[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a bunch of consoles and
actually managed to make them sound good. I'd never have believed it if
I hadn't heard it for myself.

All things considered that drives another nail in the coffin of the theory
that slew rate always matters.

Not at all; it simply means that you need to take due care. Compensate the
301 for the actual gain being used (if it's unity gain it requires less
compensation, which means higher slew rate) and keep the levels low in
devices operating at low slew rates. If the peak level doesn't exceed
0.5Vpk, and you are conservative about loads, even a 741 will perform fairly
adequately. It won't win prizes, but it'll be all right. Try to get more
voltatge out, however, and you run into slew problems quickly.

My guess, without seeing the schematics, is that Studer kept operating
levels down in their board, compensated 301s for whatever actual gain they
had, and used feedforward for summing amps and, with current-boosting
transistors, outputs. (Feedforward got you something like 10V/us in a 301,
but could only be used in inverting mode.) Ed Gately did something similar
with his mixers in the 1970s.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a bunch of consoles and
actually managed to make them sound good. I'd never have believed it
if
I hadn't heard it for myself.

All things considered that drives another nail in the coffin of the
theory
that slew rate always matters.

Oh, the 301 has great slew rate when used as a unity-gain follower. It's
when you get gain out of it that there's an issue.

No, it doesn't; with unity-gain compensation it has a slew rate of about
0.5V/us.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

And how do you remove the transformer and still drive a 1200 ohm load?
The
schoolkids want to
know.
BTW, the 301 is a single package opamp.

Nice of National to provide the LME49710 !


The 460B uses a TI TL062 dual fet input device. Good luck getting a
single
package device to work in there.

A TL062 ? That's as noisy as hell !

That may not matter, depending on the level it's being presented with. The
thing that makes substitutions tricky in this application is that the new
opamp has to draw no more current than the original; you're stuck with the
limitations of a phantom power supply.

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

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in
Eeyore wrote:

Good Lord. By chance I came across a bag of ancient
LM301s in metal can the other day. Amazing what's
lurking in odd corners.

The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a bunch
of consoles and actually managed to make them sound
good. I'd never have believed it if I hadn't heard it
for myself.

All things considered that drives another nail in the
coffin of the theory that slew rate always matters.

Part of the secret is to never put more
than 20dB of gain on any one stage, it seems.

This part has only 1 MHz GBW. That means that a stage
with 40 dB gain may start rolling off with -3B @ 10 KHz.

Well ... the very popular and 'designed for audio' TL07X
series only has 3 MHz GBP !

The difference between -3dB @ 10 KHz and -3 dB at 30 KHz is very audible.

10MHz seems to be more the norm for more modern audio parts.

That pushes the 40 dB gain -3 dB point up to 100 KHz, which is gives
adequate margins.

It's even arguable whether a -3 dB point above 100 KHz is a bug or a
feature!

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a
bunch of consoles and actually managed to make them
sound good. I'd never have believed it if I hadn't
heard it for myself.

All things considered that drives another nail in the
coffin of the theory that slew rate always matters.

Oh, the 301 has great slew rate when used as a
unity-gain follower. It's when you get gain out of it
that there's an issue.

No, it doesn't; with unity-gain compensation it has a
slew rate of about
0.5V/us.

My recollection is that the so-called feed-forward compensation for the 301
had a signficant benefit in this kind of application.

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Well ... the very popular and 'designed for audio' TL07X
series only has 3 MHz GBP !

The difference between -3dB @ 10 KHz and -3 dB at 30 KHz is very audible.

10MHz seems to be more the norm for more modern audio parts.

That pushes the 40 dB gain -3 dB point up to 100 KHz, which is gives
adequate margins.

It's even arguable whether a -3 dB point above 100 KHz is a bug or a
feature!

Yeah, but you don't want that -3dB point to happen because you've run out of
loop gain. It's a good way to get crappy results at high frequencies because
of insufficient feedback.

Quite a few years ago I read an interview with the boss at Benchmark. He was
asked how they get away with using the much-maligned 5532 dual opamp for
most of their designs; he replied, in essence, that if you rolled the
high-frequency response off well before the closed-loop curve ran into the
open-loop, and watched out for loading, the 5532 could give very nice
results. Their products seem to confirm it.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Oh, the 301 has great slew rate when used as a
unity-gain follower. It's when you get gain out of it
that there's an issue.

No, it doesn't; with unity-gain compensation it has a
slew rate of about
0.5V/us.

My recollection is that the so-called feed-forward compensation for the
301
had a signficant benefit in this kind of application.

Yes, much better slew rate and GBW. But it only works in inverting mode.

Peace,
Paul

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

hank alrich wrote:

When Jim is finished modifying the C460 the mic runs nicely alongside
the likes of Scheops CMC6. Very nice mics, indeed, and they don't come
that way from AKG.

But is it anything more than a totally new mic in a C460 body ?

Maybe not, disregarding the capsules. But the overall cash outlay for a
C460 and Jim's mods is rather less than the cost of a comparable mic
from other sources. I'm saying these turn out _really well_ when he does
his thing to 'em.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:15 pm, "geoff" wrote:
hank alrich wrote:

Having run his mod'd AKG C460's against the stock item, I call
bull**** on you.

Hell, the front end of a C460 has an LM301 in it, only a FET away
from the capsule ! I would be worried if a schoolkid couldn't
improved that significantly !

;-)

geoff

And just what opamp would you use to replace it with? And which
bipolar transistor? And which coupling caps? And how do you remove the
transformer and still drive a 1200 ohm load? The schoolkids want to
know.
BTW, the 301 is a single package opamp. The 460B uses a TI TL062 dual
fet input device. Good luck getting a single package device to work in
there.

On checking, you are right. I falsely remembered it as an LM301 from last
time I looked. Surely there is a drop-in replacement ( or more recent
manufactured 062) for that, that would give a marginally better performance
? Who said anything about removing the transformer (OK, you might in your
upgrade) . A few replaced electrolytics (esp tantalums) may also give an
improvement.And then one could put bypass caps on those, espcially the
series with output before the transformer...

I know schoolkids who do that sort of thing off their own bats. Admittedly
through folkloric methodology rather than scientific.

The xfrmr in the stock C460 is rather disgusting, and Jim removes it.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Eeyore]

hank alrich wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

The 460B uses a TI TL062 dual fet input device. Good luck getting a single
package device to work in there.

A TL062 ? That's as noisy as hell !

When Jim is finished modifying the C460 the mic runs nicely alongside
the likes of Scheops CMC6. Very nice mics, indeed, and they don't come
that way from AKG.

If the original uses a TL062 that won't be very difficult to improve on !

Graham

[Geoff]

wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:15 pm, "geoff" wrote:
hank alrich wrote:

Having run his mod'd AKG C460's against the stock item, I call
bull**** on you.

Hell, the front end of a C460 has an LM301 in it, only a FET away
from the capsule ! I would be worried if a schoolkid couldn't
improved that significantly !

;-)

geoff

And just what opamp would you use to replace it with? And which
bipolar transistor? And which coupling caps? And how do you remove the
transformer and still drive a 1200 ohm load? The schoolkids want to
know.
BTW, the 301 is a single package opamp. The 460B uses a TI TL062 dual
fet input device. Good luck getting a single package device to work in
there.

On checking, you are right. I falsely remembered it as an LM301 from last
time I looked. Surely there is a drop-in replacement ( or more recent
manufactured 062) for that, that would give a marginally better performance
? Who said anything about removing the transformer (OK, you might in your
upgrade) . A few replaced electrolytics (esp tantalums) may also give an
improvement.And then one could put bypass caps on those, espcially the
series with output before the transformer...

I know schoolkids who do that sort of thing off their own bats. Admittedly
through folkloric methodology rather than scientific.

geoff

[Eeyore]

Paul Stamler wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote

The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a bunch of consoles and
actually managed to make them sound good. I'd never have believed it
if I hadn't heard it for myself.

All things considered that drives another nail in the coffin of the
theory that slew rate always matters.

Oh, the 301 has great slew rate when used as a unity-gain follower. It's
when you get gain out of it that there's an issue.

No, it doesn't; with unity-gain compensation it has a slew rate of about
0.5V/us.

Good for about 8kHz @ +20dBu.

Studer clearly made some (reasonably valid) assumptions about likely spectral
content.

Graham

[Geoff]

Eeyore wrote:
A TL062 ? That's as noisy as hell !


I think the C460 was a brain-fart from AKG who just wanted a mic with an IC
in it ! Cos ICs were cool and newish then.

geoff

[Geoff]

hank alrich wrote:

When Jim is finished modifying the C460 the mic runs nicely alongside
the likes of Scheops CMC6. Very nice mics, indeed, and they don't come
that way from AKG.

But is it anything more than a totally new mic in a C460 body ?

geoff

[Eeyore]

Paul Stamler wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

And how do you remove the transformer and still drive a 1200 ohm load?
The schoolkids want to know.
BTW, the 301 is a single package opamp.

Nice of National to provide the LME49710 !


The 460B uses a TI TL062 dual fet input device. Good luck getting a
single package device to work in there.

A TL062 ? That's as noisy as hell !

That may not matter, depending on the level it's being presented with. The
thing that makes substitutions tricky in this application is that the new
opamp has to draw no more current than the original; you're stuck with the
limitations of a phantom power supply.

It's not *that much* of a limitation. Just been discussing it earlier. Phantom's
good for easily as much as 5 mA !


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.

Graham

[Eeyore]

hank alrich wrote:

geoff wrote:
wrote:

BTW, the 301 is a single package opamp. The 460B uses a TI TL062 dual
fet input device. Good luck getting a single package device to work in
there.

On checking, you are right. I falsely remembered it as an LM301 from last
time I looked. Surely there is a drop-in replacement ( or more recent
manufactured 062) for that, that would give a marginally better performance ?

TLC 272 very likely (just off the top of my head without even bothering to look).


Who said anything about removing the transformer (OK, you might in your
upgrade) . A few replaced electrolytics (esp tantalums) may also give an
improvement.And then one could put bypass caps on those, espcially the
series with output before the transformer...

I know schoolkids who do that sort of thing off their own bats. Admittedly
through folkloric methodology rather than scientific.

The xfrmr in the stock C460 is rather disgusting, and Jim removes it.

The best thing to do with most audio transformers IMHO.

Unless you're using them as an 'effect' per those early Class A Neve modules for
example.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
hank alrich wrote:

When Jim is finished modifying the C460 the mic runs nicely alongside
the likes of Scheops CMC6. Very nice mics, indeed, and they don't come
that way from AKG.

But is it anything more than a totally new mic in a C460 body ?

I don't know what Jim does precisely.

But I will say that a totally new mic in a C460 body sounds like a
great idea to me!
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

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.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[dizzy]

Paul Stamler wrote:

Quite a few years ago I read an interview with the boss at Benchmark. He was
asked how they get away with using the much-maligned 5532 dual opamp for
most of their designs; he replied, in essence, that if you rolled the
high-frequency response off well before the closed-loop curve ran into the
open-loop, and watched out for loading, the 5532 could give very nice
results. Their products seem to confirm it.

Doug Self also chose the 5532 for his IC-based designs such as his
Precision Preamp '97, which I have built and now use for my main
preamp.

[Eeyore]

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.

Graham

[Eeyore]

dizzy wrote:

Paul Stamler wrote:

Quite a few years ago I read an interview with the boss at Benchmark. He was
asked how they get away with using the much-maligned 5532 dual opamp for
most of their designs; he replied, in essence, that if you rolled the
high-frequency response off well before the closed-loop curve ran into the
open-loop, and watched out for loading, the 5532 could give very nice
results. Their products seem to confirm it.

Doug Self also chose the 5532 for his IC-based designs such as his
Precision Preamp '97, which I have built and now use for my main
preamp.

The 5532 is still to this day a very competent op-amp.

Graham

[hank alrich]

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.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Eeyore]

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.

I have no doubt that the 'improved' C460s perform better than the factory
originals. The information supplied here suggests various ways in which this may
be achieved.

Where I take task with you is that some 'genius' is required to achieve this. I
say it's simply a question of good design principles, not some Lordy Lordy
personal influence from some alleged GURU..

In my book it would simply be a case of using scientific / technical 'good
practice' to get the required result.


Graham

[Eeyore]

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.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 02:00:26 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

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

But I'll give you an alternative viewpoint: Science *is*
complicated. Science has the questions. Sometimes, if we're
lucky.

To say that we have the answers is the end of science and
the beginning of religion.

Just my take. Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Eeyore]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 02:00:26 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

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

But I'll give you an alternative viewpoint: Science *is*
complicated. Science has the questions. Sometimes, if we're
lucky.

Science isn't 'complicated', in the sense that it doesn't obey what some people
supposedly think is 'common sense'. That says more about the alleged 'common
sense' believers than it does about science.


To say that we have the answers is the end of science and
the beginning of religion.

NO.

Religion requies belief in some idea without regard to whether it may be a real
or practical possibility.

In short, 'belief' requires that one must dismiss facts as inconsequential and
give preference instead to story telling. Hence religion must be seen as a
cancer on the world.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 02:00:26 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

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

But I'll give you an alternative viewpoint: Science *is*
complicated. Science has the questions. Sometimes, if we're
lucky.

Science ALWAYS has the answers. It would be a disaster if it didn't.

I've been on the receiving end of near vitriolic attacks for saying so btw. It's
amazing just how much 'audiophools' love to deny science.


To say that we have the answers is the end of science and
the beginning of religion.

Duh !

Graham

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:22:13 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

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

But I'll give you an alternative viewpoint: Science *is*
complicated. Science has the questions. Sometimes, if we're
lucky.

Science ALWAYS has the answers. It would be a disaster if it didn't.

Science NEVER has the answers. It would be Dogma if it did.

Science must fundamentally be about disprovability - all "answers"
are provisional and subject to being disproven. The classic
examples of our time were Euclidean and Newtonian models,
perfectly reasonable and even encoded into our DNA (to some
very compelling extent) but really only approximations. Yet
our world was deeply changed by the difference between the
approximations and the real world.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:18:55 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

To say that we have the answers is the end of science and
the beginning of religion.

NO.

Religion requies belief in some idea without regard to whether it may be a real
or practical possibility.

I would say instead that religion is belief without the possibility
of refutation. Science is the process of attempting refutation.

And engineering is flying blind somewhere in between. So's life.

In short, 'belief' requires that one must dismiss facts as inconsequential and
give preference instead to story telling. Hence religion must be seen as a
cancer on the world.

And I would say that "belief" is a practical compromise in a given
situation in order to take the next step without falling. Do you
really, really believe that there's a solid ground there in front
of your foot? It's a leap of faith, and in some attic, someday,
might prove to be unwarranted.

We never, ever, ever, know the "truth" or even anything vaguely
remotely like it. We only ever see or hear a magnificently
orchestrated simulation of it, all constructed by three pounds
of wetware. Folks in our biz know something of the current
impossibilty of understanding our listening process, but would
be astonished at the processing involved in vision, which we
"believe" completely. All of the rectilinear geometry and
color variations, to give two high-profile examples, are
*completely* internal constructs - totally simulations. All
generated by computing horsepower.

But we "believe" our vision completely. We can't even choose
not to.

(Story telling and myths are a separate subject inappropriate
to the newsgroup, but are IMO separately valuable elements of
humanity).

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[hank alrich]

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
Hemod. seems to be trading on voodoo as much as anything.

Go buy your own C460. When I get one it'll go to Jim.

However, if you can manage that, you'd have your own company to run and
profit from.

Science isn't complicated. Science has the answers. Always. Every time.

Science runs on supportable conjectures, that often get supplanted by
new information.

Audiophool 'BELIEF' (a.k.a religion) counts for nothing in the real world..

Graham.

Dismissing what Jim gets out of a C460 without ever having seen or used
one is not a scientific approach to assessment of the results of his
modifications.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Paul Stamler]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Oh, the 301 has great slew rate when used as a unity-gain follower.
It's
when you get gain out of it that there's an issue.

No, it doesn't; with unity-gain compensation it has a slew rate of about
0.5V/us.

Good for about 8kHz @ +20dBu.

Studer clearly made some (reasonably valid) assumptions about likely
spectral
content.

Or they didn't use them at +20dBu.

Or both.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
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.

Not necessarily. An IC going into a microphone running from phantom has to
be low-current *and* low-noise *and* low-distortion, and (if it's driving
the output and the output is transformerless) has to be able to operate
cleanly into a 600-ohm load. Depending on the surrounding circuitry, input
bias current may be an issue, or not. Getting two or three of those right
is, as Eeyore suggests, not that hard with some perusing of catalogs and
bench testing. Getting all of them right, well, that might be a little
tricky. It's the requirement for low current that buggers up the situation.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

But I'll give you an alternative viewpoint: Science *is*
complicated. Science has the questions. Sometimes, if we're
lucky.

Science ALWAYS has the answers. It would be a disaster if it didn't.

Excuse me, but just about any scientist would disagree. S/he would say that
science has SOME of the answers, SOME of the time, and is always looking for
more. It's also always looking at the answers it has to see if they might be
wrong.

Just to get even farther afield, science has answers to some questions, but
is not the appropriate tool to answer others. A classic example:

It is proposed to build a new factory in an urban area. It will generate
lots of economic activity, which makes the standard of living better, so
most people will live longer and more comfortable lives. However, every year
about 500 of the residents, mostly children, will die from cancer because of
emissions from the factory.

The question, which science cannot answer, is this: Is it worth sacrificing
the lives of those children (and the suffering of their families) to improve
the general condition of the community? 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.

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. 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.)

Going way, way afield from cables and Jim Williams's microphones, but it's
an example of some questions science can answer, and one which it can't.

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.)

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".

Peace,
Paul

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:49:40 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

Science ALWAYS has the answers. It would be a disaster if it didn't.

Science NEVER has the answers. It would be Dogma if it did.

Absolutely. Bur science actively looks for the answers. Other
systems merely accept what they're told.

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:18:51 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:


The question, which science cannot answer, is this: Is it worth sacrificing
the lives of those children (and the suffering of their families) to improve
the general condition of the community? 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.

A dilemma which we avoided due to ignorance while building our
industrial wealth, but with which we can now torture emerging
economies who can't yet afford such scruples.

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 02:00:26 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

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

But I'll give you an alternative viewpoint: Science *is*
complicated. Science has the questions. Sometimes, if
we're lucky.

Pklease give modern science the credit it is due. Science has an incredibly
larage lot of very good relevant answers. Strictly speaking, all of the
answers that science has are provisional. There may be a better answer, a
new generation answer, around the corner.

Sometimes science's previous generation of answers are so good that we still
use them, even though we know better. One example is Newton's laws of
motion, as compared to the more recent, more complex Einsteinian laws of
motion. Newton's laws are still used almost all of the time, because they
are sufficiently accurate for almost all purposes.

Newtonian laws of motion are sufficient to explain how the mechanical parts
of a microphone work in everyday use. Ordinary electrical engineering is
sufficient to explain how the electrical parts work. Modern psychoacoustics
science is sufficient to explain how it all interacts with the ear.

Tom say that we have the answers is the end of science and
the beginning of religion.

With due respect, that's a straw man argument, because we don't need to
invent any new science, or claim that the old science has all the answers,
to figure out the sonic implications of capacitor upgrades to microphones.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Religion requires belief in some idea without regard to
whether it may be a real or practical possibility.

Not necessarily. It depends on the religion.

Furthermore, many parts of many religions are actually very pragmatic.

In short, 'belief' requires that one must dismiss facts
as inconsequential

Again, not necessarily.

Strictly speaking, belief in science is well, a belief.

and give preference instead to story telling.

Science is not really any any different on that point.

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.

This is just another special case of Kurt Vonnegut's outline of all stories:

There was a man.
The man fell into a hole.
The man got out of the hole.

Hence religion must be seen as a cancer on the world.

Many instances of religion seem to work out that way. But so do certain
ideas about economics and politics and other things.

You're going to tell me that Marxism wasn't a cancer on the world? ;-)

[Laurence Payne]

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."

That's where science differs from superstition and religion. The
miracle needs to work every time. Somehow, there's always a reason
why it doesn't.

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message


Just to get even farther afield, science has answers to
some questions, but is not the appropriate tool to answer
others. A classic example:

It is proposed to build a new factory in an urban area.
It will generate lots of economic activity, which makes
the standard of living better, so most people will live
longer and more comfortable lives. However, every year
about 500 of the residents, mostly children, will die
from cancer because of emissions from the factory.

The question, which science cannot answer, is this: Is it
worth sacrificing the lives of those children (and the
suffering of their families) to improve the general
condition of the community?

That science can't answer a simple question like this is highly
questionable.

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.

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.

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.

Going way, way afield from cables and Jim Williams's
microphones, but it's an example of some questions
science can answer, and one which it can't.

There are many questions that science hasn't answered, but we don't know
what questions it can never answer.

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. ;-)

Oh, one other thing: Eeyore says that science always has
the answers, and would be a disaster if it didn't.

Well, if you look at the big picture of science, I imagine that you can
logically say that science does have all the answers, we just haven't
wrestled some of them away from her. ;-)

Sometimes, it thinks it has the answers, and is wrong.
See "thalidomide".

Bad example that is way too easy to deconstruct. But this post is getting
long and I'm getting hungry for breakfast. Later. ;-)

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:

A dilemma which we avoided due to ignorance while building our
industrial wealth, but with which we can now torture emerging
economies who can't yet afford such scruples.

Simple economics, just include the cost of cleaning up in the manufacturing
budget, otherwise a known cost is omitted and that seems to me like
malpractice.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen