Joe Rasmussen Usher S520 "Current Compatible" Crossover

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#421
anatech said:
Your average human is a very poor judge of absolute anything. Show me a calibrated human, and the history of calibrations to show drift or wandering.
Click to expand...

Maybe not the average person… the guideline is 10,000 hrs of training. You would be amazed at what some can hear. I am personally interested in pushing out the edges, not what the average person hears.

Tools are very helpful, but things usually get started with the ear/brain of a trained person. And tools are still unable to tell us how good great hifi sounds, they do help eliminate the junk (much if not most of what is out there, most here have already eliminated much of that).

dave
 
#424
But we are still in a world where much of the analytical in audio is still a matter of faith (we have only skimmed the surface of what we measure = what we hear). It takes a more wholistic viewpoint to move forward.

Dismissing stuff on the bleeding edge without trying usually only shows a closed mind.

dave
 
#425
Actually, SY, I have a great deal of belief in trying designs to see what can be done.

But, TBH, I think that all speakers and amps are a compromise. This is a huge truth to grasp. THERE IS NO PERFECT CROSSOVER, SPEAKER. OR AMP. 😀

In my idle moments I get involved in 10 dimensional string theory. Prof. Leonard Susskind at the forefront. Seriously difficult stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25haxRuZQUk

There's some strange thing about Nature. It seems that everything we do to push the problems under the rug, well they pop up somewhere else. Professor Richard Feynman was one of the World's great thinkers about all this stuff.

Below are his ideas on diffraction. Nature does it's own thing, regardless of your faith. Which is science.
 

Attachments

  • Dick_Feynman_LOL.jpg
    Dick_Feynman_LOL.jpg
    37.9 KB · Views: 470
Last edited:
#427
planet10 said:
Dismissing stuff on the bleeding edge without trying usually only shows a closed mind.
Click to expand...

If expecting evidence for dubious claims put forth without any indication of basic understanding is equal to a closed mind, I plead guilty. Frankly, I don't spend any time trying the latest claims to perpetual motion machines or searching for space alien abductors with anal probing fetishes, either.
 
#428
Joe & those who built the Elsinore heard something when they tried the most recent version of the XO. Here we have been presented with an XO in the same vein for a much more available speaker so that these perceptions can be explored further.

We have an experiment, the only claims are that positive differences were heard by Joe (and others with a different speaker). The experiment was devised to investigate further. The claims are only dubious if you blanket discount the anecdotes of many around the world. Stranger things have turned out to reflect reality (Quantum Physics for example).

dave
 
#429
Hi Dave,
I disagree with you with regard to the electronics being primitive. It's not that bad. Speakers - yeah, maybe. We've been stuck with the same basic technologies for a long time now. Speaker quality has risen dramatically over the last 20 or so years, but in the early days, they experimented with all kinds of technologies. So much so that there is very little that is new. Just old ideas with better technology - and sometimes not even that.

-Chris
 
#432
I don't doubt that. And our ability to manufacture better raw devices continues unabated. Our ability to simulate designs continues to improve (today your telephone can outrun the super computers of 30-40 years ago). Things that are fantastical today will be common… Today you can get a class D amp for $100s of todays dollars that dramatically outperform the Infinity of the 70s. But new devices are also possible (during the 40s who knew about transistors?). That can flip things in a hurry.

dave
 
#434
Polish-American physicist and inventor Julius E. Lilienfeld filed a patent in 1926, "Method and Apparatus for Controlling Electric Currents," in which he proposed a three-electrode structure using copper-sulfide semiconductor material. Today this device would be called a field-effect transistor. While working at Cambridge University in 1934, German electrical engineer and inventor Oskar Heil filed a patent on controlling current flow in a semiconductor via capacitive coupling at an electrode - essentially a field-effect transistor. Although both patents were granted, no records exist to prove that Heil or Lilienfeld actually constructed functioning devices.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that this would have been met with "dubious claims" comments at the time. When was the 1st working amplifier semiconductor made?

If you knew where to look you might find similar clues today to devices that have yet been made to work and could revolutionize things 50 years from now.

dave
 
#437
iScream said:
I thought I said that. The best example is probably a battery with nothing connected.



Huh? You mean like a piece of wire? Would you mind showing me how you might calculate that current flow with no voltage driving it?

Thanks,
Chris
Click to expand...

The same you calculate current with nothing connected to the voltage source. Ohms law.
In your example, the voltage is driving the infinite load resulting in zero current.
I am not asking you how you get that voltage with no current.
I get zero voltage driving a current through a zero load. Don't ask me how I get current without voltage.

Is it not glaringly obvious that these things are mirror images of each other?

Jan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom