serengetiplains said:
First, it is NOT reflectivity of glass that changes. It is always going to be close to 4% (for glass with typical refractive index of ~1.5).
Second, it goes from 0% to 16%, NOT from 4% to 16% WHEN A SECOND SURFACE IS INTRODUCED.
Third, from page 16 onwards Feynman actually explains interference of light (you need a second surface for interference to occur) using vectors and probability.
Light interference is certainly not mysterious and I don't know why you want to portray it as such. It is well understood and applied every day, and its explanation is actually given if you read little bit further from page 16. It gives you enough knowledge to learn to build a super reflective mirror without using metals at all.
And we do it. You can buy one for as little as 100 bucks.
And don't hang onto statements like "we don't know what makes photon decide whether to go through or bounce back" - if we disect enough ANY natural phenonenon we'll hit a brick wall sooner or later. That doesn't mean we cannot model and predict.
How does mass warp space-time ? Do strings really exist ? What is really density of energy of a vacuum ? Why are we here ?
Does everything else really exist or am I only talking to myself ?
And most important, can you HEAR a quantum effect in the cable ?
Remember,
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. "
Bratislav
quasi said:
That's the thing. It's EASY to sit around and spin hypothesis after hypothesis. But the whole point of a hypothesis is to put it to the test. Verify it or falsify it. It's the only thing that makes the hypothesis at all useful. But that's the HARD part of it all. And the part that is almost never implemented.
Yes. And the author of the post quoted above is highly intolerant of any sort of questioning of his hypotheses and outright claims. So intolerant I was ultimately banned from the cable forum that he moderates because I dared question his claims and hypotheses.
*shrug*
se
Steve Eddy said:
Indeed and very "boldly put" Steve. I must admit I have scanned that forum from time to time as a guest. I gotta agree with you, "It's John's way or the highway".
Trouble is when people can write as well as he can some people will start to believe the intellectual picture he paints (to his credit) but ultimately it's just sweet music (sirens?).
Cheers
Hi sagarverma,
I mistakenly implied earlier that you may be from Paksitan, my apologies to you. Nothing wrong with being from Pakistan but it's good manners that I acknowledge you correctly.
But hey my wifes father was born and went to school in Lucknow.
Cheers
I mistakenly implied earlier that you may be from Paksitan, my apologies to you. Nothing wrong with being from Pakistan but it's good manners that I acknowledge you correctly.
But hey my wifes father was born and went to school in Lucknow.
Cheers
serengetiplains said:
There is no need to guess. DA is well understood, and involves a number of different mechanisms with similar behaviour, depending on frequency.
www.designers-guide.org/Modeling/da.pdf
Whether DA is audible is a different matter, though.
I suspect that a good part of the problem is that test equipment that is capable of emulating the dynamic range of the human ear AND the complexity of music's waveforms simply does not exist yet.
Some musical instruments put out very polite waveforms; flute for example. Plucked strings have an asymmetrical attack, then a symmetrical waveform; brass and sometimes bowed instruments have asymmetrical waveforms. They'll balance to equal power around zero of course over time, but for short periods the waveforms can be quite asymmetrical, and even though the integrated waveform around zero is balanced, the waveforms are still asymmetrical in shape. I don't know of any test equipment that comes remotely close to using a test signal that is as complex as music.
You're pushing simple harmonic distortion tests fairly hard to measure THD of better than -90 dB. (Although by no means impossible, it's not a casual measurement.) The ear's dynamic range is variable, bur >100 dB. Correlating what is measured, (and I'm thinking more of electronics and speakers here as opposed to cables) to how the listener hears distortions is very difficult. Masking is non-linear, and also varies greatly depending on whether the signals are correlated, and if so, in what way.
It is inarguable that a real phenomenon is measurable; on the other hand, that doesn't mean that it CAN be measured at the present time. I believe that as processing power increases, that tests similar to MLSSA will someday be capable of sorting the mess out. In the meantime, we are left with subjective observations. Something that occurred with early group blind testing was that fairly often one or two members of the group were unfailingly accurate, substantially beyond the likelihood of chance. When asked, they had picked out a specific sonic signature, and used that as a guide. But when the group numbers were reported in toto, the very few consistently correct observations were buried in the total numbers. (Hope that's clear.) Further, early on, there was an excellent article (too lazy to find it, I've seen it cited recently) pointing out that for the kind of determination required, the tests were designed about as badly as is possible. Brief listening, with frequent switches turns out to be flawed when looking for minor differences. And I'd add that unfamiliar listening rooms, equipment, and source material increase the difficulty. Common (and excellent) advice is to take a few of your favorite, familiar CD's with you when auditioning speakers. The same surely applies even more strongly to cables, which vary far less than speakers.
If a complex phenomenon is discussed with due humility, acknowledging that observations can be uncertain, and that explanations to date are at best, incomplete, then I'd suggest that there are grounds for reasoned discussion.
Of those who open the discussion in order to label some hobbyists liars and phools, using arguments that are at best simplistic.... well then, I can understand the high volume. It's caused by the well grounded suspicion that they are not being heard.
Some musical instruments put out very polite waveforms; flute for example. Plucked strings have an asymmetrical attack, then a symmetrical waveform; brass and sometimes bowed instruments have asymmetrical waveforms. They'll balance to equal power around zero of course over time, but for short periods the waveforms can be quite asymmetrical, and even though the integrated waveform around zero is balanced, the waveforms are still asymmetrical in shape. I don't know of any test equipment that comes remotely close to using a test signal that is as complex as music.
You're pushing simple harmonic distortion tests fairly hard to measure THD of better than -90 dB. (Although by no means impossible, it's not a casual measurement.) The ear's dynamic range is variable, bur >100 dB. Correlating what is measured, (and I'm thinking more of electronics and speakers here as opposed to cables) to how the listener hears distortions is very difficult. Masking is non-linear, and also varies greatly depending on whether the signals are correlated, and if so, in what way.
It is inarguable that a real phenomenon is measurable; on the other hand, that doesn't mean that it CAN be measured at the present time. I believe that as processing power increases, that tests similar to MLSSA will someday be capable of sorting the mess out. In the meantime, we are left with subjective observations. Something that occurred with early group blind testing was that fairly often one or two members of the group were unfailingly accurate, substantially beyond the likelihood of chance. When asked, they had picked out a specific sonic signature, and used that as a guide. But when the group numbers were reported in toto, the very few consistently correct observations were buried in the total numbers. (Hope that's clear.) Further, early on, there was an excellent article (too lazy to find it, I've seen it cited recently) pointing out that for the kind of determination required, the tests were designed about as badly as is possible. Brief listening, with frequent switches turns out to be flawed when looking for minor differences. And I'd add that unfamiliar listening rooms, equipment, and source material increase the difficulty. Common (and excellent) advice is to take a few of your favorite, familiar CD's with you when auditioning speakers. The same surely applies even more strongly to cables, which vary far less than speakers.
If a complex phenomenon is discussed with due humility, acknowledging that observations can be uncertain, and that explanations to date are at best, incomplete, then I'd suggest that there are grounds for reasoned discussion.
Of those who open the discussion in order to label some hobbyists liars and phools, using arguments that are at best simplistic.... well then, I can understand the high volume. It's caused by the well grounded suspicion that they are not being heard.
quasi said:
i gauged that.hence....
😀
for Indian,its wrong to b 'from' Pakistan jus like Aussie being from New Zeland.(jus telin 4 u 2 get the feel,no offense intended
).offline::can the 'latest' quasi b in his avatar?
quasi said:
Well put Quasi, but is it relevant? It seems to me repeatable verification of the audibility comes first, theoretical explanation of the underlying mechanism after. The existence of an explanation isn't a necessary condition for the existence of a phenomena. I'm not saying Risch's conjectures are correct, any more than I would Mpingo dots, simply that existence and explanation are separate matters.
Well put RDF,
It is perhaps a sad state of affairs when so many pursue explanations for observations that cannot be repeated or verified.
I also reject the notion that to state an idea succinctly detracts from its meaning... or that it fears not being heard.
Gotta go... have to change my wall plates!
It is perhaps a sad state of affairs when so many pursue explanations for observations that cannot be repeated or verified.
I also reject the notion that to state an idea succinctly detracts from its meaning... or that it fears not being heard.
Gotta go... have to change my wall plates!
Covering a lot of teritory beyond cables, discussions of lies are going well though.
If like me you have a system comprised of a number of seperate devices (CD transport, D to A converter, Pre-amplifier, power amplifier and last but certainly not least speakers) and you decide you would like to improve the sound, where do you start? The decision is not easy, some pieces have more effect than others and some cost more than others. If you are like me, you want the largest reasonable improvement for the smallest reasonable investment.
You determine if you can, the weak link, substitution is a common technique (warning this process can be extremely damaging to your wallet). Last time I tried this it was a lot like watching one of those dominoe chains topple. I found a unit that was clearly a weak link and when it was replaced other weaknesses previously hidden became easily appearent.
In the midst of these system modifications I tried different cables, cables that were acceptable maybe even very good with the old equipment revealed themselves to now be part of the limitations of my improved system. So some more damage to the wallet and I end up with a system where wholesale replacements have been made and the quality of the sound has easily moved up a tier or maybe two.
All of this without a single measurement, what a fool I must be.
How do I judge sound quality? I have of course heard live music but a rather extensive discussion would be needed to demonstrate that recordings do not attempt to imitate live, they don't put a microphone in a seat in the audience. So I compare my system to others I have heard, either at a friends house or at a HiFi show and in the end I just decide if I like what I hear.
Although much equipment exists to measure gross electronic errors in my 35 years of electronic design I have never found an instrument that pretends to measure the difference in music coming out of a system to the acoustic signal that created the recording. This fixation on measurements is misplaced. Measuring equipment is merely a tool, it does not define what is and what is not.
Not only is it misplaced but there is an implication there is no difference to measure, this is simple bull. Measuring equipment will have no difficulty in measuring the differences between two cables. The problem is that there is only the poorest of relationships between any given measured quantity and the sound quality.
SET amplifiers usually don't measure well, they can't really. Many swear that they are the holy grail of music listening joy. In this case we can easily measure what is wrong with them but unfaillingly can not seem to measure what it is that is right with them.
I trust my ears, I have neither interest nor need to convince you that my ears are special, but I would like to ask you that instead of renting test equipment or trusting soley in published specifications, that you use your ears in any effort to upgrade your system. Few audiophiles bought Levinsons, Krells or Magnapans because the specifications looked so good.
If like me you have a system comprised of a number of seperate devices (CD transport, D to A converter, Pre-amplifier, power amplifier and last but certainly not least speakers) and you decide you would like to improve the sound, where do you start? The decision is not easy, some pieces have more effect than others and some cost more than others. If you are like me, you want the largest reasonable improvement for the smallest reasonable investment.
You determine if you can, the weak link, substitution is a common technique (warning this process can be extremely damaging to your wallet). Last time I tried this it was a lot like watching one of those dominoe chains topple. I found a unit that was clearly a weak link and when it was replaced other weaknesses previously hidden became easily appearent.
In the midst of these system modifications I tried different cables, cables that were acceptable maybe even very good with the old equipment revealed themselves to now be part of the limitations of my improved system. So some more damage to the wallet and I end up with a system where wholesale replacements have been made and the quality of the sound has easily moved up a tier or maybe two.
All of this without a single measurement, what a fool I must be.
How do I judge sound quality? I have of course heard live music but a rather extensive discussion would be needed to demonstrate that recordings do not attempt to imitate live, they don't put a microphone in a seat in the audience. So I compare my system to others I have heard, either at a friends house or at a HiFi show and in the end I just decide if I like what I hear.
Although much equipment exists to measure gross electronic errors in my 35 years of electronic design I have never found an instrument that pretends to measure the difference in music coming out of a system to the acoustic signal that created the recording. This fixation on measurements is misplaced. Measuring equipment is merely a tool, it does not define what is and what is not.
Not only is it misplaced but there is an implication there is no difference to measure, this is simple bull. Measuring equipment will have no difficulty in measuring the differences between two cables. The problem is that there is only the poorest of relationships between any given measured quantity and the sound quality.
SET amplifiers usually don't measure well, they can't really. Many swear that they are the holy grail of music listening joy. In this case we can easily measure what is wrong with them but unfaillingly can not seem to measure what it is that is right with them.
I trust my ears, I have neither interest nor need to convince you that my ears are special, but I would like to ask you that instead of renting test equipment or trusting soley in published specifications, that you use your ears in any effort to upgrade your system. Few audiophiles bought Levinsons, Krells or Magnapans because the specifications looked so good.
Excellent posts, Curmudgeon and hermanv. I likewise suspect the actual quantity and quality of information constituting a music signal, and processable by the very little understood brain-ear mechanism, is poorly represented by any measurement currently available.
For my part, I have, for instance, upgraded components on circuit boards of an Elgar line conditioner, which upgrades added a bit of noise to the output of the conditioner in part because of the necessarily larger size of certain upgrade components---ie, made the conditioner measurably worse---to have in the end a much better sounding unit. People who listen to my stereo---non-audiophiles even---frequently tell me, without prompting, that the system sounds wonderful and is the best they've heard.
For my part, I have, for instance, upgraded components on circuit boards of an Elgar line conditioner, which upgrades added a bit of noise to the output of the conditioner in part because of the necessarily larger size of certain upgrade components---ie, made the conditioner measurably worse---to have in the end a much better sounding unit. People who listen to my stereo---non-audiophiles even---frequently tell me, without prompting, that the system sounds wonderful and is the best they've heard.
At the risk of being attacked, I was under the impression that the power supply in your equipment was supposed to isolate you from the nasties in the AC power grid.
Many times I have observed that the power supplies in commercially available equipment are simplistic. Sometimes they are even designed incorrectly. In those situations, power line conditioners may help. A properly designed power supply should make everything but severe line noise or out of tolerance voltage unimportant.
-Chris
Many times I have observed that the power supplies in commercially available equipment are simplistic. Sometimes they are even designed incorrectly. In those situations, power line conditioners may help. A properly designed power supply should make everything but severe line noise or out of tolerance voltage unimportant.
-Chris
Did you read that in cable asylum... change from plastic to stainless "opened up the whole system". Geesh!?
So what? Wear it like a badge.
More time to spend on www.diyaudio.com.
anatech said:
My experience is that power supplies---every one I've experienced---do not isolate very well. For what it's worth, the designer of my gear, Ed Meitner, claims a power supply noise figure >140dB down. The audible benefits of the Elgar, on this equipment, and not only to my ears, are unmistakable at even this level of quality.
hermanv said:
Lots of people believe that Mariah Carrey is as good as it gets when music is concerned, who am I to argue ?
Noone asks you people to prove anything, let alone measure (most here don't even understand what a controlled experiment is).
Trust your ears only ?
People just try to point that documented scientifically that our senses, yes including ears, are EASILY fooled by other influences (mostly gray mass inbetween). If you WANT to hear it, you will.
Believe only what you hear/see ? Try this
http://www.patmedia.net/marklevinson/cool/cool_illusion.html
What did you see ? Does it really exist ?
Awww, thanks, Anatech. There's been some research indicating that the signal processing in the brain uses auto-correlation; and the degree of processing is what can make the predisposition issue tricky. I think predisposition is like hypnosis, where people range from very susceptible to immune. (Very recent PET scans show the difference in brain activity between those hynotically influenced, and those not.)
I think that the trainable ability to dissect the sound and find and isolate any sonic signature is important to being able to hear the differences in electronics equipment as well as cables. If you just hear the gestalt, it will be very difficult, although that might be (much) better from a musical enjoyment standpoint.
Succinct is good. I may even try it sometime. 🙂 Calling people phools and liars is not good, no matter the brevity. Excusing name calling by claiming it is merely brevity is not good either.
And the results are repeatable. Some companies have been in business for > 10 years, and offer modestly priced, good value cables that are superior to zip cord, and audibly so to their many customers. From time to time, a company will emerge with a huge ad budget and cables that are lousy, but have a high price to validate their worth (and repay the ad costs). When the customer complains, they're told the cables are so good that they've now exposed previously inaudible faults. Such are indeed deserving of scorn and a quick exit from the scene. But it is incorrect to use them to tar the entire industry.
I think that the trainable ability to dissect the sound and find and isolate any sonic signature is important to being able to hear the differences in electronics equipment as well as cables. If you just hear the gestalt, it will be very difficult, although that might be (much) better from a musical enjoyment standpoint.
Succinct is good. I may even try it sometime. 🙂 Calling people phools and liars is not good, no matter the brevity. Excusing name calling by claiming it is merely brevity is not good either.
And the results are repeatable. Some companies have been in business for > 10 years, and offer modestly priced, good value cables that are superior to zip cord, and audibly so to their many customers. From time to time, a company will emerge with a huge ad budget and cables that are lousy, but have a high price to validate their worth (and repay the ad costs). When the customer complains, they're told the cables are so good that they've now exposed previously inaudible faults. Such are indeed deserving of scorn and a quick exit from the scene. But it is incorrect to use them to tar the entire industry.
Hi Tom,
Well, if you can make that change and hear it, I respectfully submit that the correct measurements were not done with regard to the supply in your Meitner. Either that, or you have something truly ugly happening on your line. Could be DC that throws the transformer characteristics out.
In a few pieces of gear, I rebuilt the supply. After the rebuild, the PS Audio line conditioners no longer made any difference to the customer. His report, not mine. The customer still heard the difference in "stock" pieces from the same manufacturer.
I am no star designer, I don't know any secrets. I just fixed what I knew was wrong in the design. This will change with each piece of equipment. I am just pointing out what I've seen over the years.
-Chris
Well, if you can make that change and hear it, I respectfully submit that the correct measurements were not done with regard to the supply in your Meitner. Either that, or you have something truly ugly happening on your line. Could be DC that throws the transformer characteristics out.
In a few pieces of gear, I rebuilt the supply. After the rebuild, the PS Audio line conditioners no longer made any difference to the customer. His report, not mine. The customer still heard the difference in "stock" pieces from the same manufacturer.
I am no star designer, I don't know any secrets. I just fixed what I knew was wrong in the design. This will change with each piece of equipment. I am just pointing out what I've seen over the years.
-Chris
hermanv said:
Special? Not likely after 35 years of electronic design 🙂
There is nothing special about hearing cables if my wife can do it.
I have known real hard core objectivists in real life and none would have taken the risk to desecrate their beliefs listening to cables. Every time i offered a demo they'd walk through the door as if they were about to be exposed to satan. Surely some people simply can't hear or can't concentrate enough to remember sound. Which is fine, especially if they don't choose audio as a hobby. A lot more amusing is that others can't hear only because of a self-imposed mental block.
Hi Curmudgeon,
Thanks? I don't know what you are referring to.
I worked as an audio salesman for years in the Seventies. The only thing we got full "pop" on were accessories. So we sold them as much as possible. Things like the "Platter Matter" (still got mine) and disc cleaners were always sold with the system, not given. Better cables than the stuff that fell apart was sold too. But everything we sold really was better in some way than what it replaced. We did perform a service to the customer by guiding him to the equipment that suited his needs. The flaky stuff started to appear when I left the sales floor. This occurred as the quality of salesman dived to new lows. Directional cable appeared (dual shielded) and the infamous green marker for CD's. Now it's a circus.
-Chris
Thanks? I don't know what you are referring to.
I worked as an audio salesman for years in the Seventies. The only thing we got full "pop" on were accessories. So we sold them as much as possible. Things like the "Platter Matter" (still got mine) and disc cleaners were always sold with the system, not given. Better cables than the stuff that fell apart was sold too. But everything we sold really was better in some way than what it replaced. We did perform a service to the customer by guiding him to the equipment that suited his needs. The flaky stuff started to appear when I left the sales floor. This occurred as the quality of salesman dived to new lows. Directional cable appeared (dual shielded) and the infamous green marker for CD's. Now it's a circus.
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.