As if whether you cared was germane to the discussion, hilarious 😀
My further question is this - do you consider your non-technical content above being questioned?
Something obviously has you caring.
No, and nothing I have said would suggest that. I clarifed the points you raised. It's done.
The proper thing to do would be to try any R and L and compare. Actually the L here is so insignificant adding a few inches of cable would make more difference. The R is pretty small too but IIRC a standard value.
Compounding irrelevancy upon irrelevancy.
I'm still interested in your insights into my motivations btw. Do please send them.
My thoughts on your motivations are completely irrelevant and I have no intention of entering into any personal conversation with you. You do not interest me, the subject matter of this thread does. I have tried very hard to keep this thread relevant in spite of your continuing efforts to do otherwise. If you have anything of relevance to add to the subject here, please do so, but puerile exchanges based upon (at best) the misreading of my responses does not interest me, nor warrant further response.
Yet, curiously enough you found their existence in your mind relevant enough to mention, on a thread about designing DACs. If you'd not mentioned that you'd formed them, I would never know of their existence.
I will state it once again in the hope you understand... I stated I made a presumption because of the way you change your position to cover up when your argument starts to fall apart. I asked you to say if my presumption was correct or if you had some other motivation for participating in a conversation in such a manner. Simple.
As for this thread, I have responded entirely within the topic posed in the first question. The discussion has moved from DACs to auditory perception in general. Have a read of it and see if you would like to add something of relevance.
I think the one tested was 1/4 ohm r with a total device r as 3/10 or so.
I know it sounds insignificant but how it interacts with the rest of the circuit/system may be more the question? As in some sort of compounded effect? Just thinking out loud I have no idea!
I wish I could find the test.....there was some question of reactivity under certain conditions.
EH could probably dig it up?
dude still thinks we’re discussing what you posted the pic of , even after being told otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markw4 View Post
As a result, so long as you continue to insist Bybees are nonsense, I will opine you are no more objective that I am.
”And as you or anyone else cannot supply any evidence of them working or any credible explanation of how they could work (and even after being shown in a photograph this forum that shows they have nothing that could make them work), I will maintain my perception that anyone who says they have a physical effect is deluded. That is my objectively, well-considered opinion. I care not if anyone disagrees.“
Last edited:
How could I say whether your presumption was correct when you didn't state what it was? Or did I miss you stating it?
Also do you have any evidence for the claim that I 'change my position'? An example would be interesting to consider.
You missed it.
Read back exactly the part of the conversation where you claimed I was the one doing the obfuscating.
And by all means if you want to discuss matters further or engage your intellect against someone just for the sake of it, then PM me. But this is not the place: It has gotten ridiculous and puerile. It is posturing and a distraction from the topic that is not helpful to anyone.
Its helpful to me at least to expose your lacunae. So I can say without a doubt that your last sentence is delusional.
I posed the question the moderators chose to use as a title for this thread as a spin off from another DAC thread. To my mind this thread was always about perception, hence the question.
Bob, have I misunderstood your intent regards posting links? Translation: What's going on dude, are you just ******* me about? 😀
Last edited:
Your use of the word lacunae exposes exactly the posturing that I mentioned, which is based on my perception, but one that we have yet to ascertain is a delusion or not. But that is irrelevant. Of relevance (possibly) is what lacunae do you refer to? If it concerns me as a person, it does not belong here. If it instead concerns the content of my contributions, then please state it so that we can all discuss it. The latter would actually be helpful.
Why mention it then?
I've already mentioned - you're blind to your own denial of others' experience. That's relevant here because its a thread about perception and our ability to delude ourselves. But I've already said this so saying it again will make zero difference (I conjecture).
Anyway your claim that this interaction '..is not helpful to anyone' is clearly a delusional one. Do you wish to retract it?
To counter your errant assumption.
Absolutely not! I have not once doubted anyone's experience and you appear to have confused respondents. I have instead pointed out that experience is not always based on reality.
But that is one of the two fundamental bases of my contributions here!!! You should have read from the beginning.
Absolutely not. Your last response demonstrates that you have been arguing with someone who agrees with your understanding. It is bemusing indeed and there is nothing beyond your first responses (that I answered) that has moved this topic on. So I ask again, do you have anything new or of relevance to add?