No I haven't. YouTube I've seen Walkabout
The Last Wave, Walkabout, The Shout a good day bingeing at the gates of dawn. You could throw in Picnic at Hanging Rock. I also have a weakness for Quigley Down Under sort of an Aussie version of "they killed my dog so I have to kill everyone" movie.
Last edited:
Why are people confused? That is a very good question - my topic is actually quite simple and I talk to a lot of people who are not confused at all. They are actively engaged in the question that is being raised: The topic is not about current drive, but what the current does under voltage drive. Perhaps look up the work by Hans van Maanen of Temporal Coherence and Menno Vanderveen and more. People are coming at this from various different angles, the subject is clearly bigger than one person. Again I reiterate that this is not a rehash of the on and off discussion of current drive, we have progressed beyond that old chestnut. This is about what happens to the current regardless of drive, but that the default drive will remain voltage drive, not current drive.
This is a good time because there are serious people coming at this and yes, there are people who are doing measurements. Hans van Maanen uses current EQ so that the amplifier produces a voltage square wave, it also produces a current square wave. He claims that temporal (timing) effects are audible and suppressed when using current EQ that has not effect on the voltage of the amplifier (because that is the nature of a voltage source). What he calls temporal I call time smear - and yes, it is measurable.
I have included a measurement below, where the amplifier produces square waves on both the voltage side (Yellow) and current side (Purple) into a speaker where the current EQ makes sure that the current drawn is the same (or very close) at all frequencies. Listening panels have heard the sound improvement, but of course things are never that simple. One day we shall even have an ABX regimen and I have no problem with that. If done correctly I believe it to be audible even if I am not the fan of ABX I used to be.
Please see attachment 2KHz Voltage and Current.
Cheers, Joe
AKA, Magnum goes Down Under.
Attachments
AKA, Magnum goes Down Under.
I guess we're in for another round of your trolling, I wish you would go to the vendors forum with this stuff because you do have something to sell.
Wake me when it's over.
Joe what is the attraction to keep coming here and posting your theories?
Last edited:
I suppose he believes there's enough gullible people here, willing to buy these theories.
The point is he has his own threads with his believers present, why doesn't he just stay there.
Looking to extend his audience? I'm suspecting this thread is by far the most popular among DIYAudio readers.
The way he explained it to me (I had not asked) was that there was a secret conspiracy on DIY Audio, of people who opposed him and his thinking. They kept shouting him down and censoring him when he tried to present his ideas. and his threads got shut down. However, "the Blowtorch thread" was a special place where moderators allowed more leeway, so he hoped to "stealth" his ideas in this thread until he could get enough momentum to present them more radically without anyone questioning him.
At that point I asked him to stop messaging me.
I don't quite understand, Joe has his Elsinore thread where he and his posse can ruminate to their hearts content. There is no conspiracy he is just wrong and promoting a personal BS view of things.
I know all those things, just reporting what he told me in unsolicited private messages, which I think go some way to answering your earlier question.
I no longer have any interest in interacting with Joe.
Oh, no.
We have almost coconut-headphone thinking that bullying people who misuse technical language in the slightest way will bring back the old days with lots of experts in forums who left because of garbage like bullying.
We have conspiracy thinking about people sneakily trying to sell things without revealing their true purpose, now this.
It would seem not very flattering in what it suggests about people attracted to forums, on average. Wouldn't be surprised if the more sane people with strong offline social nets get driven away disproportionately.
There is of course another group who just want to collaborate with normal, well-adjusted people who are interested in audio. And, of course everyone sees themselves as being exclusively a member of that group.
What a mess.
Sure is. Progressive thinking versus extreme conservatism, but this has a long history but it does seem to have been ramped up lately. Note the personal stuff? I won't respond to it. I thought there was rules?
The odd thing is that I am nothing like what they think of me. My thinking is actually fairly conservative (ask Dan who has called me a number of times, he is far more out there). You wouldn't know... oh well.
To which of the groups you consider to belong? Based on your thoughts on "first cycle distortion", resistive speaker impedance to reduce distortion or class AB inability to drive complex load I would guess the extreme conservatism group, or extreme superstition group.
What started the "steady state mess" by triggering the "FUD shouting" was this post :
which, I think, covers in short what the relevant literature says:
(Phillips, Parr,Riskin; Signals, Systems and Transforms, 4th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008, 517)
Messrs. Schoukens, Pintelon, Oudeeraa and Pinneboog mentioned the method too in their paper from 1988:
(J. Schoukens, Rik Pintelon, Edwin van der Ouderaa and Jean Renneboog; Survey of Excitation Signals for FFT Based Signal Analyzers, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol 31, No 3.
September 1988)
And if someone wonders why the quite innocuous statement in my post could have evoked this "mess" , he is not alone.....
q.e.d.
It is still useful to remember that measurement with sine-waves (you know single-tone or pure-tone
which, I think, covers in short what the relevant literature says:
(Phillips, Parr,Riskin; Signals, Systems and Transforms, 4th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008, 517)
Messrs. Schoukens, Pintelon, Oudeeraa and Pinneboog mentioned the method too in their paper from 1988:
(J. Schoukens, Rik Pintelon, Edwin van der Ouderaa and Jean Renneboog; Survey of Excitation Signals for FFT Based Signal Analyzers, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol 31, No 3.
September 1988)
And if someone wonders why the quite innocuous statement in my post could have evoked this "mess" , he is not alone.....
q.e.d.
I hope you aren't disappointed by all the technical/theory stuff that's bandied about
No, don't flatter yourself
, you have your own unique way of misbehaving
- Status
- Not open for further replies.