The problem is that people like you keep focusing on ears and neglecting the fact that they're plugged into an embarrassingly unreliable human brain.
You would continuously argue that square A is of a darker shade of gray than square B because well... just LOOK AT IT! It's blatantly obvious!
se
Very good Steve! I think part of the trick comes from the fact that the A and B are in opposite colors, but it is not the only thing of course.
Good illustration.
At our last AES NL section meeting we had organised a presentation about audible illusions, hilarious what you can people make believe by just manipulating sound! The one I liked most was the headphone listening to alternating tones, hearing the high tones at the left ear and the low notes at the right ear. Now the clincher: if you swap your headphone around, you STILL hear the high notes left and low notes right! And to add insult to injury: if you are left-handed, you most probably would hear the whole thing just the other way around!
jan
Attachments
Last edited:
Of course, that wasn't the best choice of a phrase, because underlying the ritualistic ceremonies was a real, initial behaviour, or phenomenon: the introduction of "goodies" via accidental contact with more advanced societies ...Cargo cult just doesnt seem quite strong enough a term
And so it goes for many tweaks - there is something 'real' there, but it is not properly or fully understood, hence the outlandish variations of methods seeking to encourage "right" behaviour of audio systems...
Huuh??! I did say "logical, rational" - and I meant that, I'm not talking pixie dust linkages ...Nonsense. Youy just described the modus operandus for a fraud.
'For every problem, there is an easy to understand, straightforward, wrong answer'
jan
The thing is, that the 'experts' can get it right - I've experienced at least 2 situations where PA systems have been set up to a level where the sound was as good as I could have wished it to be. Which means, at least a few know what they're doing, or at least they can fluke it now and again. And the first time this happened was 25 years ago ...!!Frank, 'we' never said that. It's the marketeers and scam men that say they've done that.
jan
Which means, there ultimately is no excuse for all the other times I've had to put up with shocking or mediocre quality in amplified sound, including, and sometimes especially in audio shop showrooms, and in people's homes ...
Which is why patents are so often used for marketing purposes.
But it would be quite trivial for any defense attorney to disabuse even the most non-technical juror of the notion that patents are of any meaningful utility when it comes to proving whether or not something is complete BS.
se
hehe well this right here explains the MIT patents
My oldest son, Tim Brisson, graduated with his EE around the same time. By this time I needed another person in the Lab, and I quickly hired Tim and that made three. Tim was with me for about 9-years total, and is now a Patent Attorney.
Last edited:
The Bedini is a pure fraud, ...
perhaps we could see your data to back up that remarkable claim.
feel free to use math.
some of us can keep up ...
Last edited:
I believe the illustration above also has something to do with the way we process shadows:
Do we perceive reality? The checker shadow illusion. Why Evolution Is True
that's why if your merging photos its critical to get the shadows correct.
There have been some good programs on Discovery and Nat Geo on how we perceive our world. That's why if I'm taking a photograph I will use my subjective side, its an image an impression I want to create, when I am investigating some audio perceived problem though I use my objective side to back up or NOT, what I subjectively perceive, cos you cant trust your perceptions alone.
And short term memory is shown to be quite unreliable in these programs, food for thought.
Do we perceive reality? The checker shadow illusion. Why Evolution Is True
that's why if your merging photos its critical to get the shadows correct.
There have been some good programs on Discovery and Nat Geo on how we perceive our world. That's why if I'm taking a photograph I will use my subjective side, its an image an impression I want to create, when I am investigating some audio perceived problem though I use my objective side to back up or NOT, what I subjectively perceive, cos you cant trust your perceptions alone.
And short term memory is shown to be quite unreliable in these programs, food for thought.
I believe the illustration above also has something to do with the way we process shadows:
Do we perceive reality? The checker shadow illusion. Why Evolution Is True
that's why if your merging photos its critical to get the shadows correct.
There have been some good programs on Discovery and Nat Geo on how we perceive our world. That's why if I'm taking a photograph I will use my subjective side, its an image an impression I want to create, when I am investigating some audio perceived problem though I use my objective side to back up or NOT, what I subjectively perceive, cos you cant trust your perceptions alone.
And short term memory is shown to be quite unreliable in these programs, food for thought.
When editing a photo I'm going to share or print I want to be sure my monitor is calibrated though otherwise the photo I print looks nothing like the image on the screen ....
Yes, both my monitor and printers are calibrated, I meant the actual taking of the photo, and the manipulation. The camera, monitor, tripod, printer are tools to allow me create a subjective image. My tools have to work to the best of their ability, that's why I set colours etc with a spyder, and not by eye.
perhaps we could see your data to back up that remarkable claim.
feel free to use math.
some of us can keep up ...
youre joking right?
And so it goes for many tweaks - there is something 'real' there,
Is it, now? Isn't the reason that it cannot repeatable and reliable be shown, that there is nothing 'real' there.
jan
I've experienced at least 2 situations where PA systems have been set up to a level where the sound was as good as I could have wished it to be.
So what? YOU liked it, how on earth do you conclude from that that it was 'setup right' - whatever THAT means?
Ohh I get it, 'setup right' means 'I like it'. Yeah, that's a great help for the rest of us.
jan
perhaps we could see your data to back up that remarkable claim.
feel free to use math.
some of us can keep up ...
THEY make the claim, would it not be reasonable for THEM to provide proof?
Especially if it is an extraordinary claim, which as I'm sure you know would take an extraordinary proof before people would even turn their heads.
What is claimed without proof can be rejected without proof.
jan
Here's the requested data:
Materials: CD, SaCo magnet (Magnetic Sales RE2812832), Force gauge (Mark 10) on test stand.
Procedure: The CD was attached to the hook of the force gauge hanging vertically. The weight was noted. The gauge was then put in "peak hold" mode. The magnet was brought within 1 mm of the edge. It was also brought within 1 mm of the front and reverse side. As a control, the experiment was repeated with a similar size of non-magnetic material substituted for the magnet. For a positive control, the front and back sides of the CD were physically touched with a feather, taking care to only brush the CD lightly with the soft portions.
Results: The CD weighed 14.748 g. Near approach with the magnet and the control material showed no change in the weight, irrespective of angle. A feather touch caused the force reading to peak at 14.757 g.
Conclusion: Feathers may have an effect on sound.
Materials: CD, SaCo magnet (Magnetic Sales RE2812832), Force gauge (Mark 10) on test stand.
Procedure: The CD was attached to the hook of the force gauge hanging vertically. The weight was noted. The gauge was then put in "peak hold" mode. The magnet was brought within 1 mm of the edge. It was also brought within 1 mm of the front and reverse side. As a control, the experiment was repeated with a similar size of non-magnetic material substituted for the magnet. For a positive control, the front and back sides of the CD were physically touched with a feather, taking care to only brush the CD lightly with the soft portions.
Results: The CD weighed 14.748 g. Near approach with the magnet and the control material showed no change in the weight, irrespective of angle. A feather touch caused the force reading to peak at 14.757 g.
Conclusion: Feathers may have an effect on sound.
Are we talking of a specific tweak here?Is it, now? Isn't the reason that it cannot repeatable and reliable be shown, that there is nothing 'real' there.
jan
Edit: Also, if your new car makes a funny noise at times, and you take it to the dealer he's justified in stating that unless it can repeatably and reliably shown to occur that there is no onus on them to do anything about it?
Last edited:
How do you suggest we communicate that the sound from a particular audio system we experience is of a certain quality - should everyone carry around a full suite of measurement gear at all times and spend significant time taking comprehensive readings, to be posted as 'evidence' that the sound they heard was up to scratch?So what? YOU liked it, how on earth do you conclude from that that it was 'setup right' - whatever THAT means?
Ohh I get it, 'setup right' means 'I like it'. Yeah, that's a great help for the rest of us.
jan
Ah but do you prefer the soft gentle sound of down, or the richer sound of a peacock's tail feather.Conclusion: Feathers may have an effect on sound.
And how do we equate what we hear with our emotional state, general mood and atmospheric conditions.How do you suggest we communicate that the sound from a particular audio system we experience is of a certain quality - should everyone carry around a full suite of measurement gear at all times and spend significant time taking comprehensive readings, to be posted as 'evidence' that the sound they heard was up to scratch?
youre joking right?
What is it?
Is it a “reasoning denial” attack?
Is it a “f*** reasoning” crisis period?
Is it “I haven’t had my pills lately” symptom?
Conclusion: Feathers may have an effect on sound.
Oh no!
Plus, jacco mentioned feathers a few days ago.
George
How do you suggest we communicate that the sound from a particular audio system we experience is of a certain quality - should everyone carry around a full suite of measurement gear at all times and spend significant time taking comprehensive readings, to be posted as 'evidence' that the sound they heard was up to scratch?
Uhhh... we don't need to carry anything along. But there's measurements and controlled testing that gives you a reasonable certainty that what is generally regarded as 'good' will be considred 'good' by most people.
Of course these things are not necessary for you or for me to enjoy music from whatever system we fancy.
But once you want to convince others, like in trying to sell stuff, that what YOU have is 'good' not just for you but for most folk, you need some sort of measurement or controlled listening test.
jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II