Even better, use the ignore list. It really helps with the odd few* who just come here to make snide comments or rile people up. Then you can concentrate on people who have a contribution to make without wasting time.
*usually only 2 or 3.
You sure do like excuses, don't you.
The question was, "When, where and who's done those experiments?". So you don't have answers.
You are right. Thankfully some do understand and actually do transcend the pedestrian test and measurement design technique that stagnates the vast majority of audio design.
An upsetting (potentially) thought occurs to me. Is it a generally held belief that the human brain, with the aid of science, is or will be, capable of understanding everything in the universe? I mean, that there is nothing that will be beyond our comprehension given time?
I ask because it is impossible to teach a dog to read (just as a random example) AFAIK, due to a dog's brain not being constructed in a way to make that possible.
So is it believed that we will never be in a similar position? It frequently appears that is the belief of many of the posters here.
Is that the case?
I ask because it is impossible to teach a dog to read (just as a random example) AFAIK, due to a dog's brain not being constructed in a way to make that possible.
So is it believed that we will never be in a similar position? It frequently appears that is the belief of many of the posters here.
Is that the case?
there are variations on "Scientific Rationalism"
try combining The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov
with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
Physic's "Standard Model" is the most deeply tested theory we have - the observations won't change with a "new" theory even though we expect, Scientists are searching for the more encompassing next theory, are happy to have Dark Matter, Dark Energy to show there must be more
but the Physical Acoustics of Sound, production, propagation, recording, playback are described to the theoretical noise limits by the Electromagnetic Force and Inertia
if you are invoking "magic" you need positive proof of the effects, and convincingly sophisticated explanation of why your reproducible observations fall outside of Science
try combining The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov
with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
Physic's "Standard Model" is the most deeply tested theory we have - the observations won't change with a "new" theory even though we expect, Scientists are searching for the more encompassing next theory, are happy to have Dark Matter, Dark Energy to show there must be more
but the Physical Acoustics of Sound, production, propagation, recording, playback are described to the theoretical noise limits by the Electromagnetic Force and Inertia
if you are invoking "magic" you need positive proof of the effects, and convincingly sophisticated explanation of why your reproducible observations fall outside of Science
Many find it astonishing that we can understand anything in the universe. As far as I know, science has no explanation for our ability to do science. Hence a belief that we might one day understand everything would seem to be premature and possibly arrogant. Whether this belief is generally held or not is something I know nothing about.awkwardbydesign said:
I don't see the relevance of this to audio, unless someone is about to trot out the tired old idea that because we don't know everything about the universe we therefore know almost nothing about audio.
Not me. I just wondered, considering there are many who seem to hold that everything we hear is either known or knowable.
Which sound we can hear is not known or knowable? I've seen this talk on the forums from time to time but whenever someone asks for example, the talk dies out. Perhaps you can be the exception and show the list.
Have a think about what you just asked!Which sound we can hear is not known or knowable? I've seen this talk on the forums from time to time but whenever someone asks for example, the talk dies out. Perhaps you can be the exception and show the list.
But perhaps I should have said measured or measurable.
Same question, which sound we can hear that's not measured or measurable?Have a think about what you just asked!
But perhaps I should have said measured or measurable.
Nope!First living being from Earth to go into space was also a dog
The first animals sent into space were fruit flies aboard a U.S.-launched V-2 rocket on 20 February 1947 from White Sands Missile Range
Hi DF96,
I will try to add some details of what went on that perhaps can give additional understanding. I've already described the circumstances leading up to the events etc.
I think my experience was an exception because normally if you go fussing with a well engineered circuit that is supposedly optimised for best operation etc., you are just messing things up. And I think you would agree with that.
But when the designer mentioned that there could be some variability with this one resistor I figured I could give things a go without too much trepidation of results.
Specifically, the resistor was the tail resistor of a rush cascode input stage and affects current into the VAS. That may not mean anything to you, but doesn't really matter. This resistor value was incrementally changed up to a 25% increase in value. This resistor affects the current into the VAS. The end result of this change seemed to affect the frequency balance of the sound and it could be heard quite easily with little difficulty.
I think normally one would just redo some engineering on the computer to find solutions and the ideal value etc. However, this is not my expertise and I was unable to do that.
So I did as I did in the less than ideal method of trial and error A/B comparison as earlier described. I'm pretty well versed in all the pitfalls of A/B comparisons and felt that I accounted as well as possible for them so that the results could be accepted. The results were consistent and reliable and done in 3 separate test sessions and in differing settings. The results were good enough for the designer to accept them.
Now I realize that I have violated many of the principles you consistently have stated when it comes to design, etc. I think the results here are pretty much just unique to this one circuit. A rush cascode is not a commonly used amplifier input stage although it's been around for over 50 years. And I have been reluctant to bring any of this up as I don't want to get lumped in with things like that resistor directivity thread.
I initially only made a casual reference to differences in amp-speaker systems. After all this is a thread about High Fidelity, it's definitions, meanings, etc. and my little amp resistor experience is not part of that.
What we have are mathematical models that are good for prediction. The models are not the reality, just predictive models, as people like Hawking and others have explained.
For one possible slight issue, our mathematics heavily relies on the concept of infinity, which may or may not exist in any physical sense.
Also, to completely understand everything in the universe would appear to take a brain more complex than the universe itself.
Accepted by whom? If you mean by the forum readers, that is to be decided, pending on how closely you matched levels and with what. It's an important aspect yet to be disclosed by you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.