John this discourse is sad and unproductive, I still consider you a buddy, but I can't console you. I need to fix my scanner so I can get back to circuits.
fizzard said:
That's easy -- they've been under the influence of Consumer Reports and Stereo Review for decades.
This is the only country in the world where the idea that electronics can make a difference in the sound of audio reproduction is outside of the mainstream. In my estimation, it is largely the result of those two popular magazines, and secondarily to the gang that runs the AES.
Charles Hansen said:
OK guys, I'm going to "go deep" and try to uncover an original schematic. It's almost at the "why did you resign" level.
scott wurcer said:
Scott, there's no need. Jan is confused about something, but I'm not sure what. If you look at the datasheet for the AD844, the pinout is shown on page 1. There are null pins at 1 and 8 of the DIP package and 2 and 15 of the SOIC package.
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/AD844.pdf
I do tire of the "snake oil" argument. Let's see, a very good audio system runs $10 thousand, $20 thousand, $30 thousand and up.
Those audiophiles who have the brains and education to hold jobs that allow that amount of disposable income are so stupid that they allow themselves to be taken by con artists - huh?
Venerable companies such as Acoustic Research, MacIntosh, Conrad Johnson, Pass Labs, Krell (I've left out many deserving others) stay in business year after year and none of these well educated rich people ever catch on? Give me a break.
It requires a degree of intellectual arrogance to firmly hold onto the idea that only your version of truth could be correct.
One also questions why someone who holds these beliefs spends time on this forum? Laughing at the monkeys? Really, if all competent designs sound the same, then there must be nothing to learn here. I seem to recall that the Japanese went on a receiver low distortion race about 30 years ago. If memory serves, they achieved results in the 0.0005% range and the equipment for the most part sounded awful.
Each is welcome to their opinion, but to attack the ethics of anyone who disagrees is not allowed.
Those audiophiles who have the brains and education to hold jobs that allow that amount of disposable income are so stupid that they allow themselves to be taken by con artists - huh?
Venerable companies such as Acoustic Research, MacIntosh, Conrad Johnson, Pass Labs, Krell (I've left out many deserving others) stay in business year after year and none of these well educated rich people ever catch on? Give me a break.
It requires a degree of intellectual arrogance to firmly hold onto the idea that only your version of truth could be correct.
One also questions why someone who holds these beliefs spends time on this forum? Laughing at the monkeys? Really, if all competent designs sound the same, then there must be nothing to learn here. I seem to recall that the Japanese went on a receiver low distortion race about 30 years ago. If memory serves, they achieved results in the 0.0005% range and the equipment for the most part sounded awful.
Each is welcome to their opinion, but to attack the ethics of anyone who disagrees is not allowed.
Some OT posts deleted.
Certainly some are just showing off their wealth. And others bought expensive equipment on recommendation in spite of the fact that they hear no difference.
There are companies who make quite expensive equipment where style is the driving force, some of that stuff is gorgeous, if the object was to show off, this stuff would be everywhere.
No, I think most people who spend small fortunes for audio gear can hear the improvement, they buy the expensive spread for the joy of listening to artists performing their craft.
Anyway, I'll shut up for a while and let the discussion get back to the Blowtorch before I get deleted for being off topic.
There are companies who make quite expensive equipment where style is the driving force, some of that stuff is gorgeous, if the object was to show off, this stuff would be everywhere.
No, I think most people who spend small fortunes for audio gear can hear the improvement, they buy the expensive spread for the joy of listening to artists performing their craft.
Anyway, I'll shut up for a while and let the discussion get back to the Blowtorch before I get deleted for being off topic.
It doesn't matter. We all need rich and well to do people.
They are the early adopters of just about any new technology we can think about. At any time in history. In just about any field you care to mention.
If they are absent, adoption takes a very long time.
I preferred the other discussions.
They are the early adopters of just about any new technology we can think about. At any time in history. In just about any field you care to mention.
If they are absent, adoption takes a very long time.
I preferred the other discussions.
Just for the record: the general theory of relativity is very probably the most accurate and never contradicted theory to the day. Without it, it would be near to impossible to send probes to Pluto et al.
Quantum Mechanics still has problems to integrate special relativity in a perfectly clean manner. Of course another real complication is that measuring the system changes it at the same time. Anyway, 'accuracy' is a relative term since the uncertainty principle applies as well 😀
Have fun, Hannes
is this really true?h_a said:
we could do what prehistoric man did when he didn't fully understand the design concept - trial & error - until the damn thing works.
Sorry,
not much to do with Blowtorch.
OT
AFAIR occam´s razor wasn´t an explicit statement by himself but more a conclusion of his work in general.
Normally it´s more like- when you have two competing theories, the one that needs less unproven assumptions is the better.
I don´t think that´s the problem; at least the grand debate is going on since roughly 30 years ago and we have to admit that we in the high end audio industry weren´t doing our best in regard to scientific methodology.
Quite often i think that holds true for the (sometimes only selfacclaimed) objectivists too and these both factors leads to the unhappy situation we are facing.
But the main problem is imho that the majority of customers for audio technique isn´t that much in need for higher quality and that certainly slows down the progress.
Jakob2
AFAIR occam´s razor wasn´t an explicit statement by himself but more a conclusion of his work in general.
Normally it´s more like- when you have two competing theories, the one that needs less unproven assumptions is the better.
I don´t think that´s the problem; at least the grand debate is going on since roughly 30 years ago and we have to admit that we in the high end audio industry weren´t doing our best in regard to scientific methodology.
Quite often i think that holds true for the (sometimes only selfacclaimed) objectivists too and these both factors leads to the unhappy situation we are facing.
But the main problem is imho that the majority of customers for audio technique isn´t that much in need for higher quality and that certainly slows down the progress.
Jakob2
Dear Andrew, feel free to mail me directly if you wish. Unfortunately I do not understand your last post. I am not aware that prehistoric people sent probes to Pluto - maybe you mean astronomy in general? Observation and sending gear on a multi-anni lasting journey are different things entirely. Don't forget that slight deviations in the period of planets (deviation of ideal ellipse) are not even noticed by simple observation methods - but they can make changes to the trajectory of probes necessary.
Have fun, Hannes
Have fun, Hannes
hermanv said:
Hermanv,
Your post seems intuitively logically, but unfortunately isn't true. I can recomment a book or two which document why intelligent persons sometimes do stupid things, or hold on to absolutely ridiculous belief and convictions. It's not "intelligent people versus us"; we all play both roles in the argument interchangeably.
What it boils down to is that the fact that something sells very well to the affluent has no bearing on its intrinsic quality. Indeed, if you study this phenomenon, it becomes clear that the reason something keeps on selling, long after it became obvious that it isn't worth it, is the same as the reason why it got 'hot' in the first place. Eye opening, if you can bear it 😉
"Don't believe everything you think", by Thomas Kida;
"Mistakes were made (but not by me)", by Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson.
Happy reading!
Jan Didden
Charles Hansen said:
Ahhh yes, I see. Never noticed them, they're not on the simplified schematic in the data sheet. They are on the layout pic I see now.
Thanks!
Jan Didden
Jan, I have the Tavris book, it's excellent. The classic here is still Mackay's "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds." It's about 150 years old and still fresh and relevant.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.