Electrons do not really move, they do move yes, but only very slowly and in general only for "shortish" distances. It's the electric "field" that does all the work and caries the signals. We just talk about electrons as if they were the things that move along the wires. And I know someone is going to object!!! Because "current flow" is defined as "electron movement" so if the electrons don't actually move then there cannot be any current! Right? Well in AC signals there is no "net" current, so the electronics do not get very far from where they started, even if they do "jostle arround" a bit. In DC flow there is a net electron movement, but they don't move very fast, more like a few mm / s. So a given electron may go through an amps DC power supply every few minutes. But since the power feeds are all AC and there is not supposed to be any DC potential of, say an amp, its almost highly probable that the same electrons stay in the amp, circulating arround, for the life of it. But that ignores quantuim effects like anihilation and and recreation where the elctrons just disappear and then new one reappear from the "ether". So maybe thats where "fresh" ones come from!
No, it's defined as "net movement of charge."
Everyone, repeat after me: "Electrons are fermions and hence indistinguishable." Say it 20 times, slowly, until it takes hold in your reptile brain.
Each other. (With the exception of spin) To put it simply, electrons phase in an out of existence, so trying to identify one from another is impossible. The exception is electron spin, where 2 electrons which occupy the same energy state can be identified, then there's a whole host of silly quantum physics about the potential state of 2 electrons that are given off but I don't even want to get into that here. Just to clarify, I used the term river of electrons as a metaphor, not to be interpreted in a literal fashion.
Last edited:
Then you wouldn't care if it's called magic then? I just want to clarify for the people who might not know any better that simply because someone claims to hear something doesn't mean there's anything there to hear.
You don't seem to understand the degree we are currently capable of measuring acoustics. Do you really think we have the capacity to digitally record and reproduce the sound but have no idea how to gauge what we're reproducing? I can't off the top of my head think of some aspect of acoustics that can't be measured. We can compare delay between channels, the drivers harmonic distortion, the room's decay, sounds that occur within the haas window, impulse response and a whole host of other great information. If you know what aspects of reproduction you're looking for you can extrapolate anything you want given the right data. The only thing there will always be no accounting for is taste. The problem is because people don't understand how to interpret the data or that each setup will require it's own measurements people think that there's some great mystery out there that's still left the whole of acoustical physics and engineering in the dark. Not to mention below 500hz it doesn't even matter if we have 2 ears.
Last edited:
lol, this has been beaten to death. You are probably the 7th or 8th person to try and debate with Visser.
The other 6 or 7 members will tell you its a complete waste of time. Soon Curly will start posting again doing a +1 for every Visser post. Its pretty routine and comical 😀
After 1300 pages we can still conclude that the subjective "I believe my ears ONLY" crowd will always refuse to control the listening expirement.
Last edited:
I can see when someone is clearly relying on faith to support a premise. Trust me I have no illusions about changing his mind. Consider me warned, don't worry about my time or energy being wasted. I wouldn't reply if I wasn't enjoying the discourse.
Kareface - I like your approach "Then you wouldn't care if it's called magic then?", excellent point. You have an above average knowledge of acoustics and physics - not very common arround here. We tend to get a lot of "magicians" and "psychics" who can hear things that defy explaination ... and thats how they explain it.
Decent HT too, but I would NIX the glass top coffee table. I've had a lot of trouble with those. Coffee table in general are a problem, but glass tops just acentuate the issues.
Decent HT too, but I would NIX the glass top coffee table. I've had a lot of trouble with those. Coffee table in general are a problem, but glass tops just acentuate the issues.
Last edited:
But isn't the problem that when the measurements say that there is nothing to hear, you still hear something? There is no point in doing measurements if you are not going to accept the results.
No, no problem
The problem I see is that theres still no standards telling us how multiple measurements correlate to each other
I have heard the strangest things from combinating various materials
And the best is usually still just choosing a compromise, or put differently, choosing the best compromise
But I doubt anyone really likes the perfect
Perfect is boring
The problem I see is that theres still no standards telling us how multiple measurements correlate to each other
I have heard the strangest things from combinating various materials
And the best is usually still just choosing a compromise, or put differently, choosing the best compromise
But I doubt anyone really likes the perfect
Perfect is boring
Thanks, just to give you guys a little background. I'm actually quite new to DIY speakers, it's becoming a fun hobby with another pair in the works. I've helped designed many large scale and small scale sound rooms and home theaters. I'm HAA certified, I plan to do my masters in acoustical physics or engineering and I'd be willing to bet Ted White would corroborate me when I say I understand soundproofing, not to his degree tho. I'm a strong supporter of the Socratic method and objective verification, I know how frail the human mind is and how easily we tend to latch on to foundation-less arguments. I always try to be critical of my own beliefs.
I'm actually really embarrassed about the room right now. I've been planing DIY sympathetic resonators, diffractors and some fiberglass panels. My time and money has been dedicated to my work computers as of late, but once I get my house in order I plan on acoustically treating the room. Right now I'm not sweating over the coffee table when there's so many other things that need to be corrected to get ideal reproduction. With a little luck I'll have the time to finish everything before summers up.
Measurements change with time. There was a time in my professional experience, when time delay was considered completely inaudible, except for echo like aberrations. This was called Ohm's second law (of acoustics) Well, Ohm was off course a little, and now you don't hear about his second law. However, in 1937, it was as important as his law of resistance. Times change, paradigms shift, and measurements move in a different direction.
That's one one the silliest quasi-scientific statements I've ever read. Do you mean to say that it's neither possible nor necessary for a person to distinguish the direction or distance of another human voice?
John
You have to agree on the definitions of the words before standards can be set. You can measure warmth, it's distortion which tends to accentuate specific frequencies and not others. Live is too high of a decay time. Dead is too little decay time and a muffling of the higher frequencies. Imaging (2 channel) is the delay time between the 2 channels + early or late reflections within the haas window. All the data is there, you just need to know what you're looking at and what you're looking for. The biggest problem is the misuse of words and the subjective elements of sound. It's pretty clear tho, if we run a test on 2 cables (with in reason) and the results are close enough for the recordings to nullify, there isn't much of a question on the matter. Moving your speaker 1" will produce a greater impact on the measurements.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.