Jan,
nice album avatar, i recall trying to figure out what the City-to-City and Baker-Street lyrics were about after i bought the Scott record.
Late 70s, must be a few decades old by now.
nice album avatar, i recall trying to figure out what the City-to-City and Baker-Street lyrics were about after i bought the Scott record.
Late 70s, must be a few decades old by now.
GRollins said:
* 1980: 'Picking Capacitors, Part 1', co-authored with Dick Marsh, was published in Audio, in February of 1980. This two part article examined a number of capacitor types for performance characteristics relevant within audio applications. Picking Capacitors, Part 1
* 1980: 'Picking Capacitors, Part 2', co-authored with Dick Marsh, was published in Audio, in March of 1980. Picking Capacitors, Part 2
Walt Jung has those articles on his web site:
http://waltjung.org/Classic_Articles.html
Best, Chuck Hansen
I am quite sure that everyone of us has already read these articles and knows Walt's web page.
john curl said:
How is Dick? I tried calling him a while back and got no answer.
I've gone back to a pair of MET 7's for most of my listening (I never was a bass nut). I measured .1% distortion at my listening level, pretty good.
john curl said:
When people say they can't hear the difference the first thought I have is what's masking it?
Sherlock Holmes said that it is as grave a mistake to underestimate one's powers as to overestimate them. For all that he was a fictional character, everyone knows that Holmes had above-average abilities in his field. Accordingly, he had a high opinion of his abilities. There were a couple of times in the Holmes stories where he was wrong, but they were few and he always came through in the end.
To overestimate or underestimate your hearing is--for those in audio--a distressingly common mistake. My mother was always claiming that she couldn't tell differences, yet she always gravitated to better sounding gear. Back when I was in retail, I knew people who made great claims for their hearing, but it was obvious they couldn't hear a door slam.
In the case of someone who designs equipment, ability to hear well is a great asset. I am not saying that everyone who designs equipment has good hearing, just that good hearing is a useful thing to bring to the table.
Let's assume for a moment that there's an effect that falls below person X's level of perception. Let's say that a given designer, Y, can hear that effect. If the designer knows that effect is there and consciously makes a decision to build it into a circuit, then person X might legitimately say they hear nothing. But if the designer is able to employ another trick that also increases that effect, the sum of the first and second may bring the effect up high enough that X notices it. If Y, the designer, keeps that effect in mind at all times during the design of the circuit, then the total of a hundred little things added together may come to something that even a casual listener can hear.
Why this is regarded as mysterious or delusional is hard for me to fathom.
Do I hear better than others? Yes. Better than many. Are there others that hear better than I do? Certainly. I've never claimed to have the best hearing in the world. Do I hear worse/as well as/better than John, Nelson, or Charles? Hell if I know. I've never sat and listened with them. It would not be surprising to me--nor would I feel threatened--if John hears better than I do. Any more than I feel less a man because I can't play violin as well as Heifetz.
Why is it that audio guys act as though you told them they've got a tiny penis if the topic of hearing comes up? Why all the angst? Get over it. As with sex, you use what you've got. If you use it well, you can get the job done...and have fun doing so.
Grey
To overestimate or underestimate your hearing is--for those in audio--a distressingly common mistake. My mother was always claiming that she couldn't tell differences, yet she always gravitated to better sounding gear. Back when I was in retail, I knew people who made great claims for their hearing, but it was obvious they couldn't hear a door slam.
In the case of someone who designs equipment, ability to hear well is a great asset. I am not saying that everyone who designs equipment has good hearing, just that good hearing is a useful thing to bring to the table.
Let's assume for a moment that there's an effect that falls below person X's level of perception. Let's say that a given designer, Y, can hear that effect. If the designer knows that effect is there and consciously makes a decision to build it into a circuit, then person X might legitimately say they hear nothing. But if the designer is able to employ another trick that also increases that effect, the sum of the first and second may bring the effect up high enough that X notices it. If Y, the designer, keeps that effect in mind at all times during the design of the circuit, then the total of a hundred little things added together may come to something that even a casual listener can hear.
Why this is regarded as mysterious or delusional is hard for me to fathom.
Do I hear better than others? Yes. Better than many. Are there others that hear better than I do? Certainly. I've never claimed to have the best hearing in the world. Do I hear worse/as well as/better than John, Nelson, or Charles? Hell if I know. I've never sat and listened with them. It would not be surprising to me--nor would I feel threatened--if John hears better than I do. Any more than I feel less a man because I can't play violin as well as Heifetz.
Why is it that audio guys act as though you told them they've got a tiny penis if the topic of hearing comes up? Why all the angst? Get over it. As with sex, you use what you've got. If you use it well, you can get the job done...and have fun doing so.
Grey
BudP said:
I'd of said the same or similar, but without the technical parlance. I'd likely be trashed for it. 🙂 Not technical enough!
I mentioned this thread on another, audiophile oriented forum, in a quick discussion of some recent Parasound products. I warned folks that the DIY audio crowd..er..was kinda like: ' A bunch of Scots, who each make their own scotch...sitting in a bar...drunk..arguing over scotch', so they could get a flavour of how the discussions tend to go.
To quote the good rabbi:
"When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."
-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)
I'd say there are guys who are multiple steps ahead, and more, around and out there.
They tend to spend most of their time dodging knives from the ignorant and incensed.
I ran into an interesting fellow, about age 70, at the the local big box book store. He was reading a book on the physics of market and human flow prediction. Seems a literate enough topic, so I struck up a conversation with him.
The gist of the conversation revolved around the idea of there being for him, 10 levels of 'threshold believability' for society and mankind, above that of the 'beer and football' 'self-awareness level' crew.
I figured about 8 levels.
The consensus between us, was that the emotional backdrop that all logical thought in the human mind/brain emerges from, this imposes a 'limit' in the 'believability' of a given logic chain that the given person may come across, but then refuse to believe, as that chain of logic requires that the given person jump across a given chasm made up of the underlying 'absolute rulership' of emotion - that chains the given flow and origins of of logic.
The consensus, again, being that one must pass the idea of the emotions, which due to origins of the mind and the given upbringing, wiring, learning, areas of knowledge, etc., these emotions dictating acceptance of the given point of logic and/or observation.
These levels are encountered everywhere, in everyone's lives. the resultant line of logic, after that point..tends to be:
The person who has dismissed their ego to some degree, and looks at things openly, without judgement, is the person who will learn the most and go the farthest in this world.
However, that person will have to endure the slings, arrows and knives in the back from those who impose self limits, via their emotions, not logic. The point being, that whether one believes it or not, emotions impose all limits of logical pathways of investigation.
Grey,
I’m sorry if I ever gave the impression that I cared about what anyone can or can’t hear. I frankly could care less. I personally find the colorations of speakers and the other mechanical parts of the signal chain matter more to me. What does bother me is when someone says something like, “I have a wonderful new cable that can only work by violating causality” and the only ‘intelligent’ thing I’m expected to do is accept that it’s my burden to disprove it. I’m surprised you don’t find this kind of scientific relativism a sort of egalitarianism in its own right. In the end I guess many folks seem to feel that their integrity and objectivity obviate putting their perceptions to any kind of test.
I was the one who stood up at an AES meeting long ago and pointed out the A to B click
was different than the B to A one, etc..
I’m sorry if I ever gave the impression that I cared about what anyone can or can’t hear. I frankly could care less. I personally find the colorations of speakers and the other mechanical parts of the signal chain matter more to me. What does bother me is when someone says something like, “I have a wonderful new cable that can only work by violating causality” and the only ‘intelligent’ thing I’m expected to do is accept that it’s my burden to disprove it. I’m surprised you don’t find this kind of scientific relativism a sort of egalitarianism in its own right. In the end I guess many folks seem to feel that their integrity and objectivity obviate putting their perceptions to any kind of test.
I was the one who stood up at an AES meeting long ago and pointed out the A to B click
was different than the B to A one, etc..
KBK said:
Hi,
I agree that emotions can be a formidable hurdle. But I wouldn't want to go so far as to call it "imposing a limit". My emotions wouldn't allow that 😉 .
Jan Didden
GRollins said:
More often than not, it's not an issue of hearing, but rather of conscious awareness of what is being heard.
For some, they'll notice consciously and be able to ID what's right or wrong.
For others, the subconscious awareness will just have things not quite right.
For still others, being at a subconscious level will mean the 'defect' in the sound (if you want to call it that) will simply be ignored, just as our heartbeats are most often ignored.
Can you notice the feeling of your left foot now?
You were probably ignoring it until now, even though it was noticable if you wanted to notice it.
We can be taught to notice these sounds consciously.
Ever notice how much more a blind person seems to hear?
Their ear hasn't mutated.
They are simply more consciously aware of the sounds.
We all can learn.
Scott, you should try again to contact Dick Sequerra. Usually you have to wait for him to return your call, so make sure that you at least give your phone number in your message.
In truth, you might get an 'earful' that might shock you. Just ask him how he actually uses your AD797. Ask him about negative feedback. By the way, he sends his regards to you and told me to be easy on you, because you work for a big company and this has effected your perception of the world. (doesn't it always?). Finally, ask him about Jack Bybee and causality. I know that it will be informative and productive to you, and perhaps you and I have more in common than you realize.
In truth, you might get an 'earful' that might shock you. Just ask him how he actually uses your AD797. Ask him about negative feedback. By the way, he sends his regards to you and told me to be easy on you, because you work for a big company and this has effected your perception of the world. (doesn't it always?). Finally, ask him about Jack Bybee and causality. I know that it will be informative and productive to you, and perhaps you and I have more in common than you realize.
PMA, why don't you just ignore this particular thread? There are many others to contribute to. Why make a value judgement on my belief system?
I was going to speak on causality..but I left it purposely alone. The definition of the term 'causality' is the key thing here. If taken to the idea of classical limits of causality, even base level quantum, then yes it is possible to defy causality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
When getting to the idea of "Distributed parameter systems" of causality in the quantum considerations of multidimensionality, in which the idea of 2-d stress fields at their oscillating intersect creating inner and outer vortexes in balance and the resultant vector defining 3-d realities or similar effects....then the idea of causality itself is infinitely open ended, as the base premise allows for it, without restriction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_parameter_systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
When getting to the idea of "Distributed parameter systems" of causality in the quantum considerations of multidimensionality, in which the idea of 2-d stress fields at their oscillating intersect creating inner and outer vortexes in balance and the resultant vector defining 3-d realities or similar effects....then the idea of causality itself is infinitely open ended, as the base premise allows for it, without restriction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_parameter_systems
- Status
- Not open for further replies.