It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
No one can tell you whether/how your system, room and/or ears will respond to some new addition. There are simply too many variables.
LIKEWISE: no one can possibly know whether a new addition (ie: some kind of disc, crystal, fuse, interconnect, speaker cable, etc) will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves.
Some companies offer a 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee, so- those that are actually interested, have absolutely nothing to lose, by trying (experimenting with) such.
Anyone that knows anything about the sciences, realizes that something like 96% of what makes up this universe, remains a mystery.
For centuries; humanity’s seen, heard, felt and otherwise witnessed phenomena, that none of the best minds could explain, UNTIL they developed a science or measurement, that could explain it.
The Naysayer Church wants you to trust their antiquated science (1800’s electrical theory) and faith-based, religious doctrine, BLINDLY ("Trust ME!").
Theories have never proven or disproven anything. It’s INVARIABLY testing and experimentation that proves or disproves theories/hypotheses.
IF you’re interested in the possibility of improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and trust your own senses: actually TRY whatever whets your aural appetite, FOR YOURSELF.
Had you, at any point, actually addressed me; I would have responded to your inane and vapid retorts to my post sooner.
Believing this thread a waste of time: I hadn't bothered to peruse the stupidity any further, until tonight.
Then I noticed that you'd quoted me (pg 15).
I'll copy/paste my post, to save keystrokes.
"No one can tell you whether/how your system, room and/or ears will respond to some new addition. There are simply too many variables.
LIKEWISE: no one can possibly know whether a new addition (ie: some kind of disc, crystal, fuse, interconnect, speaker cable, etc) will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves.
Some companies offer a 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee, so- those that are actually interested, have absolutely nothing to lose, by trying (experimenting with) such.
Anyone that knows anything about the sciences, realizes that something like 96% of what makes up this universe, remains a mystery.
For centuries; humanity’s seen, heard, felt and otherwise witnessed phenomena, that none of the best minds could explain, UNTIL they developed a science or measurement, that could explain it.
The Naysayer Church wants you to trust their antiquated science (1800’s electrical theory) and faith-based, religious doctrine, BLINDLY ("Trust ME!").
Theories have never proven or disproven anything. It’s INVARIABLY testing and experimentation that proves or disproves theories/hypotheses.
IF you’re interested in the possibility of improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and trust your own senses: actually TRY whatever whets your aural appetite, FOR YOURSELF.
The Naysayer Church HATES it, when THAT happens! "
That you assume so much, regarding the possible listening experience, aural acuity, professionalism, education, cognition and a host of other variables, regarding the members of this forum, the vast amount of your bloviating and condescension; I can only infer that the Dunning-Kruger Effect has deep roots in your skull.
Red and blue socks? Science and Engineering? Dark Matter and my car?
SPARE ME!
What I believe regarding the behavior of electromagnetic fields, how dielectrics, conductors and Poynting Vectors (which are affected by the frequencies in our music/signals) might affect our presentation is based on the Physics (QED and Particle-Wave Theory), studied in college.
Unlike you and the rest of the planet's Naysayer Church members (Denyin'tologists), some: so proudly touting their extensive knowledge of antiquated (1800's) Electrical Theory, that feel it necessary, to SAVE US from our broken, worthless and deceitful mental faculties.
That you have a website makes you somewhat of a Pope of Deyin'tology, I suppose, able to feverishly spread your Gospel, to more lost sheeple.
Feynman was and will remain, my favorite lecturer (yeah: I'm that old).
He mentioned often (and: I took to heart) his favorite Rule of Life: "Never stop learning!"
For all his genius, he never grew overly confident in his beliefs. The perfect obverse to the Dunning-Kruger sufferer.
ie: “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.”
and: “I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.”
Tesla is probably my favorite innovator, who (despite the incessant, projectile vomit, from his day's naysayers), took the World, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century, with his inventions.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." (Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse , 1872)
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," (Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873)
"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." (Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University)
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." (Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923)
"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." (Dr. Lee DeForest, Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television)
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible!" (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." (Admiral William Leahy, re: US Atomic Bomb Project)
When the steam locomotive came on the scene; the best (scientific) minds proclaimed, "The human body cannot survive speeds in excess of 35MPH."
Until recently (21st Century); and the advent of the relatively new science of Fluid Dynamics, the best (scientific) minds involved in Aerodynamics, could not fathom how a bumblebee stays aloft.
Often; Science has to catch up with the facts/phenomena of Nature and/or, "reality" (our universe).
I haven't been in school since the 60's, but- at Case Institute of Technology; the Physics Prof always emphasized what we were studying was, "Electrical THEORY." He strongly made a point of the fact that no one had yet actually observed electrons (how they behave on the quantum level) and that only some things can really be called, "LAWS." (ie: Ohm, Kirchoff, Faraday)
PERHAPS: that's changed in recent years and I missed it?
Don't forget the rest of that post, which (obviously) applies to you, as well.
That you assume so much, regarding the possible listening experience, aural acuity, professionalism, education, cognition and a host of other variables, regarding the members of this forum, the vast amount of your bloviating and condescension; I can only infer that the Dunning-Kruger Effect has deep roots in your skull.
Red and blue socks? Science and Engineering? Dark Matter and my car?
SPARE ME!
What I believe regarding the behavior of electromagnetic fields, how dielectrics, conductors and Poynting Vectors (which are affected by the frequencies in our music/signals) might affect our presentation is based on the Physics (QED and Particle-Wave Theory), studied in college.
Unlike you and the rest of the planet's Naysayer Church members (Denyin'tologists), some: so proudly touting their extensive knowledge of antiquated (1800's) Electrical Theory, that feel it necessary, to SAVE US from our broken, worthless and deceitful mental faculties.
That you have a website makes you somewhat of a Pope of Deyin'tology, I suppose, able to feverishly spread your Gospel, to more lost sheeple.
Feynman was and will remain, my favorite lecturer (yeah: I'm that old).
He mentioned often (and: I took to heart) his favorite Rule of Life: "Never stop learning!"
For all his genius, he never grew overly confident in his beliefs. The perfect obverse to the Dunning-Kruger sufferer.
ie: “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.”
and: “I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.”
Tesla is probably my favorite innovator, who (despite the incessant, projectile vomit, from his day's naysayers), took the World, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century, with his inventions.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." (Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse , 1872)
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," (Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873)
"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." (Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University)
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." (Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923)
"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." (Dr. Lee DeForest, Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television)
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible!" (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." (Admiral William Leahy, re: US Atomic Bomb Project)
When the steam locomotive came on the scene; the best (scientific) minds proclaimed, "The human body cannot survive speeds in excess of 35MPH."
Until recently (21st Century); and the advent of the relatively new science of Fluid Dynamics, the best (scientific) minds involved in Aerodynamics, could not fathom how a bumblebee stays aloft.
Often; Science has to catch up with the facts/phenomena of Nature and/or, "reality" (our universe).
I haven't been in school since the 60's, but- at Case Institute of Technology; the Physics Prof always emphasized what we were studying was, "Electrical THEORY." He strongly made a point of the fact that no one had yet actually observed electrons (how they behave on the quantum level) and that only some things can really be called, "LAWS." (ie: Ohm, Kirchoff, Faraday)
PERHAPS: that's changed in recent years and I missed it?
Inescapable FACT: No one understands exactly how electricity works.
That’s why there’s so much Electrical THEORY.
The number of Wiki-Scientists on these pages, attempting to win the IG-Nobel Prize in Pseudo-Physics, is always amusing.
Whenever some highly educated person actually does discover exactly how electricity functions, they’ll be lauded by the scientific community, will have solved some of the disparities between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, receive a Nobel and we’ll hear about it.
Newton’s THEORIES were largely superseded by Einstein and Bohr's. Then came Feynman’s. For now; none of you can absolutely prove your statements (theories), regarding electricity, fuses, wires, or anything else, as regards our systems.
The following articles, read in sequence, illustrate my point:
If I understood your last post correctly: you own Lyngdorf gear.
Nice stuff, not to mention: a good looking listening/media room.
Having been in the loop so long: you've got to remember Peter & Boz's TacT venture.
I'm still using the old Tact RCS 2.2Xaaa (with a number personally addressed mods/updates, of course).
Forget everything we have been discussing here. If you are not measuring your room and correcting for bass errors, you have a lousy audio system. Period. Measurements will absolutely show that the acoustic stuff you have thrown in there have little to no impact in this regard (don't be fooled by the name "bass trap, " they do no bass trapping).
Yep!
However: I wouldn't make the assumption that any non-DSP corrected room/system interface has to be, "lousy".
My last nice one (pre DSP by about a decade) was about 24 x 13, with a slanted ceiling (8 above speakers, to 12 at back wall)*. Woofers didn't need time-alignment, as they could stand next to my Acoustats, per design.
*Easy to control most of what Sabine had to offer.
Continually avoiding a major point made against your argument...
What, "major point" was that?
Are you referring to your Feynman quote? If so: had he lived by YOUR version of HIS philosophy: he'd never have won his Nobel.
The man was all about experimentation and observation.
He learned that from his father, who was often mentioned by Feynman, during lectures.
One anecdote that some may find interesting: their walks in the woods and how his father would encourage him to look beyond the fact that something in nature exists, but into why and how.
It saddened him, that while attending college, during a visit home and one of their walks: his dad asked what he was learning in college.
At that moment, he realized: if he tried to explain what he was learning, there was no way his dad could understand.
Was that around the time that Peter and Boz were having their falling out?
Or, possibly: after Boz had TacT up and running (maybe didn't want to deal with their combined/older efforts)? Just guessing!
I required Boz's assistance a few times and always found him helpful, thankfully. Always with the software end of things though.
ie: Once bought a 64 bit laptop, that wouldn't run the 2.2.X program, written in 32 bit (no emulator, that model, year or something). Important info, not in TacT User Manual.
That was the short, sweet and easiest call.
Still have the dedicated, 32 bit, Toshiba laptop, that I bought for the TacT program.
Glad I've been able to keep up with maintenance on my own, since there's zero, anywhere else.
That's a pretty piece of gear.
re: flakey channels
Did you try cleaning all the internal pin connectors? Especially: the ones from the power supply to the boards?
They* were known to corrode, at the slightest provocation.
Your opinions on Richard Feynman's philosophies are irrelevant to me.
What are your objections to the references, facts and history, regarding electromagnetism and Physics/QED, posted by moi, that you've so easily dismissed, "prof"?
Just in the spirit of discussing things that might make our systems sound better.
The Church of the Naysayer Doctrine (Denyin'tology, like every other faith-based, religious cult) has as many dopes as it does Popes.
Bring up anything resembling SCIENCE/PHYSICS, dated later than the 1800’s and they become apoplectic, not having the formal education to comprehend the concepts, or- possible ramifications, as regards our components/systems/listening.
. THAT would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic!
(Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion, etc.)
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool."
And now, the REST of the story:
More in context:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. "
Dr Feynman was speaking at Caltech (CIT), in 1974, on the subject of Cargo Cult Science. No: I didn't make it to that one (not my commencement).
For anyone actually interested in HIS thoughts and WHY* he felt it necessary, to spend valuable time lecturing a body of future scientists on the topic, following are some verbatim excerpts.
Preceding the infamous quote:
"I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call Cargo Cult Science. In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.
Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing. But it would he just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."
"We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science."
The sentence after the (more in context) quote, above:
"I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen."
Further on:
One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of result. For example—let’s take advertising again—suppose some particular cigarette has some particular property, like low nicotine. It’s published widely by the company that this means it is good for you—they don’t say, for instance, that the tars are a different proportion, or that something else is the matter with the cigarette. In other words, publication probability depends upon the answer. That should not be done."
Betwixt the above quotes and before concluding with this, he gives many examples (skipped, in deference to the limited attention spans, extant):
"So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom. May I also give you one last bit of advice: Never say that you’ll give a talk unless you know clearly what you’re going to talk about and more or less what you’re going to say."
For any interested- the full the address given, here:
Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.
Do a bit a research and you'll learn those primitives were limited in their understanding, of what they saw with their eyes, based on their prior experience, education and BIASES.
A rewind:
It isn't that the Denyin'tologists are ignorant.
It's they're knowing* so much, that's WRONG.
*heart of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
OR, two:
The Church of the Naysayer Doctrine (like every other faith-based, religious cult) has as many dopes as it does Popes.
Bring up anything resembling SCIENCE/PHYSICS, dated later than the 1800’s and they become apoplectic, not having the formal education to comprehend the concepts, or- possible ramifications. THAT would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic!
Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion, etc.
At the very first mention of something as simple as Wave Function (a BASIC tenet of Quantum Mechanics), the Cargo Cult will label you a KOOK.
But remember: they can only view/understand you, based on their limited experience, education and BIASES.
They have overlooked the fact that, if not for the hypotheses/theories and experimentation, regarding Quantum Mechanics: a plethora of modern conveniences, medical devices and the gear they so love, would not exist.
Had scientists, chemists and inventors shared the doctrines of the Cargo Cult (Denyin'tologists), there would be no semiconductors, computer chips, LASERs, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging devices (MRIs).
Solid State amps?
OOPS (back to tubes)!
Your Smart Phone?
FA'GET ABOUT IT!
Your car's GPS?
NOPE!
Then too: some may be willfully ignorant and just enjoy being contentious.
Others: obtuse, uneducated*, misinformed?
*Typically, from what's been exhibited here: H.S. STEM, if that, would be a safe inference.
Either way: the result, when the Cult begins it's rhetoric is a classic demo of the Dunning- Kruger Effect.
But, I digress:
Bring up those pesky details, regarding the likes of QED, Dielectric Absorption, Poynting's theorem and possible application/effects, relative to frequency, that our musical signals are carried via photon or wave, outside the conductor and you're a KOOK?
Again: the Cargo Cult can only understand anyone with an actual background, experience and education in Physics/QED, based on their beliefs, education, experience and biases
Remember this?.
One anecdote that some may find interesting: their walks in the woods and how his father would encourage him to look beyond the fact that something in nature exists, but into why and how.
It saddened him, that while attending college, during a visit home and one of their walks: his dad asked what he was learning in college.
At that moment, he realized: if he tried to explain what he was learning, there was no way his dad could understand.
Einstein got that last one wrong (Quantum Entanglement), BUT- I still wish he'd been alive, when the Hubble Telescope proved, what he considered his, "greatest blunder" (his inability to bring symmetry to his field equation, without lambda.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
....