MRupp, a gas molecule can be monatomic. Take argon, for example. The gas is monatomic and each atom is also a molecule.
Well, people are claiming to hear all sorts of wonderful things- don't you think it's worth spending a few bytes on how they can confirm that they're hearing something and be able to unambiguously track down the causes (and prevent problems)? Where's your curiosity?
SY said:
The brain works really well too SY, and controls are important. People can learn to play a musical instrument very very well, with no blind testing. Having a point of reference is really helpful. My dad practiced to get a sound like the great french horn player James Chambers, of the New York Philharmonic, on his horn. My dad was really good, and played with the Air Force Ceremonial Band while he worked to get the sound he wanted on his horn. Unfortunately some dental work, caps on his front teeth messed up his horn playing. He could still play well, just not the way he wanted to and it threw him. And he quit playing after he was done with the Air Force Ceremonial.
Anyway, people can learn and ears (brain) need practice, and practice under the same conditions as the test, for best results. Controls don't have to mean blind testing of course.
For the reasons you mention, blind testing is important and the only way to know if something is really audible, as long as the testing is done the way I like it. 🙂
Last edited:
Playing an instrument is an entirely different process from sensory analysis, so the analogy doesn't hold. But if you want to find the truth about what you're actually hearing, controlled testing is the only way and it's not difficult at all for that purpose.
One more plug for Jan Didden: there will be a how-to for individual experimenters appearing in the next issue of Linear Audio.
One more plug for Jan Didden: there will be a how-to for individual experimenters appearing in the next issue of Linear Audio.
Actually we did. The guy that was on the frontiers of tweaking and had his system so dialed in that his cheap, cobbled-together system was one of the top three systems I had heard in my life had a girlfriend that worked in a banjo-making shop.
They had all kinds of woods available to them, although mostly the kinds found in a guitar or violin making shop. They made us test blocks of every wood they had -- maple, mahogany, walnut, rosewood, ebony, spruce, and a few others I can't recall. We compared them to the myrtle blocks that George Cardas had made for us (myrtle is indigenous to the Pacific Northwest, where the Cardas factory is). Myrtle was the best.
SY said:
It's the same thing SY. It all involves conditioned reflexes. Tweaking a circuit and playing a musical instrument is not all that different. It's all about learning to hit the right notes, not the dissonant ones.
Ah you mean California Laurel "Myrtle" Not at all what I was thinking of. Not at all like American walnut sort of between oak and maple. I have only seen very small amounts of it and never used it. (Actually I think it is classified as a softwood, somewhere I recall it is not deciduous.)
But of course since wood blocks can't make a difference, it is even less likely that you could compare wood types for wire lift applications! 🙂
But of course since wood blocks can't make a difference, it is even less likely that you could compare wood types for wire lift applications! 🙂
Last edited:
John: Senses are not reflexes. A totally different mechanism. You may want to read up on some basic neuroscience.
Hmmm, not that I would want to quibble, but lemme check: If I look up molecule in my standard Chemistry books I am invariably told it must be at least two atoms to constitute a molecule. By that definition Argon "molecules" as you call them are really only atoms. I am then told that "most" gases are molecules - with the known exceptions. My Physical Chemistry book then has a chapter on "Thermal Energies of Molecules of Gases" but then states in the introduction "think of molecules as a collection of atoms ....held more or less firmly in a spatial arrangement by chemical bonds" so while they speak of molecules of gases they still restrict themselves to molecules in the above sense. But then again I would not trust physical chemists anyway.
P.S. And I thought someone would find my definition of gases debatable ...
You crack me up. BTW Myrtle is far from the rarest wood just check with the Oregon Dept. of Forestry. Funny thing is Mpingo is one of the rarest.
A bit like double-blind tests, used by some sub-groups (though not even consistently - read "often") in a rather sloppy sense and when they are trying to generalise when they shouldn't. Good enough for an approximation but not covering all aspects 🙄
It's chemists versus physicists. We chemists like to see things bonded, physicists like spheres flying around. Dave is a physicist, I'm a chemist, but one who was perverted by getting an undergrad physics degree.
Actually Mpingo is quite a commercial wood. Clarinets come to mind as being a common use. The issue is that most of the logging is black market and destroys trees without replanting. As 100+ years are required to produce a mature tree, that is a real issue.
California Laurel (Myrtle as meant here) is not as commercial and is often considered a nuisance wood! It tends to not cut cleanly, is often not available as large pieces and as far as I know has no standout use. (Besides cable blocks!)
Just as a side note, my family has been involved with wood from forestry to furniture for 5 generations that I know of! (My table saw should have been a hint.)
Scott, you are just going to love this one! http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm
Last edited:
I was going to comment exactly on that aspect but then thought we were already way off topic but here goes. Physicists use clean methods and dirty substances, Chemists use dirty (read sloppy) methods but clean substances and physical chemists - the ones actually doing thermodynamics - use dirty substance AND dirty methods, hence the "molecules" ...
Cal, come in and remove the off topic stuff
- Status
- Not open for further replies.