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....

128x128hemigreg
atdavid
736 posts
 
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.




atdavid
736 posts
 
Virtual photons was referring to photons in conductors which in QM behave different from what we think of as EM photons.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Almost everything you just wrote is wrong. To whit, X-rays are not electrons. They’re photons, just like any other form of electromagnetic waves. That’s why EM waves travel at light speed - they ARE light, just not visible light. That’s gold, Jerry, gold! Photons in conductors are the same as photons in water or any material - they’re real photons. I’m gathering your QM theory and EM theory is self taught. 😀
stevewisc
27 posts
 
Maaaaan I love this place...[not sarcasm]...
atdavid
736 posts
 
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.



More to discover