Hello, Eva.
Do you mean that you will try to order directly from them, on the web? It is possible that your order is passed to the distributor and he will contact you, don't you think?
I agree with you, but in this case, I have always talked to the distributor whenever I have needed something from Fischer, and I must say they are very helpful providing samples, etc.
Do you mean that you will try to order directly from them, on the web? It is possible that your order is passed to the distributor and he will contact you, don't you think?
I agree with you, but in this case, I have always talked to the distributor whenever I have needed something from Fischer, and I must say they are very helpful providing samples, etc.
I mean that I contacted the German sales department and I ordered from them directly without problems. I used the VAT number and the address of the audio shop of a good friend as obviously they don't sell to individuals. I even got a customer number 
That was more than a year ago, and they didn't seem to have a dealer in Spain by then.
That was more than a year ago, and they didn't seem to have a dealer in Spain by then.
After reading this tread it's getting clear to me why the heatsinks are blue: Jomanda!!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
agree,
Most(ly) enjoyable.
It still leaves me with a few questions:
- Is an audible difference really a difference if it cannot be explained why it appeared?
- Does it matter how an improvment is implemented?
- Is a capacitor and inductor mechanical or electrical devices?
- If all is electrical,
does anyone dare to design and sell (well, atleast offer )
And amp without listening to the design first?
And I'm a techie, and don't have golden ears...
/Erland
Most(ly) enjoyable.
It still leaves me with a few questions:
- Is an audible difference really a difference if it cannot be explained why it appeared?
- Does it matter how an improvment is implemented?
- Is a capacitor and inductor mechanical or electrical devices?
- If all is electrical,
does anyone dare to design and sell (well, atleast offer
) And amp without listening to the design first?
And I'm a techie, and don't have golden ears...
/Erland
eleson said:agree,
Most(ly) enjoyable.
It still leaves me with a few questions:
- Is an audible difference really a difference if it cannot be explained why it appeared?
- Does it matter how an improvment is implemented?
- Is a capacitor and inductor mechanical or electrical devices?
- If all is electrical,
does anyone dare to design and sell (well, atleast offer
And amp without listening to the design first?
And I'm a techie, and don't have golden ears...
/Erland
I've yet to see a case where a difference could not be explained or at least theorized without having to resort to inventing reasons based on magical components and physics that don't exist.
So I think if it can't be explained, you just lack the background to explain it.
-Yes, if a supposed "improvement" is poorly implemented, you stand a good chance of having taken a step backwards and nullifying any advantage the improvement was supposed to have brought.
-Is a cap or inductor mechanical or electrical? Both actually, and for best performance need to be treated as such.If you simply ignore the mechanical short commings and treat it as an ideal electrical component, you're going to have some sad results indeed.
"- If all is electrical,
does anyone dare to design and sell (well, atleast offer )
And amp without listening to the design first?"
I'm sure I know of some who do that and their "reviews" show a clear result of a poor sounding amp.
It is not all electrical, it is not all mechanical, the interactions must be understood to the fullest extent possible, without going into the realm of voodoo and inventing solutions to problems that dont' exist.
I fully agree and most differences and changes are not necessarily improvements and they interact in complex manners.
However we should also remember that most advances in science have been ridiculed by people "in the know" because they could not fit the new idea and the new facts into the existing framework. I will go to the extent of saying that anybody who utters the word "impossible" has none of the attribute of a scientist. A scientist will say: this does not fit the existing set of facts and the theoretical constructs built around them, so let's triple check the new facts. If the new facts are real then try to find how (in Einstein's words) the existing theories can continue to exist as a particular case in a larger theory. Unfortunatlely (again paraphrasing Einstein's words) there is a path from theory to experiment but there is no path from experiment to theory (ie you have to invent it, thus the word "theorize"). But a new theory will have to be prepared to withstand the flurry of healthy criticism to make sure it is not redundant and not defective - so we should continue to do that but be sure to do it in a graceful manner since debunking thousands of tentative theories (and doubtful facts) is the heart of science making.
As an example I was struck by Bruno Putzey's mention in this forum that excess rail capacitance in the power supply leads to the IEC input power cord having an influence on the sound. So instead of spending $900 on a power cord, I would say just fix the defective design because we have a design criteria that the amp+power-supply must be impervious to power cords (in other words: be stable)! Previously I was very tempted to dismiss the whole notion of power cords having an influence on the sound (what about the in-house and out of the house electrical wires?) - but it looks like the effect is real in "some" conditions and that somebody (Bruno or his sources) found a useful cause-effect correlation so that an unexplained fact can now start to be fitted into a logical framework where we can work with or around it and theorize about it.
In the end it seems to me that it is all physics (our understanding of electrical, mechanical and even chemical properties are all ultimately governed by the physics theories that we have been able to develop) and thus interelated.
Engineering has done a wonderful job of simplifying the physics into a set of trade thumb of rules that conquer complexity by setting aside negligible effects and makes it easier to create stable and working designs. Without engineering we would have to start from scratch looking at the atomic interactions every time we want to create something. If a new fact or theory comes that can improve the set of engineering rules then this is progress - but a lot of (if not most) information is noise so it is our job/hobby to try to find patterns in it.
Interesting post, I largely agree with it.
I'm not sure about that at all. Some are obvious advances (improvements) others less so. Often the usefulness of an invention, if radically new, is unseen until later. I'm sure the wheel was laughed at until some genius came up with the axl.
As you pointed out it also isn't everyone with a grasp of the problem, some wannabe's thrive off this knowingly, especially in the audio industry. I find that disgusting.
Maybe not all of them do it deliberatly either. Maybe they're just a little more naive than they are scientific, but when they seemingly rely on it to market themselves.. well... snake!
No, a scientist can indeed go with the word "impossible". For example, since they're rather busy people, when presented with the rediculous, they may use the term impossible as a more politically correct way of saying what they really think, and to save themselves the time of humoring them.
Your statement is also based on the premis that the new facts are in fact, facts As you said, well prepared theory, which we certainly are not seeing here.
Telling me that the sound you produce by running your fingernail over a heatsink will be what you hear out of the speaker unless it's sufficiently "damped" is faaaaar from a fact. It is made up and imaginary. If not, let's have the conditions that will allow such results to be reproduced, making this problem fact, and then we can explore further. Also if said conditions are found to be unrealistic under normal use, "impossible" at least becomes "irrelevant" from a scientific point of view, and laughable from any other.
That said, even Einstein himself was not above throwing in a little BS if it helped his theory jive... cosmological constant ring a bell? One of my former prof's called such a thing a "fudge factor". The scientific community didn't really buy into his fudge factor though, and they're still seeking a more complete explanation, with a number of competing theories.
That's simply to say that you have to have a theory before you experiment, otherwise, you're just playing with magic. Once you've run an experiment and observed/analyzed the results, providef you've done so honestly, and meaningfully (in order to have good results) you end up at some conclusion which can lead to further hypothesis and further experimentation, until a proper explanation has been found. I think we can agree, none of the above is what we've been seeing here, which is in much closer relation to playing with magic, and hoping nirvana falls into your lap.
As per the honest observer, one must remain objective at all times, or risk biased results based on their expectations. I'll go so far as to say this is an ailement known to your typical non scientific "super tweaker". But even then, that's only true if you believe they're even trying to be half honest.
Ever heard of N-rays? Funny stuff, and I'm willing to put it right there with non damped signing heat sinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-ray
... and if that pattern amounts only to a boat load of BS, it's our job to say so too So I agree with you there too.
Cheers,
Chris
I'm not sure about that at all. Some are obvious advances (improvements) others less so. Often the usefulness of an invention, if radically new, is unseen until later. I'm sure the wheel was laughed at until some genius came up with the axl.
As you pointed out it also isn't everyone with a grasp of the problem, some wannabe's thrive off this knowingly, especially in the audio industry. I find that disgusting.
Maybe not all of them do it deliberatly either. Maybe they're just a little more naive than they are scientific, but when they seemingly rely on it to market themselves.. well... snake!
No, a scientist can indeed go with the word "impossible". For example, since they're rather busy people, when presented with the rediculous, they may use the term impossible as a more politically correct way of saying what they really think, and to save themselves the time of humoring them.
Your statement is also based on the premis that the new facts are in fact, facts
As you said, well prepared theory, which we certainly are not seeing here.Telling me that the sound you produce by running your fingernail over a heatsink will be what you hear out of the speaker unless it's sufficiently "damped" is faaaaar from a fact. It is made up and imaginary. If not, let's have the conditions that will allow such results to be reproduced, making this problem fact, and then we can explore further. Also if said conditions are found to be unrealistic under normal use, "impossible" at least becomes "irrelevant" from a scientific point of view, and laughable from any other.
That said, even Einstein himself was not above throwing in a little BS if it helped his theory jive... cosmological constant ring a bell? One of my former prof's called such a thing a "fudge factor". The scientific community didn't really buy into his fudge factor though, and they're still seeking a more complete explanation, with a number of competing theories.
That's simply to say that you have to have a theory before you experiment, otherwise, you're just playing with magic. Once you've run an experiment and observed/analyzed the results, providef you've done so honestly, and meaningfully (in order to have good results) you end up at some conclusion which can lead to further hypothesis and further experimentation, until a proper explanation has been found. I think we can agree, none of the above is what we've been seeing here, which is in much closer relation to playing with magic, and hoping nirvana falls into your lap.
As per the honest observer, one must remain objective at all times, or risk biased results based on their expectations. I'll go so far as to say this is an ailement known to your typical non scientific "super tweaker". But even then, that's only true if you believe they're even trying to be half honest.
Ever heard of N-rays? Funny stuff, and I'm willing to put it right there with non damped signing heat sinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-ray
... and if that pattern amounts only to a boat load of BS, it's our job to say so too
So I agree with you there too.Cheers,
Chris
N-rays? That's a good one. Of course being from France I had never heard about this But I knew about the risk of experiments via the Pavlov dog story though. Hey some people now think the cosmological constant was/is right (some undigested paper about string theory)...so that Einstein's biggest mistake might have been when he got rid of it! But your warning about the "fudge factor" is to the point.
I think we do agree: fact checking is paramount and the word "impossible" can only be used in a relative/contextual meaning. I guess what I am saying is that ridicule could discourage honest experimentation which is bad but your point is that it also helps discourage untruthful or premature reports which is good, so balance is paramount.
I don't see much theories advanced by tweakers, most of them just say it sounds better but it seems to me they can only be (almost) sure it sounds different. So I only derive my high-probability facts from a consensus arising from many people coming to the same conclusions via independant experiments (hard to tell sometimes if people are just repeating). I will usually dismiss a statement that is not supported by an explanation of either the source, the theory, or the experiment behind it. But a single intriguing report might be enough to trigger me to experiment or pay-attention-to/search-for a previously unacknowledged possibility.
An interesting case is mathematics which used to be developed as needed for practical needs including physics; one or two hundred years ago mathematics started to develop independantly with many of its constructs finding applications in the real world decades after they were developed. But even there, observations had to occur first before somebody had the idea to use an existing mathematical construct to model the observations.
But I knew about the risk of experiments via the Pavlov dog story though. Hey some people now think the cosmological constant was/is right (some undigested paper about string theory)...so that Einstein's biggest mistake might have been when he got rid of it! But your warning about the "fudge factor" is to the point.I think we do agree: fact checking is paramount and the word "impossible" can only be used in a relative/contextual meaning. I guess what I am saying is that ridicule could discourage honest experimentation which is bad but your point is that it also helps discourage untruthful or premature reports which is good, so balance is paramount.
I don't see much theories advanced by tweakers, most of them just say it sounds better but it seems to me they can only be (almost) sure it sounds different. So I only derive my high-probability facts from a consensus arising from many people coming to the same conclusions via independant experiments (hard to tell sometimes if people are just repeating). I will usually dismiss a statement that is not supported by an explanation of either the source, the theory, or the experiment behind it. But a single intriguing report might be enough to trigger me to experiment or pay-attention-to/search-for a previously unacknowledged possibility.
What you are saying is the first part of Einstein's sentence: from theory it is easy to derive experiments to validate the predictive power of the theory especially when you just created/refined some aspects of the theory; but the second part is true as well: you need to observe gravity before you can come with Newton's law and you need to observe quite a bit more before you come up with relativity; so this is the initial part of the fact analysis followed by further hypothesis scenario you describe. Without initial observation (which includes fact-finding experiments as opposed to theory-validating experiments) no theory would ever be created to explain much of what is observed or at least theories would be unrelated to the physical world.
An interesting case is mathematics which used to be developed as needed for practical needs including physics; one or two hundred years ago mathematics started to develop independantly with many of its constructs finding applications in the real world decades after they were developed. But even there, observations had to occur first before somebody had the idea to use an existing mathematical construct to model the observations.
Agreed. In a perfect world (with infinite resources) we would only dismiss their report after honestly trying to reproduce their experiments even if we are suspicious to start with.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.