| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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 news  a7Bc.72457$eu.43358@attbi_s02...How is jitter reintroduced with a short cable yet digitized telephone signals travel over miles of copper without impact? IOW, that site could be deconstructed quite easily, but isn't worth the time, bandwidth, nor the effort. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 6/19/04 12:24 PM, in article FMZAc.69804$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
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
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. 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? -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven Sullivan" 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? 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?  |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 6/20/04 6:09 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven Sullivan" 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. 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. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:2E1Bc.142540$Ly.28523@attbi_s01... snip...snip.. Or, if that seems too simple, take Ban's suggestion and learn a little about acoustics, then work on optimal speaker placement and room treatments. This can be a long-term preoccupation, and doesn't even require you to churn through expensive equipment that you have to resell for 50 cents on the dollar. That is the first thing 'we' do before chasing equipments. In fact, my room is full of marking at various side and holes in the parquet flooring. If I recall correctly it took me 3 to 6 months to get it right. And the test went on for about year before confirming the ideal placement. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Bromo" wrote in message
news:w4jBc.64693$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. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Chelvam wrote:
"Bromo" wrote in message news:w4jBc.64693$Hg2.9199@attbi_s04... On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven Sullivan" wrote: snip..snip.. It was the observation and dogged pursuit of detail that revealed the real truth. This is not the same in magnitude, but similar in effect. And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were aerodynamically impossible. Which aviation engineer was that? In any case, no one is saying differences are 'impossible'. THey ARE saying that until *good evidence* for them are presented, they are faced with the likelihood that the 'differences' are imaginary...a view for which there *is* considerable good evidence. -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote in news:VbjBc.148836$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
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 | | | +---------------------------------------+ |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
chung wrote:
Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven Sullivan" 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? 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? Oh please; the milk treatment depends on the type of milk used. Holstein is the best sounding milk by a large margin. Jersey is acceptable but Gurnsey has too much butter-fat and causes heavy-bass. Goat or sheep-milk? Better stick to cheese. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
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. |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/20/04 6:09 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: 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? And if I were to tell you that the Earth revolves around the sun - despite all the proof you gave me - would you ridicule and laugh at me? :-) Why would I laugh at you? For stating the obvious? |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo writes:
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. This is an urban myth - mostly spread by people who have a need to discredit "modern science". Have a look at http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/98/bees, for example. ---Ketil |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Chelvam" wrote in message
news:b3tBc.87266$0y.49768@attbi_s03... "Bromo" wrote in message news:w4jBc.64693$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. My understanding is that this is a myth created by rumour and misinformation due to only a trickle of any accurate information about this 'aerodynamically advanced' plane reaching the US at that time. It was incorrectly assumed that the Japanese were incapable of building such a plane. I also understand that Jiro Horikoshi who headed the Mitubishi design team wrote a book about the design and building the Zero. |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 | | | +---------------------------------------+ |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 | | | +---------------------------------------+ |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/20/04 6:09 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven Sullivan" 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. Did you read carefully the quotes from audioquest.com? 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. Oh yeah? So, do you believe cables need broken in, or there is directivity in cables? Why do you think my example is any more ridiculous than, say, cable-lifters? The ridiculous example was given to show you that there are indeed claims that can be outright ignored or laughed at. Why would anyone want to "note the observation and trace it to the root cause" when presented such claims? |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
Linear Mode
