John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maman Fume une Pipe

noise abatement

I recommend an anechoic rave chamber, 50 percent cheaper on your end.
Built-in loudspeakers, bluetooth, light show.

(Tired of life as we know it ? Swallow a couple of XTC pills, and hit the infrared firing squad switch)
 

Attachments

  • EndOfLife.JPG
    EndOfLife.JPG
    247.5 KB · Views: 173
Member
Joined 2002
Paid Member
George,
Sorry I wasn't confused
Steven , my apologies.
I was wrong.


a man-crush on


Plutarch ? On the Face in the Moon (Part*1 of*4)
(4HTML Pages)
Kepler found it important enough to translate it himself.
There are some surprising ideas and theories among a lot of speculation there (A Philosophers symposium, what would you expect :D)
Plutarch had written numerous books with a more distilled collection of (his) past knowledge on planetary bodies and their motion

George
 
Okay, so I think he's Buddha, second coming of Christ, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Vishnu :)

i could only wish ...

.....................................................

now that the excitement, has subsided,

here it is -

james randi was amazingly,

starting a covert army/hit squad.

even more amazin,

was how fast his stuff was coming together.

made some very influential people very unhappy.

and they put a stop to that sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
Or perhaps no one has run that test? You're being a bit petulant there, Bear.

test? what test? "we don't need no steekin' tests!"

To re-iterate.

Have you or anyone ever changed your SPDIF cable and had the "presentation" of the sound appear to change as a result? (this assumes you have a "system" and a separate DAC and transport and have actually used more than one cable in the entire time you have owned such gear, otherwise the answer is "N/A")
 
(Scientific method doesn't care about your goals, in fact it wants to poo-poo on them whenever possible)

Yes but you must abide by the same principle. It's best that you accept when applied in new ways there's always a possibility that what you thought you knew, was wrong :eek: It's a problem on here where everyone that claims DBT DBT DBT thinks that somehow they've befriended the almighty principles of science and won't be crushed by the complexity of the world... Curmudgeonlosophy isn't synonymous with innovation.

the level of avoidance and not committing as to my question is intriguing...

I've heard the difference between optical and coaxial. But you can easily measure that because the standard optical is a lossy piece of ****. I can't confess otherwise, but my friend swears his HeavenGate AES cable was way better than some cheap one he started with.
 
Yes but you must abide by the same principle. It's best that you accept when applied in new ways there's always a possibility that what you thought you knew, was wrong :eek: It's a problem on here where everyone that claims DBT DBT DBT thinks that somehow they've befriended the almighty principles of science and won't be crushed by the complexity of the world... Curmudgeonlosophy isn't synonymous with innovation.

The onus is always on the the original claimant. "Yeah but you CAN'T prove it" doesn't fly. At least if you want to make it past pop-science levels of rigor (which most don't).

It's already presumed that nothing is absolutely settled, because that would require observation of the entire universe (and I'm lumping n-verses an whatever other theories you want into that).
 
The onus is always on the the original claimant. "Yeah but you CAN'T prove it" doesn't fly. At least if you want to make it past pop-science levels of rigor (which most don't).

It's already presumed that nothing is absolutely settled, because that would require observation of the entire universe (and I'm lumping n-verses an whatever other theories you want into that).

That evidence stuff is soooo closed-minded. :D
 
diyAudio Member RIP
Joined 2005
I suppose the question (actually at least half-serious here) is whether science and the scientific method can be relevant to some "universe" besides what has been called consensus reality. When John Curl refers to "my reality", that suggests a departure from the consensus, to me at least.

It reminds me of string theory, with its 10^500 separate theories, and yet wigs like Witten remain fully convinced it is the one true approach.
 
Does that establish an excuse for his behaviour?

I will freely admit my opinion was that there was a knee-jerk aspect to his initial approach i.e. "wire just can't matter". The initial parameters were poorly negotiated, too bad it didn't go forward. In the end someone like E. Brad Meyer and his bank of parametric equalizers in the chain would probably have had Fremer calling foul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.