Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Bromo
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

It is all in the digital receiver - and the amount of allowable timing
errors before it turns into audible errors. The higher the "oversampling"
or "sampling" rate, the better the clock recovery has to be - and the less
room for error.

In a digitized telephone network the allowable timing errors and dispersion
allowed is helped with the limited bandwidth, and the recovery circuits are
quite good.

On 6/20/04 10:30 AM, in article , "Chelvam"
wrote:

IF you got through other posts here, especailly the one on Vintage DAC-
jitter is a higher in separate DAC.

___
"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message
newsa7Bc.72457$eu.43358@attbi_s02...


How is jitter reintroduced with a short cable yet digitized telephone
signals travel over miles of copper without impact?

IOW, that site could be deconstructed quite easily, but isn't worth the
time, bandwidth, nor the effort.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.



  #82   Report Post  
Bromo
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

On 6/19/04 12:24 PM, in article FMZAc.69804$eu.64854@attbi_s02, "Chelvam"
wrote:

So can I safely say that today's CD Players meet all the requirements. And
if there's going to be any improvement where should I look for?


If that it the case with you - you have achieved sonic bliss - enjoy it!

  #83   Report Post  
Bromo
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

On 6/19/04 11:05 PM, in article oa7Bc.72457$eu.43358@attbi_s02,
"Rich.Andrews" wrote:

"Chelvam" wrote in
news:rI_Ac.76602$0y.9306@attbi_s03:

Wow, they got total satisfaction policy, so I might give it a try. Not
many guys do that.


Satisfaction guarantees are not proof of anything. Here is a quote from
that particular website.

"There are several jitter attenuation or reclocking products on the
market. All of these products suffer from the fact, that you need a cable,
in order to connect to the digital receiver (f.e. DA converter). This will
introduce new jitter, the cleaned signal will be contaminated again,
before it reaches the receiving device."

How is jitter reintroduced with a short cable yet digitized telephone
signals travel over miles of copper without impact?

IOW, that site could be deconstructed quite easily, but isn't worth the
time, bandwidth, nor the effort.


If you don't - the other guys will win.

  #85   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

Steven Sullivan wrote:

chung wrote:
Bromo wrote:
On 6/18/04 9:42 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

I would offer as an example bit-identity of two .wav files....which
has not prevented listeners from claiming that they still sound different.

In fact, what has happened in that case is lots of time spent trying
to find a *differnt* measurement to validate the supposed difference (with
'jitter' usually named, but AFAIK never proved to be, the culprit).



Yes, this is one of the few cases where you can measure no difference,
but that's between 2 CD's and probably not what audiophiles were
thinking of measuring. And there is speculation that bit-identical CD's
may still sound different due to jitter.

If there is one transport that produces high jitter and one that produces
low jitter - they will sound different. But it is measurable.


No, I was talking about the same CD player/transport/DAC.


If I understand correclty, the hypothesis inherent CD jitter (versus
playback path jitter), is that two bit-identical CDs can be different
because one was manufactured with more jitter than the other.

If so, one thing I'm not clear on is, why doesn't such jitter show up in
comparison of the 'bits'?


I have read that the same music CD made from masters cut from different
machines can sound different, according to tests done at Sony Music. The
data is the same, and the error rate is low. My guess is that a given CD
player's output jitter may be a function of the physical "wobbliness" or
concentricities of the tracks. And a good CD player/DAC should be able
to reject this jitter, but perhaps some players/DAC's do not do a very
good job of this.

The data is still bit perfect. So if you use a good digital audio
extraction program, you will still have bit-perfect data. However, when
the CD is being played in real time, jitter, which is basically noise in
the frequency of the DAC clock, can be affected if the servo circuitry
has a tougher time tracking the lands and pits.


  #87   Report Post  
Bromo
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

On 6/20/04 12:47 PM, in article XcjBc.148843$Ly.52420@attbi_s01, "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

Are you suggesting we should not worry about people measuring everything that
matters or failing to measure everything that matters?


Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
the wrong thing has been measured. Bromo was kind enough to also allude
to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
(optional: yet)'.

The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving. The second is a
truism, but again, where's the independent evidence or argument-from-data
to believe it's true in *this* case?


I would agree with you broadly - though it is just as wrong for people who
think they (or really do hear) differences to shut up and 'accept' the
status quo as it is wrong for those who have technical measurements to show
the state of the art cannot find any reason a person ought to be able to
hear differences.
  #88   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/20/2004 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: XcjBc.148843$Ly.52420@attbi_s01

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan

Date: 6/19/2004 1:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:
Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

When you don't know what to measure - or are measuring the wrong things.

And I predicted someone would retort in this fashion, several days ago.
Thanks for proving me right.


--





Are you suggesting we should not worry about people measuring everything

that
matters or failing to measure everything that matters?


Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
the wrong thing has been measured.


hardly the case here since nothing since no specific measurements are being
discussed.


Bromo was kind enough to also allude
to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
(optional: yet)'.


Actually he didn't. He was clearly speaking about the possibility in the
practical world that some people may simply not be measuring everything that
makes a difference. He made no mention of anything actually being unmeasurable.
Scroll up and see for yourself.



The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving.



It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on
both sides.



The second is a
truism, but again, where's the independent evidence or argument-from-data
to believe it's true in *this* case?


There is no "case" here. One can hardly ask for independent evidence in regards
to arguments over hypathetics.





  #91   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

Bromo said:
People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up'
to counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I
suspect it's because they're laughing too hard.


A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation
and trace it to root cause. That is how the State of the Art
advances, BTW. Ridicule of things you disagree with or don't
understand is as bad as the pseudoscience that one condemns.
Remember that the Earth was thought to have the sun revolve
around it. It was the observation and dogged pursuit of detail
that revealed the real truth. This is not the same in magnitude,
but similar in effect


Fine. Today, is ANYONE who claims the sun revolves around the
earth taken at all seriously? If someone made such a claim, how
many scientists would immediately drop what they are doing and
rush to perform observations and doggedly pursue the detail
AGAIN? WOuld we have to start the research all over again, even
though the issue was settled centuries ago, and ALL subsequent
evidence spoke strongly against the geocentric view?

No, A few might politely point out the claim is wrong, and send
the claimant off in the direction of literature and studies already
in existance. If that person simply refused to do the work and
insisted, doggedly, that the earth was at the center of the universe,
in total ignorance of the HUGE body of data that clearly contradicts
that view, eventually, what do you think would happen?

And so it goes: many of the high-end claims are really no different
than medievalist quackery and religion. Utterly fantastic claims
are made about this property or that, when the topic was already
studied and settled DECADES before the high-end pulled it out of its,
uhm, wherever.

So, every time some quack comes up with the latest weirdo claim
about green pens or magic bricks or fatastic cables or the latest
dejitter box or whatever, what's supposed to happen?

Does the entire professional audio industry drop whatever its doing,
contacting the boddies over in the psychoacoustics departments, and
all rush madly about proving the next King of Audio Fool's Hill
wrong?

Or, do we wait for the latest Pretender to the Throne to make good
on his claim with some real proof of his own?

Who has what cart before which horse?

+---------------------------------------+
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |
+---------------------------------------+
  #92   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

Bromo said:
"There are several jitter attenuation or reclocking products on the
market. All of these products suffer from the fact, that you need a cable,
in order to connect to the digital receiver (f.e. DA converter). This will
introduce new jitter, the cleaned signal will be contaminated again,
before it reaches the receiving device."

How is jitter reintroduced with a short cable yet digitized telephone
signals travel over miles of copper without impact?

IOW, that site could be deconstructed quite easily, but isn't worth the
time, bandwidth, nor the effort.


If you don't - the other guys will win.


Win what? There's no "prize" here. At least not one worth winning.
The problem has been solved, ages ago. That a bunch of yahoos in
the high-end biz can't get their acts together and fix what ain't
broken (often breaking it MUCH worse) is hardly any fight worth
fighting. It's like being paired in a spelling bee against a garden
slug: Yeah, I can win, but so what?


+---------------------------------------+
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |
+---------------------------------------+
  #93   Report Post  
Timothy A. Seufert
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

In article , chung
wrote:

The data is still bit perfect. So if you use a good digital audio
extraction program, you will still have bit-perfect data. However, when
the CD is being played in real time, jitter, which is basically noise in
the frequency of the DAC clock, can be affected if the servo circuitry
has a tougher time tracking the lands and pits.


Can theoretically be affected. I don't think I've ever seen anything
establishing a concrete link, just speculation about extra servo
"circuit" noise being coupled into something else. ("Circuit" in quotes
because the servo system here is likely to be a bit of extra DSP
software.)

If there is a real effect along those lines, jitter in the playback
clock does not seem likely -- plain old noise coupling into the DAC
output is a far more realistic scenario. Any change in the digital
portion of the system is unlikely since digital circuits are highly
resistant to noise.

Not that I think noise coupling into the analog section is a likely
scenario either. Servo corrections happen all the time even when there
aren't problems with the disc -- otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to
have servos.

By far the most likely scenario in which nominally bit identical discs
play back different is when they don't actually read back bit identical,
i.e. one or both of the "identical" discs has recording problems serious
enough to sometimes result in uncorrectable errors during playback.

--
Tim

  #94   Report Post  
Chelvam
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:2E1Bc.142540$Ly.28523@attbi_s01...

snip...snip..

Or, if that seems too simple, take Ban's suggestion and learn a little

about
acoustics, then work on optimal speaker placement and room treatments.

This
can be a long-term preoccupation, and doesn't even require you to churn
through expensive equipment that you have to resell for 50 cents on the
dollar.


That is the first thing 'we' do before chasing equipments. In fact, my room
is full of marking at various side and holes in the parquet flooring. If I
recall correctly it took me 3 to 6 months to get it right. And the test went
on for about year before confirming the ideal placement.

  #96   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

Bromo wrote:



On 6/20/04 12:47 PM, in article XcjBc.148843$Ly.52420@attbi_s01, "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

Are you suggesting we should not worry about people measuring everything

that
matters or failing to measure everything that matters?


Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
the wrong thing has been measured. Bromo was kind enough to also allude
to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
(optional: yet)'.

The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving. The second is a
truism, but again, where's the independent evidence or argument-from-data
to believe it's true in *this* case?


I would agree with you broadly - though it is just as wrong for people who
think they (or really do hear) differences to shut up and 'accept' the
status quo as it is wrong for those who have technical measurements to show
the state of the art cannot find any reason a person ought to be able to
hear differences.


Of course, but we should also keep in mind that after 30-40 years of argument
about wire/amplifier/bit sounds we still do not have a single credible
bias-controlled listening test where any subject has been able to show an
ability to 'hear' these qualitiies when normal sources of listener bias have
been screened.

If there were real differences of such a nature than someone would have
observed them under bias-controlled or accidental conditions. I wonder why it's
only the "subjectivists" who espouse them; and why none of them has ever
produced a replicable experiment that shows they actually have an acoustic
cause? Not a single one.

I'm not arguing against the possibility of differences occuring, indeed I've
spent the last 20 years chasing them down, but IF there were things to "hear"
that are replicable (to a given subject or multiple subjects) then I wonder
why some interested party hasn't shown that they remain 'hearable' when even
the most modest of bias controls are implemented?

In my opinion the "status quo" is the reverse of what you suggest. The state of
audio is that one is expected to believe in amp/wire/parts/bit sound even when
it hasn't been shown to have an acoustical source or cause. This because
manufacturers/salesmen/high-end audio reviews "say" so.

I would agree with you broadly - though it is just as wrong for people who
think they (or really do hear) differences to shut up and 'accept' the
status quo as it is wrong for those who have technical measurements to show
the state of the art cannot find any reason a person ought to be able to
hear differences.


I think that those who "(or really do hear) differences" should shut up and
show that they really CAN hear these differences.

I've spent a considerable amount of time and money tracking down these
"differences" that always seem to be just a fine-hair away from being "proven"
or validated ..... but so far not one person (this covers 20 years of personal
research and 25 years of published work) has ever been able to show an ability
to hear amplifiers (of wildly differing cost), cables (interconnects and
speaker wire .... including the 'designer' of same) and only ONE subject was
able to differentiate a 14-bit Phillips cd player from a Sony ES of 10 years
its junior (and that test was not closely time sync'd).

So I'm of the opinion that IF folks want us to buy into amp/wire/bit sound you
have to step up to the plate and hit the ball. Argument and debate just isn't
good enough.
  #99   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

Bromo wrote:
People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to
counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect
it's because they're laughing too hard.

A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and
trace it to root cause.


So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to
the root cause?


Ah, but what we were talking about is not that kind of issue.


Excuse me, but it most assuredly is. People in the high-end
business are making claims that precisely contradict principles
of engineering and physics that have achieved the status of
"theorem" (not theory) through rigorous proof. They make claims
about tweaks that contradict a century or more of vast and carefully
performed research, and make such claims without a single shred
of evidence to support that claim.

If I tell you that after washing my amp in warm milk, the sound
is so much more liquid, do you note the observation and trace
it to the root cause? Or have you lost your ability to laugh?


The ridiculous example you give does not have a bearing on what
we were talking about.


Begging your pardon, but it is precisely this sort of ridiculous
claim that the entire topic bears upon. Consider the following
tweaks:

1. Application of gren pens to CDs

2. Water filled audio cables

3. The placement of small wooden pucks around the room to enhance
the sound

4. The strident claim by an editorial contributor to one of the
prominent high-end magazines of the dramatic effects of audible
"glare" from a water faucet in the other room.

5. Armor-all as an "optical impedance matching fluid" to enhance
the playback of CD's

6. CD demagnetizers

7. "micro-diodes" in cables

8. Blue "dithering LEDs" in expensive CD players

How many more of these "ridiculous examples" do you consider to
have "no bearing" on what we were talking about?

Get rid of ALL these "ridiculous examples" that "have no bearing,"
and all of a sudden, the high-end biz is transformed from a back-water
freak-tweal cottage industry governed by mysticism, quackery and
a few vocal, wide-eyed magazine wonks into a reality-based pursuit.

Wouldn't THAT be a tragedy, then?

+---------------------------------------+
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |
+---------------------------------------+

  #100   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

Chelvam said:

If you don't - the other guys will win.


Win what? There's no "prize" here. At least not one worth winning.
The problem has been solved, ages ago. That a bunch of yahoos in
the high-end biz can't get their acts together and fix what ain't
broken (often breaking it MUCH worse) is hardly any fight worth
fighting. It's like being paired in a spelling bee against a garden
slug: Yeah, I can win, but so what?


But do all CD players implement the known fixes against jitter
to reduce it below audibility


What evidence, other than a lot of CLAIMS, is there to suggest
that it is an audible problem to begin with?

(my guess is no since the CD's sound for consumer grade stuff
seems to be getting worse as the decks get cheaper)?


So you are already approaching the question with a preconcieved
notion in hand.

Do all amplifiers implement the known, mature fixes to respond
properly to transients?


Where's the e3vidence, other than a lot of claims, that the
problem exists to begin with?

Probably not.


So you are already approaching the question with a preconcieved
notion in hand.

And I don't think mistakes would be relegated to the "high end."


Maybe, maybe not. But for a HUGE class of "problems" the
high-end biz has shown an uncanny ability to screw up the
solution to a far greater degree than pretty much anywhere
else.

Let's look SPECIFCALLY at the jitter issue as an example.
The entire rest of the electronics industry knows full well
that the ONLY time jitter is of ANY relevance is but at one
place: the conversion between the analog domain and the digital
domain, or vice versa. NO WHERE ELSE DOES JITTER HAVE ANY
RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER. And a classic proof of that is the fact
that the data coming of a CD is not only "jittered," it is
completely scrambled, out-of-order (intentionally).

If you don't get it right at the exact point of A/D or D/A, then
EVERYTHING else means absolutely nothing.

That's why in the real world, careful attention is paid to low
phase noise sample clocks AT THE SAMPLE CONVERSION POINT. That's
why careful attention is paid to double phase-lock-loop clocking
schemes that decouple the sample conversion clock from the incoming
data stream, and so forth.

And that's why the high-end idiotic nonsense of "dejitter" boxes
and fancy cables are nonsense. That's why multi-thousand dollar
DACs with incompetent clock recovery, miserable mixed-signal
design and layout techniques are such travesties.

You think that the high-end DOESN'T make more mistakes? Please,
show us the kind of nonsense like green pens, wooden pucks, magic
bricks, water-filled cables, "blue-dithering LED," and all the rest
prevail to the extent they do in the high-end biz.

So the "prize" as it were, would be true guidance and elevation
of good design standards as requirement.


That prize was already won decades ago by real engineers. So when
wil the high-end audio biz finally grow up?
+---------------------------------------+
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |
+---------------------------------------+



  #101   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 6/20/2004 8:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Steven Sullivan ss wrote

...snips......

Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
the wrong thing has been measured.


hardly the case here since nothing since no specific measurements are being
discussed.


Bromo was kind enough to also allude
to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
(optional: yet)'.


Actually he didn't. He was clearly speaking about the possibility in the
practical world that some people may simply not be measuring everything that
makes a difference. He made no mention of anything actually being
unmeasurable.
Scroll up and see for yourself.

The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving.



It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on
both sides.


Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be
heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a
difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then
asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound
.....
and I don't recall a response.


I didn't give one. I must have missed the question. I don't think I am the best
person to ask.


Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't
already done?


I don't know. Maybe you should be measuring the acoustic output of the
speakers? Any audible differences would certainly show up there. I think you
would do better to ask someone who designs amps. Maybe you could pose this
question to Bill Johnson or Jeff Roland or Nelson Pass.

  #103   Report Post  
Rich.Andrews
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

Bromo wrote in news:VbjBc.148836$Ly.4255@attbi_s01:



IOW, that site could be deconstructed quite easily, but isn't worth the
time, bandwidth, nor the effort.


If you don't - the other guys will win.



I did not realize it was about "winning". It is quite obvious that the
information given on the web pages in question, is false. There is no
point in discussing that web site any further.

Magic pixie dust may sound like a great way to fix problems, but truth be
told, magic pixie dust does not exist.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

  #104   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

Chelvam said:
It was the observation and dogged pursuit of detail that
revealed the real truth. This is not the same in magnitude,
but similar in effect.


And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were
aerodynamically impossible.


Please, if you would, cite the "aviation engineer" who made such
a definitive claim. Sir, "bricks" are "aerodynamically possible."

Is this the beginning of yet another urban legend?


+---------------------------------------+
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |
+---------------------------------------+
  #106   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

From: Dick Pierce
Date: 6/21/2004 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: axCBc.85804$HG.35376@attbi_s53

Bromo wrote:
People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to
counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect
it's because they're laughing too hard.

A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and
trace it to root cause.

So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to
the root cause?


Ah, but what we were talking about is not that kind of issue.


Excuse me, but it most assuredly is.


No it's not. First math is a language and so one can make irrefutable
assertions. Second, none of the tweaks you name later in this post could be
debunked by a primary grade school student, 1+1=2.1 certainly can and no proof
is required.

People in the high-end
business are making claims that precisely contradict principles
of engineering and physics that have achieved the status of
"theorem" (not theory) through rigorous proof.


Once again the grand invocation of the laws of physics. The notion that an amp
or even a cable may sound different from another amp or cable is hardly a claim
that violates the laws of physics let alone the rules of arithmetic.

They make claims
about tweaks that contradict a century or more of vast and carefully
performed research, and make such claims without a single shred
of evidence to support that claim.


Really? There was research on the effects of green pen on CD playback as long
ago as a century? News to me. By the way there is some evidence to support the
claims. It is anecdotal and not worth much but it does exist.


If I tell you that after washing my amp in warm milk, the sound
is so much more liquid, do you note the observation and trace
it to the root cause? Or have you lost your ability to laugh?


The ridiculous example you give does not have a bearing on what
we were talking about.


Begging your pardon, but it is precisely this sort of ridiculous
claim that the entire topic bears upon. Consider the following
tweaks:

1. Application of gren pens to CDs

2. Water filled audio cables

3. The placement of small wooden pucks around the room to enhance
the sound

4. The strident claim by an editorial contributor to one of the
prominent high-end magazines of the dramatic effects of audible
"glare" from a water faucet in the other room.

5. Armor-all as an "optical impedance matching fluid" to enhance
the playback of CD's

6. CD demagnetizers

7. "micro-diodes" in cables

8. Blue "dithering LEDs" in expensive CD players


Dubious claims yes. But why invoke the laws of physics or vaguely refer to
century old research (I am curious what research was done over a century ago
that would have any bearing on "demagnitizing" CDs, note that the Bedini
contraption is not claimed to demagnetize a CD, or micro-diodes in cables,
whatever that is)? For a group of people who seem to complain so much about
hyperbole this seems a bit much.


How many more of these "ridiculous examples" do you consider to
have "no bearing" on what we were talking about?

Get rid of ALL these "ridiculous examples" that "have no bearing,"
and all of a sudden, the high-end biz is transformed from a back-water
freak-tweal cottage industry governed by mysticism, quackery and
a few vocal, wide-eyed magazine wonks into a reality-based pursuit.


Really? Get rid of the fringe tweak products and everything else in the high
end is OK? wow


Wouldn't THAT be a tragedy, then?


I suppose not. Can't say I ever had any use for any of the tweaks you cited. I
haven't really tested my faucets for audible glare. I do know I hear them when
I turn the water on. I hope everyone else does too. Running water does make
noise. Glare? hmmm. would it upset anyone if I said they sounded wet?


  #110   Report Post  
Timothy A. Seufert
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

In article b3tBc.87266$0y.49768@attbi_s03,
"Chelvam" wrote:

"Bromo" wrote in message
news:w4jBc.64693$Hg2.9199@attbi_s04...
On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:


snip..snip..

It was the observation and dogged pursuit of detail that
revealed the real truth. This is not the same in magnitude, but similar

in
effect.


And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were
aerodynamically impossible.


What aviation engineer? When?

I suspect you are believing some of the popular mythology about the
Zero. There _was_ some wonderment in U.S. military aviation circles at
the astonishing initial reports of the Zero's prowess. But then the
Navy got some real operational experience flying against the Zero, and
began to get a true idea of its capabilities and weaknesses. Later, a
nearly intact Zero was captured and all remnants of uncertainty were
removed.

Perhaps an aviation engineer might have said the early rumored Zero was
aerodynamically impossible. He would have been right.

The real Zero turned out to have nothing mysterious about it. It was
quite comparable in aerodynamics and general technology level to
contemporary U.S. designs. It merely had a different set of engineering
tradeoffs. It sacrificed range, structural strength, armament (to an
extent), and fireproofing to make the aircraft lighter. The light
weight allowed it to be fast and maneuverable. Speed and
maneuverability were the traits held in highest regard by Japanese naval
aviators during the development of the Zero, and Mitsubishi built what
they wanted.

U.S. designers generally chose to make much heavier, better armored and
better armed airplanes with less performance. As a result, early-war
U.S. airplanes were outperformed by Zeros in many regards, but had
abilities Zeroes did not. For example, the straight line speed
advantage of a Zero over the Grumann F4F-4 or F4F-6 Wildcat could be
negated if the F4F pilot had enough altitude. Push the nose down into a
steep dive and the F4F would pull away every time, unless the Zero pilot
wanted to lose his wings; the F4F's stronger airframe gave it a much
higher Vmax. This was quickly incorporated into battle tactics: engage
at altitude, dive out of trouble.

The F4F's armor and fireproofing also allowed it to take incredible
amounts of damage without going down (pilots lovingly referred to the
Grumann factory as the Grumann Iron Works), whereas Zeroes tended to
break up or catch fire if caught with a good burst.

--
Tim



  #113   Report Post  
Wayne Van Kirk
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

9) Totem Beaks:

"Now let's talk about the Beaks.
Vincent Bruzzese says that the design of the Beaks was determined
with the help of a mainframe computer, and that every aspect of it (the
cutout on the underside and the fine grooves milled into the surface)
must be exactly the way they are. He adds that actual frequency
measurements have been run on speakers with and without Beaks, but he
has supplied neither the methodology nor the actual measurements. The
Beak is meant to be at once a resonator (the air space trapped under the
device) and--if we understand correctly--a diffraction device. It is
claimed that it improves the bottom end, and it also allows the tweeter
to go higher more linearly. How it does this is, for the moment,
anyone's guess"
http://www.audiotweaks.com/shows/fsi2002/10.htm

Dick Pierce wrote:
Bromo wrote:

People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to
counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect
it's because they're laughing too hard.

A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and
trace it to root cause.

So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to
the root cause?


Ah, but what we were talking about is not that kind of issue.



Excuse me, but it most assuredly is. People in the high-end
business are making claims that precisely contradict principles
of engineering and physics that have achieved the status of
"theorem" (not theory) through rigorous proof. They make claims
about tweaks that contradict a century or more of vast and carefully
performed research, and make such claims without a single shred
of evidence to support that claim.


If I tell you that after washing my amp in warm milk, the sound
is so much more liquid, do you note the observation and trace
it to the root cause? Or have you lost your ability to laugh?


The ridiculous example you give does not have a bearing on what
we were talking about.



Begging your pardon, but it is precisely this sort of ridiculous
claim that the entire topic bears upon. Consider the following
tweaks:

1. Application of gren pens to CDs

2. Water filled audio cables

3. The placement of small wooden pucks around the room to enhance
the sound

4. The strident claim by an editorial contributor to one of the
prominent high-end magazines of the dramatic effects of audible
"glare" from a water faucet in the other room.

5. Armor-all as an "optical impedance matching fluid" to enhance
the playback of CD's

6. CD demagnetizers

7. "micro-diodes" in cables

8. Blue "dithering LEDs" in expensive CD players

How many more of these "ridiculous examples" do you consider to
have "no bearing" on what we were talking about?

Get rid of ALL these "ridiculous examples" that "have no bearing,"
and all of a sudden, the high-end biz is transformed from a back-water
freak-tweal cottage industry governed by mysticism, quackery and
a few vocal, wide-eyed magazine wonks into a reality-based pursuit.

Wouldn't THAT be a tragedy, then?

+---------------------------------------+
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |
+---------------------------------------+


  #115   Report Post  
Bromo
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

On 6/21/04 10:46 AM, in article axCBc.85804$HG.35376@attbi_s53, "Dick
Pierce" wrote:

The ridiculous example you give does not have a bearing on what
we were talking about.


Begging your pardon, but it is precisely this sort of ridiculous
claim that the entire topic bears upon. Consider the following
tweaks:

1. Application of gren pens to CDs

2. Water filled audio cables

3. The placement of small wooden pucks around the room to enhance
the sound

4. The strident claim by an editorial contributor to one of the
prominent high-end magazines of the dramatic effects of audible
"glare" from a water faucet in the other room.

5. Armor-all as an "optical impedance matching fluid" to enhance
the playback of CD's

6. CD demagnetizers

7. "micro-diodes" in cables

8. Blue "dithering LEDs" in expensive CD players

How many more of these "ridiculous examples" do you consider to
have "no bearing" on what we were talking about?


We weren't talking about any of them - so none of them - by increasing the
range all you have done is to *try* to drag me into that mire and paint me
with the incorrect brush. I would agree with you that there are many frauds
out there - some even deliberate, I figure - but that is no reason to
ridicule and denounce rather than disprove.

I would only float that ridicule is not refutation - and it is not
substitution for good objective science. But it is also a mistake to
substitute ridicule for refutation.

Get rid of ALL these "ridiculous examples" that "have no bearing,"


So ... What exactly are you getting at? That you can throw a lot of silly
things on top of what we were talking about , and refute *those* instead of
what we were discussing?

and all of a sudden, the high-end biz is transformed from a back-water
freak-tweal cottage industry governed by mysticism, quackery and
a few vocal, wide-eyed magazine wonks into a reality-based pursuit.


Actually, amongst a lot of quackery are some genuine well constructed,
excellent sounding high end products.




Wouldn't THAT be a tragedy, then?

+---------------------------------------+
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |
+---------------------------------------+



  #117   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

Bromo wrote in message news:04PBc.92192$Sw.45974@attbi_s51...
On 6/21/04 12:00 AM, in article b3tBc.87266$0y.49768@attbi_s03, "Chelvam"
wrote:

"Bromo" wrote in message
news:w4jBc.64693$Hg2.9199@attbi_s04...
On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:


snip..snip..

It was the observation and dogged pursuit of detail that
revealed the real truth. This is not the same in magnitude, but similar

in
effect.


And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were
aerodynamically impossible.

Don't forget Bumblebees can't fly by modern aerodynamic sciences.


And with these two "citations," we begin now to understand what
really is wrong with the high-end audio realm.

NEITHER of these statement have any truth to them. I would challenge
both Mr. Bromo and Mr. Chelvam to specifically cite the authorative
references that, for example, state:

"Bumblebees can't fly by modern aerodynamic sciences."

Please, Mr. Bromo, show us the collection of modern aerodynamic texts
that state this. And where is the citation about the aerdynamic
engineers who stated the Zero was not "aerodynamically possible?"

This is illustrative of the problem because both of these posters have
quoted nothing more than utterly unsubstantiated urban legend as if
they are definitive statements of physical fact. DId either of them
bother to research these claims to see if they have any validity? Quite
apparently, they have not.

Are either of these posters aware of the fact that NASA has yet to
find definitive proof that the moon is NOT made of green cheese? That
much is absolutely true. Yet we don't see the American Dairy Association
staking claim to our satellite.

Claims like "some engineer said some plane is not aerodynamically
possible" or "modern aerdynamics say bees can't fly" are ways of
assulting science and engineering when science and engineering
don't give people the answers they want to hear, when science and
engineering don't bend and conform to someone's personal agenda.
"Obviously, I'm right," they say, "and since science and engineeering
don't support my view, science and engineering MUST be wrong. See,
they even said bumblbees can't fly."

Never once did they EVER entertain the possibility that their claim
is wrong.
  #119   Report Post  
Chelvam
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
news:jKXBc.75809$Hg2.10677@attbi_s04...
In article b3tBc.87266$0y.49768@attbi_s03,
"Chelvam" wrote:

"Bromo" wrote in message
news:w4jBc.64693$Hg2.9199@attbi_s04...
On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:


snip..snip..

It was the observation and dogged pursuit of detail that
revealed the real truth. This is not the same in magnitude, but

similar
in
effect.


And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were
aerodynamically impossible.


What aviation engineer? When?





Perhaps an aviation engineer might have said the early rumored Zero was
aerodynamically impossible. He would have been right.


Too bad google failed me on this one. But correct me if I am wrong. Two
Japanese Companies were involved in the development of the Zero. Matsu****a
did the job. the other company quit saying that it was impossible.

When the American had its close encounter with Zero in China it was
initially dismissed by the American that such thing was "aerodynamically
impossible".

I am not saying Zero defied physics but the initial assessment was sceptical
because the knowhow then wasn't good enough.

That's the same story about bumblebee. Yes we have the scientific
explanation but if you look at the link provided by Ketil
http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/98/bees there was once a
Sainte-Lague, Magnan's lab assistant who was apparently some sort of
engineer said so and furthermore the usual aerodynamics in 1930 would - I
quote "makes back-of-envelope calculations
next to hopeless"

  #120   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

Which is the strategic course taken by the hifi biz in the absence of
reality in such things, let the marketing department loose for a go at it.


So I'm of the opinion that IF folks want us to buy into amp/wire/bit sound yo

u
have to step up to the plate and hit the ball. Argument and debate just isn't
good enough.


Except with a reality check - they do vote - with their wallets.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:34 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"