As you presented a perfect example for "non sequiturs" with your "you accept the premise" and "while explicitely admitting to have no idea about the topic" I'd like to know where you adopted this special version of logic.
Sure you're still trying hardcore FUD, so no debate here.
Again, no "ad hominem" and no intention to discredit the knowledge about EMC/EMI but calling out the dishonest FUD attempts. You might reread the classic definition of FUD too.
You really must read for example the book by Alan Chalmers (you know about philosphy of science) and additional literature to get a better understanding about the concept of "proof" and please just acknowledge that you're operating on maximum bias level.
Step back, try to read and respond to the content that was actually written.
I'm sure, you'll sooner or later realize that your're up to now far to often responding to things happening just in your imagination but not to the real content. 🙂
Last edited:
This is exactly why I edited my initial reply and decided it wasn't worth it. A lot of noise, but never any real substance.
I would guess Bruno was saying what people wanted to hear. He is pretty astute with the press after all. He's been knocking out self oscillating class D designs for 20 years now so I suspect he has a very good idea how it will sound. But other than the late Peter Walker everyone listens to their designs. Just some do the iterative glom and listen and others design the best they can manage then listen.
Can you find the effect of PHASE (especially to feedback system), however small, that will make it a time variant system?
Thermal distortion is time variant, but often only weakly so. That the time variance is small means we can still assume the system is time invariant for many of our analytical purposes, but it is an engineering approximation to do so. I will stop here for now.
Last edited:
Is that what you have been doing, "audio science"? How has all your research affected your designs or DIY efforts?
It's interesting, Scott. Can't stand it but I just don't know if there were some 'mystery' about photosynthesis? To compare with quantum theory... In university that I know, quantum theory is taught in master level (postgraduate) and only introduction in undergraduate (Pure Physics major) while photosynthesis is taught in junior high school (grade 9, Secondary 1 in Cambridge curriculum).
I still remember the practical lab activity regarding photosynthesis in my high school...
Last edited:
The explanations on the site linked by mmerrill99 leave more than a bit to be desired. For example, stating that
contravenes directly the Energy Conservation Principle ("Energy can not be created or destroyed, but only transformed from one form to another").
The "two ways of modelling the waves" described in the text produce no models at all; they are merely descriptions of how to visualize the membrane vibration and the air pressure at a point in space vs. time.
In physics and engineering, a model of a phenomenon is in a majority of cases a mathematical description that allows for predictions to be made, i.e. obtaining information about the phenomenon in question under changed initial and boundary conditions.
Such models exist for finite amplitude waves in gases - the first ones were developed more than 150 years ago by Riemann and Earnshaw, and are still valid.
Regards,
Braca
Steady state as a term is often used when describing LTI systems and by _definition_ _excludes_ _transient_ _processes.
Therefore the usual measurement using sine waves is considered as _steady_ _state_ _measurement_
Unfortunately in bias driven mental states unconvient pieces of knowledge are often neglected.
And yes by doing so, you are indeed using classic FUD strategies.
Maybe he was just trying to convey why after all those years with very low THD numbers (started in the late 1970s) there still existed perceptable differences between amplifiers when using music as stimulus.
Science is about investigating & understanding the world. I believe the term audio science is exactly that - investigating & understanding audio & how we perceive it. Applied science is how that understanding is implemented - you are confusing pure science with applied science
Indeed but he is now involved in commerce so everything he says has to be distrusted as marketing - his engineering skills & knowledge are worthless now that he has crossed the Rubicon
Get with the program, Jakob 😉
Having read other comments from Bruno I doubt it. He is very much of the view that the lower all distortions the better.
Let's presume that's what he meant, isn't it widely accepted that THD is not a particularly good measure of performance?
Indeed, it's ironic how the people who shout FUD loudest are the merchants of FUD just in the opposite direction. It's the new strategy - shout fake news at any truths you fear
Which isn´t mutually exclusive, is it?
As usal, it depends.....
From an engineering pov it is a good measure as zero THD is the goal.
And of course some people believe that measured numbers below the known threshold of hearing (with all caveats) indicate nondetectable differences.
Above these thresholds there is indeed agreement that a single number isn't that useful as it doesn't show the specific contributions of different effects.
Correct & the caveats are often the crux of the matter & the elephant in the room, IMO - being how reliable are these audible thresholds when listening to complex signals such as music; how reliable are the measurements when dealing with multiple interconnected devices in the replay chain & when it is handling complex, dynamic music signals
Do you shout FUD - I haven't seen it but maybe you can give examples?
You usually just avidly join in with those who shout FUD
- Status
- Not open for further replies.