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
 
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.



geof3
1,129 posts
 
Wow, I think I’m going to browse for some speaker wires or something...
asvjerry's avatar
asvjerry
4,767 posts
 
So, that's what the Deep End of the pool looks like.....*blink*
...fascinating.
clearthink
1,421 posts
 

atdavid"You hypothesis about penetration depth is based on one method of attentuation hence you make wrong assumptions about radio waves and water."

It is so funny to see a user such as this who's entire technical and scientific education is confined to Wikipedia and the latest issue of Popular Science. 
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
What are X-rays? atdavid got interrupted. 😬 The point of X-rays, in the context of this discussion, is that photons of sufficient energy can penetrate deep within solid material. 

“The first way x-rays are produced is the result of the collision between the traveling electrons from the Cathode and the electrons in the glass atoms. When the fast moving Cathode electrons crash into the glass atom’s electrons, they can knock-off an electron — similar to the way a white billiard ball knocks-off a colored, stationary billiard ball. This collision causes the atoms to emit high-energy photons, which are the X rays.

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. The nucleus is a thousand times denser than the layers of electrons surrounding it, so this collision resembles a collision between something like a SmartCar or a Mini Cooper and a reinforced concrete wall. The electron crashes into the nucleus and is immediately slowed down: all the kinetic energy it has is transferred to the nucleus, which emits high-energy photons. The X rays emitted by this 2nd mechanism is called ‘Breaking X Ray radiation’.

In both cases, then, the result is not a radiation composed of physical particles — as in the case of Cathodic Rays — but an electromagnetic radiation, similar to visible light or Radio waves — except X-rays have a lot more energy.”

More to discover