Digital volume control question....
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people "believe" things sound
different. It's the same mental process that have people believing in
God, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a shred of
objective evidence that things sound different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that then opens up all
the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the word 'perceive' in
different ways and argue at cross-purposes... :-)



What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive to believe, do they
not?

(Reminds me of a Moody Blues track!! :-)

Digital volume control question....
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message


Serge Auckland wrote:

Ian Iveson wrote:


The DSP solution would appear to be preferable.
However, presumably there are rounding errors. That
is, if I divide every word by a constant, each result
must be rounded to the nearest step, and this
rounding error is not linear wrt the audio signal. I
assume there is a name for this kind of error? How
significant is it?


The DSP solutions I'm familiar with operate either
floating point or 32 or 48 bit internal which means
that when the output is finally reduced to 16 or 24 bit the
errors from the DSP calculations are
minimised. I don't know of a specific name for the
errors resulting from DSP operation.


But even if the internal calculation is done with larger
resolution, you still loose one bit of output resolution
for every 6db of attenuation.


A very similar thing happens with analog level controls.
In the real world, even more so.

Yes, I guess so by definition, but I would hope a quality
pot or stepped attenuator should start with more than
96db worth of resolution.

You seem to forget that pots and stepped attenuators are generally attached
to power amps and preamps. Power amps can have from 80 to 115 dB dynamic
range , butwith consumer amps crowded more toward the lower end of the
range. Most home audio preamps have only 70 to 90 dB dynamic range,
depdening on the input.

Digital volume control question....
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote in
message
Nick Gorham wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same mental
process that have people believing in God, the Tooth
Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a shred of
objective evidence that things sound different, just
their faith. I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc. sound
different when I see objective measurements that
indicate that there should be a difference and the
results of properly conducted double-blind tests that
show that there was a difference. S.
S.

http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html

Interesting. I'll study it in the next day or two.

It's not what it seems. The testing procedures ignored the nonlinearity of
an audio transformer, and did not use the caps as they are typically used in
audio gear.

Digital volume control question....
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...



I don't buy extra warranty

Nor do as it is generally an over-priced con.

- who TH wants 'electronics' to last 3 years these days?

I do. :-) Although it depends on the nature of the item in question.
e.g.
I would not expect a compact fluro lamp to last forever. However if I buy
something like an amplifier or loudspeakers I'd want them to work
correctly
for some decades.


OK, as you say, it depends on the nature of the item - there are plenty of
gadgets that have become superceded (specs., design, speed, capacity &c.) by
the time the manufacturer's warranty has run out. I understand that Sony's
policy was to 'make their own products obsolete before the competition
did'...!!??

Digital volume control question....
 

On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:10:40 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:

Serge Auckland wrote:


I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc. sound different when
I see objective measurements that indicate that there should be a
difference and the results of properly conducted double-blind tests
that show that there was a difference.



http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html


I've only had a quick look at the above, and the pages linked to it.
However they don't seem to me to be particularly relevant to the question
of capacitors normally having a 'sound' in normal use.

The first thing that struck me about the page was the following which I
quote:

"The signal level was held constant at about 70 volts RMS at 600 Hz across
the capacitors. (for about 26mA signal current). This is probably more
than you would normally expect,..."

My reaction to the last phrase was,,, "indeed!" :-)

I can't recall ever building or using an audio amplifier or tuner that had
anything like this large an *audio voltage* across any of the *capacitors*.
Note the above is 70v RMS *between the capacitor terminals*. i.e. not just
an input where most of the voltage appears elsewhere. I have certainly
built (and use!) amps which have audio voltages this large inside them, but
not between the terminals of any of the signal capacitors.


The fact you may not have built such a thing, doesn't mean they do not
exist. Using a coupling cap between a driver and the grid of a 211 would
have this sort of voltage, as will most driver valves. a 845 would have
a much higher voltage.

A even more extreme example could be a cap used in a parallel feed
output stage, that could have 1kv or more across it.

You appear to be confusing DC conditions with signal voltage.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Digital volume control question....
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

I also have never found anyone who was able to hear any difference between
one pot or attenuator or another solely on the basis of the sounds
produced
- provided the pots were used appropriately and we make an exception for
variations in balance tracking.


The only differences I've ever heard between pots is noise when they need
cleaning/replacing. What is annoying is that the 'volume' cen come through
erratically (loud/soft/loud) in an unpredictable way when they start to play
up - I've got a radio that is doing this right now.




Interesting that you are never challenged here, Serge. You wouldn't have
to wander far from this group to find a lot people who quite strongly
believe that all components (resistors, caps, pots &c.) can influence
the sound from audio kit.

You could probably say something similar about flying saucers, or various
belief systems...


Sure and there are those who believe the fridge light *really* does go out
when you shut the door!! :-)

(Incidentally, why bother with a switch on fridges? Could anybody say
*categorically* that saves energy/extends bulb life rather than just having
it stay on all the time, especially when the cost of the parts, the
manufacture thereof and fitting the switches is taken into account?)



I have no real knowledge and very little experience, so no strong views
- I always say I think it's possible (even likely) different components
will 'sound different', but is it really *hearable*...???

Can only say that this was one of the areas I tested (repeatedly) when
working on amplifiers, etc. Did this using listening tests on people in
the
audio biz. None were ever able to tell one pot from another by 'sound'.
What would show were tracking variations, or defects like scraping noises
for pots that were badly made or had deteriorated. Or in some cases, RC
roll off effects if the RC effect was unusually bad. Could not find any
signs of anyone who could tell a fancy/expensive pot from a cheap one by
'sound'.


Yet they are manufactured, bought and used - in considerable numbers....???

(See my recent reply to Pinky about cheap pots 'letting go'!!)

The sun's just come out (!!) and I got stuff to do, so I'll just say that
without all this *belief*, *perception*, *self-delusion* &c,, there would be
little point in trying to reproduce music in the home with anything but real
players (heard that phrase somewhere before!) and real intruments - and
absolutely no point whatsoever in watching a movie - war films, westerns and
sci-fi being perhaps the best examples!!

Digital volume control question....
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:

Serge Auckland wrote:


I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc. sound different when
I see objective measurements that indicate that there should be a
difference and the results of properly conducted double-blind tests
that show that there was a difference.



http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html


I've only had a quick look at the above, and the pages linked to it.
However they don't seem to me to be particularly relevant to the question
of capacitors normally having a 'sound' in normal use.

The first thing that struck me about the page was the following which I
quote:

"The signal level was held constant at about 70 volts RMS at 600 Hz across
the capacitors. (for about 26mA signal current). This is probably more
than you would normally expect,..."

My reaction to the last phrase was,,, "indeed!" :-)

I can't recall ever building or using an audio amplifier or tuner that had
anything like this large an *audio voltage* across any of the *capacitors*.
Note the above is 70v RMS *between the capacitor terminals*. i.e. not just
an input where most of the voltage appears elsewhere. I have certainly
built (and use!) amps which have audio voltages this large inside them, but
not between the terminals of any of the signal capacitors.


The fact you may not have built such a thing, doesn't mean they do not
exist. Using a coupling cap between a driver and the grid of a 211 would
have this sort of voltage, as will most driver valves. a 845 would have
a much higher voltage.

A even more extreme example could be a cap used in a parallel feed
output stage, that could have 1kv or more across it.

--
Nick

Digital volume control question....
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message


A very similar thing happens with analog level controls. In the real
world, even more so.




Yes, I guess so by definition, but I would hope a quality pot or stepped
attenuator should start with more than 96db worth of resolution.


What are you defining as "resolution" in the above?


Even Arny knew what I meant.

I was agreeing with the point Arny made BTW.

--
Nick

Digital volume control question....
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:

Serge Auckland wrote:


I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc. sound different when
I see objective measurements that indicate that there should be a
difference and the results of properly conducted double-blind tests
that show that there was a difference.



http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html


I've only had a quick look at the above, and the pages linked to it.
However they don't seem to me to be particularly relevant to the question
of capacitors normally having a 'sound' in normal use.

I was trying to provide information relating to the "I see objective
measurements that indicate that there should be a difference" part, not
the "sound" as such.

--
Nick

Digital volume control question....
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:10:40 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:


Serge Auckland wrote:


I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc. sound different when
I see objective measurements that indicate that there should be a
difference and the results of properly conducted double-blind tests
that show that there was a difference.



http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html


I've only had a quick look at the above, and the pages linked to it.
However they don't seem to me to be particularly relevant to the question
of capacitors normally having a 'sound' in normal use.

The first thing that struck me about the page was the following which I
quote:

"The signal level was held constant at about 70 volts RMS at 600 Hz across
the capacitors. (for about 26mA signal current). This is probably more
than you would normally expect,..."

My reaction to the last phrase was,,, "indeed!" :-)

I can't recall ever building or using an audio amplifier or tuner that had
anything like this large an *audio voltage* across any of the *capacitors*.
Note the above is 70v RMS *between the capacitor terminals*. i.e. not just
an input where most of the voltage appears elsewhere. I have certainly
built (and use!) amps which have audio voltages this large inside them, but
not between the terminals of any of the signal capacitors.


The fact you may not have built such a thing, doesn't mean they do not
exist. Using a coupling cap between a driver and the grid of a 211 would
have this sort of voltage, as will most driver valves. a 845 would have
a much higher voltage.

A even more extreme example could be a cap used in a parallel feed
output stage, that could have 1kv or more across it.


You appear to be confusing DC conditions with signal voltage.

d


Maybe, ok, in both cases there will be a DC voltage, but there will also
be the signal voltage of the magnitude we are talking about.

--
Nick

Digital volume control question....
 

On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:46:17 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:10:40 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:


Serge Auckland wrote:


I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc. sound different when
I see objective measurements that indicate that there should be a
difference and the results of properly conducted double-blind tests
that show that there was a difference.



http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html


I've only had a quick look at the above, and the pages linked to it.
However they don't seem to me to be particularly relevant to the question
of capacitors normally having a 'sound' in normal use.

The first thing that struck me about the page was the following which I
quote:

"The signal level was held constant at about 70 volts RMS at 600 Hz across
the capacitors. (for about 26mA signal current). This is probably more
than you would normally expect,..."

My reaction to the last phrase was,,, "indeed!" :-)

I can't recall ever building or using an audio amplifier or tuner that had
anything like this large an *audio voltage* across any of the *capacitors*.
Note the above is 70v RMS *between the capacitor terminals*. i.e. not just
an input where most of the voltage appears elsewhere. I have certainly
built (and use!) amps which have audio voltages this large inside them, but
not between the terminals of any of the signal capacitors.


The fact you may not have built such a thing, doesn't mean they do not
exist. Using a coupling cap between a driver and the grid of a 211 would
have this sort of voltage, as will most driver valves. a 845 would have
a much higher voltage.

A even more extreme example could be a cap used in a parallel feed
output stage, that could have 1kv or more across it.


You appear to be confusing DC conditions with signal voltage.

d


Maybe, ok, in both cases there will be a DC voltage, but there will also
be the signal voltage of the magnitude we are talking about.

Are you sure? In normal use the signal across a capacitor is very
close to zero. The scenario he has presented is one which simply
doesn't exist in an audio circuit.

Are you perhaps confusing signal level at a point in the circuit with
potential difference across the coupling cap at that point?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Digital volume control question....
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote
in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same mental
process that have people believing in God, the Tooth
Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a shred of
objective evidence that things sound different, just
their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that
then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the
word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive to
believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable

Audiophiles are well-known for confusing the two.

Digital volume control question....
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:10:40 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Nick
Gorham wrote:


Serge Auckland wrote:


I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc.
sound different when I see objective measurements
that indicate that there should be a difference and
the results of properly conducted double-blind tests
that show that there was a difference.



http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html


I've only had a quick look at the above, and the pages
linked to it. However they don't seem to me to be
particularly relevant to the question of capacitors
normally having a 'sound' in normal use. The first thing that struck me
about the page was the
following which I quote:

"The signal level was held constant at about 70 volts
RMS at 600 Hz across the capacitors. (for about 26mA
signal current). This is probably more than you would
normally expect,..." My reaction to the last phrase was,,, "indeed!"
:-)

I can't recall ever building or using an audio
amplifier or tuner that had anything like this large
an *audio voltage* across any of the *capacitors*.
Note the above is 70v RMS *between the capacitor
terminals*. i.e. not just an input where most of the
voltage appears elsewhere. I have certainly built (and
use!) amps which have audio voltages this large inside
them, but not between the terminals of any of the
signal capacitors.

The fact you may not have built such a thing, doesn't
mean they do not exist. Using a coupling cap between a
driver and the grid of a 211 would have this sort of
voltage, as will most driver valves. a 845 would have a
much higher voltage.

A stupid problem associated with doing a stupid thing.

A even more extreme example could be a cap used in a
parallel feed output stage, that could have 1kv or more
across it.


You appear to be confusing DC conditions with signal
voltage. d


Maybe, ok, in both cases there will be a DC voltage, but
there will also be the signal voltage of the magnitude we
are talking about.

But, it won't appear across the capacitor's dielectric.

Digital volume control question....
 

On Wed, 24 May 2006 14:29:02 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



Maybe, ok, in both cases there will be a DC voltage, but there will also
be the signal voltage of the magnitude we are talking about.


Are you sure? In normal use the signal across a capacitor is very
close to zero. The scenario he has presented is one which simply
doesn't exist in an audio circuit.

Are you perhaps confusing signal level at a point in the circuit with
potential difference across the coupling cap at that point?

d


Ahh, I see the point you are making, as you say, the other side would
need to grounded for the voltage to be across the cap.

Well, I am happy to admit when I am wrong.

No prob.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Digital volume control question....
 

Don Pearce wrote:



Maybe, ok, in both cases there will be a DC voltage, but there will also
be the signal voltage of the magnitude we are talking about.


Are you sure? In normal use the signal across a capacitor is very
close to zero. The scenario he has presented is one which simply
doesn't exist in an audio circuit.

Are you perhaps confusing signal level at a point in the circuit with
potential difference across the coupling cap at that point?

d


Ahh, I see the point you are making, as you say, the other side would
need to grounded for the voltage to be across the cap.

Well, I am happy to admit when I am wrong.

--
Nick

Digital volume control question....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote
in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same mental
process that have people believing in God, the Tooth
Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a shred of
objective evidence that things sound different, just
their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that
then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the
word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive to
believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:



Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception


Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


....none of them based on factual accuracy, as I perceive it....

:-)

Digital volume control question....
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article
, Keith G
wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote
in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a
shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that
then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the
word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive
to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I perceive
it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in veridical perceptions.
Illusions are fun, but that's about it for them.

Digital volume control question....
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people "believe" things
sound different. It's the same mental process that have people
believing in God, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have
a shred of objective evidence that things sound different, just
their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that then opens up
all the ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the word
'perceive' in different ways and argue at cross-purposes... :-)


What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive to believe, do
they not?

Depends what you wish to describe. If the situation is that there is no
clear or reliable evidence either way that the physical soundfields differ
in a way that could be audible, then a term like 'believe' seems OK as it
allows that the idea may or may not be well-founded in physical reality.
However this is a difficult area for the reason I outline below.

The problem is that 'perception' can be taken by some people to mean
"something which I can perceive/sense' hence implying that a perceived
difference *must* be based on a physically real one being sensed. Whereas
others may assume it means the 'impression' people have even if it due to
imagination, error, wishful thinking, or some other factor completely
different to that being discussed.

If the evidence gives reason to think the idea *is* simply misguided or
incorrect, them something like 'impression' might be better.

Depends on the details of the case.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Digital volume control question....
 

In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:



"The signal level was held constant at about 70 volts RMS at 600 Hz
across the capacitors. (for about 26mA signal current). This is
probably more than you would normally expect,..."

My reaction to the last phrase was,,, "indeed!" :-)

I can't recall ever building or using an audio amplifier or tuner that
had anything like this large an *audio voltage* across any of the
*capacitors*. Note the above is 70v RMS *between the capacitor
terminals*. i.e. not just an input where most of the voltage appears
elsewhere. I have certainly built (and use!) amps which have audio
voltages this large inside them, but not between the terminals of any
of the signal capacitors.


The fact you may not have built such a thing, doesn't mean they do not
exist.

I agree. Hence the question I asked at the end of the posting you have
quoted, but which you snipped. :-)


However from the discussion which followed I now think you misunderstood
what I was saying. Hence can we now take it that in practice we can
regard it as unlikely that any amplifiers *do* require their signal
capacitors to endure such large ac voltages?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Digital volume control question....
 

In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:

Serge Auckland wrote:


I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc. sound different
when I see objective measurements that indicate that there should be
a difference and the results of properly conducted double-blind tests
that show that there was a difference.



http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html


I've only had a quick look at the above, and the pages linked to it.
However they don't seem to me to be particularly relevant to the
question of capacitors normally having a 'sound' in normal use.

I was trying to provide information relating to the "I see objective
measurements that indicate that there should be a difference" part, not
the "sound" as such.

Ah. So you point was that types of capacitors may well differ in ways that
we have no particular reason to think have any effect on the audible
results when they are used appropriately in audio equipment? :-)

Serge: Was what you wrote above intended to be dealing with that point? I
read the above to mean "objective measurements", etc, that support the
argument that they would lead to a "different" sound in use...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Digital volume control question....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article
, Keith G
wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote
in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a
shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that
then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the
word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive
to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I perceive
it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in veridical perceptions.
Illusions are fun, but that's about it for them.



I suspect (correct me, if I'm wrong) that, in your haste to dash off yet
another sniffy little snipe at me, you have lost the plot somewhat..??

Please re-read the thread above and note where I responded to Serge to
merely report that there is a group of people 'not far from here' who have
*perceptions* that contradict what he had stated - I never said that I
shared those 'perceptions', I simply mentioned that I was surprised he
wasn't challenged on some of the points he has made. Note also that my
response to JL (also above) was merely to ask what word he would prefer to
'perceive', as he doesn't like it - although I have to say it is unambiguous
to me. Then you will see that the, er, veridiculous use of the word
'veridical' in this context is irrelevant.*

As to the rather vague "Some of the rest of us mostly" - you would do better
in my book if you had the balls to speak only for yourself and not try to
pad your opinions/arguments with the implied support/agreement of a group of
invisible colleagues. As to 'illusions' and 'fun' - that's what the whole
'audio' game is about, ain't it? There is only one person with the *best*
audio system (somewhere) in the world - everyone else is deluding themselves
to a greater or lesser degree, are they not....??


*IOW, don't try to flannel your way into an UK newsgroup with fancy English,
me auld china - especially not when this 'Englishman' went to an English
Grammar School that was older than your *country*...!! ;-)

Digital volume control question....
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Incidentally, the name 'fullrange' is one of convenience - nobody I know
considers them to have the same bass extension as some of the
bigger/better mutliway speakers. Treble is another story - I've yet to
encounter 'normal' speakers with the extent and sweetness of treble
that you get with Fostex drivers, at least!!

ITYM 'mid range'. ;-)

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Digital volume control question....
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:

Serge Auckland wrote:

I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc. sound different
when I see objective measurements that indicate that there should be
a difference and the results of properly conducted double-blind tests
that show that there was a difference.


http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html

I've only had a quick look at the above, and the pages linked to it.
However they don't seem to me to be particularly relevant to the
question of capacitors normally having a 'sound' in normal use.

I was trying to provide information relating to the "I see objective
measurements that indicate that there should be a difference" part, not
the "sound" as such.

Ah. So you point was that types of capacitors may well differ in ways that
we have no particular reason to think have any effect on the audible
results when they are used appropriately in audio equipment? :-)

Serge: Was what you wrote above intended to be dealing with that point? I
read the above to mean "objective measurements", etc, that support the
argument that they would lead to a "different" sound in use...

Slainte,

Jim

Yes indeed. I asked if there were any measurements available that
indicated that an audible difference should be apparent, i.e. that
passing a signal through one type of capacitor had more noise or
distortion than another type. The oscillograms on the "sound of
Capacitors" page were of capacitors under conditions that would not
normally be encountered in audio circuits, and made the leap that
because some capacitors had curved oscillograms they should sound worse
without giving any reasons for it, only that they should. No
measurements were provided to support this point of view.

As mentioned earlier, in my design days, I was never aware of any
increases in distortion that resulted from capacitors in circuit, even
using electrolytics and tantalums (tantala?) provided they were well
polarised.

S.

Digital volume control question....
 

On 2006-05-24, Nick Gorham wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:

Serge Auckland wrote:


I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc. sound different when
I see objective measurements that indicate that there should be a
difference and the results of properly conducted double-blind tests
that show that there was a difference.

http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html

I've only had a quick look at the above, and the pages linked to it.
However they don't seem to me to be particularly relevant to the question
of capacitors normally having a 'sound' in normal use.

I was trying to provide information relating to the "I see objective
measurements that indicate that there should be a difference" part, not
the "sound" as such.

I noted, BTW, that the integrator used in the test setup employs another
capacitor which must be assumed to be linear for the test to work.
I hope the experimentor used a "good" linear capacitor there! Also
I see the X-axis (voltage) is capacitor-coupled to the 'scope.

Also I would point out that I believe the hysteresis observed is
not, per se, a linearity issue. I think hysteresis will arise from
parasitic series inductance or resistance, and also from dielectric
absorption. These may well be defects from ideality but in spite of the
article's title are not capacitor linearity issues.

--
John Phillips

Digital volume control question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Incidentally, the name 'fullrange' is one of convenience - nobody I know
considers them to have the same bass extension as some of the
bigger/better mutliway speakers. Treble is another story - I've yet to
encounter 'normal' speakers with the extent and sweetness of treble
that you get with Fostex drivers, at least!!

ITYM 'mid range'. ;-)



OK Plowie, you tell me - I have recorded three versions each of two extracts
(Clips 09 and 15) from a 'test CD' for you (and anyone else who is
interested) as follows:

1) Straight computer rip to HDD using SoundForge.

2) Argos POS amp/CDP and Buschhorn speakers (Pinkies) **OPEN MIC**

3) Bez 300B SET/Marantz CD63 Mk 2 KI Sig CDP/Jericho speakers **OPEN MIC**

(The clue to each set is in the filename!)

First some tinkly bits:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2015.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2015.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2015.mp3

Then some over a wider treble range with a bit of percussion:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2009.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2009.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2009.mp3

Note that they have had no treatment whatsoever other than trimming to
length and that the mic used was the only one I have - a 'Vivanco EM216
lapel mic' set to mono because a) 'stereo' is a waste of time at this range
and b) I think the mic has got an iffy channel!!

Note also that the wumpa wumpa noises are on both the mic recordings and are
therefore almost certainly nothing to do with the audio replay side and
remember that the bass will sound 'hollow' and less extended due to the
method of recording.

(Sorry about the difference in sound levels and the 'open mic' hiss - you
know about that, but hey! - Ya can't have it all!! ;-)

Now, SS or valve, I reckon if that ain't enough treble for anyone (compared
to the straight CD rip) they need their ears syringed - your comments (and
those from anyone else) welcome but, as usual, not expected....

Enjoy...!!

:-)

Digital volume control question....
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people "believe" things
sound different. It's the same mental process that have people
believing in God, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have
a shred of objective evidence that things sound different, just
their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that then opens up
all the ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the word
'perceive' in different ways and argue at cross-purposes... :-)


What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive to believe, do
they not?

Depends what you wish to describe. If the situation is that there is no
clear or reliable evidence either way that the physical soundfields differ
in a way that could be audible, then a term like 'believe' seems OK as it
allows that the idea may or may not be well-founded in physical reality.
However this is a difficult area for the reason I outline below.

The problem is that 'perception' can be taken by some people to mean
"something which I can perceive/sense' hence implying that a perceived
difference *must* be based on a physically real one being sensed. Whereas
others may assume it means the 'impression' people have even if it due to
imagination, error, wishful thinking, or some other factor completely
different to that being discussed.

If the evidence gives reason to think the idea *is* simply misguided or
incorrect, them something like 'impression' might be better.

Depends on the details of the case.


OK, this is difficult. Put simply:

If someone jacks his kit up on cubes of coconut husk or whatever (don't
dismiss that as impossible, btw) and tells me it has *improved* the sound, I
say he perceives a difference (real or imagined) and therefore believes
there's an improvement. OTOH, in the time-honoured ukra way (*unheard*) I
would not believe it - unless I heard the kit before and after and could
perceive a difference myself?

Does that help?

Digital volume control question....
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in
message ...
In article
, Keith G
wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a
shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that
then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the
word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive
to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I perceive
it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

I suspect (correct me, if I'm wrong) that, in your haste
to dash off yet another sniffy little snipe at me, you
have lost the plot somewhat..??

If you mean that I ignored your gratuitous detour into irrelevance Keith,
the answer would be yes.

Please re-read the thread above and note where I
responded to Serge to merely report that there is a group
of people 'not far from here' who have *perceptions* that
contradict what he had stated - I never said that I
shared those 'perceptions', I simply mentioned that I was
surprised he wasn't challenged on some of the points he
has made. Note also that my response to JL (also above)
was merely to ask what word he would prefer to
'perceive', as he doesn't like it - although I have to
say it is unambiguous to me. Then you will see that the,
er, veridiculous use of the word 'veridical' in this
context is irrelevant.*

Wordplay notwithstanding, it is you Keith that lost track of the context,
not I.

As to the rather vague "Some of the rest of us mostly" -
you would do better in my book if you had the balls to
speak only for yourself and not try to pad your
opinions/arguments with the implied support/agreement of
a group of invisible colleagues.

Let's see if you can get this, Keith:

Science and other attempts at reliable facts are about veridical
perceptions. Fiction, hype, and error is about giving too much credibility,
or the wrong kind of credibility to illusions.

As to 'illusions' and
'fun' - that's what the whole 'audio' game is about,
ain't it?

Pehaps for you, Keith - it may be all fun and games and who cares about
trying for accurate, lifelike reproduction.

There is only one person with the *best* audio
system (somewhere) in the world - everyone else is
deluding themselves to a greater or lesser degree, are
they not....??

Wrong. There are a certain number of very good systems, none of which should
pretend to be the best.

The concept of "best" is usually just an illusion. Reality is about many
things that approach but do not attain perfection.

*IOW, don't try to flannel your way into an UK newsgroup
with fancy English, me auld china - especially not when
this 'Englishman' went to an English Grammar School that
was older than your *country*...!! ;-)

Contrary to your ill-founded beliefs Keith, older is not necessarily better.
Attitudes like yours are one reason why the UK is no better than a
second-rate world power, and probably worse.

Digital volume control question....
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Attitudes like yours are one reason why the UK is no better than a
second-rate world power, and probably worse.

Remind us again of the balance of payment problems in the US? And what the
dollar is worth against the pound? ;-)

--
*Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Digital volume control question....
 

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:
[snip]

As mentioned earlier, in my design days, I was never aware of any
increases in distortion that resulted from capacitors in circuit, even
using electrolytics and tantalums (tantala?) provided they were well
polarised.

My experience was similar. When I was designing amps for a day job, the
issue of 'electrolytic caps' and 'capacitor sound' became quite a trendy
one in the magazines, and with the gurus of the time.

I did some measurements which - in some cases/circumstances showed that
electrolytic caps could, indeed, produce measurable nonlinearities. However
I also found that:

1) provided that he caps were of good quality and had a fairly high
capacitance value, etc, then the level of nonlinearity was pretty small.
i.e. much the same results and conclusions which Doug Self published later
on when he did a more systematic examination of the topic.

2) That when I tested to see if anyone could tell the difference between
using an electrolytic cap from a 'fancy' non-electrolytic one as, say, an
input decoupling cap, no-one could if they only had the sounds to go on.
This required the caps to have the same value, chosen appropriately, but
once this was done, no-one I ever tried them on could tell 'talk from
splutter'. :-)

Having a preference for making up my own mind, based on evidence, I decided
to regard as dubious (or worthless) the claims made about this in magazine
reviews, etc...

Since that time, I've seen continued assertions and claims that people
*can* hear the differences. But not seen any reliable evidence that they
can, based only on sound, and when the caps are chosen and used in a
reasonably appropriate and relevant manner. I have seen various claims like
those on the pages Nick directed us to, though, but where the results seem
to of dubious relevance or reliability for reasons like those we have
discussed in this thread. There was a similar report by Martin Collums some
years ago, based on applying an excessively high ac current and terminal pd
to an electrolytic cap.

Thus I chose decent quality electrolytic caps in some places in the amps I
have designed, and use, and seem to have lost no sleep over this. The music
still sounds lovely to me. :-) I was listening to some Ravel performed by
Dutoit and the Montreal orchestra yesterday. Can't say I noticed the caps
getting in the way of the results sounding superbly natural and the
performance being exciting. I admit I changed the caps after 25 years of
use, but I am not sure I noticed any alteration as a result. :-)

However if someone *does* show they can tell one from another, by sound
alone, using caps and a situation which is relevant, then I'd love to know
about it. Although this does not mean a case where a cap is faulty or
obviously inappropriate for a reason which would be obvious for engineering
reasons. With any type of component, you can probably find some dreadfully
made examples...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Digital volume control question....
 

In article , John Phillips
wrote:
On 2006-05-24, Nick Gorham wrote:


I noted, BTW, that the integrator used in the test setup employs another
capacitor which must be assumed to be linear for the test to work. I
hope the experimentor used a "good" linear capacitor there! Also I see
the X-axis (voltage) is capacitor-coupled to the 'scope.

Yes. These are examples of the reasons why the details of any such reported
'measurement' have to be treated with caution unless we know more about the
performance and calibration of the test system. (Also, as Arny pointed out
IIRC, the source using an audio transformer.)

However my reaction was to feel the above didn't matter once we'd
established that the actual conditions of the test were of dubious
relevance. No point in worrying about details if the test situation was
orders of magnitude different to those which are of actual interest to us.

Also I would point out that I believe the hysteresis observed is not,
per se, a linearity issue. I think hysteresis will arise from parasitic
series inductance or resistance, and also from dielectric absorption.
These may well be defects from ideality but in spite of the article's
title are not capacitor linearity issues.

Indeed. And may also in practice be orders of magnitude less significant
than implied by the curves when we move to a more relevant set of
conditions of use.

Alas, I have the impression that results like those on the pages Nick
directed us to are essentially produced on the basis, "We think the caps
sound different, so lets find a test which shows differences." This can
lead to a behaviour I have elsewhere called 'MOOM'. Mountains Out Of
Molehills. Another example being the way it became trendy some years ago to
claim that 'skin effect' or 'proximity effect' was a 'reason' for cables to
son=und different. Thus a real, but generally tiny, effect can be inflated
to be a 'reason' for a claim or belief...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Digital volume control question....
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:



OK, this is difficult.

I'd agree. So bear in mind I'm not quibbling for the sake of trying to
nit-pick with you or find fault. I am just trying to 'raise awarness' as we
have to say these days that these things can be hard to discuss since
people may use the same words or phrases in critically different ways. With
that said, I'll continue... :-)

Put simply:

If someone jacks his kit up on cubes of coconut husk or whatever (don't
dismiss that as impossible, btw) and tells me it has *improved* the
sound, I say he perceives a difference (real or imagined) and therefore
believes there's an improvement. OTOH, in the time-honoured ukra way
(*unheard*) I would not believe it - unless I heard the kit before and
after and could perceive a difference myself?

Does that help?

Not sure. :-)

The problem is that some people might react to the statement that he
"perceives a difference" as meaning that he physically sensed a difference
- e.g if we could have attached some measurement kit to his ears it would
have produced a changed output. Others might take it to mean that his
impression was that there was a difference.

When you say "could perceive a difference myself" we have a similar
difficulty. I'd say that if a set of tests were done which could reliably
establish that - by sound alone - you/he repeatedly showed you could tell
the difference, then you did 'sense' or 'detect' a difference, but if such
tests showed no such result then you have 'believed' it.

FWIW I'd agree that even 'belived' is difficult in such situations. Hence
my preference is to try and use language that is more based on
evidence-linked statments like those above. The snag is that these can get
long-winded, and may still be problematic....

It is just that my impression is that I've seen many arguments which were
simply based on those involved not all using the same meaning for terms
like 'perceive'. Hence they argued at cross purposes, or in a way that was
futile. My interest then tends to be to ask what the nature and detail of
the evidence may be.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Digital volume control question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,

Arny Krueger wrote:
Attitudes like yours are one reason why the UK is no
better than a second-rate world power, and probably
worse.

Remind us again of the balance of payment problems in the
US?

Its only a problem if its a problem. If you look at recent history, you'll
see that the US had a balance-of-payments situation with Japan for years and
years. In the end they ran their own currency into the ground, making it
easier for us to balance the books.

And what the dollar is worth against the pound? ;-)

First remind me about how simply revaluing pound can make the UK back into
a first-rate world power. If it was that easy, one would think that it
would have already been done.

Digital volume control question....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in
message ...
In article
, Keith G
wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a
shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that
then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the
word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive
to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I perceive
it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

I suspect (correct me, if I'm wrong) that, in your haste
to dash off yet another sniffy little snipe at me, you
have lost the plot somewhat..??

If you mean that I ignored your gratuitous detour into irrelevance Keith,
the answer would be yes.


What 'gratuitous detour'? I'm in a discussion with Jim about interpretation
of the word 'perceive' - these threads wander where they will, or hadn't you
noticed? (It would explain some of your wacky responses....)


Please re-read the thread above and note where I
responded to Serge to merely report that there is a group
of people 'not far from here' who have *perceptions* that
contradict what he had stated - I never said that I
shared those 'perceptions', I simply mentioned that I was
surprised he wasn't challenged on some of the points he
has made. Note also that my response to JL (also above)
was merely to ask what word he would prefer to
'perceive', as he doesn't like it - although I have to
say it is unambiguous to me. Then you will see that the,
er, veridiculous use of the word 'veridical' in this
context is irrelevant.*

Wordplay notwithstanding, it is you Keith that lost track of the context,
not I.


See above 1) the thread has evolved to its present subject matter and, as
such, the context has changed and 2) the OP is me - difficult to be out of
context in a thread I started and wandered where I led it, ain't it? If I
was to turn attention in this thread to, say, the perception of the taste of
pancakes while listening to both ss and valve amps and make a comparison
between them it would not be out of context, AFAIAC....


As to the rather vague "Some of the rest of us mostly" -
you would do better in my book if you had the balls to
speak only for yourself and not try to pad your
opinions/arguments with the implied support/agreement of
a group of invisible colleagues.

Let's see if you can get this, Keith:


OK, let's....


Science and other attempts at reliable facts are about veridical
perceptions.


What number is that in 'Arny's Book Of Rules'...??


Fiction, hype, and error is about giving too much credibility,
or the wrong kind of credibility to illusions.


No, that's called 'Hollywood'.....



As to 'illusions' and
'fun' - that's what the whole 'audio' game is about,
ain't it?

Pehaps for you, Keith - it may be all fun and games and who cares about
trying for accurate, lifelike reproduction.


Naughty boy, Arny - you know better than that! Even those wistful souls
*perceiving* differences with endless tweaks are trying to achieve just that
very thing. I'm not employed in the audio industry and the day 'audio' stops
being fun for me is the day I chuck it and take up needlework or summat, but
that said, no-one here works harder at this 'fun' than I do - I'm just up
from my garage/workshop where I've been finishing off/painting speakers and
this morning I sacrificed a good deal of time to provide Plowie with some
sound clips to evaluate. (Knowing that he wouldn't have the grace to respond
to them!! ;-)



There is only one person with the *best* audio
system (somewhere) in the world - everyone else is
deluding themselves to a greater or lesser degree, are
they not....??

Wrong. There are a certain number of very good systems, none of which
should pretend to be the best.


Read it again and think carefully (work on your *comprehension*) - it's
nothing to do with any 'pretence', it is a certain fact that one system will
be the *best* in the world by whatever means you wish to measure it. The
owner of that system will very likely not even be aware of it.....

(Cheap shots about *proper* English not being your first language have been
avoided.... ;-)



The concept of "best" is usually just an illusion. Reality is about many
things that approach but do not attain perfection.


Keep a grip Arnold, we are talking 'best' here, not 'perfect' - not the same
thing, is it.....??



*IOW, don't try to flannel your way into an UK newsgroup
with fancy English, me auld china - especially not when
this 'Englishman' went to an English Grammar School that
was older than your *country*...!! ;-)

Contrary to your ill-founded beliefs Keith, older is not necessarily
better. Attitudes like yours are one reason why the UK is no better than a
second-rate world power, and probably worse.

:-)

Yet you subscribe to a UK (audio) group and I subscribe to *no*
US/US-centric groups, due to my complete and utter lack of interest in
them!!??

Wake up Arny and smell your own coffee - the world is bored with the US and
the days the US could *large it* in the world with impunity are over. (If
they ever existed...???) OTOH, the weak, lame or just downright crafty are
beating their way to our shores in droves, passing through many countries
with a better standard of living than we have to get here!!

(I think it's because they know, deep down, the UK is home to the finest
audio in the world!! ;-)

Digital volume control question....
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
And what the dollar is worth against the pound? ;-)

First remind me about how simply revaluing pound can make the UK back
into a first-rate world power. If it was that easy, one would think
that it would have already been done.

The pound wasn't revalued. Simply the once almighty dollar sank. Due to
the appalling trade deficit with the rest of the world.

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Digital volume control question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
And what the dollar is worth against the pound? ;-)

First remind me about how simply revaluing pound can
make the UK back into a first-rate world power. If it
was that easy, one would think that it would have
already been done.

The pound wasn't revalued. Simply the once almighty
dollar sank. Due to the appalling trade deficit with the
rest of the world.

Think of it as buying with a hidden discount. ;-)

Digital volume control question....
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in
message ...
In article
,
Keith G wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have
a shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound
different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since
that then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use
the word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to
perceive to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I
perceive it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

I suspect (correct me, if I'm wrong) that, in your haste
to dash off yet another sniffy little snipe at me, you
have lost the plot somewhat..??

If you mean that I ignored your gratuitous detour into
irrelevance Keith, the answer would be yes.


What 'gratuitous detour'? I'm in a discussion with Jim
about interpretation of the word 'perceive' - these
threads wander where they will, or hadn't you noticed?
(It would explain some of your wacky responses....)

Please re-read the thread above and note where I
responded to Serge to merely report that there is a
group of people 'not far from here' who have
*perceptions* that contradict what he had stated - I
never said that I shared those 'perceptions', I simply
mentioned that I was surprised he wasn't challenged on
some of the points he has made. Note also that my
response to JL (also above) was merely to ask what word
he would prefer to 'perceive', as he doesn't like it -
although I have to say it is unambiguous to me. Then
you will see that the, er, veridiculous use of the word
'veridical' in this context is irrelevant.*

Wordplay notwithstanding, it is you Keith that lost
track of the context, not I.


See above 1) the thread has evolved to its present
subject matter and, as such, the context has changed and
2) the OP is me - difficult to be out of context in a
thread I started and wandered where I led it, ain't it?
If I was to turn attention in this thread to, say, the
perception of the taste of pancakes while listening to
both ss and valve amps and make a comparison between them
it would not be out of context, AFAIAC....

As to the rather vague "Some of the rest of us mostly" -
you would do better in my book if you had the balls to
speak only for yourself and not try to pad your
opinions/arguments with the implied support/agreement of
a group of invisible colleagues.

Let's see if you can get this, Keith:


OK, let's....


Science and other attempts at reliable facts are about
veridical perceptions.


What number is that in 'Arny's Book Of Rules'...??


Fiction, hype, and error is about giving too much
credibility,
or the wrong kind of credibility to illusions.


No, that's called 'Hollywood'.....



As to 'illusions' and
'fun' - that's what the whole 'audio' game is about,
ain't it?

Pehaps for you, Keith - it may be all fun and games and
who cares about trying for accurate, lifelike
reproduction.

Naughty boy, Arny - you know better than that! Even those
wistful souls *perceiving* differences with endless
tweaks are trying to achieve just that very thing.

They get to waste their time with illusions, if they so desire.

I'm
not employed in the audio industry and the day 'audio'
stops being fun for me is the day I chuck it and take up
needlework or summat, but that said, no-one here works
harder at this 'fun' than I do - I'm just up from my
garage/workshop where I've been finishing off/painting
speakers and this morning I sacrificed a good deal of
time to provide Plowie with some sound clips to evaluate.
(Knowing that he wouldn't have the grace to respond to
them!! ;-)

To summarize then Keith, you see audio as a means for getting abused by
others?

There is only one person with the *best* audio
system (somewhere) in the world - everyone else is
deluding themselves to a greater or lesser degree, are
they not....??

Wrong. There are a certain number of very good systems,
none of which should pretend to be the best.

Read it again and think carefully (work on your
*comprehension*) - it's nothing to do with any
'pretence', it is a certain fact that one system will be
the *best* in the world by whatever means you wish to
measure it.

If life was only that simplistic.

The owner of that system will very likely not
even be aware of it.....

Why should he care?

(Cheap shots about *proper* English not being your first
language have been avoided.... ;-)

Not at all.

The concept of "best" is usually just an illusion.
Reality is about many things that approach but do not
attain perfection.

Keep a grip Arnold, we are talking 'best' here, not
'perfect' - not the same thing, is it.....??

How do you know for sure that something is best if it is not perfect?

BTW Keith, take all the time you want to frame a logical reply.


*IOW, don't try to flannel your way into an UK newsgroup
with fancy English, me auld china - especially not when
this 'Englishman' went to an English Grammar School that
was older than your *country*...!! ;-)

Contrary to your ill-founded beliefs Keith, older is not
necessarily better. Attitudes like yours are one reason
why the UK is no better than a second-rate world power,
and probably worse.

:-)

Yet you subscribe to a UK (audio) group and I subscribe
to *no* US/US-centric groups, due to my complete and
utter lack of interest in them!!??

Limited world view noted.

Wake up Arny and smell your own coffee - the world is
bored with the US and the days the US could *large it* in
the world with impunity are over.

Seems like the US has plenty of errr influence in the UK.

(If they ever
existed...???) OTOH, the weak, lame or just downright
crafty are beating their way to our shores in droves,
passing through many countries with a better standard of
living than we have to get here!!

The same for the US, except that they don't usually pass through any
countries with a better standard of living than the US for some reason.

(I think it's because they know, deep down, the UK is
home to the finest audio in the world!! ;-)

Whatever it takes to get you through the day, Keith.

Digital volume control question....
 

Arny Krueger wrote:


Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in veridical perceptions.
Illusions are fun, but that's about it for them.


'Veridical perception' - oxymoron. Let your Objective World of Audio go!

Rob

Digital volume control question....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in
message ...
In article
,
Keith G wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have
a shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound
different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since
that then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use
the word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to
perceive to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I
perceive it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

I suspect (correct me, if I'm wrong) that, in your haste
to dash off yet another sniffy little snipe at me, you
have lost the plot somewhat..??

If you mean that I ignored your gratuitous detour into
irrelevance Keith, the answer would be yes.


What 'gratuitous detour'? I'm in a discussion with Jim
about interpretation of the word 'perceive' - these
threads wander where they will, or hadn't you noticed?
(It would explain some of your wacky responses....)

Please re-read the thread above and note where I
responded to Serge to merely report that there is a
group of people 'not far from here' who have
*perceptions* that contradict what he had stated - I
never said that I shared those 'perceptions', I simply
mentioned that I was surprised he wasn't challenged on
some of the points he has made. Note also that my
response to JL (also above) was merely to ask what word
he would prefer to 'perceive', as he doesn't like it -
although I have to say it is unambiguous to me. Then
you will see that the, er, veridiculous use of the word
'veridical' in this context is irrelevant.*

Wordplay notwithstanding, it is you Keith that lost
track of the context, not I.


See above 1) the thread has evolved to its present
subject matter and, as such, the context has changed and
2) the OP is me - difficult to be out of context in a
thread I started and wandered where I led it, ain't it?
If I was to turn attention in this thread to, say, the
perception of the taste of pancakes while listening to
both ss and valve amps and make a comparison between them
it would not be out of context, AFAIAC....

As to the rather vague "Some of the rest of us mostly" -
you would do better in my book if you had the balls to
speak only for yourself and not try to pad your
opinions/arguments with the implied support/agreement of
a group of invisible colleagues.

Let's see if you can get this, Keith:


OK, let's....


Science and other attempts at reliable facts are about
veridical perceptions.


What number is that in 'Arny's Book Of Rules'...??


Fiction, hype, and error is about giving too much
credibility,
or the wrong kind of credibility to illusions.


No, that's called 'Hollywood'.....



As to 'illusions' and
'fun' - that's what the whole 'audio' game is about,
ain't it?

Pehaps for you, Keith - it may be all fun and games and
who cares about trying for accurate, lifelike
reproduction.

Naughty boy, Arny - you know better than that! Even those
wistful souls *perceiving* differences with endless
tweaks are trying to achieve just that very thing.

They get to waste their time with illusions, if they so desire.

I'm
not employed in the audio industry and the day 'audio'
stops being fun for me is the day I chuck it and take up
needlework or summat, but that said, no-one here works
harder at this 'fun' than I do - I'm just up from my
garage/workshop where I've been finishing off/painting
speakers and this morning I sacrificed a good deal of
time to provide Plowie with some sound clips to evaluate.
(Knowing that he wouldn't have the grace to respond to
them!! ;-)

To summarize then Keith, you see audio as a means for getting abused by
others?


No, only posting here - and then only by you and your little pal Plowie!
;-)



There is only one person with the *best* audio
system (somewhere) in the world - everyone else is
deluding themselves to a greater or lesser degree, are
they not....??

Wrong. There are a certain number of very good systems,
none of which should pretend to be the best.

Read it again and think carefully (work on your
*comprehension*) - it's nothing to do with any
'pretence', it is a certain fact that one system will be
the *best* in the world by whatever means you wish to
measure it.

If life was only that simplistic.


Arny, *best* is like Highlander - there can be only *one*....!!

????

(How hard can that be...???)



The owner of that system will very likely not
even be aware of it.....

Why should he care?

(Cheap shots about *proper* English not being your first
language have been avoided.... ;-)

Not at all.

The concept of "best" is usually just an illusion.
Reality is about many things that approach but do not
attain perfection.

Keep a grip Arnold, we are talking 'best' here, not
'perfect' - not the same thing, is it.....??

How do you know for sure that something is best if it is not perfect?


Er, you very likely don't and, as I stated earlier, the owner of the *best*
probably doesn't even know it is the best! Nothing's *perfect* btw -
especially not in 'technology' and even the 'best' will be superceded sooner
or later (usually a matter of weeks in AV kit)...

Lemme give you the best (oops) example that I can think of offhand - at this
moment in time, the best *artificial heart* you can get is still far from
perfect....???

Does that help? Do you geddit?



BTW Keith, take all the time you want to frame a logical reply.


It took no time at all, I can't believe you are being so obtuse - unless
it's deliberate for 'artistic effect'...???




*IOW, don't try to flannel your way into an UK newsgroup
with fancy English, me auld china - especially not when
this 'Englishman' went to an English Grammar School that
was older than your *country*...!! ;-)

Contrary to your ill-founded beliefs Keith, older is not
necessarily better. Attitudes like yours are one reason
why the UK is no better than a second-rate world power,
and probably worse.

:-)

Yet you subscribe to a UK (audio) group and I subscribe
to *no* US/US-centric groups, due to my complete and
utter lack of interest in them!!??

Limited world view noted.


Well, if you're going to write my name in a little book or summat, at least
spell it correctly - it's "P.I.K.E"....



Wake up Arny and smell your own coffee - the world is
bored with the US and the days the US could *large it* in
the world with impunity are over.

Seems like the US has plenty of errr influence in the UK.


Certainly does - if only some of it was *beneficial*!!

(Tell you what, send us William Shatner and we'll make him Prime Minister!!
:-)



(If they ever
existed...???) OTOH, the weak, lame or just downright
crafty are beating their way to our shores in droves,
passing through many countries with a better standard of
living than we have to get here!!

The same for the US, except that they don't usually pass through any
countries with a better standard of living than the US for some reason.


That's 'cos they don't come through Europe....

(See how far your dollars will get you in any European capital, starting
with Rome.... ;-)



(I think it's because they know, deep down, the UK is
home to the finest audio in the world!! ;-)

Whatever it takes to get you through the day, Keith.

Sure. Now what do you reckon we're up to - 11 indents now?? :-)

Digital volume control question....
 

"Rob" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

'Veridical perception' - oxymoron.

Wrong.

Google finds upwards of 100,000 references to this phrase.

Let your Objective World of Audio go!

My world? it's an objectivist/subjectivist blend.

Digital volume control question....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

'Veridical perception' - oxymoron.

Wrong.

Google finds upwards of 100,000 references to this phrase.



Wrong.

15,300 actually.....

;-)

(Google Tip: Use "----" to restrict the results to those containing the
*exact phrase* only...)



Let your Objective World of Audio go!

My world? it's an objectivist/subjectivist blend.


Of course - what else could it be?