Ohm's acoustic law and stuff

I think even oedipus would agree with you there

Michael.

 

If superstitious ignorance is your idea of fun, you can always ignore or ridicule any posts that look suspiciously factual - in fact, there are whole internet hi-fi fora which flourish by this very principle.

 

Pete,

Steady on! "Superstitious Ignorance"? Oh the arrogance

Have you ever bought something just because you liked it without any rational reason whatsoever? (Of course you have! I just saw the Quads in your signature )

What I am talking about is happiness, probably an irrelevence to the majority of scientists I know but something many of us prize. You see if I think my ubergumma Dac/Pre sounds better, I go through a period of enjoying my music more and listening for longer. It doesn't matter whether the sound is scientifically better or not. In my mind's eye I am enjoying listening to music more and gaining a greater sense of wellbeing.

People do it with clothes. With cars, with garden furniture and the all time classic, drugs. All these help to create a sense of well being and make our lives more tolerable.

Now even if you Bambers are right in purely mathematical terms (which I personally won't concede), why not keep your smugness to yourselves rather than ramming it down people's throats and forcing them to seek alternative routes to happiness?

 

Come on, admit it - you said before you had a hard day, but I bet you feel much happier now for having had a go at me.

I don't really see what the problem is here, to be honest - personal attacks or pettiness are obviously a different story, but you seem to be objecting in principle to 'scientists' suggesting physical explanations for things or pointing out facts, and as you're clearly someone who knows a lot of stuff about stuff I must say I find that a bit surprising. Personally I know basically nothing at all about acoustics or electronics, but I do enough woolly thinking during my working day to be indulging in it on here too.

To which you can add the NAD electronics, which I knew I had to have the very first time I saw them in a magazine years ago. However, I don't come on here and construct an 'argument' using pseudoscientific jargon to try to justify my choice in order to feed my own ego.

Where on earth did that come from? Scientists are exactly the same as everyone else, except they know more about science.

 

I can see merlin's point to some extent. If everytime someone posted about how great their latest new toy sounded they were rebuffed by someone challenging them whether it really was any different that could get a little bit tedious.

Personally I think the forum is reasonably balanced at the moment.

Michael.

 

True, but I think the subjectivist / objectivist divide is fairly amicable at the moment, so that - for example - anyone who wants to post about his new cable can do so without a twenty-page flamefest. Trouble only ever arises when technical questions are raised, and I don't think it's really very productive to complain because you don't like the answers.

 

This actually all came about because Michael had found a new dac which sounds great.

According to certain people, this is simply the result of an overly fertile imagination. I don't think anyone offered a technical explanation for the result. Michael is clearly delighted with his new purchase. Why do some people take pleasure in bursting the bubble?

 

I'd be inclined to read the original intervention as being more to the effect that you don't need to spend £xxxx whatever the DAC64 list price is to get good playback, largely because the Redbook standard is actually pretty robust. The trouble really got started when there was a technical comment made concerning phase differences as a possible cause of perceived difference, which was rebutted by invoking Ohm's acoustical law - at that stage, feathers got ruffled.

Michael, of course, is at least sympathetic to the objectivist viewpoint so I can't imagine he minded too much.

 

I think the language used was somewhat more confrontational to be honest and a classic example of just what I am complaining about. If Oedipus can tell me how my brain interprets the output of a dac, perhaps he could also tell me whether I like the taste of Glenlivet and the smell of chopped ginger?

 

Yes its a true all dac/amps and wires do sound the same without question so its just down to whether you like atc or Harbeths, what a simple world we live in

 

Merlin, I get totally get where you're coming from, but tarring all scientists equally is a little unfair. The reason the more technical discussions drag on is that not everyone of that persuasion is as taken with the negative, all sounds the same, type arguments as presented by some. I for instance don't like seeing some of the more absolutist technical statements going unchallenged when they seem at odds to my own listening experience.

 

Martin, fairness doesn't come into it! You are either with us in the battle or against us

Let's see Oedipus set up a business called Audio Science, open the doors, and sell prospective clients cheap CD players, Behringer DEQ, cheap studio amps and pro monitors. Any idea of the likely market penetration?

 

So challenge them then! If there's one thing scientists are good at, it's weighing up evidence and drawing conclusions - that's what scientists do, and with a rigorous argument and proper evidence you can and will inevitably see off all comers in a fair debate.

Occasionally it seems to me that the 'more absolutist' technical statements don't accord with what people want to believe - ie. in a sense, people sometimes object to these statements because they're correct, not because they're wrong.

 

Haven't read all of this but these arguments would end if believers would simply PROVE they can a hear a difference using just their ears (double blind testing). Of course, they won't. Or should that be 'can't'?.

Personally, I didn't find believing in the audiophile end of hi-fi 'fun' and was grateful to know that I was more than likely delusional when I used to swap cables etc. I now have one less thing to worry about. Of course, if you enjoy this aspect of hi-fi then fine but….

So a big thanks from me to all the hi-fi scientists and sceptics!

Thanks *

Also, if it weren't for scientists then we would not have our silver hover pods or be able to go to the moon for holidays and stuff.

* A big thanks

 

misdirection, just what you'd expect from a magician...



So, to get us back on track with the Ohm's acoustic law and the importance of phase, it's time to return to the problem that Merlin set for us a couple of days ago:

As we've seen, Merlin does not like Scientists answers, so thinking he would beleive an answer he provided for himself, I offered him some help with his problem. Unfortunately, he "fell at the first fence", but luckily PeteH's provided an answer which is very insightful, and should have helped Merl further.

I can only assume that the effort of thinking about this problem caused some form of unfortunate meltdown, which led to the tirade against science in general, and me in particular. Or, on the other hand, was this just a cynical misdirection to take our attention away from the failure to answer his own question.

So, speaking hypothetically, let's suppose I had a Velodyne sub, say a DD15, and a fancy high end an analog source, perhaps a Mark Levinson 390S; have I wasted my money on the CD player if I wish to properly time align my sub with my main speakers?

 

If that photo was your answer to my request for a Scientist's jokette, then all I can say is sadly it didn't work for me. Is there an absolute law that governs humour in the Bamber community?

No Oedipus, how about answering the questions first in language plebs like me understand?

Now with all this absolute knowledge, are you able to tell whether I am currently a) angry or b)enjoying myself

 

Well, I'm helping you answer your own question, and to that end I've given you a couple of good clues in the questions I've asked you. I'm really quite surprised your struggling with these rather simple questions because you seem to offer a lot of opinions on sub's, based on your experience, and your sig says that "the only source of knowledge is experience", yet from your inabilty to answer your own question it seems that your experience hasn't yielded much in the way of reusable knowledge.

So, let's try some simpler questions:

Where are the good places to put a sub?
Where are the good places to put the main speakers?
How do these distances compare from the listening position?
What signal gets delayed?
How is the delay implemented?

With the answers to those 5 questions you should now be able to answer this:

 

Go on, tell us, you know you are dying to.

Your answer will almost certainly be at odds with the experience I refer to, descriptions of which can be found by performing a search if you are at all interested in the experience of others.

Still no answers, just more questions

 

Do both of you have a history?

 

yup,
merlin, argumentative flamebaiter
oedipus, the original motherf*cker

cheers


julian.