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
 
GK Kenworth sized holes:
  • Virtually no visible light in the IR laser in a CD player.
  • The detector is a focused assembly. That means that "scattered" light predominantly does not reach the detector as it is off-angle and outside the field of view.
  • The interior of the optical receptor is non-reflective to prevent "scattered" light from reaching the photo receptor.
  • The receptor has an IR pass filter so that visible light is greatly attenuated.
  • The optical assembly is simple and optimized for 780nm, so visible will be less focused.
  • The error rates for CD are well known and there is a specific standard for production. The first level errors except for a significantly damaged disk are easily fixed with error correction codes, essentially redundant data.  Unfixable C2 errors on a production CD are typically 0. That means that when you open up that CD, you are going to get perfect data.
  • There are many tools available that are very inexpensive that can show C1, C2 and unfixable C2 errors. That means you could easily prove your product has any audible benefit by showing it reduces unfixable C2 errors.
  • Jitter measurement is easy. If your product works, you could show how it reduces jitter.
  • We have 50X and higher CD readers that manage to work. The 1X of audio .... is exceedingly simple.
  • High quality players will reclock the data to eliminate jitter and anything your claimed products will do.


hemigreg's avatar
hemigreg OP
119 posts
 
continued from previous
mine had to be altered from the titanium plate thats now there. the repolarizing NA in the diffusion zone is tricky.
I rebuilt a 32 ch network analyzer added 1meg:1 gain op amps differential inputs. 16 +/_ chs.this can sense the repolarization of the Na and Ca charge from eack nerve pulse-to put it bascic.  the balance at fing the virtual zero is hard though. but it allows mt to quantify 16 different cross sections and effects of subconcious  and cons inputs. also plotting the ELF freqs of restful brain like a few HZ   yea we all love low bsss notes thats why ive done this since the 70 at Govt companies for military "mind control" evel went on LSD snd sleep tests at mit and new york institute of tech and its quack ciro school.     the writing is messed up by my brain injury and induced parkinscisom. ive tried to build new neurotransmitters but doesent work too well so sometimes i go to voice recongitonn typing.
Ive got published works in the materials science review like 1998. presented in Boston. 
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio
1,019 posts
 

"Well, how does one bring it into tune??"

you tune it

"everything affects everything else" mg

you guys should try doing stuff once in a while :)

For those who have already converted to Low Mass Tunable systems, you’re so far ahead of the curve it does make these threads a little odd if not hilarious.

http://www.michaelgreenaudio.net/


atdavid
736 posts
 
berner99,

There are any number of things that very large numbers of people believe in that simply are not true. I would be here probably all night making up a list of them, and we are not talking 1 or 2 people, we are talking millions (or more).

You have to admit there is a big difference from "heard a difference" and "thought I heard a difference", with the latter being the case 99% of the time on these forums. Anyone who thinks they are immune to bias w.r.t what they are hearing is fooling only themselves. Our memory for subtle audio differences is exceptionally poor. Mood alone, changes in sitting position, etc. will have bigger impacts than many things discussed. Humidity will have a bigger effect. This bias is why anyone who researches audible effects uses at a minimum blind testing and preferably double blind testing. Even ad-hoc blind tests can show a perceived difference really was not there.


Quoting Max Planck w.r.t. what is discussed here is akin to giving validity to those who promote the earth being flat. A scientist will listen to anecdotal evidence to provide inspiration, but, and a big but, they don't accept it as factual until tested, as above, with proper tests. Then they will try to isolate causes and effects.  You will note the loudest proponents of "questionable" sonic methods are the ones most against any formal testing. Why is that? What are they afraid of (other than being wrong)?

berner9922 posts12-09-2019 2:59pmA 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)

atdavid
736 posts
 
Clearthink,
Once again, I will remind you that this is a libellous statement. Think what you want, but when you libel someone online, you can be legally responsible. You seem to like to make these claims. One day it will catch up to you. Keep in mind if sued, you would need to prove I used Wikipedia. Your personal attacks with 0, and I do mean 0 content related to my posts are of no value.

clearthink993 posts12-09-2019 4:03pm
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.
More to discover