Obfuscation and irrelevance. That is not a great way to approach an argument. Let's call that strike 1. Care to go for strike 2?
Has to be said
Hi,
i been reading most sites and the little arguments about this and that about making audio in this case be more pleasent ot better to any individual. and have to say upfront that if "you" believe its better to you than it is in fact true to you and you only. we are just reletive respondants to each other and therefore nature and the universe.
many of the subjects that come up as to improving ones audio system tend to go into little details that may or may not have "real" affects on most of us. and also be provable with phsics,math,medical studies etc.many musicians and many humans can distinguish alot of these aspects. and they are ALL quantifiable and measureable very easilly. from 1800 till today FFT and resonance,sound perfiliration has been well adjustable from the totally acoustic pipe organs to the music halls 100s of years ago with out electronic fixes, and all these new snake oil gagets on the market. many are always big commenters here on this site.
Its totally true you can "fix" and sound wave with free rocks,walls,chambers, etc. so go for it at a cost of zero dollars. and adbandon all these marketing hacks.
Ive been well into sound,RF,Radioation, Electron manulipation, Audio,phsics etc all my life and all my relatives aslso . I dont need to justify my opinions yet am dignified by holding 8 international patents,2 doctrets and my dad with similar fields.
one crazy obvious thing no one even bothers to mention is the way off standard of 440hz shifted 8hz the earths standard resonance. while all the 1000s of years 432hz was based on real natural happenings before electronics. dont you all care everything you listen to is 8hz off tune and therefore wrong, but you will bicker about a few microvolts noise from an ocslittating wire with parallell wire hanging off a standoff. itf too funny to me.
yes all digital except one source tunes their DAC math to 435hz to be more correct to Verdi and other great composers.
ive got tuning forks over the audio and above spectrum and tune my panios violins etc to them 432 hz
and need to say again. yes please do everything Analoge
to correct your sound system, its been done in churches,music halls,the great pyrmids, with instruments themselves.
but do not chase the rabbit down the money hole to fix apparent physhoacoustics in your listening area.
ps the spelling and writing is horrid cause ive got a brain injury2 years ago and under go EEG,ehthesographs and neuro studies constantly. where various frequency sweeps are put thru me and studied by the medical and commercial fields.
Im off for now to play my bass thru 50000watts total. and resonate the neighborhood at 8.2 HZ....
i been reading most sites and the little arguments about this and that about making audio in this case be more pleasent ot better to any individual. and have to say upfront that if "you" believe its better to you than it is in fact true to you and you only. we are just reletive respondants to each other and therefore nature and the universe.
many of the subjects that come up as to improving ones audio system tend to go into little details that may or may not have "real" affects on most of us. and also be provable with phsics,math,medical studies etc.many musicians and many humans can distinguish alot of these aspects. and they are ALL quantifiable and measureable very easilly. from 1800 till today FFT and resonance,sound perfiliration has been well adjustable from the totally acoustic pipe organs to the music halls 100s of years ago with out electronic fixes, and all these new snake oil gagets on the market. many are always big commenters here on this site.
Its totally true you can "fix" and sound wave with free rocks,walls,chambers, etc. so go for it at a cost of zero dollars. and adbandon all these marketing hacks.
Ive been well into sound,RF,Radioation, Electron manulipation, Audio,phsics etc all my life and all my relatives aslso . I dont need to justify my opinions yet am dignified by holding 8 international patents,2 doctrets and my dad with similar fields.
one crazy obvious thing no one even bothers to mention is the way off standard of 440hz shifted 8hz the earths standard resonance. while all the 1000s of years 432hz was based on real natural happenings before electronics. dont you all care everything you listen to is 8hz off tune and therefore wrong, but you will bicker about a few microvolts noise from an ocslittating wire with parallell wire hanging off a standoff. itf too funny to me.
yes all digital except one source tunes their DAC math to 435hz to be more correct to Verdi and other great composers.
ive got tuning forks over the audio and above spectrum and tune my panios violins etc to them 432 hz
and need to say again. yes please do everything Analoge
to correct your sound system, its been done in churches,music halls,the great pyrmids, with instruments themselves.
but do not chase the rabbit down the money hole to fix apparent physhoacoustics in your listening area.
ps the spelling and writing is horrid cause ive got a brain injury2 years ago and under go EEG,ehthesographs and neuro studies constantly. where various frequency sweeps are put thru me and studied by the medical and commercial fields.
Im off for now to play my bass thru 50000watts total. and resonate the neighborhood at 8.2 HZ....
Showing 30 responses by atdavid
Sometimes he is right, and sometimes wrong. You know when he is wrong when he fights the hardest and deflects the most, like now. Google search photon energy. Easily done. The equation I posted E = h*f is readily known, easily understood, and not disputed. Light has a much higher f (frequency) versus the long radio waves used for submarine communication versus the very long wavelengths of Schmuman resonances. Therefore the laser light photons are the most energetic by far. So in that instance GK was completely wrong. Similarly, the fact that a CD player is a "cavity" where laser light bounces around has nothing to do with Schuman resonances. The CD player "cavity" is but a box with reflections. It could be any size. The speed of light is meaningless in the discussion. Schuman resonance frequency is very specific due to the diameter of the Earth and height of the ionosphere and the speed of light. That defines the frequency. To say the two are the same .... is wrong. To say that Schuman resonances are photons is correct. That is simply wave/particle duality from quantum mechanics and they are waves and particles, i.e. photons. To say it is a "field" is not correct, though an oscillating field is induced as it moves. All these things are easily researched.
|
Wrong again. May want to research penetration depth in water of radio waves. Longer waves penetrate further. They are the lowest energy. Classical x-rays are accelerated electrons. They are not em waves. They do penetrate higher at higher energies but we were talking photons and less energetic photons generally penetrate water further. High energy photons in radio waves are easily stopped by thin conductors but again, low frequency radio waves penetrate through solid materials much easier than high frequencies. That is why 900mhz radio passes through walls fairly easily, 2.4ghz not as well, and 5ghz is attenuated even more through walls. GK, just stop while you are well behind. |
Classically x-rays were products of excited accelerated electrons hitting targets. Got interrupted in my post. You hypothesis about penetration depth is based on one method of attentuation hence you make wrong assumptions about radio waves and water. To millercarbons point you remember what you read but depth of knowledge is lacking and hence every problem is a nail and you keep using the same hammer. Longer wavelengths penetrate much farther in water as the mechanism for absorption is much different from an energetic photons. Ditto typical radio wave frequencies and building materials. All very easily researched to show I am correct. The dominant attenuation mechanism is much different from high energy gamma/x/cosmic wave attenuation. Your "model" of photons in a conductor is rudimentary and outdated. You may want to research why virtual photons are the current preferred model and why that is required by the uncertainty principle ... You could do some research or keep posting wrong things. |
Be good GK, or I will have to take marks off for bad behaviour. Ever notice that X-ray telescopes are only at very high altitudes or space based, but you can get pretty good visible light resolution at ground level. Turns out much visible light passes almost unhindered through the atmosphere, but X-rays are blocked, even though higher energy ..... hmm.... |
Miller and GK arguing about physics ... I have to give the win on this one almost completely to GK, even his use of glass was suitable as this was how x-rays were discovered. Miller, You are correct bremsstrahlung is the predominant mechanism, but what you describe below is not bremsstrahlung but characteristic x-rays. Bremsstrahlung would be caused by the accelerated electrons bouncing off predominantly nuclei (and electrons) and rapidly decelerating and releasing broad-spectrum x-rays related to their accelerated energy, ie 100kev. That is why you can "tune" an x-ray to any potential you want, and get a broad spectrum of x-rays that corresponds to that energy potential. A mark of 8/10 goes to GK. 1 mark off for not stating that collisions with electrons can also release "breaking" radiation, and 1 mark off for putting this as the 2nd mechanism as opposed to the 1st or primary. Sorry Miller, 0/10 as you did not describe this at all. On the characteristic radiation, which is a secondary mechanism in an x-ray generator, 5/10 to miller for explaining part of the mechanism properly, and 3/10 to GK for partially explaining what happens. The correct answer is an electron-electron collision can knock an inner shell electron out of the shell. That will allow an outer shell higher energy electron to drop to the lower energy shell and consequently release a photon at a very specific energy for the material be it tungsten or glass. With 11/20 the win goes to GK, easily beating Miller and his score of 5/10. The reaction we are mainly concerned with here happens in the electron shell. Collision energy causes electrons in one shell to increase in energy to the next higher level shell. Think of it as pushing them into a higher orbit. But electrons in their shells balance protons in the nucleus, so this is an unstable situation. But to fall back where it "belongs" is a lower energy state and so to balance the equation the tungsten atom releases a photon. A very high energy photon we call an x-ray. |
Clearthink, don't you have some people with disabilities to insult like you did last time you attempted to debate with me? I see you have nothing to add to this argument, and I have no intention of boring other participants with clear descriptions of all the fallacies in GK's posts, like I and others have done many times, complete with links and references, so I guess we are done here? If you feel like researching my posts w.r.t. gk's fallacies, feel free, but I won't subject other participants to them ... again, like GK subjects participants to his shilling. |
You have 0 data on what percentage of the scattered light is visible, like most of your other claims. Heck, you probably have not even researched, till after I make this post, how effective the visible light filter is on the detector. That is okay, you used to claim the laser put out a lot of visible light, but I see you backed off on that totally wrong claim. |
Consistently wrong with no evidence to support any of your claims, the one about a large percentage of the laser output being visible being proved wrong, and no, I don't support your claim about scattered light as 1) Little is visible, 2) There is an IR pass filter on the receiver and 3) The receiver has a limited field of view meaning scattered light is almost all rejected. Prove me wrong. |
There is a big difference between "offering up a theory", and offering up something approaching a viable theory. When that "theory" has holes so big you can drive a Kenworth through it, I don't think it qualifies as viable any more. When that "theory" could be easily verified, but is not, then it loses much of its claim to viability. its sufficient to show that it COULD possibly be an explanation. |
And yet you used classical EM to explain wave cancellation. Funny that. Could it be that because classical EM is more than accurate enough to describe in more that sufficient detail how a CD player work? geoffkait18,791 posts12-09-2019 2:18pmatdavid |
Unfortunately I have to agree with you 100% on this ... thecarpathian798 posts12-09-2019 1:48pm"...I have no intention of boring other participants..." |
It is irrelevant. He mentions the dual slit experiment which is specific to wave particle duality which does not apply with a simple optical detector. He also made a post to a CD optical system which really shows nothing, as it neither discusses nor quantifies the spectrum of visible light, which is what he raises as an "issue" (which an IR laser produces almost none of), nor does it discuss critical performance parameters such as the rejection ratio of off-axis light entry, which is what GK is claiming to be an issue, but which the optical assembly is designed to reject, nor does it discuss the existence of, or the performance aspects, i.e. extinguishing ratio for visible light, of the IR pass filter in the optical assembly whose purpose is specifically to reject visible light, i.e. the think GK is claiming to be an issue ...... <- See this is what someone who understands the problem writes, not links that add little to the discussion, nor obfuscating remarks related to wave/particle duality, or lots of words that have no relation to the issue being raised as you did. All of this is moot of course, as data loss, jitter, etc. are easily measured on a CD if one possesses the right tools, which are not even that expensive. GK is not proposing a theory in the scientific sense, it is at best a hypothesis, but really it appears to be more marketing blurb. The person claiming to hear a difference is under no obligation to do anything, but if they would like to convince others, other than a small subset, then having some proof that it does as claimed (easily done in this case with error / jitter measurement), or at least a sound hypothesis that takes into account real aspects of the optical system is going to help. Otherwise people like me who do understand the problem, will point out obvious holes in their reasoning, and while the narrow subset may not care, others will read what I and others write and form a healthy level of doubt to the claims. |
GK Kenworth sized holes:
|
Clearthink, Once again, I will remind you that this is a libellous statement. Think what you want, but when you libel someone online, you can be legally responsible. You seem to like to make these claims. One day it will catch up to you. Keep in mind if sued, you would need to prove I used Wikipedia. Your personal attacks with 0, and I do mean 0 content related to my posts are of no value. clearthink993 posts12-09-2019 4:03pm |
Cleeds, nothink, rodman, even GK, all playing from the same anti-science playbook, attack the poster, not the post. Why? Because you can’t. You can’t because you don’t even understand the posts. You just ra-ra around anything that says what you want to believe because it makes you feel safe. I would love to see you try to actually refute the content of my posts. I could use the laugh! It is just downright pathetic that you need to claim that anyone more knowledgeable than you must be quoting Wikipedia (and yet you can't show where I have quoted Wikipedia ... and the odd time I do, I will say that I am). |
berner99, There are any number of things that very large numbers of people believe in that simply are not true. I would be here probably all night making up a list of them, and we are not talking 1 or 2 people, we are talking millions (or more). You have to admit there is a big difference from "heard a difference" and "thought I heard a difference", with the latter being the case 99% of the time on these forums. Anyone who thinks they are immune to bias w.r.t what they are hearing is fooling only themselves. Our memory for subtle audio differences is exceptionally poor. Mood alone, changes in sitting position, etc. will have bigger impacts than many things discussed. Humidity will have a bigger effect. This bias is why anyone who researches audible effects uses at a minimum blind testing and preferably double blind testing. Even ad-hoc blind tests can show a perceived difference really was not there. Quoting Max Planck w.r.t. what is discussed here is akin to giving validity to those who promote the earth being flat. A scientist will listen to anecdotal evidence to provide inspiration, but, and a big but, they don't accept it as factual until tested, as above, with proper tests. Then they will try to isolate causes and effects. You will note the loudest proponents of "questionable" sonic methods are the ones most against any formal testing. Why is that? What are they afraid of (other than being wrong)? berner9922 posts12-09-2019 2:59pmA large number of posts on many threads boil down to: |
w.r.t to the Evo Mahgister, https://www.criticalsound.co.nz/assets/Uploads/Review-EVO-432-Dutch-Translation-Music-Emotion.pdf If you want to play around with resampling, learn how to use GNU Octave, a freeware math package. You can load in a WAV file and do whatever you want with it. No cost. From a musical point of view, it is still interesting to describe what the EVO does in 432 fashion.In fact, you are transposing, because you play the music in a different key.The A on the keyboard is not quite a Gis, but something in between.The music is thus not fully transposed to the scale of Gis.That sounds (in the ears of the undersigned) light alienating and sometimes here and there dissonant, especially if you have the voices of artists in your head.So a piece of music gets a different atmosphere.A curious sensation is listening to piano or guitar in 432 mode.It experiences as listening to an instrument that is not properly tuned. |