if the right steps are taken ....
No steps taken here all illusion, cheap tricks so to speak. They've shown me some of them, junk box parts TL072's and a few R's, C''s, and a pot can make the sound "fly all over the room".
,
"Cheap tricks" make illusions happen, inside the brain, because we "know" what the "coding" that has been imparted to the raw signal, in highly exaggerated form, is meant to mean. But that coding also exists in all recordings at subtle, low levels - and these are usually lost because the system has insufficient resolving power, the SNR in that key area is too poor, to allow the brain to easily pick them up.
The right steps are those which allow that coding in normal recordings to be easily assimilated, and make spatial sense - if the steps are not taken, then the recording is flat, 2 dimensional, has low interest factor; if steps are taken then the same recording comes to life, has depth and a sense of space about it, high listener involvement - the coding connected, and made sense ...
The right steps are those which allow that coding in normal recordings to be easily assimilated, and make spatial sense - if the steps are not taken, then the recording is flat, 2 dimensional, has low interest factor; if steps are taken then the same recording comes to life, has depth and a sense of space about it, high listener involvement - the coding connected, and made sense ...
Last edited:
No, they're not. A theory is something that explains actual data and is falsifiable. A wild, unsupported claim to sell crap to fools is not a theory.
Nope, not really. A theory is a theory is a theory... it may or may not make a "claim" as such... what do you mean by "claim"!?
The title of the thread is "funniest snake oil theories"... THEORIES... not funniest snake oil claims, but THEORIES!
What does "falsifiable" have to do with anything? Just because something is not falsifiable today does not mean that it will not be falsifiable in the future. You can try to falsify a theory... that's lovely... but that doesn't mean that a theory is not a theory simply because it isn't falsifiable. And even if a theory is falsified, millions of so called "experts" will simply refuse to believe it and carry on regardless.
So what's the point in trying to falsify theories when the "experts" are all too often too cowardly to face up to the fact that their theory, that they are infatuated with, is a dead duck and deserves to be buried!?
"Experts" at university sell plenty of crap! It pays the mortgage and it keeps the wife, and the politicians, happy.
They don't want to have to rewrite the textbooks and admit their mistakes... too many bullies and too many cowards! The main thrust of this website seems to be to impede progress and to continue to run around in circles for a long, long time!
No, I'm not going to get into an argument about theory versus hypothesis versus some other semantics. I've got better things to do, like make my dinner!
Umm. You don't otice that you've done EXACTLY that and made a rather long post about it?
Participation on here is voluntary.admc007 said:
Sadly, much time has to be spent on here trying to impede regress. There is a theorem in computer science which says that every DIYaudio thread will either terminate or go into a loop.
The 'snake oil theories' mentioned in the title are funny precisely because they are not theories but fantasies.
Start here:
Amazon.com: Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Routledge Classics) (9780415285940): Karl Popper: Books
And then, of course, anything by Feynman.
Amazon.com: Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Routledge Classics) (9780415285940): Karl Popper: Books
And then, of course, anything by Feynman.
I note, from Wikipedia:
At university I did a science year, and the physics lectures well and truly turned me off this field. The material was dished out like servings of baked beans, by people who were obviously bored to tears about the need to do this daily ritual - all the key stuff was rendered boring and dreary, it made this the worst year at the place. Only one lecturer was inspirational - and here comes the punchline!! - it was a short set of lectures, on the process of making precise measurements, to ensure that the results could be trusted ...
Bill, you're a joy to have around ...
Edit: One of the things this chap was pointing out, was the need to control and measure everything that was relevant - which, strangely enough, also included the concept of not making measurements for the sake of making them, or because you had the equipment which was capable of doing so. IOW, how to correctly assess what was more important, and what was less, and what could safely considered insignificant - there's an Art of Measurement, which is a lot more then spewing out reams of "data" ...
Edit: One of the things this chap was pointing out, was the need to control and measure everything that was relevant - which, strangely enough, also included the concept of not making measurements for the sake of making them, or because you had the equipment which was capable of doing so. IOW, how to correctly assess what was more important, and what was less, and what could safely considered insignificant - there's an Art of Measurement, which is a lot more then spewing out reams of "data" ...
Last edited:
But you seem to consider ANY measurement insignificant, or at least not worthy of writing down and sharing with us. Measurement is not an Art, it's a science. It's like saying Scott is a silicon Artist. Art is only allowed in dead space on the die if you can sneak it through sign off as it usually upsets the design rule checking SW.
Akin to looking for your keys where you dropped them, not over there where the light is better.
Measurements are very significant, very much so - just the way I "measure" is different from most others, in this realm.
I measure, in the conventional sense, in simulations - there I am extremely precise, worry about every detail, look at alternatives, refine - until I believe I have got the best out of what I'm dealing with. Then, I just assemble the beast and hook it up, that's exactly how my LM38xx was done - it worked first go, and I didn't change a thing, no post-assembly fiddling - I was happy with the sound, and it would have been a right pain "tweaking", because of the physical construction of it.
I measure with my ears everywhere else, as regards 'quality'. They guided me to getting optimum sound the first time, and have never failed me in the long run. And all I'm after is a Yes/No result from the ears - is the sound working 'right' or isn't it? If I get a No, then I have to track down where the problem is - and to this day that hasn't required taking a conventional distortion measurement ... everything I've read, over the years, has said very, very strongly that this is not going to be much help, and I just have to point to John Curl now to indicate that a conventional approach still is not of much use, in the areas that I worry about ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.