We still have to have multiple different systems to listen to it on.
because if we don't, then who's to know when the first hint of
distortion is coming on?
You had better know the sound inside and out along with the
equipment inside and out, because I was told more than one
my system sounded like "distortion", "shirt", "dead", etc. when
it was in the recording, production, mastering, compression....
Heck even new runs of discs etc, sound different than the
original version. These include ALL of them, from name artists,
international artists, and local artists and new compilations...etc.
Doesn't matter, if you don't pay for the glass it gets tossed!
The problem becomes the same that our "friend" complains about...
and what we are all in one way or another trying to define, identify,
quantify, etc.
We have to be a slueth about it. S.A. Conan Dolye stated it best
(paraphrased here cause it don't want look it up)
Through the process of elimination, what ever you have left,
however improbable it may be, is the answer.
So we are on the "endless quest" of elimination.
Please keep in mind the instruments themselves distort.
Then there is that crazed edge we can walk on that edge,
Personally, I've four piano strings and a few hammers
along with too many guitar strings to count.
I love music and I love making it.
Well, there are transformers and then there are transformers.
http://www.scientificonversion.com/AES1998.pdf
See table on page 41.
Another paper by the same author:
http://www.scientificonversion.com/AES2001.pdf
In comparision, Agilent says their HFBR parts have jitter under 1ns.
Last edited:
It is relevant, as i was responding to bcarso´s remark on weak auditory memory.
In your example the long term storage of "C" is the key point.
Generally it is quite difficult to avoid any influence from long term storage, hence the experimenter has to use special tasks if he is only interestend in something done exlusively with short term memory.
That depends on the effects and hypothesis that will be tested.
In our discussions the key point is imho usually the practical relevance, as listeners are searching for something that makes reproduced music better.
But when using complex stimuli (aka music) listeners have to evaluate a multidimensional event and while there might be the striking perception "something is different" within a second, it is usually a bit more difficult to really analyze the event to know exactly what constitutes the difference (if there was really one).
Last edited:
You want me to think outside the box of EM theory? Is that wise when considering a circuit component, which by definition lies inside the box - in fact in the low frequency corner of the box?john curl said:
Of course, we know how it works: JB found an isolated community of Maxwell demons and found they were still available for hire. He was fortunate, as most of their clan had already been snapped up by the audio cable vendors.
Yes, there is a suspicion amongst scholars that this was a later addition, with the rationalization, "Well, he WOULD have said that!"
Modern glass mat sealed gel cells make claims of deep cycling capability.
Standard gel cells definitely do not like being deep cycled.
Dan.
pure unadulterated audio esoteric BS, I'm impressed.... Prove it, you have the technology, provide some proof on any of it!
What speed are we talking about here, Fermi (think that's the correct term)velocity or drift velocity?
Some papers on this would be interesting..... because I believe at 0.1mm per second the electrons are going to take a long time to get around any loop
Last edited:
Well Jacob2 I do a lot of work in teams that do aerospace, military and recently even more insane electronics, so any proof other that I hear therefore it is real, the sort of proof that goes into any basic electronics system would do, not stupid repeated anecdotes, you know the sort of stuff used every day by engineers (conservative) and scope watchers, basically anything. because I have not seen anything despite years of asking, just BS lots of BS....
As to cable break in LOL
As to cable break in LOL
While i am quite unhappy with a lot of generalization within audiophile descriptions i am also unhappy with the general negation.
Discussion about those highly controversial topics imho quite often run along these lines:
1.) BS, would violate natural laws or be a physical paradoxon
after showing that "1.)" does not hold, then follows
2.) might be so in theory but will not show up in reality
after showing that it can be measured in practice, then follows
3.) maybe, but you can´t hear that
It is in no way meant offensive, but seeing these discussions often in the past years makes me wonder if there is anything that will be accepted although strong personal believe is touched.
Pay attention to the phenomenon, NOT the rationalization.
Often those who recognize the phenomenon do not have the knowledge to rationalize or to explain what is happening. But do not ignore the phenomenon just because people use incorrect Physics in an effort to rationalize it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.