Max, by pity, it does not make any sense.
Listen. I am one of the most awful subjectivists. The sworn enemy of the objectivists of this forum who dream to send me in the fires of hell.
Imagine that, from time to time, I even chose circuits that measure less well because I prefer the way they sound.
But if there is one thing that I do not forget, it is to measure first, to be wary of my perceptions, and, above all, never to draw hasty conclusions, acrobatic generalisation, or to make far-fetched assumptions about things that I do not understand.
As long as you will not be able to present, to the Academy of Sciences, an irrefutable theory that would contradict the existing knowledge, it seems to me more appropriate to abstain.
because the academy is populated with VERY suspicious people, and that the things they take as granted had been verified thousand times in thousands of situations, by thousand of different people.
One makes a better meal by hunting with the telescope a recognized game than by shooting at random with blindfolded eyes.
In hifi as in all other situations, on have to discriminate between art, business and technic. And understand objectively the purpose of all his decisions in regard of those targets.
Dont talk-me about directional behaviors of conductors. Music is alternative pressures on the air like in the cables, one transformed in electricity, Symmetrical, because, on the long run, the relative result is 0.
Last edited:
Don't recall who it was that said words to the effect: Common sense must be the most plentiful thing in the world, for no one claims to have less than his fair share.
A Wiki view: Common sense - Wikipedia
A Wiki view: Common sense - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I admire your tenacious charm offensive, I wonder who's going to crack first 😀
Nothing wrong with that. I wonder at times since anthroposophy seems so popular in Australia if maybe Dan has come under their "spirit" science influence. In fact there is a disproportionate amount of fringe science down under. Anthroposophy - Wikipedia
OTOH they produced Judith Durham, talk about a universal good vibe.
Denying Fourier? 😉 Whilst I would find it interesting if the way the ear functions is some special case, I can't find any evidence
The two levels of reading amused me, but I immediately thought that one who does not know how to distinguish between civilized behavior and that of a wild animal in heat must expect to have a complicated social life.
Attachments
I was not aware of this. Did this movement or one of its members produced any interesting new scientific discovery ?
When I say some try to make science a new religion.
Like this ?
YouTube
Good vibes, floating around the tone, randomly hitting-it ?
If that's it, the goods vibes, I prefer the bad ones of Randy Newman ;-)
YouTube
YouTube
It hurts your ears less
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean here, can you elaborate how I'm denying Fourier & maybe explain more about why you seem to suggest Fourier defines the workings of auditory perception?
The BM is a resonant system as far as I can gather and basically seems to function like a spectrum analyser, ie performs a fourier transform on the signal. I could/would like to be wrong, am I?
Most likely just a misunderstanding. .. wrt the "Fourier denial" ....
I´m not sure that i understand the question about the (maybe) different auditory perception from your second last post.
Sort of, all the channels are available in real time, if they get shaken they produce an output. but spectrum analysers usually sweep across all the available frequencies. Also we do not have such tight control over their bandwidth in the case of basilar hairs.
Max . . . seriously you are now off with the fairies bud. That's all I can say.
Yes, that bit's interesting, the different, not fully understood methods of pitch perception
Hmm, apart from the fact that the resonance of BM is just one tiny part of auditory perception how does what I posted mean "fourier denier"?
Dispersion is one of the terms I see frequently misused. In acoustics it refers to high frequency sound pressure waves do travel faster than lower frequency ones in a nonhomogenous media. Doesn't occur in monotomic gases. However as the air I am used to contains water vapor the issue occurs. About 2mS in my stadia scale project loudspeaker throw distances.
Now does this occur to a significant amount in audio interconnect cables. A simple test would be to look at the propagation of a square wave in two cables with the same construction and circuit theory values. I do have an oscilloscope with a bandwidth great enough to look for this. I do not have a picosecond rise time signal source nor two matching cables of silver or copper.
I suspect low grade copper wire may actually show some diffferences. Enough to be perceptually audiable? Low probability but not completely beyond possibility.
Now cable break-in is actually demonstrated by looking at low level signals and the issues with interconnects before and after passing a much higher level signal through the system.
Often demonstrated by folks with a dead microphone that starts to work after someone taps on it.
Of course Scott never having seen this will be glad to tell you why it doesn't happen.
Now does this occur to a significant amount in audio interconnect cables. A simple test would be to look at the propagation of a square wave in two cables with the same construction and circuit theory values. I do have an oscilloscope with a bandwidth great enough to look for this. I do not have a picosecond rise time signal source nor two matching cables of silver or copper.
I suspect low grade copper wire may actually show some diffferences. Enough to be perceptually audiable? Low probability but not completely beyond possibility.
Now cable break-in is actually demonstrated by looking at low level signals and the issues with interconnects before and after passing a much higher level signal through the system.
Often demonstrated by folks with a dead microphone that starts to work after someone taps on it.
Of course Scott never having seen this will be glad to tell you why it doesn't happen.
I'd say it was a big part, but there you are, my perception is different to yours 😉 It sounded from your post as though you were not clear about how a bass note with a very fast transient could have higher frequency components that would not affect the time at which said bass note reached the relevant portion of the BM
It's known as mechanically breaking through a previously oxidized layer. Do you actually believe it's something else? Like working a bad switch back and forth, I have an old DVM that does this. I thought you were taking a break from picking at scabs. Maybe we should revisit your battery that creates charge out of one terminal or some of your other fantasies. Battery, switch, transmission line, yes when you close the switch there is instantaneously current in both terminals of the battery. You can measure it, it's easy.
Last edited:
Perhaps? It seems very orthogonal to what I said that I can't understand the logical connection?
The original genesis of this strand of the discussion arose from a question by RNmarsh
I'm still attempting to answer this question, I guess? I made the point that risetime was not frequency dependent but Scott makes the point (I think) that the more square the wave (faster the rise time), the more HF harmonics are involved (hence the Fourier denial quip, I presume?)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.