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
atdavid
736 posts
 
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.
clearthink
1,421 posts
 
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!
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.
atdavid
736 posts
 
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.
atdavid
736 posts
 
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.
More to discover