2. misc-audio
  3. 152899-117374

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....

hemigreg

Showing 7 responses by millercarbon

millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
Its not the greatest example, but the info in the link GK posted above is hardly irrelevant, and far from obfuscating. Its probably just that the whiner is unfamiliar with the concepts. Even so, all that means is it takes longer as you have more to learn. Just not willing to put in the effort. As usual.

Basically, what GK is saying and what the article explains in excruciating detail, is the laser light waves reflected and refracted off the CD cancel at certain points. The experiment deals only with direct light and the first reflection. But the concept applies to all the light bouncing around inside the player. GK is either smiling right now, happy to see we're on the same page, or frowning, concerned that I know too much.

Whatever. Good one, GK. Anyone puts audiogon's most annoying and most frequently wrong poster who should call it a day in his place I will buy a cold one any time.

Oh, one last but very important point. In terms of simple logic the situation goes like this- the person who hears a difference is under no obligation to prove or substantiate it with physical theory. That's one. And two would be, if they do go on to earn bonus points by offering up a proposed physical theory (as GK has done) its sufficient to show that it COULD possibly be an explanation. That's just the way it goes.

This, GK has done. The other one, not so much.
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
The second way x-rays are produced is result of the moving Cathode electron penetrating deep inside the glass atom — and hitting the the atom’s tiny nucleus.

They're not paying me anywhere near enough for this. But as an X-ray tech I just can't let the lunacy go on without at least trying to set the record straight. Every once in a while a sane person comes along and so this way at least there'll be something worth reading.

The only glass involved in the production of x-rays is the glass vacuum tube. Electrons generated by a filament (much like a light bulb) at the cathode end stream across the tube at high speed, because being electrons they are negative and strongly attracted to the positively charged anode end. The voltages involved are all in the kilovolts, typically 120kV for a chest x-ray, and the tube is a vacuum, so the electrons get going pretty damn fast.

At the anode end is a target. Both the target and the filament are made of tungsten, used because its high atomic number means it has a lot of electrons, which is really important as you will soon see. Its also metal, malleable, heat resistant, etc etc. 

So electrons go streaming across the tube so fast they hit the tungsten at the other end with so much energy they start a whole chain of reactions, chiefly bremsstrahlung, German (since it was Germans who discovered this) for "braking". Much like the brakes on a race car get hot and glow red radiating braking energy, the tungsten gets hot and glows x-rays.

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.

This is actually pretty basic 100 level physics. Okay I'm old, grade inflation, call it 200 level now. Whatever. Point is, you got a guy pretending to be a physicist, can't get it right even about something this basic.

And he's actually pretty  good compared to the other one.

Oh, I'm always saying DYODD so....
https://www.radiologycafe.com/radiology-trainees/frcr-physics-notes/production-of-x-rays
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
jetter,
 GK uses his knowledge of things unknown to a number of us as a sword to disembowel anyone who disagrees with him. And I kind of wonder if he knows what he is talking about or not.


In all seriousness, he does every once in a while post something that makes me wonder. Like, he sure seems to understand the details of CD pit and land and how CD is really an analog medium. There might even be a couple more like this where he gets something right. Out of 18,000....

Year or so ago when I first started coming here Forest for the Trees took me to task over the word, electromagnetic. Notice now its okay to say electromagnetic. Never fear, it will probably return to being sophomoric again now that I've mentioned it.

Forest for the Trees has a whole website devoted to his alternate universe. A world of Morphic Fields ruled by the Nimbus Sub Hertz Platform, the Firestone 16-wheeler air bag, springs, and rocks.

I worry you think I might be kidding. http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina24.htm
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina43.htm

Yes teleportation. For only several hundred dollars he will call you on the phone and wherever you are in the world you will hear your system improve all thanks to his telepathic use of pebbles, er I mean W.C. er I mean Morphic Fields.

Forest for the Trees occasionally makes the mistake of trying to disembowel me. What looks like a sword to you looks like word salad to me. If there were any sense to be made of it I would let you know. Like the CD thing. He got that right. Give the man credit. Anything else? Let you know when I find it. Don't hold your breath.

Forest for the Trees loves to quote physicist Feynman. But notice its always the quote meant to put you in your place. If I could explain it to you it wouldn't be worth the Nobel Prize. Uses that one so much he has it all ready to cut and paste. At least I figure that has to be it. Because when I cut and paste *his version* into a browser all that comes up are his posts. Its never what Feynman actually said, which is worded a bit differently. More to the point, its contrary to another thing Feynman said, that if you really understand then you can explain it to anyone. Feynman's famous for being able to explain the most complicated puzzles in a way that just about anyone can understand.

That's the difference between knowing, and memorizing. He's memorized, that's for sure. But what does he really know?






millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
But I do want to know whether GK or atdavid are correct in their understanding of the above discussion. Only because GK uses his knowledge of things unknown to a number of us as a sword to disembowel anyone who disagrees with him. And I kind of wonder if he knows what he is talking about or not.


He is so clueless not even Alicia Silverstone could do him justice.

Peter Sellers. Maybe.
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
Thanks hemigreg for trying. Sorry about Forest for the Trees. I maybe kind of get what you’re saying.

We can draw a line from within a gnats hair from the beginning, through the supernovae that created every element, to the space dust that coalesced into the Solar system, and right on down the line to us. At no point on that entire 13.7 billion year time line can you say, "Here life began." Let alone, "Here human life began." Its all one long unbroken continuum.

Them’s just the facts. Which means "we" have been around not hundreds or thousands or even millions of years but billions. The exact same neuro-transmitters that work in lobsters work the same in us. We’re talking older than trees here. You flip back through your family album, all the way to your great great great (a million "greats" later) grandfather and guess what? Its a lobster! Yeah I’m kidding but to make a serious point: we’ve been around evolving and adapting to conditions here on Earth for so long now who is to say suddenly in the blink of an eye that we know for sure just what all those conditions are? Or how we have adapted?

Day and night, sun and moon, hot and cold, are pretty obvious. Electromagnetic fields, frequencies and cycles, who is so sure that just because they are less obvious that they don’t matter?
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
Uh, it’s not an electromagnetic field, it’s an electromagnetic wave, the wavelength of which, 

Blah, blah, yada, yada, so on and so forth. 

Forest for the trees. It is in fact an electromagnetic field because you can't have one without the other (hence, electro-magnetic) and it travels out in every direction (hence, field). This is in fact how electricity is generated: by moving a wire through a magnetic field. From Hoover Dam to Koetsu to the transformer in every component ever made this is how it works. Its a field because its three dimensional. Your precious "wave" is nothing more than a flat 2D representation of a three dimensional field. 

Everyone else: Forest for the Trees is a prime example of the difference between memorizing words and understanding concepts. Understanding concepts you can actually explain them so others understand them as well. Memorizing words all you can do is correct (when you shouldn't) people actually using correctly the words you never were able to understand yourself.

millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
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.


Fascinating. If its the planet then we're talking millions/billions not thousands, but that only makes your point even stronger. But what exactly is this resonance you're talking about? I'm with you, but what is it?
More to discover