Alright, I grow weary of this...
...while I did hope (in vain) that some solid discussion might take place on these concepts, I think that the avoidance behaviors are too great to overcome, unless others choose to participate, or those who are participating actually "put their cards on the table'.
I have no idea what people are afraid of saying in public.
Of course to be potentially seen as the "Emperor with no clothes" is scary.
Since almost no one will "confess" as to things like "soundfield" vs DACs, or "sibilence" vs their system being "artificial" or "normal" or "natural" - we've got no way to move the discussion ahead from the quicksand where it now sits.
Nobody would make a stand on measurements either.
So, I moved to things that are everyday occurrences, like soundfield and sibilence.
Hoping to approach the issue from another common point.
No go.
Stonewalling.
For the record, which of course can be quoted into the future ad infinitum, and to "put my cards on the table": It seems to me that DACs vary considerably in terms of tonal balance/timbre, "soundfield" and apparent dynamics, with some imparting a "characteristic" of their own. Easily observed by merely plugging a different one in - ESPECIALLY on redbook CDs. (yet to really delve into hi-res WRT this issue - full disclosure here, eh?) And, that most systems exhibit rather objectionable sibilence characteristic in general, regardless of price. In my experience it is rare to hear a system that does not (mine included, as of this moment) that does not impart some sort of less-than-natural characteristic, being something less than a purely "open-window', and that generally the most objectionable aspect is revealed with things like sibilence and cymbals. This is especially so, IF the characteristics of sibilence and the way cymbals sound is consistent (to a great extent) between recordings.
Amps too... they vary all over the map on any speaker that I've ever heard.
If that doesn't happen for you, great!
So much easier!
So much less worry!
So much less to work on and think about!
Perhaps when I again get a break from reality we can pick this up again.
1719 pages in now... no hurry, eh?
Frankly, It's good that I breathe only the finest and purest rarefied air so that my listening pleasure is longer and milder... oh wait, that's a different commercial.
Continue about the cabin until the seatbelt light again comes on...
...while I did hope (in vain) that some solid discussion might take place on these concepts, I think that the avoidance behaviors are too great to overcome, unless others choose to participate, or those who are participating actually "put their cards on the table'.
I have no idea what people are afraid of saying in public.
Of course to be potentially seen as the "Emperor with no clothes" is scary.
Since almost no one will "confess" as to things like "soundfield" vs DACs, or "sibilence" vs their system being "artificial" or "normal" or "natural" - we've got no way to move the discussion ahead from the quicksand where it now sits.
Nobody would make a stand on measurements either.
So, I moved to things that are everyday occurrences, like soundfield and sibilence.
Hoping to approach the issue from another common point.
No go.
Stonewalling.
For the record, which of course can be quoted into the future ad infinitum, and to "put my cards on the table": It seems to me that DACs vary considerably in terms of tonal balance/timbre, "soundfield" and apparent dynamics, with some imparting a "characteristic" of their own. Easily observed by merely plugging a different one in - ESPECIALLY on redbook CDs. (yet to really delve into hi-res WRT this issue - full disclosure here, eh?) And, that most systems exhibit rather objectionable sibilence characteristic in general, regardless of price. In my experience it is rare to hear a system that does not (mine included, as of this moment) that does not impart some sort of less-than-natural characteristic, being something less than a purely "open-window', and that generally the most objectionable aspect is revealed with things like sibilence and cymbals. This is especially so, IF the characteristics of sibilence and the way cymbals sound is consistent (to a great extent) between recordings.
Amps too... they vary all over the map on any speaker that I've ever heard.
If that doesn't happen for you, great!
So much easier!
So much less worry!
So much less to work on and think about!
Perhaps when I again get a break from reality we can pick this up again.
1719 pages in now... no hurry, eh?
Frankly, It's good that I breathe only the finest and purest rarefied air so that my listening pleasure is longer and milder... oh wait, that's a different commercial.
Continue about the cabin until the seatbelt light again comes on...
No it isn't. It got under your skin though. Sorry but I stand by that statement. I dropped two names; Pease and (Pat) Quilter and tag them Soulless. Where did I say "engineers are.." You said that! It did say "those types" but didn't specify that they are a subset of engineers; again Sorry. If I were John Lennon you would start burning Beatles records I guess.
Notice no direct comments on my part about Williams since I have not met him. The disparaging comments you reference about audiophiles largely give him away though. Some of Pease's audiophilea disparagea are in print.
I grew up with musicians. My father was a session drummer here in Los Angeles in the 60's and 70's. I can smell musically soulless people a mile away.
Considerably!, you are on your own planet. Easily observed, well just do it in the presence of some control.
OT last week in Portland my wife saw three 60+ ladies walking down the street and one of them fell over a shrub and down an embankment. She immediately told me to pull over and ran to help. They were laughing like crazy and we looked up and saw the recreational cannabis sign. Toking grannies something nice about that.
That's not all you can smell a mile away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBoMLBjx-SY
EDIT - I never heard of Pat Quilter what did he do or was it he just was what he was?
EDIT EDIT - I read his "about us" section definitely sold his soul to Satan.
Last edited:
"The Model 55SH Series II provides the Shure Iconic UNlDYNE design coupled with modern acoustic
components to meet today’s performance standards. This microphone is excellent for vocal pickup
with its characteristic Shure presence peak." http://cdn.shure.com/user_guide/upload/495/us_pro_55sh_series2_ug.pdf
Yes lower frequencies can also cause the issue. Th classic resonator requies a half wavelength depth. For 3,000 hertz that would be 2.25". A bit big for most loudspeaker boxes. A typical 3/4" plywood box with a gap by the tweeter comes in at 9,000 hertz. Throw in a grille and you get the typical 6,000 hertz.
Scott,
Can I get a notarized copy of your statement?
I don't think Pease's attitude towards music, even if he were relatively uninterested, would mean anything about his soul.
If I were to speculate about someone's soul it would be someone who was in a position of power and influence, not about something so comparably irrelevant as audio quality. In fact, I think it's possible a psychopath would be better than normal at listening tests, although the appeal of some content would be lost on them (they're good at faking it anyway).
If I were to speculate about someone's soul it would be someone who was in a position of power and influence, not about something so comparably irrelevant as audio quality. In fact, I think it's possible a psychopath would be better than normal at listening tests, although the appeal of some content would be lost on them (they're good at faking it anyway).
So what's wrong with Pat Quilter? Bob Pease was your average nerdy guy, being musically soulless seems to have a lot of weight with you so I can only take that your comment was mean spirited and intended to be very nasty.
The problem with carbon is tail toxicity. The scatter products at depth after the nice narrow Bragg peak are more toxic than the depth dose percentages would otherwise suggest. Protons are pretty good and lots of people would like to have a machine. Hard to justify the expense though, except maybe for pediatric cases, at least so the radiation oncologists tell me.
The tungsten collimators don't get hot, since they are pretty close to the patient, and therapeutic dose rate is much less than would cause any heating issues. The direct proton beam from a cyclotron before the neutron target, or the electron beam from a common medical linac before the photon target is another matter, of course. Water cooling there.
And yes, large aperture superconducting magnets are desirable.
You can also put a PET scanner in the treatment room and PET image the patients right after hadron treatment, since enough positron emitters are activated during treatment to be able to image the resulting treatment dose distribution.
Also, there are two main types of hadron beam delivery systems, (1) sprayed beam, and (2) scanned beam. Most systems are the former, which is cheaper and easier, but not all the benefits of (2). Research is still ongoing with scanned beam delivery systems, and there are what amount to discrete time sampling issues with some systems. Depending on the accelerator type, the beam may be pulsed rather slowly. That makes syncrotron based systems more suitable for sprayed beam. Cyclotrons are a better fit for scanned, but energy modulation is harder with a cyclotron, as most of them are positive ion with fixed energy extraction, which means a beam degrader and collimator system is needed. It's doable, just gets complicated and expensive. There is still a lot of development work ongoing for these things, although you can buy one off the shelf now if you are okay with the offered feature set.
Ok, my balanced input active speakers are very, very slightly dirty but quiet, I can live with that for now, that said the clarity and channel matching is quite outstanding.
This means that any changes upstream of the line cables is very readily apparent.
I suspect those who do not hear differences in changes of devices upstream have systems of insufficient clarity and resolving power.
One critical aspect is room treatment.
First and foremost is to ensure that the front wall is non reflective to the back sounds emitted by the loudspeakers....reflected sound acoustic short delay and directional scattering will obscure LR placement and depth placement, and dramatically so.
Noise masking is another critical aspect....reducing downstream system static noise and system dynamic noise reduces masking that hides fine detail and very fine detail.
This detail that is obscured includes LR placement and depth placement, both critical parameters in realistic reproduction.
Static white noise causes plain masking, dynamic noise can induce masking in the forms of sibilance, or lumpy bass...etc.
So, once these items are taken care of, recordings do become real, and every source identifiable in position.
Very old recordings once buried in noise and 'peakiness/barkiness' become remarkably clean, clear and with depth/realism to die for.
The devil is the spectrums of the static noises and dynamic noises.
This includes the noise spectrums of clocks and digital stages.
Dan.
If you sit within a few feet of the rear wall, that can be just as important to deaden.
Heavy wool rugs work well for this, and even a small one behind your head can do wonders.
I'm not the only one who laughed at the association between units of capture cross section and "betting the farm" am I?
Okay, I probably am. That's okay.
(The capture cross section unit is "barns", as in "broadside of a barn")
Or take a page out of BWaslo's book (who took it out of another guys, whose name I'm forgetting) and go with diffusers.
I'm not the only one who laughed at the association between units of capture cross section and "betting the farm" am I?
Okay, I probably am. That's okay.
(The capture cross section unit is "barns", as in "broadside of a barn")
I didn't laugh, but I heard jokes about that before.
On an iPad, having problems editing, so doing the you and me thing, see below.
We're measuring one of the magnets for a new type rapid cycling medical synchrotron. In super work, the mag physicist was wrestling with the fast ramp quads needed for the delivery gantry. Supers don't ramp well if the cable rates are exceeded...skin effect is rather enhanced when conductivity is infinite.
John
Me:
We're measuring one of the magnets for a new type rapid cycling medical synchrotron. In super work, the mag physicist was wrestling with the fast ramp quads needed for the delivery gantry. Supers don't ramp well if the cable rates are exceeded...skin effect is rather enhanced when conductivity is infinite.
John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.