scott wurcer said:
Ya just never know who's going to be right and who's going to look like an idiot.
I was thinking about all of this recently... Audio design could loosely be compared to building a tangible, functional thing, maybe a chair? The logic, as far as this goes, is that the audible spectrum is very simple, the bandwidth limited (relative to the outer reaches of today's technology) I won't go on about all of the set parameters, but what we hear is finite.
Examine the parallels to building, let's say, a chair, a good one. A craftsman intuitively understands the material properties, as well as the materials; be it wood or metal. He has a eye for the aesthetics and an understanding of the load it needs to handle, the color to fit the decor and whatever personal touch he brings to it's construction. In the end he builds a chair that is functional (unless he's an inexperienced), looks as he intended it to and pretty much fits the goal that was the reason for building it.
Now, building this same chair can also be approached starting with a conceptual idea, inputting the design parameters to a FEA program with all of the anticipated loads, material properties, expected temperatures (in normal uses and extremes etc.) The materials can then be selected based on the state of art materials available, subtle distinctions can then be discussed as to the suitability of carbon fibers to Kevlar reinforced substrates, with ergonomic considerations all factored in... The final implementation would be an embodiment of the state of the art in chair design (with an associated price tag that would parallel many current high-end audio designs). Has any real performance value been added through the high tech analysis and application of the state of the art in technology?
The question being, in my mind (for the intended application), which is the better approach? Who is the engineer/practitioner better suited to provide a product for the enthusiast wanting to have the best representation of music as a part of their domestic life. You have to understand I'm not fixated on who can build it for less, I'm contrasting the hands on, years of experience to the High-Tech "drive the distortion spec to south of 140db because it has to be better" approach.
Is the salty/aged craftsman, who fine-tuned his understanding of the subtleties over many years of hands on at a disadvantage to the simulation/technology savvy modern day engineer?
Does the high tech savvy engineer miss some the subtle (and not so subtle) oddities based on a heavy relience on the bible that his tools have been created on? Or does his mastery of the definable world guarantee a level of performance the experienced hands-on guy could never achieve?
It seems the Blowtorch was conceived in one reality and is being examined in the other.
It's a fascinating ride all the same. 😉
Mike.
Keith Johnson is a pretty darn good engineer. If he thinks something important, I would not condemn it, just because you don't go along with it. He doesn't compromise, that's all. I have read his stuff from the early '60's, and gained much from it, even independently paralleling some of his research when I was at Ampex. Doug Sax is an excellent recording engineer. What do you have against him?
It is these 'cheap shots' that compromise commercial engineers, when they criticize, without knowing the people they impugn.
PS I am not on speaking terms with Keith Johnson, but that would not make me criticize him without real knowledge or reason.
It is these 'cheap shots' that compromise commercial engineers, when they criticize, without knowing the people they impugn.
PS I am not on speaking terms with Keith Johnson, but that would not make me criticize him without real knowledge or reason.
He was one of the founders of Gauss-Electrophysics, back around 1970. Very good electronic design engineer. My only real competitor in analog recorder design.
What makes you think I have anything against those guys? I said they were smart. When someone says that the information content of an LP is greater than the entropy of the universe, I figure they weren't really thinking before they spoke.
Scott, I see your point, but I 'think' I know what he is trying to say. I'm not sure, but Keith may be thinking that if you could have 16 bit resolution of the 16th bit(last bit), then you would have what we have in analog (ideally) What would be the actual number of bits necessary for this condition to be met? 32 bits? Less? More?
I know for a fact, by physical example, that 24bits can be pretty marginal at times.
I know for a fact, by physical example, that 24bits can be pretty marginal at times.
Fellow engineers, let me give you a few quotes from experts throughout history. This is not a joke:
"A physicist who professed such ideas was unworthy to teach science."
German Minister of Education on OHM and his law. 1827
"I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existence of atoms and other
such dogmas." Ernst Mach 1913
"X-rays are a hoax" Lord Kelvin 1900
Think about it, are any of us more EXPERT than these guys were? There are 100's of other examples, in the book 'The Experts Speak' and the authors of this book were interviewed just last night on Bill Moyer's Journal (an important TV commentator) and 'examples' were quoted from this book. The authors initially predicted that they would find 'experts' right perhaps 50% of the time, but they found with few exceptions that 'experts' often get it wrong, especially in speculating on the future, or commenting on an area of understanding that they are not directly involved in. Even then, they usually get it wrong much of the time.
This is why you have to be very careful about what you say about others, and you have to be more generous with the oversights of others, yet still attempt to understand what they are trying to get at. For example, I bet that Keith multiplied, when he should have added.
I regret that he has a personality quirk that makes communication between us limited at best, but I would not technically compromise him in print.
"A physicist who professed such ideas was unworthy to teach science."
German Minister of Education on OHM and his law. 1827
"I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existence of atoms and other
such dogmas." Ernst Mach 1913
"X-rays are a hoax" Lord Kelvin 1900
Think about it, are any of us more EXPERT than these guys were? There are 100's of other examples, in the book 'The Experts Speak' and the authors of this book were interviewed just last night on Bill Moyer's Journal (an important TV commentator) and 'examples' were quoted from this book. The authors initially predicted that they would find 'experts' right perhaps 50% of the time, but they found with few exceptions that 'experts' often get it wrong, especially in speculating on the future, or commenting on an area of understanding that they are not directly involved in. Even then, they usually get it wrong much of the time.
This is why you have to be very careful about what you say about others, and you have to be more generous with the oversights of others, yet still attempt to understand what they are trying to get at. For example, I bet that Keith multiplied, when he should have added.
I regret that he has a personality quirk that makes communication between us limited at best, but I would not technically compromise him in print.
Charles Hansen said:
Charles,
Thanks for that bit of industrial history! I am using the 844 as the error correction element in my amp and until now assumed the front end had about 1mA standing current. Too optimistic, it appears.
If it is not too much to ask, I would appreciate a copy of the schematic you discussed.
Jan Didden
Please show me the way to the basement. It is kind of funny that people quote the latest research in quantum mechanics or high energy physics and say that maybe here finally lies the answer as to why my favorite speaker cable "blows away" 10ga zip cord.
There is always MARKETING, Scott. Some people will push something using high tech babble. However, you are probably in the dark about some things that I know about, because I work with a high tech physicist, on occasion. He will tell me things that you would not believe. However, I have been willing to TRY: wire, quantum purifiers, better connectors and switches, etc. etc. I can even measure (at least get a significant meter reading) different wires and note differences. Of course, presenting this evidence to you or almost anyone else, would just create condemnation that I don't know what I am doing, faking it, or some such.
X-rays were considered a hoax by Lord Kelvin, because he was too rigid to include its possibility in his vast experience with physics. It is the same, today, and that impedes progress.
X-rays were considered a hoax by Lord Kelvin, because he was too rigid to include its possibility in his vast experience with physics. It is the same, today, and that impedes progress.
The difference is that the claims for X-rays had evidence behind them, so they were accepted despite the protestations of any eminence grise. N-rays were not so lucky, and there's an analogy there...
There is plenty of evidence supporting the notion that all competently designed amplifiers do not sound the same.
The opponents to this notion will look as deep as necessary to find a crack in the listener or the data, drive a wedge into the crack and then quickly proclaim that the entire conclusion is therefore wrong.
I believe that these people in fact don't hear a difference, the problem is their never ending need to prove you couldn't hear one either.
The opponents to this notion will look as deep as necessary to find a crack in the listener or the data, drive a wedge into the crack and then quickly proclaim that the entire conclusion is therefore wrong.
I believe that these people in fact don't hear a difference, the problem is their never ending need to prove you couldn't hear one either.
Yes, SY, N-rays fell by the wayside, BUT X-rays were also called a hoax for years. You have to SEPARATE the wheat from the chaff, not condemn it all, up front.
Not to dampen the debate but....
............. what has all this got to do with the Blowtorch? ..........we seem to have strayed a little.........😀 Maybe a new regulator scheme or revised topology is in order.......just a suggestion 😎 or maybe that age old question.......to servo or not to servo.........😱
Regards,
Jam
............. what has all this got to do with the Blowtorch? ..........we seem to have strayed a little.........😀 Maybe a new regulator scheme or revised topology is in order.......just a suggestion 😎 or maybe that age old question.......to servo or not to servo.........😱
Regards,
Jam
john curl said:
I do too, quantum entanglement, 'freezing" atoms in their place with lasers, evidence that the wave function of all particles exists everywhere in the universe at the same time, stuff NOBODY would believe. Does it apply to audio? Hmmmm maybe.
Sorry, tomorrow I will return with some real circuit stuff.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.