an open mind check it out! Then, some progress can start to happen - this running around in circles, barking at each other, is just as silly as people mindlessly adding dumb, expensive gizmos to their system ...
Yep, Frank electronics design is not like dropping acid, you dont throw it in and see what isnt there. And there in a round about way, I may have just solved this puzzle. 60s rock concerts. (-:
Last edited:
Yes, but the measurement has to be of the behaviour of the replay chain - not the device itself ...
Pete: Don't encourage gas.
John's problem here is that, since this is a technical forum, he has in his audience many people with much deeper knowledge of physics than his, so it's tougher to pass the BS without being called on it. There are friendlier places, I'm sure, where snake oil is gobbled up and appreciated.
John's problem here is that, since this is a technical forum, he has in his audience many people with much deeper knowledge of physics than his, so it's tougher to pass the BS without being called on it. There are friendlier places, I'm sure, where snake oil is gobbled up and appreciated.
Hmmm ... I see what Dan is talking about ...
"Brown electrons" - from these, perhaps ... Buy the Liberro Electronic Pipe - The best ePipe available |Liberro shop ... ?
"Brown electrons" - from these, perhaps ... Buy the Liberro Electronic Pipe - The best ePipe available |Liberro shop ... ?
That is not the way of progress. It is, at best, the illusion of progress. Progress usually comes from people with a deep understanding of what is already known, so deep that they can see the rough edges and the invalid approximations which others do not notice. If you sit enough monkies at enough typewriters then you may occasionally get a valid sentence but this is not a good way of writing novels.fas42 said:
I don't understand this, John's amps are great, they speak for themselves, there is no need for this obvious bs which can only be detrimental to alll concerned, Unless those guys are not paid as much as I think they are. Where is the motivation? Is it fun to fool others? At some point in life your reputation means everything. It is senseless and destructive to promote snake oil for a man such as John, a no win deal.
In the normal areas of enginerring and science that makes perfect sense ... however, here we are dealing directly, very directly, with a very messy element, the human being - how it relates to, connects to its external environment. So a lot of the engineering ways just don't cut it - for example, explain to me how the brain works - not trivial, edge of understanding tidbits, but the core, deep understanding of what holds it all together, why does it work at all?
So, the brain and especially the ear/brain is a very complex, sophisticated mechanism - it has no trouble telling the long-suffering spouse in the other room that the various noises coming from hubby's rig are a long way from sounding 'real', 🙂.
For me, and a few others, progress has come, purely from the direct experiencing of an effect, that one can get reproduction to sound extremely convincing. If the human organism can be fooled once, then it can be fooled any number of times - progress then ensues from understanding the parameters that matter, and making sure that the required behaviour, of the system, is elicited every time. And that's where what you're talking about comes into play ...
100% agreed. I'd rather his legacy be that of someone who designed some excellent electronics.
Where is the "fooling"? If the device has a, positive, effect on SQ, for the designer, and possibly for the customers if they choose to experiment with removing and reinserting it, then there is no problem. The end product is all that matters, it stands or falls on its capabilities - the means to that end no longer matter, if all concerned are satisfied with it, and its cost ...
You are probably onto something there. Some people (not Frank necessarily) have experienced some far out stuff earlier in their life and it kind of keeps a door open in their mind for new far out stuff. They call it "having an open mind". They don't want to close that door for fear of missing out on some new experience that would be as exciting as the ones they remember.
Please Frank if you love this stuff progress only comes with truth. Plenty to acomplish without needless senseless useless crap being thrown around
Exciting is not the right word - satisfying is a far better one. If one can put on, in quick succession, a Jimi Hendrix live concert recording, a pure mediation synthesizer 'ooze', and a relatively recently composed string quartet performance - in any order - and they all work, they all connect to your being as being musically meaningful, were worth listening to ... then you're cookin', 😉 ...
The truth is: the device does or does not have an effect, in some situations; if it does have an effect, and it's positive - and you want to keep well clear of the device - then either work out what it's doing, and fix the audio gear so the latter doesn't need the device any more ... or, find some other material, mechanism that makes sense, that is of sensible cost - and that achieves the same positive benefit for the sound, and use that ...
Speakers, microphones, dsp. Real work to be done here. Plenty to be discovered, no need for bs at all. Look at what Tom Danley has done and no one even gets it yet. I find it so interesting that something as concrete and far reaching as this which really has changed the game is glossed over and we are discussing cables and pure bs only because they are "plug and play" pills. Such is the downfall of humans I guess, take the easy path and make believe it does something good.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.