Once for every test setup you present here in support of some new and wondrous physics explanation. Oh, and another whenever some other person here pipes up how your "data" is just fantastic and explains everything perfectly..When back in the office I will post the schematic. Not sure how you conclude I didn't control the current paths. The send side is powered by two 12 volt gel cells and the receive side by another two. The circuit common is controlled.
BTY how many times did you hit your head?
In my world, the "schematic" is only part of the picture. Anytime you try to measure that low, the devil is in the details...layout, wire dress, loop control, current path control.
I find that most of the troubleshooting I do around the world boils down to the lack of control of the fundamentals. It's not rocket science, but careful consideration of everything. That's why I'm now focused on motion control at work, the details span EE, ME, control theory, physics...nobody tends to try to understand the whole shebang so trips on bad assumptions.
Jn
Last edited:
I would have though you were over this. You explicitly said noise now it's something called intermodulation noise (what ever that is). Do you have a theory of any kind, I don't see path length variance creating new frequencies or is that not what you mean by intermodulation?
Dear Mr. Tintin,
You seem to have conveniently forgotten that you yourself 'regressed' to frustrated 'Kindergarten' behaviours in attempted bolstery for your side after being here for a mere few MONTHS. All of us Lifers chortled when you lost it in front of everybody a few months ago.
Now, imagine Scott's frustration and developing nihilism after going through these motions for a DECADE and a HALF. This is the type of quarterly, reiterative, pseudo-scientific interaction that wore down and drove away our beloved Sy.
I and many others here, are all for keeping this forum on the more civilized side of the Internet Forums Matrix
... but coming from you it seems trifactually hyperboley ("millions years of civilisation trying to transform 'homo erectus' in gentlemen ignored over and over again"), hypocritical and New-Kid-on-the-Blockism (2017).
Tone it down a notch or three!
"Yours faithfully" (what does that even mean?)
Jeff (my REAL name)
Last edited:
Strangely enough, some of the copper wires I use traverse path lengths from microns to centimeters depending on temp, purity, and annealing. Course, some of my wires have infinite path length.
Yet, somebody in a garage somewhere still tends to claim some oddball theory in support of some crazy white paper from some vendor.
Somehow this feels reminiscent of Men In Black, where they hit the news stand for the hot sheets...
Jn
Not just SY, many others. Serious threads about circuit topologies get derailed by where best to apply beeswax and silver foil capacitors or naked Vishay film resistors, silver interconnect wire, etc.
An interesting web statistic would be how many objectivist posters are banned from mainly subjectivist forums vs the reverse. That came up here, where one group wanted a subforum where no demands of objective evidence were allowed.
Last edited:
May I ask how those terms are defined?
If we are forming up lines according to those classifications, it would be nice to know what the rules are for each one.
Anyway, I hope we are not forming up lines, and that people can reasonably be some mix of objective and subjective.
It is funny...
I always laugh about the Ph.D. and physicist/scientist/engineer stereotypes, feeding into them myself. I joke about me not allowed to even hold sharp objects, the Doc Brown stereotypes...
That said, I'm working with a physics Ph.D. Now, he is one of the sharpest guys I know. When I explain to him things outside his domain, he gets it. I am jealous.
And he's young, lots of years in front of him.
In 25 years, the only ones I've had to bash upside the head are engineers. Machinists and technicians, I end up grovelling at their feet they are so good. Physicists, I try to understand..
But I would love to say "Ok slick" to a physicist.. That would be so cool.
Jn
Please go for it, I don't know anything more than demanding DBT gets you banned from some forums. To me subjective is casual sighted listening is valid data for anything, to me it's just an exercise to make some folks happy.
Had a PhD physicist trying to understand why a complex mechanical mechanism wasn't working according to his equations. After some months of no progress, someone asked me to go meet with him. I looked at the thing for a few minutes, saw what the problem was and explained it to him. His response was, "But, there is no theory for that!!"
Last edited:
So, objectivist is anything that is not subjectivist?
You see, there is another forum that uses those terms regularly, with the so-called objectivists seeing themselves as the good guys who know the facts, the science, the real truth. It's kind of like there is an 'objectivist' tribe over there. Us and them, kind of thing. Doesn't look to me like I think scientists are supposed to look.
As I said go for it whatever you want. The not knowing not peeking causes such stress in the ranks I never cease to be amazed.
Understood and mostly agreed. I would like to see us fix that or at least substantially improve it.
I think it means something like, 'makes it possible to hear small details, or small differences.' Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to differentiate whether that is done by reducing distortion, or increasing it.
Slightly off topic, but in the world of 'dang thats impressive'. I note that the new Ishiny line has been launched with 7nm processors. That is close to witchcraft in my book. And no soft start, they'll be making 10^8 of them this year.
I have no interest in owning Apple stuff, but I take my hat off to the legions of clever guys that made that happen. Also useful for focussing on how pointless some of the arguments over the sound of a foot of wire are
I have no interest in owning Apple stuff, but I take my hat off to the legions of clever guys that made that happen. Also useful for focussing on how pointless some of the arguments over the sound of a foot of wire are
Thank you Ed.
When I see so many harmonics of the main’s freq at a measurement’s FFT, I know it is loop pick-up. Either ground loop or test lead loop.
You have measured across the wire. The wire and the test leads to the differential amplifier have formed the loop, an aerial loop.
If you run this again, try to reduce the loop area. You will have a much cleaner FFT.
Attached are FFTs from the output of the same TT setup (arm on stand): M97xE+SME3009+TD160+single ended Aurak RIAA preamplifier to a passive preamp box, to an Maudio USB soundcard.
The only variable is the area of the loop formed between the tonearm shielded interconnect and the two grounding wires (TT’s and tonearm’s)
0dBFS is 1.286Vrms.
The 300Hz tone L+R at +18dB above 0VU of the HFN test vinyl record, gives –16dBFS output on this setup.
George
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.