"Spike" wrote in message
...

David Looser wrote:


Modern low-noise systems can be expected to be very much more
sensitive than those of ~75 years ago,

Do you actually mean "sensitive"?

I meant 'sensitive' as 'being able to detect ever smaller signals and
any previously unrecognised effects'.

Funnily enough many of the *real* audiphools will tell you how much better
audio is with the technology of the past. Not just valves, but directly
heated triodes, real 1930s technology.

As for "smaller signals", the dynamic range of audio really hasn't changed
that much. The limits on "smaller signals" is set by the limits of human
hearing and the acoustic environment in which we live. And, "unrecognised
effects"?, when was the last occasion a previously "unrecognised effect" was
found to matter in audio?


What "residual effects" did you have in mind?

E/m fields affecting electron flow in valves (seen that enough times)

Care to elaborate?


I've no intention of coming up with 'a properly thought through
theory',

I thought not :-) But if you think there's something in it give it a go, buy
a mains isolating transformer with a centre-tapped secondary and try it out.
Let us know how you get on.

But to take the line that because you can't think of
something that has not yet been detected simply isn't a viable
methodology.

The whole field of audio is simply crawling with half-baked nonsense There
are audiphools who fall for this crap and shysters like Russ Andrews
prepared to fleece the gullible in order to make a quick buck.

The reverse is usually true:

Not in the case of audio it isn't. Real advances are few and far between,
bogus claims like this are ten a penny.

LHC, anyone?

What on earth has the LHC got to do with it?

David.