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....
please get your wife on as an expert. advisor thats the kind of real knowlege this place needs. and I am not or ever was claiming better/worse, or medical hurt by wrong tuning---all just point out the huge disparity in the many degrees of separation disparity from changing things in an audio system. Ie fuse direction, wire breakin etc. I can write pages at a whim, i used to write Govt JAN/MIL standards and there can be 60 pages for a 8-32 philips screw....LOL I gots all day/night to just banter. i dont sleep much..with ptsd.
anyhow back to post #1 and ppplease some musiciaans chime in here. falco is whifes phips and bird rack calibrated to the auditory recpetors under the scalp. mine had to be altered from the titanium plate thats now there. the repolarizing NA in the diffusion zone is tricky. she can help me with a comming patent which may alter the mu receptors in opiate addiction with phased signals making the brain resonate like in a humming montra sound... all injected with 4 probes and 2 earbuds... no anything like binerual depression effects. well you got me started on something more. so feel free to e mail me at anytime hemigreg@aol.com its in conjunction with a local addiction/neuralogist Dr Surosky of glencove addiction center.
I admit I haven't read this whole thread, nor do I intend to. My skeptics radar went up on the first post. My wife is a PhD in neurofeedback and EEG but beyond that, anyone capable of writing as large a volume as the OP ought to know how to use basic word writing tools. I'm calling BS here.
432 hertz intonization , lower your A note by 8hz and all octaves like when you play your violin, most pros do this or correct bu string position. notice no frets on similar insrtuments, fretless basses. many rock bassits also do this. not reasonable done with commercial digital gear, but tweejed Rpm will mimic it on a R to R
feel free to lookup all the neural effects on the brains"hearing" thisthe phase ear to ear relationship gives the timing difference recieved across the standard sized head . neuurons have a itme lag just like wire. if this werent real we could not detect direction. listen to and look at FFT on your Analyzer and you will see what you can hear by the small micro sec shift and ot the tiny phase shift. very apparent when playing an A natural sitting inan Anachohic chamber
@cleeds- Thanks, but- I was quoting and agreeing with millercarbon, who had expounded on, what I’ve always promoted on these threads(ie: experimentation). Also(far as atdavid’s weak, "viablility" objection); one could probably, "drive a Kenworth through" the theory that we’re all occupying a hologram, made up of strung together bits of information. Yet; there are very learned/reputable Physicists, that are currently trying to prove just that. NO theory has ever proven anything. Theories are always propositions, put forth to try and explain observed phenomena, and can only be PROVEN through experimentation.
atdavid can write for sure. Either he has a lot of time or someone else writing for him or he just copied and pasted. I think I'll learn that when I finally retire.
So what's the definition of infinity? It's called "atdavid" lols.
atdavid keeps saying the theory has big holes in it but never says what they are. Very sneaky. A clever trick oft employed by Cargo Cultists and pseudo scientists. We’ve heard it all before - It disobeys the laws of science. It’s marketing. It doesn’t prove anything. It has big holes in it. Yada yada yada. Then he will find fault with some triviality or irrelevancy and try to claim victory. It’s so transparent. It’s always everyone else who’s illogical. Standard tactics of the professional debunker. You can’t debunk something that’s not bunk. Hel-loo!
... 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.
Agreed, and I’ve been saying basically the same thing here for years. But there will always be a few of the naysayers who demand otherwise, as atdavid does so predictably, sometimes dismissing suggestions with just a wave of the hand and a Wikipedia quote.
atdavid7"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"
The problem is that when presented with a theory your usual and customary practice is to apply a fact or two derived from Wikipedia and then use that to dismiss, dispel, or "disprove" the concept that you cannot grasp, comprehend, or that conflicts with your belief system which is, again, based on Wikipedia it is all part of you're compelling need to be seen as authoritative, expert, and intellectual.
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.
"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. " EXACTLY / EXCELLENT
Hey Miller and Clearthink, want to explain again how you need a conductive surface for a scanning electron microscope to work? I am still getting a good laugh over that one! :-)
A large number of posts on many threads boil down to:
i have theory that says what you hear isn’t possible (by the stated mechanism) so you must be wrong, or deluded.
Certainly people can want to believe things, and certainly their are dishonest people, but if a large number of people hear a difference it seems reasonable that it might be worth checking out. Unless of course you are posting for other reasons.
and David and C3 (if he’s posting on this thread) you both need to reread that quote by the physicist in the other thread. It was a max Planck quote about how new beliefs spread (and don’t)
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 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.
>>>>That’s how CDs work you silly goose.
It’s quantum mechanical, the laser is a quantum mechanical device.
atdavid 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.
>>>>That’s how CDs work you silly goose. It’s quantum mechanical, the laser is a quantum mechanical device. A Quantum Well. The laser beam is coherent light. Quantum mechanical. “Pits” and “lands” on the CD represent 1s and 0s, in discrete blocks, so when the laser beam strikes a “land” reflective area the full reflected wave is returned to the photodetector, but when the laser beam strike a “pit” the geometry is such that the light wave cancels and there is no reflected signal. It’s a series of ONs and OFFs. That’s how the system figures out the data steam from the physical data on the CD. Theoretically, anyway, as I’ve oft said it’s got some serious issues. Scattered light is one of the issues. So, it’s the same thing as the double slit experiment - light destructively and constructively interfering. Say Hallelujah, brothers! 🤗 🤗 🤗
Hey #3, I see you are still trolling while adding nothing to the discussion not addressing anything I have written, but are just continuing with the ad-hom attacks. I hope this gives you some purpose in life because I do worry about you.
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.
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.
You have already been revealed here to be without solid understanding of the basic facts central to this discussion and we have clearly demonstrated beyond dispute that you’re confusion and misunderstandings originate from those gaps in you’re knowledge base there there is no need to repeat them they are here for all to read, digest, and understand.
Most odd is your claim that "no discussion needed" and that you do not understand that the purpose of this forum is for discussion! What do you think the purpose is if not that!
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.
atdavid"Obfuscation and irrelevance. That is not a great way to approach an argument."
Actually what you are doing here does not really qualify as an "argument," which under the classic definition requires a premise that is then supported with facts and/or logic but what you do is issue pronouncements and proclamations that you demand be accepted at face value or otherwise you demand that other's produce evidence and research for you're benefit and at your direct instruction. So if there is an irrelevant obfuscator hear I think it has been demonstrated clearly just who that is, atdavid!
atdavid"No discussion needed. You are publishing false information (noted many times) to shill for your products. Please stop!"
It is not for you to limit, restrict, or discourage posters and contributors to this forum from sharing, expressing, or explaining they’re thoughts, observations, or opinions and regardless of you’re opinions or threat. You’re insistence that "no discussion needed" is without basis, justification, or validity in any sense because this is a forum expressly for discussion and if that does not interest you, the remedy is not to silence those seeking to contribute to those issues, topics, and components subject to the conversation.
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.
It’s a logic issue, which you just flunked. You also aren’t following my explanation very well. I’ve been consistent about it for many years. At least you appear to support my basic premise that scattered light is a problem. Now we’re just arguing percentages. So I’m giving you partial credit this time.
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.
atdavidNo discussion needed. You are publishing false information (noted many times) to shill for your products. Please stop!
>>>>The way the game is played Mr. Smarty Pants 👖 is you now have the opportunity to explain where I my explanation is wrong. What’s the false information? You can’t just call be a liar and walk away. That would be sophomoric. But I have a feeling you will not respond and risk being told you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’ve already posted Einstein’s quick and dirty explanation of relativity. To whit,
Most people believe if you get rid of all the objects in the universe and the space all you’re left with is time. But that’s not true. If you get rid of all the objects and space in the universe time disappears, too.
If time did not exist man would have to invent it.
Actually, you can think of electrons, protons, etc, as schisms in dimensional pairings. and that the thing you call 3-d time-space is a angular (or offset) resonance zone that is ..er..partially a result of that dimensional schism pairing.
Where all you know, and exist as... in your objective unidirectional 3-d time-space "reality"...is just a phase coupled resonance zone due to a dimensional schism pairing.
Try that on as a theoretical exercise and a lot of the problems that are outstanding, tend to look like...... they might be capable of being cleared up.
It will take some careful unpacking but one might find quite a lot hiding inside that proposal.
atdavid 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...
>>>>Did you ever notice that the CD laser isn’t really red? It’s infrared, 780 nm. It only looks red 🚨 as a safety precaution. (You know audiophiles!). That’s why a considerable amount, let’s say 25%, of the scattered laser light that gets into the detector is visible red. Which is why the Green Pen around the outer edge is audible. Agree? Disagree? Talk amongst yourselves.
Oh, OK. Have it your way. Here’s the first chocolate bonbon 💩 you deposited in my in-basket.
“ive been with MIT, THe govt,the r russians,and most pubically published places. yet with,fbi cia natiomal security etc. and will not tollerate you your jabs at hnational security at all. thats why im silent in this mail. you can post as will as free speech but at some pointmay post a risk. esp with counter measures as thety are xcalled from jamming takl. please feel free to convey your message as well as your true identity in public as i have.. unless the dig will begin to your true ISP address .”
Well, there is this little chocolate covered bonbon I found in my inbox from the OP. If the OP doesn’t mind too much I think I’ll add it to my repertoire.
”I do believe you to be a foreigner as a danger to the US security so have at it.”
Note to self: I was wondering if I should ask my doctor to increase my medication. I’m on seven different medications already. Surely they must be doing something. I just want to feel better. 🤡
the op is still here. i just said"it has to be said" not lets bicker about already known facts. the entire point was about snake oil fixes for big $$ when usually just tuning a room, or even moving your listening position will improve the sound( or any other wave) all the specific stuff arose after Geos try at evading the focus of the post. my only specific hangup is that the notes are tuned wayoff to start with no jitter,rocks,eseroteric fix will correct that. try tuning all your "stuff" to a natraul binerual frequency cause we use 2 ears and the waves need to be phased as such to "please" the brain. and yes people who can only now hear in one ear do find 432 nicer than 440. as designed in the early coclear inplantss so since geo told me to drop dead, ( I was for 4mins flatline) i wont play with the puppy cause hes making a housebroke mess on the page.
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....
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.
