Jakob2 said:
Agree, one would hope calm references to the literature pointing out misconceptions would help, but as syn08 points out there is a large contingent of those that reject the western philosophical tradition of the scientific method. Sure there are corrupt scientists, so what?
A good extreme example are those that can't except the fact that you can make exact copies of two digital files and they are in fact the same. Best just to ignore.
Re: Wall of Sound
Scott, there was and is still an opportunity for you to investigate what changes and variations in electronics and components are audible to your ears but it seems that you have steadfastly ignored the opportunity to do so...
There is a wide difference between being open to a new engineering technique and being open to your own perceptions and investigating your own perceptions.
The difference is between the person who designs parts of an IROC car, and the person who drives it and decides if it "feels good" or works better or worse than the previous "thing".
No I am not Owsley Stanley. He is not as pleasant a bear to encounter, afaik...
Out here on the bEast Coast of the USA, we always referred to it as the "Monster System." I don't know who or when someone gave it the moniker "Wall of Sound" - I somehow doubt that it was anyone within the organization, since they as I too knew that this was strongly associated with Phil Spector's production style... John?
I was at a few Roosevelt Stadium concerts in New Joisey where they used that system. While the band kinda was flat imho during that period of time, Phils bass was something to seriously behold. There are no recordings that I am aware of that do justice to exactly what that sounded like - and the thing is that he knew how to harness and use that thunder. (ah yessh, the age of Nixon... a fine, uplifting period in American history)
Fwiw, <OT> John I'd use another solution today for the HF array. I think we have discussed this elsewhere? Ping me on this, if the impulse moves you?
_-_-bear
scott wurcer said:
Scott, there was and is still an opportunity for you to investigate what changes and variations in electronics and components are audible to your ears but it seems that you have steadfastly ignored the opportunity to do so...
There is a wide difference between being open to a new engineering technique and being open to your own perceptions and investigating your own perceptions.
The difference is between the person who designs parts of an IROC car, and the person who drives it and decides if it "feels good" or works better or worse than the previous "thing".
dimitri said:
No I am not Owsley Stanley. He is not as pleasant a bear to encounter, afaik...
Out here on the bEast Coast of the USA, we always referred to it as the "Monster System." I don't know who or when someone gave it the moniker "Wall of Sound" - I somehow doubt that it was anyone within the organization, since they as I too knew that this was strongly associated with Phil Spector's production style... John?
I was at a few Roosevelt Stadium concerts in New Joisey where they used that system. While the band kinda was flat imho during that period of time, Phils bass was something to seriously behold. There are no recordings that I am aware of that do justice to exactly what that sounded like - and the thing is that he knew how to harness and use that thunder. (ah yessh, the age of Nixon... a fine, uplifting period in American history)
Fwiw, <OT> John I'd use another solution today for the HF array. I think we have discussed this elsewhere? Ping me on this, if the impulse moves you?
_-_-bear
I do not understand why Scott Wurcer argues with 'rejection of the western philosophical tradition', as his opponnets are mostly from the same country as he is.
Bear, were you at Roosevelt Stadium in '73? Jim Furman and I were there. You know FURMAN the company, today. I don't know who called it 'The Wall of Sound'.
Juergen Knoop said:
Although apparently (if I recall looking at this some time back) US Electrical Code does not permit it, I am still struggling to comprehend why they will not permit the secondary side of an Isolation transformer (eg. 240vac in:120-0-120 out) to have the CT of the secondary find Ground via a local ground rod.
I'm sure there is a logical thought process that dictates why they don't want that, but it would seem to make perfect sense to me... and ought to be rather quiet, if the path to the ground rod is suitably short. (not as good where the path is many yards/meters away)
Juergen, the GFI breaker or outlet would be a "leakage detector". Not sure if will sense anything if the secondary is isolated though and the GFI is on the primary...
...thinking out loud and maybe not making any sense...
_-_-bear
Re: Re: Wall of Sound
Here's my
You don't know about that, perhaps I haven't ignored the opportunity and I did investigate what changes and variations in electronics and components are audible to me? And perhaps I am open to my own perceptions? And perhaps I have the decency to keep such for myself, avoiding to build a gnoseology around my own subjective opinions?
OTOH, in every experimental science it is unavoidable to (sooner or later) filter out the options and put in place some sort of BS detector. Nobody involved in such can afford to investigate each and every option. Can good stuff get lost in the process? Certainly so, but then this is less important than keeping the complexity into reasonable and manageable limits. Experimental sciences are, as much as I hate admitting it, a process that converges in average rather than in each and every detail.
And here's a recent grande example of aberrations that are induced by the lack of proper BS detector.
Someone is complaining about ceramic caps not being good for power supply decoupling because they are piezeelectric and induce noise:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1801720#post1801720
OTOH, someone else is reporting the piezo resonators in parallel with the power supply filters are very good to the sound:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=141618&highlight=
Confronted with this apparently insoluble dilemma, the ceramic cap opponent states:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1802023#post1802023
Now you tell me, do you think it's worth spending time and resources to investigate in depth such (what I call) BS?
bear said:
Here's my
You don't know about that, perhaps I haven't ignored the opportunity and I did investigate what changes and variations in electronics and components are audible to me? And perhaps I am open to my own perceptions? And perhaps I have the decency to keep such for myself, avoiding to build a gnoseology around my own subjective opinions?
OTOH, in every experimental science it is unavoidable to (sooner or later) filter out the options and put in place some sort of BS detector. Nobody involved in such can afford to investigate each and every option. Can good stuff get lost in the process? Certainly so, but then this is less important than keeping the complexity into reasonable and manageable limits. Experimental sciences are, as much as I hate admitting it, a process that converges in average rather than in each and every detail.
And here's a recent grande example of aberrations that are induced by the lack of proper BS detector.
Someone is complaining about ceramic caps not being good for power supply decoupling because they are piezeelectric and induce noise:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1801720#post1801720
OTOH, someone else is reporting the piezo resonators in parallel with the power supply filters are very good to the sound:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=141618&highlight=
Confronted with this apparently insoluble dilemma, the ceramic cap opponent states:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1802023#post1802023
Now you tell me, do you think it's worth spending time and resources to investigate in depth such (what I call) BS?
john curl said:
Yes I was...
I was only able to get in because my friend was doing security for wazziz name, the promoter. Big stupid fence up around the stage/back stage... Bad vibe. Tickets were expensive (cheap by today's standards - anyone want a $125 bleacher ticket to Yankee Stadium?)
Couldn't get any traction with anyone back there, couldn't leave the stadium to approach from another angle... peh. Stupid Marin county attitude inside the fence, imho. Remember it like yesterday.
Used to both get in and backstage at all NY/NJ gigs just by presenting my then biz card backstage "The Electronic Farm"... no prob... guess they got too big and impersonal by then...
Hung out near the FOH mix tower, figured that was where the sound might be better...
Just recall Phil's big bottom end and the band sounding spectacularly non-spontaneous. Don't even remember how I got there or back... or who I was with! Hee hee.
_-_-
PS. who called it "Wall of Sound" doubtless some imbecile writer??
PPS. One heck of a contrast to the Galic Park concert in upper Manhattan/Bronx just a couple of years earlier... maybe 4,000 people there on an old Irish ball park next to the subway. There is a shot of them playing there with the subway (elevated) going by in some book or another. It was Jerry's birthday, iirc, and some locals that I sort of knew brought Jerry a birthday cake and brought it to him up on stage. No fences, almost no security... Altec A7s for PA I think... great show. Pig was in good form. There are tapes to prove it.
PPPS. see what happens when you become an old fart?
PMA said:
Your comment is confusing. I meant that pointing people to scientific studies that contradict their assertions is pointless if they simply reject the methodology in general.
The Dead were pretty tired by then. We had just done Watkins Glen, and that was a great effort, but disappointing event, compared to what we expected. I don't know if you could have said much to anyone, especially back stage. I might have been receptive. Furman was under some bleachers with a groupie, having a pretty good time, as long as it lasted. Healey was mixing, the band was playing, etc. Bill Graham ran the security, most probably. Bad vibe.
As first Bear, Bear, and I know: There is more to making music that reading from engineering textbooks. Wire can be almost magic. Why? I don't know. When I talk to Bear privately, our conversation is free of this 'black magic' or 'garbage physics' nonsense. We KNOW what we know, and convey this back and forth. We know this from our experience, and knowledge of what we are talking about, partially from a real physics point of view.
For example, this week, I mentioned that I worked with another engineer on a new project.
Great engineer, and we used a combination of ADI, Burr-Brown, and National IC's along with discretes.
This guy works full time making microwave IC's. Yes, he designs them. He has both a degree in physics and a masters degree (at minimum) in electronics engineering.
Before this, he worked at Agilent, designing test equipment.
He is a great electronics engineer, and we work well together. He is more theory, I am more practicality.
He is also a business partner with Jack Bybee. Yes, Jack Bybee, who we both regard as a TRUE physicist, and who has no idea how do engineering, but he sure knows his properties of materials.
When he is impugned here, it is personally insulting to me. Especially by people who have never met him or tried his stuff. Just because YOU can't understand something, it doesn't give YOU the right to make fun of them or their ideas.
For example, this week, I mentioned that I worked with another engineer on a new project.
Great engineer, and we used a combination of ADI, Burr-Brown, and National IC's along with discretes.
This guy works full time making microwave IC's. Yes, he designs them. He has both a degree in physics and a masters degree (at minimum) in electronics engineering.
Before this, he worked at Agilent, designing test equipment.
He is a great electronics engineer, and we work well together. He is more theory, I am more practicality.
He is also a business partner with Jack Bybee. Yes, Jack Bybee, who we both regard as a TRUE physicist, and who has no idea how do engineering, but he sure knows his properties of materials.
When he is impugned here, it is personally insulting to me. Especially by people who have never met him or tried his stuff. Just because YOU can't understand something, it doesn't give YOU the right to make fun of them or their ideas.
bear said:
There are GFI detectors that detect leakage on the secondary. They are not sold (AFAIK) other than as part of a finished product. Try a patent search on Tom Hopkins.
IMO it is a pretty usual part, you can find even chinese:
http://circuitbreakers.manufacturer...itbreakers97990-earthleakagecurrentdevice.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual-current_device
http://circuitbreakers.manufacturer...itbreakers97990-earthleakagecurrentdevice.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual-current_device
bear said:
Local grounds are permitted, but they must be bonded to the main ground rod. A lightning condition can cause a difference of more than the 600v insulation rating of Romex between isolated ground rods.
I don't know what devices are used in a dedicated IT-net. I remember only the earth-ban in rooms fed by isolation transformers.
Some times ago movable isolation transformers had always a crippled socket without an earth connection at the output. The input, of course, was three wire and the metal case was earthed.
Now there is a lot of imported stuff on the market without that precaution on the secondary. 😕
Someone mentioned that a 115-0-115 output would be more safe than the usual 230V-Neutral interface.
I have my doubts...
The local 230V system here is considered very safe. Of course it needs to be installed correctly with the appropriate materials etc.
There is no reason that a third or forth parachute is useful, if you can't do the first two right. The additional ones likely would fail too.
regards
Scott, your boss got elected to the National Academy of Engineering:
http://www.edn.com/article/CA6648033.html?nid=2433&rid=1296299
I particularly like his advice to fellow engineers:
"[And] Never cease to ask lots of questions, the most powerful of which are ‘why?’, ‘what if?’, and ‘how about?’ It is such questions--compulsively posed and then addressed as we each ponder our next step--that lead to the breakthroughs that will fuel tomorrow's world.”
Jan Didden
http://www.edn.com/article/CA6648033.html?nid=2433&rid=1296299
I particularly like his advice to fellow engineers:
"[And] Never cease to ask lots of questions, the most powerful of which are ‘why?’, ‘what if?’, and ‘how about?’ It is such questions--compulsively posed and then addressed as we each ponder our next step--that lead to the breakthroughs that will fuel tomorrow's world.”
Jan Didden
janneman said:
That's great (he's not my boss BTW). I'll send you something that will amuse you. 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Wall of Sound
Sorry? I was aiming at Scott??
No idea what you want to spend time on or not.
The issue of what is BS or not is up to the individual to decide for themselves, imho.
Regardless of who decides what and on what basis, if one never attempts to deliberately improve the sonics of whatever system one gets to listen to, then it is difficult for that person to ever discover if something that he/she changes in a circuit or equipment has any discernable effect. As in the analogy I made before - one has to drive the car. If you are testing tires and you are driving a 1959 Oldsmobile, I doubt that you will discern much as compared to the case where you are driving a modern high-performance vehicle.
I think the problem that some (not all) people who take listening as a measure of quality have is that it appears that some people who dismiss meer listening ( - we must have controlled blind scientific tests - ) is that they never seem to even want to "drive the car" or "drive a high performance car" (to continue the analogy).
I have no problem with engineering, science nor controlled tests. But listening is not the same as medical trials nor is it something that can be replaced by other means.
But, please let's not get involved in a discussion of ABX pro and con or a similar off topic issue now?
I just am saying that in order to have some idea if a circuit change or variation is good, one needs to both listen to it and to aim to listen to it using the absolutely best ancilliary gear that one can possibly use.
Perhaps a good analogy is in test equipment. Would you rely upon the results of circuit testing using a 5mHz. untriggered tube oscilloscope and a cheap 1950s VOM? In some situations it is sufficient, but that gear will not reveal the information and detail necessary and required today, now will it? Same thing is true in terms of the playback path when listening.
Scott's old Sequerra speakers are pleasant enough, but they are more like the old 'scope and VOM than they are modern test gear. Ok?
Where in the range are the signal paths of those folks who are commenting on these matters in this thread??
_-_-bear
syn08 said:
Here's my
You don't know about that, perhaps I haven't ignored the opportunity and I did investigate what changes and variations in electronics and components are audible to me? And perhaps I am open to my own perceptions? And perhaps I have the decency to keep such for myself, avoiding to build a gnoseology around my own subjective opinions?
Sorry? I was aiming at Scott??
No idea what you want to spend time on or not.
The issue of what is BS or not is up to the individual to decide for themselves, imho.
Regardless of who decides what and on what basis, if one never attempts to deliberately improve the sonics of whatever system one gets to listen to, then it is difficult for that person to ever discover if something that he/she changes in a circuit or equipment has any discernable effect. As in the analogy I made before - one has to drive the car. If you are testing tires and you are driving a 1959 Oldsmobile, I doubt that you will discern much as compared to the case where you are driving a modern high-performance vehicle.
I think the problem that some (not all) people who take listening as a measure of quality have is that it appears that some people who dismiss meer listening ( - we must have controlled blind scientific tests - ) is that they never seem to even want to "drive the car" or "drive a high performance car" (to continue the analogy).
I have no problem with engineering, science nor controlled tests. But listening is not the same as medical trials nor is it something that can be replaced by other means.
But, please let's not get involved in a discussion of ABX pro and con or a similar off topic issue now?
I just am saying that in order to have some idea if a circuit change or variation is good, one needs to both listen to it and to aim to listen to it using the absolutely best ancilliary gear that one can possibly use.
Perhaps a good analogy is in test equipment. Would you rely upon the results of circuit testing using a 5mHz. untriggered tube oscilloscope and a cheap 1950s VOM? In some situations it is sufficient, but that gear will not reveal the information and detail necessary and required today, now will it? Same thing is true in terms of the playback path when listening.
Scott's old Sequerra speakers are pleasant enough, but they are more like the old 'scope and VOM than they are modern test gear. Ok?
Where in the range are the signal paths of those folks who are commenting on these matters in this thread??
_-_-bear
- Status
- Not open for further replies.