Popular Post mansr Posted December 12, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2019 3 hours ago, Ralf11 said: What responses are allowed when someone posts a claim that cannot possibly be correct? Enthusiastic cheering. Thuaveta, Ralf11, tmtomh and 4 others 3 4 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 12, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2019 Just now, Dutch said: Just leave out the sarcasm, ridicule and condescending tone. Try to be positive and constructive. Don’t repeat the same statements ad nauseum, don’t try to score points with your buddies and just walk away when someone disagrees or doesn’t want to engage in (potentially endless) discussion. That advice was intended for Alex, right? Ralf11 and kumakuma 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 30 minutes ago, sphinxsix said: Is the claim that we may not be able (yet?) to measure or explain the differences that (some!) people hear on (some!) systems impossible? It is extremely unlikely that anyone is able to hear something scientific instruments cannot detect. 30 minutes ago, sphinxsix said: Just a couple of decades ago a person claiming that the faster you move or the lower you live above the sea level the slower you age (or in other words the slower the time passes) would have been thought to be out of his mind. Time dilation (BTW this is not the reason why I moved to the Netherlands ) You must be under the influence of some kind of time dilation, because you're off by a century. Einstein's paper on special relativity was published in 1905 based on previous work by Lorentz. It was accepted without controversy and within a few years was considered well established (Stephen G. Brush, Why was Relativity Accepted?). While time dilation (and other relativistic effects) is readily observed, I'd have my doubts if someone claimed the ability to sense it without the use of instruments. Teresa, esldude, pkane2001 and 3 others 2 2 2 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 50 minutes ago, Richard Dale said: The theory of Relativity wasn't accepted without controversy and Einstein never was awarded a Nobel prize for that work as a consequence: That was just the Swedes being jerks. Other top physicists, such as Planck, had no problem accepting the ideas. From the paper I referenced earlier: Quote The first comprehensive study of the early reception of the special theory of relativity was conducted by Stanley Goldberg; valuable historical research was also published by Arthur I. Miller and Lewis Pyenson. They found that relativity was widely discussed among leading physicists in Germany soon after the appearance of Einstein’s 1905 papers. By 1911 it was considered so well established that Arnold Sommerfeld, who had planned to speak about relativity at the Solvay Congress that year, decided to address instead the more controversial questions about quanta and the nature of light. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 50 minutes ago, Richard Dale said: Thanks for the link - a really interesting article. Mentioned in the Guardian article is another twist to the story, in that Arthur Eddington's experiment that supposedly confirmed Relativity by experiment was actually bogus. http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/eddingtons-experiment-was-bogus.html Do you have any better reference for the "bogus" claim than a blog post by a right-wing Christian economist? semente, Thuaveta and wgscott 3 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 6 minutes ago, Teresa said: Potential OCD is not always OCD. Friends thought I had OCD because they told me I kept doing things over and over such as double and triple checking my actions. For example "Teresa you already checked three times to make sure you door is locked, come on let's go." I replied "I don't remember doing that." Years later it turns out I have short term memory problems. Just saying it may not be OCD. Are you suggesting there might be a physiological reason for the repetitive posting behaviour exhibited by some individuals? Ralf11, Thuaveta and marce 3 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 15, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: it's all about you eh Hey, it's rude to make fun of solipsists. Then again, they only have themselves to blame. kumakuma, Ralf11, wgscott and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 15, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2019 5 hours ago, tmtomh said: And to bring this back on topic, I would say that explaining as clearly as possible what the logical flaw is in a flawed claim is an example of an acceptable response when an impossible claim is made. Let's take an example. How would you explain that cable lifters are "unlikely" to do anything, not even if made of myrtlewood? semente, tmtomh, Ralf11 and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Blackmorec said: In terms of cables, what about Echo, NEXT, FEXT and all the other problems related to impedance, cross talk, conductor interaction and radiated EMI and RFI? Do they have no effect of how the ultimate signals sound? They certainly will effect what comes out of the end of the cable I would have thought. None of that matters at audio frequencies. Link to comment
mansr Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 36 minutes ago, semente said: What do you mean by audio frequencies? With cables of lengths typical for domestic audio, the properties Blackmorec mentioned do not matter for frequencies up to 1 MHz or so. Transmission line effects only become relevant when the cable length starts approaching 1/4 of the wavelength. 36 minutes ago, semente said: @John_Atkinson and @Miska to name a few seem to agree that the performace of an ultra-wideband amplifier or of a hard-domed tweeter with a massive resonance peak may be affected by ultrasonic garbage with audible repercussions: Bowers & Wilkins CM5, acoustic crossover on HF axis at 50", corrected for microphone response, with nearfield responses of woofer (green) and port (red) respectively plotted below 350Hz and 1kHz. A speaker is not a cable. Link to comment
mansr Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: I asked a late, highly-regarded DAC designer about Myrtlewood, but he was not able to relate his preference to material properties. Was that by any chance Charley Hansen? I know he was fond of the stuff. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 16, 2019 9 minutes ago, semente said: From what I gather synergy usually means a lot more trying that two wrongs make a right than trying to achieve electrical compatibility. I thought it was something management and marketing types said without actually meaning anything at all. They've just heard others say it and figure they should too. semente, tapatrick, tmtomh and 3 others 2 4 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 19, 2019 kumakuma, Thuaveta, Samuel T Cogley and 5 others 1 7 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now