Of course --- no examples needed... goes without saying. Might be true might not be. Just keep an open mind about what people perceive. Never-the-less, me, myself and I did not make the claims.
-Richard
Last edited:
Alien ship he said?
Recording tracks Russia's Moon gatecrash attempt - Science - News - The Independent
In that case, most probably, JC is spot on
But there are countless other cases that he -like anyone of us- may be proven wrong (few humorous photos attached)
Thank you Richard.
This is a successful earth landing report
George
Attachments
Especially when the "democratic vote" is only from a tiny niche of hobbyists, and within that group, a self-selected group of them. It's like saying that one gives credence to UFO alien abductions because the majority of people who avidly read UFO Monthly and go to UFO conventions believe the same things. And how could they all be wrong the same way?
I don't know about you, but if my name is on an article, whether a scientific publication or a popular one, I am saying that I'm standing by what's in it. And if that article appears on my old company's website (and I'm getting money from them) as promotional material, I would feel like a total snake if I said, "Oh, that has nothing to do with me, I don't believe that stuff, how silly of you!"
But that's just me.
I never said the appearence of the square wave test is the ONLY reason why I prefer one to the other, I simply listed it as one of the causes that was easy to see and perform. Besides, it is one of the VERY telling signs of stability, which is not necessarily a digital value of 1 or 0, before unhinging completely an amp might go therough the test with poor results, but still remain relatively stable and not trigger any sort of protection.
We would percieve that as changed tonality, easily checked by reducing volume. If it reverts into calmer waters, we have our basic culprit, the amp is not good for difficult loads - I hope we'll agree that is definitely not good and chalk it up as a fault.
Again, just one of several aspects I would want to investigate.
Last edited:
It seems obvious that, for a tweeter, there is a difference in the energy it receive if you feed-it with square waves instead of rounded ones.
Even if it is not able to follow the slew rate, it will accelerate harder.
I wonder why some could pretend that we need 0.0001% of distortion on one side, and pretend this difference in speed we can see is not perceptible.
Now, did the sources able to provide such square waves ? With analog tapes recorders, i have a doubt. With digital, it is possible, depending of the anti aliasing filters.
On my side, am-I crazy ? I take great care to the slew rate of my amps.
Last edited:
Any competent cable will have series impedance sufficiently low that doubling it will make virtually no difference, and shunt impedance sufficiently high that halving it will make virtually no difference. Given this condition, there is nothing to explain. If this condition does not hold, then by definition the cable is faulty - however much you paid for it.Jay said:
See above. If two cables sound different then at least one of them is faulty, or the equipment is faulty.Esperado said:
Yes, if there are no numbers then no measurement has taken place. OK, I should broaden my requirement to include 'electrical observation' too.
That is not an accurate description of the situation. The great debate is lasting for at least 45 years and it is not only a niche of hobbyists. Instead of that a lot of credible professionals including musicians, recording engineers and physicians did support the audible difference of controversial effects.
As i´ve said before, i have read about the idea to include controlled listening tests in audio in the beginning of the 80s (if i recall it correctly it was an article by Dan Shanefield that was my first encounter with this idea) and i considered it as convincing.
And that started my interest in controlled tests; as described the first attempts were quite amateurish (and if i were not been able to pass this first controlled blind tests i would have dropped the audio thing) and got more and more refined over the years.
But, and that was the reason to ask marce about the "proof" that would be accepted, having done such experiments with positive results does not help in discussions as the opponents were simply not accepting anything that contradicts their own beliefs.
It seems to be sort of misleaded bayesian approach, if someone beliefs that something can´t be heard, he will assign a zero probability to that event and nothing will be able to change this belief afterwards.
why isn't "the problem" equally that some "heard" differences in poorly controlled situations, internalized false correlations and won't budge, won't even try a better controlled listening test of their beliefs?
of course some of us don't begin to believe that that is anywhere near "equally" the case given the audiophile marketing amplifying the uncontrolled subjective impression side
of course some of us don't begin to believe that that is anywhere near "equally" the case given the audiophile marketing amplifying the uncontrolled subjective impression side
Last edited:
Since long years, i use compensating networks on all my speakers to get a flat impedance curve.
With a special attention to their resonance peaks. This was received with a lot of doubt and controversy here, as habit each time you bring something witch is not 'usual'.
But i can tell-you (again) it makes a big difference in sonic, and, one of the benefits, it kills a lot of the differences we can perceive between the same two cables used without those compensations.
Given that you've consistently refused to provide the normal sort of details on your "positive results" so that they can be evaluated and replication attempted, as well as full disclosure of commercial interests, it's not at all surprising that "opponents" won't accept your assertions.
Richard, I believe my hearing is still quite good, considering my age. That notwithstanding, I also can't hear at least one half of the differences reported from changing of this or that and having an improvement. I often see it as an imaginary effect, somebody is proud to have "outdone" the manufacturer, especially if it's followed by derogatory comments on the manufacturer (e.g. how could those idiots not hear that?). Very often, it's really an unfounded ego trip. Or not, and just because I can't hear it and nobody wrote a paper on that doesn't mean it's automatically untrue or questionable at best.
But that extreme has its counterpart in the "objectivist" camp. People who have to see it on a 'scope to believe it's really there. Asking a DIY person for written proof of what he's saying is equally idiotic if for no thaer reason than tha pople do that sort of testing to satisfy their own curiosity, only a few of them try to convince the world of their revolutionary contribution and it's this minority that's irritating.
I do not believe any single change of anything can produce large differences as improvements, only minor ones, with an oddball event here and there, which are too rare and too few to be more than just exceptions which confirm the rule. During all those years, I ran into a single component change which improved the device to the point that everybody heard it once - I regard this as a freak accident which simply proves that anything can happen, but I would never rely on it as a general rule.
Local insistence of published wtitten proof is therefore just an ego trip from those demanding it who cannot refute the thesis in any other way that to ask a man who just put together his second amp in his entire life for something they know he cannot produce in cases when the accpeted theroy and practice has been jeopardized. Also people who very probably do not hear too well, they know it and need proof that it can be heard.
But that extreme has its counterpart in the "objectivist" camp. People who have to see it on a 'scope to believe it's really there. Asking a DIY person for written proof of what he's saying is equally idiotic if for no thaer reason than tha pople do that sort of testing to satisfy their own curiosity, only a few of them try to convince the world of their revolutionary contribution and it's this minority that's irritating.
I do not believe any single change of anything can produce large differences as improvements, only minor ones, with an oddball event here and there, which are too rare and too few to be more than just exceptions which confirm the rule. During all those years, I ran into a single component change which improved the device to the point that everybody heard it once - I regard this as a freak accident which simply proves that anything can happen, but I would never rely on it as a general rule.
Local insistence of published wtitten proof is therefore just an ego trip from those demanding it who cannot refute the thesis in any other way that to ask a man who just put together his second amp in his entire life for something they know he cannot produce in cases when the accpeted theroy and practice has been jeopardized. Also people who very probably do not hear too well, they know it and need proof that it can be heard.
Of course it could just be covering up limitations in the power amplifier as well.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.