In my earlier post, I forgot the simplest mechanism of the ear: the eardrum. This is a very thin skin that vibrates with incoming sound waves. Its force is used to drive the middle ear's tiny bone levers, which pass the audio energy to the inner ear. So, accurately reproducing the eardrum's oscillations, should accurately reproduce sound, and the complex issue of understanding auditory perception down to details, would not be necessary.
Sorry for my aging-sluggish mind, but in my earlier post, I should have written this one instead.
Sorry for my aging-sluggish mind, but in my earlier post, I should have written this one instead.
And NOW you tell me?
You mean I WASTED my University time from 1969 to 1976?
Plus all the time expanding it until now?
You are making me feel very depressed, what a fruitless life
I have no quarrel with Control Theory itself, but when applied to the audio field, it loses validity becoming out of context, inappropriate, inadequate and misleading. It is also far too simple and superficial. Fortunately, there is a tremendous amount of relevant knowledge beyond the shallow Control Theory.
JMFahey,
there is always an impending danger of misunderstanding hanging over my arguments. Expanding each argument to the size of a chapter could reduce misunderstanding and improve clarity, but still no one would be convinced.
JMFahey,
there is always an impending danger of misunderstanding hanging over my arguments. Expanding each argument to the size of a chapter could reduce misunderstanding and improve clarity, but still no one would be convinced.
N101N, I guess you mean you are into the low-feedback or no-feedback camp? That can be traced back to a mistake in a 1966 article, see
https://linearaudio.net/sites/linearaudio.net/files/volume1ltemvdg.pdf
https://linearaudio.net/sites/linearaudio.net/files/volume1ltemvdg.pdf
Part of that also came from the fact that 'audio types' didn't really have a good understanding of the technical issues, so they were easily convinced that this was a real issue. It was also strongly supported by a lot of marketing, promoting amplifiers with wide OL bandwidth as 'better'.
People with enough engineering background would have seen through the shams but they were working outside of audio.
Jan
People with enough engineering background would have seen through the shams but they were working outside of audio.
Jan
Marcel,
thanks for the hint. To be perfectly frank, I no longer read that genre of high-flying academic literature. The target audience seems to be people with solid engineering background, not unedified hillbillies like me.
JMFahey,
It`s not all in vain, but I would be extremely cautious about applying generic engineering principles to audio.
edbarx,
you can easily get exhaustive answers to those (off topic) questions elsewhere.
thanks for the hint. To be perfectly frank, I no longer read that genre of high-flying academic literature. The target audience seems to be people with solid engineering background, not unedified hillbillies like me.
JMFahey,
It`s not all in vain, but I would be extremely cautious about applying generic engineering principles to audio.
edbarx,
you can easily get exhaustive answers to those (off topic) questions elsewhere.
Yet that doesn't stop you from making strong, sweeping statements about the (in)eptitude of those with a solid engineering background.
Jan
The ear and sound perception are what allows anyone to evaluate the performance of any amplifier; therefore, discussing them is 'on topic'.
The idea of reproducing ear drum oscillations by an oscillating diaphram in air, stems directly from how the ear interfaces with sound waves in air. This is central to the design axiom that accurately reproducing ear-drum oscillations equates to good sound reproduction.
No one can deny the central axiom to sound reproduction is off topic where sound reproduction/amplification is the subject.
If you feel aggrieved by my posts, report me.
No. The world is much bigger than you think. You're the one who stated you are no longer interested to know what's going on in areas you find too hard to understand.
Jan
I didn't mean to offend anyone here. It's just how I tend to ask questions. The layperson just sees a chassis as a box to hold stuff. So that is why i phrased my chassis question like i did. And my original question was geared to anyone with some knowledge about including features on a product.
You misunderstand me. I said 'cobble together other people's designs'; this is different from 'cobble together other people's technology'.edbarx said:
Your last paragraph is way off course. It is best for me to ignore it.
Very amusing, I'm sure. Why exactly do you hang around this website? Thus far you seem bent on dissing knowledge but have not offered any useful alternative.N101N said:
Yes, hands up all designers who take frequency response and THD as the only goals. Oh dear, I can't see many hands.cumbb said:
Would you care to share some of this 'relevant knowledge' with us, or at least point us to where it may be found? Otherwise we might gain the impression that you are merely an ignorant troll who likes to scribble with a crayon on other people's work while contributing nothing himself.N101N said:
Linear Audio is an excellent publication, but it is not 'high-flying academic literature'. The target audience is people who wish to learn, having already acquired some of the basics. It will not help people who do not wish to learn, or people who can't be bothered to acquire the basics.
I'm curious. When did you stop reading that genre of 'high-flying academic literature'? Which genre do you now read? Which particular journals?
I perceive the information in those papers as mushy talk (can't help doing it). Classical Physics is elementarily phenomenological, superficial and gives poor insights due to descriptive incapacity.
¤
Announcing what I reject does not imply that I reject everything, which would be an untenable posture. Not accepting everything is a prerequisite for being trustworthy.
¤
Announcing what I reject does not imply that I reject everything, which would be an untenable posture. Not accepting everything is a prerequisite for being trustworthy.
Your statement makes it clear that you neither grasp Classical Physics nor that which has supplemented it since 1905. Perhaps you should study it in depth before you conclude that the science that underlies the vast majority of contemporary engineering is fundamentally flawed.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.