[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 07:03:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

A scientific paper, at least a good one, just tells a story:

I had an idea.
I decided that if my idea were correct, this special thing would happen.
I tried to make my special thing happen.
I suceeded in making my special thing happen.
Therefore, you should believe my idea.

Not really - it goes thus:

I observe a phenomenon
I think I may know how it happens
I formulate a hypothesis
I test the hypothesis
I share the hypothesis
Others test the hypothesis
I design a set of falsifying tests
It passes the tests
Every scientist in the world applies his own falsifying tests
It passes all the tests
Predictions are based on the hypothesis
The predictions are tested
The predictions come out as predicted
At last there is a theory
If, in a hundred years, a new test falsifies it, the theory is
supplanted

In contrast religion goes thus:

I invent a story in which I have special contact with a magic being
who gives me powers
I "prove" it by predicting something like an eclipse
You are an ignorant peasant so you believe me
I tell you that if you try and test the story, you are evil and will
go to hell
You are an ignorant peasant so you believe me
I grab all your money and land and I rape your children
You are an ignorant peasant so you believe this is right and holy
If anyone else invents another story trying to make out that he has
special powers, I beat the **** out of him

And so, two thousand years later we have the world of **** bequeathed
to us by every person who ever believed the lies. *******s

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in
message

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 07:03:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

A scientific paper, at least a good one, just tells a
story:

I had an idea.
I decided that if my idea were correct, this special
thing would happen.
I tried to make my special thing happen.
I suceeded in making my special thing happen.

You've left out one further, vital point.

"And when I tried again, and other people tried, it
happened again. Every time."

True in the larger picture, but the context was scientific papers.

That's where science differs from superstition and
religion. The miracle needs to work every time.

Agreed.

Somehow, there's always a reason why it doesn't.

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 07:03:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

A scientific paper, at least a good one, just tells a
story:

I had an idea.
I decided that if my idea were correct, this special
thing would happen. I tried to make my special thing
happen.
I suceeded in making my special thing happen.
Therefore, you should believe my idea.

Not really - it goes thus:

I observe a phenomenon
I think I may know how it happens
I formulate a hypothesis
I test the hypothesis
I share the hypothesis
Others test the hypothesis
I design a set of falsifying tests
It passes the tests
Every scientist in the world applies his own falsifying
tests
It passes all the tests
Predictions are based on the hypothesis
The predictions are tested
The predictions come out as predicted
At last there is a theory
If, in a hundred years, a new test falsifies it, the
theory is supplanted

Like I said to Laurence, that's true in general about science, but a good
scientific paper needs to contain much less.I think you'll find my little
short outline fits what I said it fits.

In contrast religion goes thus:

I invent a story in which I have special contact with a
magic being who gives me powers
I "prove" it by predicting something like an eclipse
You are an ignorant peasant so you believe me
I tell you that if you try and test the story, you are
evil and will go to hell
You are an ignorant peasant so you believe me
I grab all your money and land and I rape your children
You are an ignorant peasant so you believe this is right
and holy
If anyone else invents another story trying to make out
that he has special powers, I beat the **** out of him

You've got about six different things jammed together here.

Do you want me to deconstruct it, point-by-point?

And so, two thousand years later we have the world of
**** bequeathed to us by every person who ever believed
the lies. *******s

Those are your perceptions, but I knew that already.;-)

[hank alrich]

Paul Stamler wrote:

Oh, one other thing: Eeyore says that science always has the answers, and
would be a disaster if it didn't. Sometimes, it thinks it has the answers,
and is wrong. See "thalidomide".

This is still going on with drugs being released into the market today.
Where science is driven strictly by capitalism's desire for more money,
disaster looms within the corruption of real science.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:45:35 -0500, geoff wrote
(in article ) :

Ty Ford wrote:

Best I can remember, relative to the house belden cable, one cable
cause a slight bump around 200 Hz the other was a bump around 6 k. I
think the GAC-3 was on the bottom and the 2220 was the 5-6k.


These bumps are peresumably less that a (small) fraction of a dB ? If
other than that, unless extreme lengths involved, I suspect there was some
other factor working there, othe than cable.

geoff



Right, about half to a dB, enough to hear.

Regards,

Ty



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:53:53 -0500, Eeyore wrote
(in article ):



geoff wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:

Best I can remember, relative to the house belden cable, one cable
cause a slight bump around 200 Hz the other was a bump around 6 k. I
think the GAC-3 was on the bottom and the 2220 was the 5-6k.

These bumps are peresumably less that a (small) fraction of a dB ? If
other than that, unless extreme lengths involved, I suspect there was some
other factor working there, othe than cable.

Yes.

Very curious. I can't see any cable characteristics kicking in at frequencies
that low. Would be interesting to know more, especially how long the cable
run
was, source and destination impedances too.

Graham


25 footers as I recall. Mic on one end, studio wiring and API preamp in the
other.

Regards,

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Eeyore]

Paul Stamler wrote:

Oh, one other thing: Eeyore says that science always has the answers, and
would be a disaster if it didn't. Sometimes, it thinks it has the answers,
and is wrong. See "thalidomide".

Thalidomide wasn't a dailure of science. It was a failure of people.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ty Ford wrote:

Eeyore wrote
geoff wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:

Best I can remember, relative to the house belden cable, one cable
cause a slight bump around 200 Hz the other was a bump around 6 k. I
think the GAC-3 was on the bottom and the 2220 was the 5-6k.

These bumps are peresumably less that a (small) fraction of a dB ? If
other than that, unless extreme lengths involved, I suspect there was some
other factor working there, othe than cable.

Yes.

Very curious. I can't see any cable characteristics kicking in at frequencies
that low. Would be interesting to know more, especially how long the cable
run was, source and destination impedances too.

25 footers as I recall. Mic on one end,

Any particular type ?


studio wiring and API preamp in the other.

Transformer input ?

Graham

[hank alrich]

Eeyore wrote:

Paul Stamler wrote:

Oh, one other thing: Eeyore says that science always has the answers, and
would be a disaster if it didn't. Sometimes, it thinks it has the answers,
and is wrong. See "thalidomide".

Thalidomide wasn't a dailure of science. It was a failure of people.

And who or what but "people" do science?

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Eeyore wrote:

Paul Stamler wrote:

Oh, one other thing: Eeyore says that science always
has the answers, and would be a disaster if it didn't.
Sometimes, it thinks it has the answers, and is wrong.
See "thalidomide".

Thalidomide wasn't a dailure of science. It was a
failure of people.

And who or what but "people" do science?


Science is an attempt to raise human endeavor above the foibles of
individual people.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 7, 6:00 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Paul Stamler wrote:

I don't know what opamp Jim Williams substitutes for the 301 in that
modification, but I bet the choice was non-trivial..

I doubt it. Not with the modern devices to hand.

That's talk. Jim actually works on the mics. Give it a go and see what
you find.

How much do you know about MODERN semiconductor devices and ICs ?

Most of this stuff is TRIVIALLY SIMPLE now.

The idea that it's some difficult task to find a better device then an
LM301 simply shows that the person suggesting such an idea is DECADES out
of date with modern practice.

What I know about it comes directly from using stock C460's alongside
C460's modified by Audio Upgrades. If it's trivial you should have no
trouble demonstrating that - but not by talking about it, by doing it.

The idea that it is trivial is your own. Back it up.

Give me one to modify and I'll give you a treat.

Hey, I'll go one better. I'll say I can wipe the floor with a Jim Williams mod.
He seems to be trading on voodoo as much as anything.

Science isn't complicated. Science has the answers. Always. Every time.
Audiophool 'BELIEF' (a.k.a religion) counts for nothing in the real world..

Graham.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's hear it! There are plenty of them out there, you can pick one up
for around $300. BTW, that National LME45710 sucks about 5 ma idling.
Good luck getting it to power up in the 460B. Good luck with the
pinout, the 460B uses a DUAL opamp, not a SINGLE opamp. I can imagine
the ripped up pcb when you finally figure that out. Good luck getting
a LM4562 to work either. The guy that said it was a 301 is WRONG. It's
like watching a bunch of chimps pick up on the same mistake and repeat
it without thought. Put your mind into gear before touching the
keyboard.

Since I've done over 200 of just this one model, there is an income
for those that can offer a better product. Let's hear yours.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Science can provide a lot of
information: it can tell you what pollutants are emitted
from the plant, and what their physiological effect is,
and it can predict the number of deaths (given enough
data about similar installations in the past). It can
also make a stab at predicting how much economic good
will result from the factory, and how much the standard
of living will rise because of it, and what effect the
rise in standard of living will have.

Science can also tell you the economic value of the lives of the 500
children that it is proposed that we sacrifice.

Yes. And should we make decisions about whom to kill based on their economic
value? Or the fact that one of them just might be the next Louis Armstrong,
or might do something kind and loving for someone that changes their life?

In short, it can provide the pliuses and minuses of
building the factory. It can tell you what the effects
will be, good and bad. But it can't tell you whether to
build the factory, because the decision -- once you know
the facts -- is a *moral* decision, one based on your
values system.

I don't think there are many thoughtful intelligent people who seriously
think that Science is that totally disconnected from morality, and
vice-versa. The idea that science and morality are disconnected would be
something that maybe a Hitler or Stalin would propose.

They overlap and influence one another -- or should. But values decisions
are rather different from scientific decisions. We have built into us
notions about what is right, what is fair, that aren't strictly definable in
terms of objective fact. A classic example: psychologists have done the
Runaway Train test on large numbers of people with fairly consistent
results.

The Runaway Train test is pretty simple. Subjects are asked to imagine a
train running down a track, out of control. It's heading straight for four
people. You're standing by a switch; if you so choose, you can throw the
switch and divert the train onto an alternate track, where it will only kill
one person, a fat guy. Would you do it? Almost all respondents say yes.

But what if the problem goes like this: The subjects are asked to imagine
the same train, the same four people, but now the subject is standing next
to the track with the fat guy. If the subject pushes the fat guy onto the
track, he'll stop the train (because he's fat) and save the four people's
lives. Would you do it? Almost all respondents quickly say no.

What's the difference? The objective results are the same: the four people
on the track live, the fat guy dies. But we draw a moral distinction between
an act (throwing the switch) which passively allows the fat guy to die in
order to save the four folks on the main track, and taking the active role
of pushing him onto the track and killing him to save the other four. Same
result, but our moral sense says they're not equivalent actions.

Is business activity more important than
the lives of individuals? Or not? (And it's of course
complicated by the fact that business activity which
improves the standard of living also saves lives.)

This factory problem is one that has been worked out many times. In almost
every modern case, the lives of the 500 children have the greater value.

Yep, and I'd argue that's a development of morality rather than science. As
a culture, we've decided to give more weight to the lives of children than
in previous years. At least when the children live in our own neighborhood.
We're still able to countenance the polluting factory when it's placed in
somebody else's neighborhood, or country, especially if the children there
look a bit different from our own kids.

Another question which science can't answer -- yet: What
is the nature of dark matter? I suspect, if we don't
destroy ourselves, that science *will* answer that one in
a few decades or maybe centuries. Right now it can't. (Of
course, the answer may be that dark matter doesn't really
exist. But that's looking less likely, from what I hear.)

See, you made your question reasonable by including a weasel word: yet.
;-)

Of course! I was answering a nonsense claim that science has all the answers
*now*. I'm a great believer in the value of science. It's explained a great
deal. It hasn't explained everything, yet, and there are still quite a few
phenomena in audio that haven't yet been explained by good science. Rather
than conclude that the phenomena therefore do not exist, my take on it is
that our science is not complete. I have a certain amount of faith (no other
word works here) that, given sufficient effort, these phenomena *can* be
explained by scientific methods. They haven't been yet, and maybe won't be
until we get some new mathematical tools, or new lab tests, or discover some
more about the mechanisms by which the ear hears sound and the brain
interprets it. In that sense, we may be waiting for Riemann and Lobachevsky.

I don't believe in magic, and when confronted by pseudoscience my bull****
detector goes off loudly. But I also don't believe that *all* phenomena
reported by audio professionals without an axe to grind are imaginary,
simply because we don't *yet* have a scientific explanation for them.

(Had to bring it back on-topic somehow.)

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Paul Stamler wrote:

Oh, one other thing: Eeyore says that science always has the answers,
and
would be a disaster if it didn't. Sometimes, it thinks it has the
answers,
and is wrong. See "thalidomide".

Thalidomide wasn't a dailure of science. It was a failure of people.

Science isn't something mysterious out there in the universe. It is a thing
that people do. So sometimes, they do the science wrong -- in the case of
thalidomide, by not asking the right questions before the drug was approved,
and by ignoring evidence when it began to arrive. Until one person, a
physician, made so much noise they couldn't ignore her.

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Science can provide a lot of
information: it can tell you what pollutants are emitted
from the plant, and what their physiological effect is,
and it can predict the number of deaths (given enough
data about similar installations in the past). It can
also make a stab at predicting how much economic good
will result from the factory, and how much the standard
of living will rise because of it, and what effect the
rise in standard of living will have.

Science can also tell you the economic value of the
lives of the 500 children that it is proposed that we
sacrifice.

Yes. And should we make decisions about whom to kill
based on their economic value?

It is true that we already routinely make life-and-death decisions based at
least partially on economics.

Or the fact that one of
them just might be the next Louis Armstrong,

AFAIK, Louis Armstrong generated quite a bit of economic value. The real
problem is looking at children and accurately projecting which will develop
an economic profit, and which will be a total loss. Our science can't do
that... ...yet.

or might do something kind and loving for someone that changes their
life?

If you can't accurately project the future, perhaps the most
economically-justifiable choice is to treat all youngsters well.

Matt 15:26
Mark 7:27
Mark 9:36
etc.

In short, it can provide the pliuses and minuses of
building the factory. It can tell you what the effects
will be, good and bad. But it can't tell you whether to
build the factory, because the decision -- once you know
the facts -- is a *moral* decision, one based on your
values system.

I don't think there are many thoughtful intelligent
people who seriously think that Science is that totally
disconnected from morality, and vice-versa. The idea
that science and morality are disconnected would be
something that maybe a Hitler or Stalin would propose.

They overlap and influence one another -- or should. But
values decisions are rather different from scientific
decisions. We have built into us notions about what is
right, what is fair, that aren't strictly definable in
terms of objective fact.

snip

I don't believe in magic, and when confronted by
pseudoscience my bull**** detector goes off loudly. But I
also don't believe that *all* phenomena reported by audio
professionals without an axe to grind are imaginary,
simply because we don't *yet* have a scientific
explanation for them.

We're not talking about calling all phenomena reported by audio
professionals without an axe to grind imaginary, we're talking about
a goodly collection of audio phenomina for which there is no known
scientific explanation.

[hank alrich]

wrote:

Let's hear it! There are plenty of them out there, you can pick one up
for around $300.

A friend of mine bought 8 of them for $175 each. You mod'd all of them
and now he has one hell of an addition to his mic stash for relatively
low money.

BTW, that National LME45710 sucks about 5 ma idling.
Good luck getting it to power up in the 460B. Good luck with the
pinout, the 460B uses a DUAL opamp, not a SINGLE opamp. I can imagine
the ripped up pcb when you finally figure that out. Good luck getting
a LM4562 to work either. The guy that said it was a 301 is WRONG. It's
like watching a bunch of chimps pick up on the same mistake and repeat
it without thought. Put your mind into gear before touching the
keyboard.

Since I've done over 200 of just this one model, there is an income
for those that can offer a better product. Let's hear yours.

Don't hold your breath...

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Mark]

On Nov 8, 10:05 am, Eeyore
wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:
Eeyore wrote
geoff wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:

Best I can remember, relative to the house belden cable, one cable
cause a slight bump around 200 Hz the other was a bump around 6 k. I
think the GAC-3 was on the bottom and the 2220 was the 5-6k.

These bumps are peresumably less that a (small) fraction of a dB ? If
other than that, unless extreme lengths involved, I suspect there was some
other factor working there, othe than cable.

Yes.

Very curious. I can't see any cable characteristics kicking in at frequencies
that low. Would be interesting to know more, especially how long the cable
run was, source and destination impedances too.

25 footers as I recall. Mic on one end,

Any particular type ?

studio wiring and API preamp in the other.

Transformer input ?

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Science may not have all the answers to everything but it ceratainly
does have all the answers to "how a wire sounds" or "how a capacitor
sounds" in a given circuit.

These can both be directly measured and analyzed....the rest is all
voo doo audiophool BS.

Mark

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip

I don't believe in magic, and when confronted by
pseudoscience my bull**** detector goes off loudly. But I
also don't believe that *all* phenomena reported by audio
professionals without an axe to grind are imaginary,
simply because we don't *yet* have a scientific
explanation for them.

We're not talking about calling all phenomena reported by audio
professionals without an axe to grind imaginary, we're talking about
a goodly collection of audio phenomina for which there is no known
scientific explanation.

Sure, but there's a tendency among some folks to say that because there's no
known scientific explanation, the anecdotal reports must therefore be wrong
(or stronger words). Probably some of them are. But I'll wager that some are
not, and the scientific explanations -- like those for the nature of dark
matter -- await discovery.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...

Science may not have all the answers to everything but it ceratainly
does have all the answers to "how a wire sounds" or "how a capacitor
sounds" in a given circuit.

These can both be directly measured and analyzed....the rest is all
voo doo audiophool BS.

Nope. Sorry. Some of the audible differences in capacitors, for example, are
clearly due to things we can easily measure. Some seem to correlate with
certain measurements, but we don't (yet) understand exactly how or why --
more work to be done. Given that, I'd guess that some of the audible
differences in capacitors relate to measurements we have not yet invented.
Or measurements we have invented but haven't thought of doing on capacitors
yet -- for example, microphonics. Are capacitors microphonic? I don't know,
but it might be worth finding out.

Ditto wire.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

"Mark" wrote in message

Science may not have all the answers to everything but it ceratainly
does have all the answers to "how a wire sounds" or "how a capacitor
sounds" in a given circuit.

These can both be directly measured and analyzed....the rest is all
voo doo audiophool BS.

Well, I have heard plenty of things that I don't yet know how to measure.
That doesn't mean they can't _be_ measured, just that we haven't figured
out how to do it properly.

In addition, of course, we live in a world where everything is colored,
and that makes a lot of equipment selection subjective. Even when you can
easily measure the coloration, having a direct mapping between the measurement
and the subjective impression of the sound is not always possible. Sometimes
the source material affects the degree to which a given coloration is a
problem, so the choices one might make with one recording are different than
those that would be made with another.

Not to say that this cannot be systematized and replaced with an accurate
mathematical model, just that nobody has done it yet.

That's what makes the world exciting.

Paul Stamler writes:
Or measurements we have invented but haven't thought of doing on capacitors
yet -- for example, microphonics. Are capacitors microphonic? I don't know,
but it might be worth finding out.

Oh, man, are capacitors microphonic. It's worse in high-Z circuits... there
are some microphones which use film capacitors for DC blocking between
the capsule and the input stage, where the capacitor microphonics make a
substantial contribution to the total output of the mike.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:38:19 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

Sure, but there's a tendency among some folks to say that because there's no
known scientific explanation, the anecdotal reports must therefore be wrong
(or stronger words). Probably some of them are. But I'll wager that some are
not, and the scientific explanations -- like those for the nature of dark
matter -- await discovery.

Sure. But Iv'e got a hunch those explanations won't be about highly
subtle effects that only manifest in cables when they reach a certain
retail price :-)

[Geoff]

Ty Ford wrote:

These bumps are peresumably less that a (small) fraction of a dB ?
If other than that, unless extreme lengths involved, I suspect there
was some other factor working there, othe than cable.

geoff



Right, about half to a dB, enough to hear.


I wouldn't call half a dB a *small* fraction .

geoff

[Geoff]

Ty Ford wrote:

25 footers as I recall. Mic on one end, studio wiring and API preamp
in the other.

If there is a 0.5dB difference at an audio freq in 25ft, then something is
severely broken.

geoff

[Geoff]

wrote:
Let's hear it! There are plenty of them out there, you can pick one up
for around $300. BTW, that National LME45710 sucks about 5 ma idling.
Good luck getting it to power up in the 460B. Good luck with the
pinout, the 460B uses a DUAL opamp, not a SINGLE opamp. I can imagine
the ripped up pcb when you finally figure that out. Good luck getting
a LM4562 to work either. The guy that said it was a 301 is WRONG.

Which I conceded and corrected.

It's
like watching a bunch of chimps pick up on the same mistake and repeat
it without thought.

Thanks.

Since I've done over 200 of just this one model, there is an income
for those that can offer a better product. Let's hear yours.

OK, so without giving away any trade secrets, are you modifying the existing
PCB and componentry, or replacing it with something completely new ? Cos
without specifics it sounds like you are in fact making a new mic using a
C460B casing - which in my view is not 'modifying' a C460B at all.

It may well be a huge improvement, which is great. It may even end up better
than a C480.

Are you retaining the TL062, or whatever 2180Z0303 is, or have you found a
vanilla (or an esoteric) drop-in replacement ?

And (getting back to the original topic) are you using a length of magic
wire that is having a profound effect on this upgrade ?

*** Unrelated comment *** It profoundly amused me that Marshall bothered to
have an MXL603 Mogami Edition, based on a centimetre or so of internal
cabling ! I tried them and didn't like mine so flicked them.

geoff

[david correia]

In article ,
"Paul Stamler" wrote:

The Runaway Train test is pretty simple. Subjects are asked to imagine a
train running down a track, out of control. It's heading straight for four
people. You're standing by a switch; if you so choose, you can throw the
switch and divert the train onto an alternate track, where it will only kill
one person, a fat guy. Would you do it? Almost all respondents say yes.

But what if the problem goes like this: The subjects are asked to imagine
the same train, the same four people, but now the subject is standing next
to the track with the fat guy. If the subject pushes the fat guy onto the
track, he'll stop the train (because he's fat) and save the four people's
lives. Would you do it? Almost all respondents quickly say no.

What's the difference? The objective results are the same: the four people
on the track live, the fat guy dies. But we draw a moral distinction between
an act (throwing the switch) which passively allows the fat guy to die in
order to save the four folks on the main track, and taking the active role
of pushing him onto the track and killing him to save the other four. Same
result, but our moral sense says they're not equivalent actions.



Verya nice!

Wonder if they kick this one around in War College.






David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[jakdedert]

david correia wrote:
In article ,
"Paul Stamler" wrote:

The Runaway Train test is pretty simple. Subjects are asked to imagine a
train running down a track, out of control. It's heading straight for four
people. You're standing by a switch; if you so choose, you can throw the
switch and divert the train onto an alternate track, where it will only kill
one person, a fat guy. Would you do it? Almost all respondents say yes.

But what if the problem goes like this: The subjects are asked to imagine
the same train, the same four people, but now the subject is standing next
to the track with the fat guy. If the subject pushes the fat guy onto the
track, he'll stop the train (because he's fat) and save the four people's
lives. Would you do it? Almost all respondents quickly say no.

What's the difference? The objective results are the same: the four people
on the track live, the fat guy dies. But we draw a moral distinction between
an act (throwing the switch) which passively allows the fat guy to die in
order to save the four folks on the main track, and taking the active role
of pushing him onto the track and killing him to save the other four. Same
result, but our moral sense says they're not equivalent actions.



Verya nice!

Wonder if they kick this one around in War College.






David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

I'd think that at least part of the reason has to be a third option,
present in scenario #2 which doesn't exist in #1. That being, if the
'fat guy' can be thrown on the track, could not one also choose to throw
*himself* in front of the train?

To me, that possibility adds another dimension which takes the equation
from one of choosing to sacrifice 'one for the many' to a decision to
commit murder vs. sacrifice...not merely passive vs. active.

jak

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip

I don't believe in magic, and when confronted by
pseudoscience my bull**** detector goes off loudly. But
I also don't believe that *all* phenomena reported by
audio professionals without an axe to grind are
imaginary, simply because we don't *yet* have a
scientific explanation for them.

We're not talking about calling all phenomena reported
by audio professionals without an axe to grind
imaginary, we're talking about a goodly collection of
audio phenomina for which there is no known scientific
explanation.

Sure, but there's a tendency among some folks to say that
because there's no known scientific explanation, the
anecdotal reports must therefore be wrong (or stronger
words).

The most common reason why there is no scientific explanation is because
there is no scientific evidence-gathering.

"I modded this mic, it now sounds better to my posse" is not a very good
example of scientific evidence-gathering, if you catch my drift. :-)

Probably some of them are.

Who knows?

But I'll wager that
some are not, and the scientific explanations -- like
those for the nature of dark matter -- await discovery.

Anybody who needs to dealve into the philosophy of science, or find a new
form of matter in order to explain how a microphone works, is completely off
the beam.

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message

"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...

Science may not have all the answers to everything but
it ceratainly does have all the answers to "how a wire
sounds" or "how a capacitor sounds" in a given circuit.

These can both be directly measured and analyzed....the
rest is all voo doo audiophool BS.

Nope. Sorry. Some of the audible differences in
capacitors, for example, are clearly due to things we can
easily measure.

No, all of them. But only if they exist in the real world.

Some seem to correlate with certain
measurements, but we don't (yet) understand exactly how
or why -- more work to be done.

???????????

Given that, I'd guess
that some of the audible differences in capacitors relate
to measurements we have not yet invented.

Guessing ain't science. It isn't even good audio.

Or measurements
we have invented but haven't thought of doing on
capacitors yet -- for example, microphonics.

A very well understood area in general,.

Are capacitors microphonic? I don't know, but it might be
worth finding out.

Been there, done that. The answer are, some are, most aren't. If you use
the wrong cap in the wrong circuit you can tap on it, and hear it through
the speakers.

Ditto wire.

Been there, done that. The answer is, some is, most isn't. If you make wire
out of the wrong stuff, or the wrong way, you can tap on it, and hear it
through the speakers.

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 10:05:33 -0500, Eeyore wrote
(in article ):



Ty Ford wrote:

Eeyore wrote
geoff wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:

Best I can remember, relative to the house belden cable, one cable
cause a slight bump around 200 Hz the other was a bump around 6 k. I
think the GAC-3 was on the bottom and the 2220 was the 5-6k.

These bumps are peresumably less that a (small) fraction of a dB ? If
other than that, unless extreme lengths involved, I suspect there was some
other factor working there, othe than cable.

Yes.

Very curious. I can't see any cable characteristics kicking in at
frequencies
that low. Would be interesting to know more, especially how long the cable
run was, source and destination impedances too.

25 footers as I recall. Mic on one end,

Any particular type ?

Whatever Belden they used in house, plus Gotham GAC-3 and EMT 2220

studio wiring and API preamp in the other.

Transformer input ?

Dunno. Old API console.

Regards,

Ty


Graham




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:42:57 -0500, Paul Stamler wrote
(in article ):

"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...

Science may not have all the answers to everything but it ceratainly
does have all the answers to "how a wire sounds" or "how a capacitor
sounds" in a given circuit.

These can both be directly measured and analyzed....the rest is all
voo doo audiophool BS.

Nope. Sorry. Some of the audible differences in capacitors, for example, are
clearly due to things we can easily measure. Some seem to correlate with
certain measurements, but we don't (yet) understand exactly how or why --
more work to be done. Given that, I'd guess that some of the audible
differences in capacitors relate to measurements we have not yet invented.
Or measurements we have invented but haven't thought of doing on capacitors
yet -- for example, microphonics. Are capacitors microphonic? I don't know,
but it might be worth finding out.

Ditto wire.

Peace,
Paul



I'll have some of that.

Regards,

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:26:12 -0500, geoff wrote
(in article ) :

Ty Ford wrote:

25 footers as I recall. Mic on one end, studio wiring and API preamp
in the other.

If there is a 0.5dB difference at an audio freq in 25ft, then something is
severely broken.

geoff



or not.

Sometimes it ain't black or white.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:

25 footers as I recall. Mic on one end, studio wiring and API preamp
in the other.

If there is a 0.5dB difference at an audio freq in 25ft, then something is
severely broken.

Try a 77DX. It's really, really touchy about load capacitance. You can
tell the difference between star-quad and cable with half the shunt
capacitance, even with 25 feet.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

But I'll wager that
some are not, and the scientific explanations -- like
those for the nature of dark matter -- await discovery.

Anybody who needs to dealve into the philosophy of science, or find a new
form of matter in order to explain how a microphone works, is completely
off
the beam.

Arny, you'll excuse me, but this comment suggests you haven't had your
morning coffee yet. Or do you think everything that can be known about human
perception of sound and how electronics affect it is already known?

Peace,
Paul

[Eeyore]

Ty Ford wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Ty Ford wrote:
Eeyore wrote
geoff wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:

Best I can remember, relative to the house belden cable, one cable
cause a slight bump around 200 Hz the other was a bump around 6 k. I
think the GAC-3 was on the bottom and the 2220 was the 5-6k.

These bumps are peresumably less that a (small) fraction of a dB ? If
other than that, unless extreme lengths involved, I suspect there was some
other factor working there, othe than cable.

Yes.

Very curious. I can't see any cable characteristics kicking in at
frequencies
that low. Would be interesting to know more, especially how long the cable
run was, source and destination impedances too.

25 footers as I recall. Mic on one end,

Any particular type ?

Whatever Belden they used in house, plus Gotham GAC-3 and EMT 2220

I meant what type of mic actually.


studio wiring and API preamp in the other.

Transformer input ?

Dunno. Old API console.

I think they are transformer input. Will check in a few mins.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Paul Stamler wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

But I'll wager that
some are not, and the scientific explanations -- like
those for the nature of dark matter -- await discovery.

Anybody who needs to dealve into the philosophy of science, or find a new
form of matter in order to explain how a microphone works, is completely
off
the beam.

Arny, you'll excuse me, but this comment suggests you haven't had your
morning coffee yet. Or do you think everything that can be known about human
perception of sound and how electronics affect it is already known?

"I think the Patents Office should close down. Everything that can be
invented has been invented." --Charles H. Duel, 1897


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 06:48:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message


Some of the audible differences in
capacitors, for example, are clearly due to things we can
easily measure.

No, all of them.

Rather a sweeping generalization, the sweepingness of which
gets to the heart of the philosophy of science, and its
fundamental difference from religion.

More specifically, no such statement can be made in science,
but is often made in religion.

Science is *not* a method of hammering down loose nails; it's
a process for discovering which nails might be loose.

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 07:03:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Note that I didn't write any of the quoted text.

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[[email protected]]

On Nov 8, 4:40 pm, "geoff" wrote:
wrote:
Let's hear it! There are plenty of them out there, you can pick one up
for around $300. BTW, that National LME45710 sucks about 5 ma idling.
Good luck getting it to power up in the 460B. Good luck with the
pinout, the 460B uses a DUAL opamp, not a SINGLE opamp. I can imagine
the ripped up pcb when you finally figure that out. Good luck getting
a LM4562 to work either. The guy that said it was a 301 is WRONG.

Which I conceded and corrected.

It's
like watching a bunch of chimps pick up on the same mistake and repeat
it without thought.

Thanks.

Since I've done over 200 of just this one model, there is an income
for those that can offer a better product. Let's hear yours.

OK, so without giving away any trade secrets, are you modifying the existing
PCB and componentry, or replacing it with something completely new ?

No.

Cos
without specifics it sounds like you are in fact making a new mic using a
C460B casing - which in my view is not 'modifying' a C460B at all.

It may well be a huge improvement, which is great. It may even end up better
than a C480.

Yes it is.


Are you retaining the TL062, or whatever 2180Z0303 is, or have you found a
vanilla (or an esoteric) drop-in replacement ?

I found much better. It is esoteric.


And (getting back to the original topic) are you using a length of magic
wire that is having a profound effect on this upgrade ?

Sometimes if the customer requests it. Mine do have a 1/2" piece of
Kimber Black Pearls silver teflon wire.


*** Unrelated comment *** It profoundly amused me that Marshall bothered to
have an MXL603 Mogami Edition, based on a centimetre or so of internal
cabling ! I tried them and didn't like mine so flicked them.

geoff

Great wire won't fix a bad design. It will reveal it.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Geoff]

wrote:
OK, so without giving away any trade secrets, are you modifying the
existing PCB and componentry, or replacing it with something
completely new ?

No.

No to which or both ?

geoff

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

But I'll wager that
some are not, and the scientific explanations -- like
those for the nature of dark matter -- await discovery.

Anybody who needs to dealve into the philosophy of
science, or find a new form of matter in order to
explain how a microphone works, is completely off the
beam.

Arny, you'll excuse me, but this comment suggests you
haven't had your morning coffee yet. Or do you think
everything that can be known about human perception of
sound and how electronics affect it is already known?

Anybody who isn't 8 forks, 8 knives, and 8 spoons short of place settings
for 8 knows that we will never know everything that can be known. Just wait
a while! ;-)

The more relevant question, and almost any question would be more relevant,
is whether we know enough about the perception of sound and how electronics
affects it, to use what we currently know about electronics effectively
manage the performance of microphones as we know them in the current
context.

The larger context is that we really don't know what microphones need to do
to provide realistic reproduction.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

In article
,
Paul Stamler wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

But I'll wager that
some are not, and the scientific explanations -- like
those for the nature of dark matter -- await discovery.

Anybody who needs to dealve into the philosophy of
science, or find a new form of matter in order to
explain how a microphone works, is completely off the
beam.

Arny, you'll excuse me, but this comment suggests you
haven't had your morning coffee yet. Or do you think
everything that can be known about human perception of
sound and how electronics affect it is already known?

"I think the Patents Office should close down. Everything
that can be invented has been invented." --Charles H.
Duel, 1897

I see that the excluded-middle express has a full load today. Of what, I
won't say! ;-)