Keeping one's mood up helps, no doubt, but it is rarely if ever curative in itself. Also, there are cases of spontaneous remission where no know explanation exists. Unfortunately, people may be too quick to conclude keeping one's self in a more positive frame of mind is the whole story. As we know human brains construct stories of cause and effect based on whatever limited information is available, and the default tendency is to accept such a story as true and factual. Lot of mistaken beliefs are formed that way.
yeah, instead of blindly believing their instantaneous hearing (+ visual ..) impressions
. What a strange world.
Yes, very true.
My hearing certainly isn't what it was but thankfully I still enjoy listening very much. I mostly concentrate on my speakers these days as I probably wouldn't be able to tell much difference with my other equipment beyond the high enough quality I have at present.
Regards Nelsons philosophy, I love this quote:
"Accusations are occasionally made that objectivists can't hear, and conversely that subjectivists hear things that aren't there. This being the entertainment industry, I hope everyone is having a good time"
Hi Dan,
DC is flaky in my estimation as well and FOR SURE placebo is not medicine! My point in posting that link (which I obviously should have spent more time pointing out) was that with bodily perception, placebo treatments can induce perceivable effects. As you stated more succinctly:"This accepts those psychological effects are extremely real to the person experiencing them, and does not require any form of insincerity." I have seen proof this has a strong parallel to some audio perception.
This was a point I made earlier a couple hundred posts ago...that what people think they hear is actually be what they hear, even if it bears little relationship to the audible stimulus at the eardrum.
Thanks for clarifying the point which I failed to do, I was headed out in a rush to do amateur radio tower work, and it was a beautiful day to be at height!
Cheers!
Howie
Mark, what direct mechanism is placebo *directly* affecting cancer? Sucrose pill getting converted into glycogen and then affecting tumor(s) via the Warburg effect? That would be oncogenic, not oncolytic anyhow.
Placebo Effect
I'm not arguing at all that placebo (and nocebo) effects are fake, I'm trying to separate mechanistic effects from other factors.
Last edited:
Good deal, I'm glad you took my post in the vein I meant it; I think I have a kneejerk reaction to anything from DC that probably makes me lose my rationality.
I meant, "Agree it does not work for cancer," but seem to have left off the first bit. Sorry for the confusion.
The point I was trying to make that all sorts of things can be used to treat diseases: exercise, eating habits, yoga (yes, doctors prescribe yoga), and they use placebo all the time to treat patients. To say that anything that doesn't involve prescription drugs or radiation isn't treatment of disease would be silly.
The brain is one organ in the body that interacts in complex ways with various other systems. We don't yet fully understand most of those things, if any of them at all in complete detail. That we don't understand mechanisms doesn't mean they don't exist.
It is an old and obsolete idea in medicine at least to think of the mind as separate from the rest of the body. I won't get into prohibited subject areas where separation beliefs may be taken further.
You are right about DC. Quack.
Last edited:
Hi Dan,
So many questions, very hard to answer some of them.
I am just an amateur and DIY-er in audio design, far from professionals here in this forum. I worked for Ericsson in telecommunication industry all my professional life, last 15 years before retirement as a trouble shooter and patch designer in Ericsson proprietary software. Audio was my hobby all my life. I built many different electronics and loudspeakers from different project found in audio magazines. Most influence was from John Lindsay Hood and Siegfried Linkwitz.
Before a spice software was free available electronic design was painstakingly long process in need for many expensive tools I did not have. I started to use LTspice and at ones all audio design opened before me. I wanted to design my own power and pre amp. I wanted very low distortion, low and wide output impedance, good power supply. First started with VFA and looked at JLH 80W MOSFET amp I built before. It had some very low high frequency oscillation and I simulated it and made some changes. It worked fine and is still in use.
To make story short, there on solid state forum was discussion about CFA and I started with my design. First simulation of separate stages with no global NFB to get as low distortion as possible with no to much complication. I decided to use MOSFET OPS but not expensive laterals as JLH used. First goal was to get flat open loop gain up to 20 kHz. For this I need fast drivers and I chose fast video transistors. TMC or TPC was possibility to use for compensation, but I chose some kind of Cherry output inclusive compensation. Look the OITPC thread for compensation explanation. The goal was to get low distortion and good harmonics distribution with dominant second and third.
No “voicing” was used, I just chose good quality components, nothing exotics or extra expensive.
Best wishes, Damir
Just for fun, now it is not only a tube vs. wire, BUT a hybrid tube-SS power amplifier (loaded by speakers] vs. the original file. So anyone interested is cordially invited
Can you tell original file from tube amp record? - test
and I am looking forward the opinions and also at least some successful ABX protocol
Can you tell original file from tube amp record? - test
and I am looking forward the opinions and also at least some successful ABX protocol
@ PMA,
"To lower the level of distraction i once tried to exclude the "participating in a test variable" by handing over just two of the same looking preamplifier boxes with different circuits and let them find out if they´d establish a preference.
The boxes were randomly marked and i find my preferred one out using the same procedure before.
For a positive result the other listeners had to choose the same circuit that i preferred.
Measured numbers for both circuits (according to the usual set) were well below the known thresholds.
Measurement were repeated after each return from the individual listeners.
Problems were that i had to find listeners, that i already knew and were routinely doing such kind of evaluations and more important would have the same kind of preference in case of this difference.
I could only find 5 matching the requirements so the sample size was small, below 5 it wouldn´t had made any sense due to the guessing probabilities.
Each listener got the boxes for a couple of days (the longest was two weeks) and when i came for taking the devices back he would tell me his preference choice (if any).
Turned out - after "deblinding" at the end - that all 5 indeed choosed the same and furthermore the same one that i preferred."
Both variants dc-coupled with servo regulation; volume adjustment via selected blue ALPS for channel balance; channel imbalance <= 0.11 dB and <= 0.18 dB in the region ~60mV - 1.2 V (input voltage 1 V).
Linearity <= +- 0.02dBr (<10 Hz - 20 kHz), Noise ~ -106dBr at 1V (Bwdth. 22kHz), THD+N ~ 0.0009% (Bwdth. 80kHz) at 47kOhm/1V/10Hz-20kHz, IMD <= 0.001%, crosstalk < -90dBr /1kHz.
Output impedance < 100 Ohm, Input impedance 10kOhm .
"To lower the level of distraction i once tried to exclude the "participating in a test variable" by handing over just two of the same looking preamplifier boxes with different circuits and let them find out if they´d establish a preference.
The boxes were randomly marked and i find my preferred one out using the same procedure before.
For a positive result the other listeners had to choose the same circuit that i preferred.
Measured numbers for both circuits (according to the usual set) were well below the known thresholds.
Measurement were repeated after each return from the individual listeners.
Problems were that i had to find listeners, that i already knew and were routinely doing such kind of evaluations and more important would have the same kind of preference in case of this difference.
I could only find 5 matching the requirements so the sample size was small, below 5 it wouldn´t had made any sense due to the guessing probabilities.
Each listener got the boxes for a couple of days (the longest was two weeks) and when i came for taking the devices back he would tell me his preference choice (if any).
Turned out - after "deblinding" at the end - that all 5 indeed choosed the same and furthermore the same one that i preferred."
Both variants dc-coupled with servo regulation; volume adjustment via selected blue ALPS for channel balance; channel imbalance <= 0.11 dB and <= 0.18 dB in the region ~60mV - 1.2 V (input voltage 1 V).
Linearity <= +- 0.02dBr (<10 Hz - 20 kHz), Noise ~ -106dBr at 1V (Bwdth. 22kHz), THD+N ~ 0.0009% (Bwdth. 80kHz) at 47kOhm/1V/10Hz-20kHz, IMD <= 0.001%, crosstalk < -90dBr /1kHz.
Output impedance < 100 Ohm, Input impedance 10kOhm .
Jakob, thank you for the test description and the result. That sounds very interesting.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.