I'm sorry, but I thought I was the cod philosopher here. You need to get off my lawn, sunshine.
Exactly.
And no real alternatives are properly proposed, just verbiage.
Apparently, yes...
May I politely say that every scientist in history has made mistakes, and recognition of how those mistakes were made is how we move forward.
We are moving forward - aren't we?
Unfortunately, Lord Kelvin made some big mistakes that hurt the professional reputations of a number of other scientists, because he too had a 'narrow reality tunnel' composed of classical physics and Christian religious beliefs at the time.
For example: He severely criticized Darwin, because Kelvin could PROVE that the Earth could not be very old, by every classical calculation at the time. Darwin needed more time to make his theories work, and after Darwin died, radioactivity was discovered which gave the Earth a potentially much longer life, and Kelvin was proved to be wrong.
In the spirit of what is going on here, it is best to not conclude that someone is wrong, just because what they find does not fit into your 'reality tunnel' no matter what your educational background.
Lord Kelvin also said: "X-rays are a hoax!" and 'Heavier than air flight is impossible'. also. Perhaps he recanted his original statements later, but think of the problems he gave other researchers until he did!
For example: He severely criticized Darwin, because Kelvin could PROVE that the Earth could not be very old, by every classical calculation at the time. Darwin needed more time to make his theories work, and after Darwin died, radioactivity was discovered which gave the Earth a potentially much longer life, and Kelvin was proved to be wrong.
In the spirit of what is going on here, it is best to not conclude that someone is wrong, just because what they find does not fit into your 'reality tunnel' no matter what your educational background.
Lord Kelvin also said: "X-rays are a hoax!" and 'Heavier than air flight is impossible'. also. Perhaps he recanted his original statements later, but think of the problems he gave other researchers until he did!
Should I or Jakob apologize for offering advice when we see something being done incorrectly? Should we not detail what the problems are & offer some possible solutions?
If you find it all tiresome & would prefer to continue in ignorant bliss then just ignore the advice but isn't that what you accuse subjectivists of?
I'm interested in understanding & advancing my knowledge in this hobby & am interested in helping to improve measurements & technical development. Hopefully others share the same objectives?
I've already stated where I believe the next big breakthrough will occur - in the understanding of the technical & perceptual details related to noise floor modulation. Almost all of the audible improvements I see reported in audio can be understood in terms of noise modulation - it is the audibility & clarity of low level detail that brings realism to the playback illusion
Now this may be my "hammer" but it is the best hammer I currently have & has stood the test of time - just need some reliable measurement techniques to "nail it down"
Sorry George my last answer was incomplete. The "a" means what the reference is. The large "A" is the weighting. So your shorthand includes the reference level without stating it. I spell it out as I generally avoid abbreviations as those nitk may get confused.
Since we have so much trouble communicating I will assume you meant an electrical component into a circuit not a preamp or some such into a music reproduction system.
What I have learned from this and similar sites is that there are some rather interesting ideas.
First of course is the chassis or other container must be alluminum at a minimum, but copper is better. The thickness must be several cm for proper shielding.
All components should be suspended in the air by their leads. Cyro treated high purity silver wire with a Teflon jacket should be used. A special solder is required, but there seems to be disagreement over exactly which one. Haven't found the perfect flux even mentioned.
Then of course all work should be done with the component perpendicular to the earths magnet field during a full moon by virgins.
If you need any more tips just ask!
Last edited:
Ed, if it’s not much of a problem, can you give an example, this time stating the reference?
Thanks
George
This is interesting, Rod argues that A weighting is useless and even harmful Sound Level Measurement
Has anyone tried ROd Elliott's test?
I wonder if the equal loudness curve for noise is partly to do with this? ITU-R 468 - the equal loudness contours for noise
As you can see it shows we are significantly more sensitive to noise below about 80Hz by about 10dB & between 1KHz & 12KHz we are also more sensitive - between 5Khz & 8KHz about 12dB more sensitive
This has significance for environmental noise, noise in the workplace but also nois ein our playback systems
- Status
- Not open for further replies.