|
|
Digital volume control question....
Arny Krueger wrote:
"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. The phrase? More like 15,400. 'Marxist reality' get over 15 million references. Context is all :-) Let your Objective World of Audio go! My world? it's an objectivist/subjectivist blend. I think you lean rather heavily in favour of objects. Rob |
Digital volume control question....
Keith G wrote:
"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...) Ha - it's gone up since you checked - it's all Arnie's fault! Let your Objective World of Audio go! My world? it's an objectivist/subjectivist blend. Of course - what else could it be? It's the healthy balance that makes the difference :-) Rob |
Digital volume control question....
On 2006-05-25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , John Phillips 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. ... ... 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. I agree that in the case of a coupling capacitor the ideal design drops a negligible *signal* voltage across it. The article and its test are of dubious relevance there. However, consider the case of a single-pole RC filter. In the pass-band substantially the full signal voltage appears across the capacitor. So I suspect there can be relevance in measuring capacitor non-linearity with significant AC signal level. I am not sure if in a valve amplifier this may happen inter-stage with the sort of signal level the article uses for the test, though. As an input RC filter the signal voltage across the capacitor will be somewhat smaller than that used. -- John Phillips |
Digital volume control question....
On 26 May 2006 10:22:30 GMT, John Phillips
wrote: On 2006-05-25, Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , John Phillips 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. ... ... 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. I agree that in the case of a coupling capacitor the ideal design drops a negligible *signal* voltage across it. The article and its test are of dubious relevance there. However, consider the case of a single-pole RC filter. In the pass-band substantially the full signal voltage appears across the capacitor. So I suspect there can be relevance in measuring capacitor non-linearity with significant AC signal level. I am not sure if in a valve amplifier this may happen inter-stage with the sort of signal level the article uses for the test, though. As an input RC filter the signal voltage across the capacitor will be somewhat smaller than that used. But do remember that in a low pass filter, the opposite situation applies. In the passband, the capacitor looks to all intents and purposes like and open circuit, so it still doesn't matter what the dielectric is doing. Now, at the top of the passband, where the capacitor is starting to matter, some of this might happen, but at that point the filtering action is going to attenuate any products. Of course they will probably be outside the audio band as well. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Digital volume control question....
On 2006-05-25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , John Phillips wrote: 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. This is certainly true of the linear effects of dielectric absorption (DA). I see audio cable and capacitor sales literature pronouncing that energy storage in DA and its later release "smears" transients. Well, if it's a linear effect [1] it does cause ripples in the frequency response so it may do what's stated. However the magnitude of the effect, when I plug in some real numbers for DA, is several orders of magnitude below what should be audible [2]. If there are audible differences between capacitors there's no evidence yet that DA is the (or even a) culprit. [1] The DA models are all linear, but I have searched occasionally for any evidence of non-linear effects arising from DA. These may be audible if big enough. However the one mention I found was for semiconductor-insulator (e.g. Silicon - Silicon Nitride) boundaries but it provided no details and no references to follow up. [2] Based on reported levels of audibility arising from frequency response differences. However, recently I have become interested in the human sensitivity to audio arrival time differences. Detectable differences as reported seem to be smaller than implied by 20 kHz hearing limits. I am looking out for more evidence on this. -- John Phillips |
Digital volume control question....
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... 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... :-) OK, you don't need to qualify your responses to me, but see below... 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 Yes, that's how I would see it. (Perceive it? ;-) - 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. OK. This is where it hangs. If someone says he 'perceives' (can see, discern, determine, tell &c.) a difference, then I take it that he is under the impression there is a difference - effectively the same thing, IOW... 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. Sure. The fact that someone says he perceives a difference in no way means there is one. The proof of that pudding is in testing, as you say. Until disproved, his belief is based on his apparent perception. 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.... OK, see below.... 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. OK, see he One of the reasons I am glad English (in its various forms) is becoming the global language* (despite a tendancy toward homophony - which many foreigners find difficult to master, apparently) is not so much because of the exact precision possible with it (especially in the written form) or its brevity compared with many other languages (record sleeves and multilingual instruction manuals for example) but because of the high degree of flexibility (and adaptability) it possesses. In the spoken form, 'fuzzy English' is very often capable of transferring a clear and precise meaning while appearing to sound like gibberish, if you catch my drift...?? ;-) Thus I could flag down passing motorists (say) and get them to listen to a couple of bits of kit and would be able to ask them if they could determine, perceive, tell, see, hear, discern &c. any 'difference' between them or I could ask if they could 'split them', 'pick one', 'rate them', grade them' and so it goes on - all with much the same outcome. (FWIW, I have found that if I ever phrased an instruction or question with precisely correct wording it was invariably queried or I was asked to repeat it!!) Now, you either get that or you don't!! (If you don't dig it, it's no skin off my nose!! ;-) While you are not wrong *per se* to persue a high degree of accuracy in the words used by people to say that they can [any of the above] differences between bits of kit, or before and after tweaks/substitutions I do think the context in which the phrases are used should be be borne in mind. Understanding the concept is more important than understanding the question (sign language?) and provided that the word used/misused is generally understood by all others concerned, I have no problem with the use of the word 'perceive' in the context we have discussed here - for instance, I'm often seeing the words 'religion/faith/belief' being confused and misused here, but it does not matter because I can usually per***** the concept that is being referenced!! ;-) *The reason French was never going to make it as the true, long-term global language (despite being favoured by the Royal Courts in Europe at one time and being fairly, if thinly, widespread) is because a) There are official movements to rigidly control the language and the use/meaning of words (from what I gathered from a proggie on the box recently) and b) French women don't shave their armpits. The world at large doesn't view either of these practices favourably.... (Proggie on the box? - Woss 'e me mean, the telly or the wireless? ;-) |
Digital volume control question....
In article , John Phillips
wrote: [snip] I agree that in the case of a coupling capacitor the ideal design drops a negligible *signal* voltage across it. The article and its test are of dubious relevance there. However, consider the case of a single-pole RC filter. In the pass-band substantially the full signal voltage appears across the capacitor. Yes. Three cases had occurred to me after continuing to think about this: 1) Something like a Baxandall arrangement when the tone was set well away from 'flat' sic. Here quite noticable ac levels could appear across some of the caps without being cancelled in effect by that on another cap. Although in most control amps in my experience this would be or the order of a volt or less - far less than the 70v RMs used in the page we were discussing. 2) 'Miller' shunt caps between the base and collector (or equivalents for other types of device) as used in some designs across the output devices. Here the voltage swings seen by the caps could be almost 'rail to rail'. Hence they could easily be 70v RMS in some cases. However the cap values would normally be small, and within a loop, and shunted by the device (whose own capacitance may be far more nonlinear!) I doubt anyone would be using an electrolytic for this! I've never noticed such a design giving noticable distortion from this, but it is something I would avoid applying anyway, so have not investigated it. 3) The C of the series RC of a 'Zobel'. As (2) this could see rail-to-rail ac. However this should be gripped fairly tightly by the output impedance of the amp, so although it may ask the power amp to deliver a nonlinear current through the Zobel, it should have little effect on the output as seen by the loudspeakers. There are other examples like the C of an input LP RC roll-off filter to prevent an amp being driven into slewing. However in most cases like this I'd expect the level of the ac to be well below 70v RMS. So I suspect there can be relevance in measuring capacitor non-linearity with significant AC signal level. Yes. That was why I was asking in an earlier posting for some examples to see if there were any. I haven't really encountered any that seem comparable and relevant, but for all I know they may exist, e.g. in some valve designs. The above all occurred to me as 'in principle' areas where an effect might show, but in each case I've never seen/heard anything significant as a result in practice. I am not sure if in a valve amplifier this may happen inter-stage with the sort of signal level the article uses for the test, though. As an input RC filter the signal voltage across the capacitor will be somewhat smaller than that used. Yes. In a twin-rail amp using SS devices I tend to expect caps to only appear in a few places like an input dc block, or the block on the feedback to reduce the dc gain. In these places the ac levels seen in normal use should be generally relatively tiny. 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: [1] The DA models are all linear, but I have searched occasionally for any evidence of non-linear effects arising from DA. These may be audible if big enough. However the one mention I found was for semiconductor-insulator (e.g. Silicon - Silicon Nitride) boundaries but it provided no details and no references to follow up. I'm familiar with nonlinear dielectric effects in terms of using bulk material effects for things like frequency conversion in optonics devices or Bragg cells. But the actual field levels and d/dt levels in such applications tends to be high in order to get useful levels of nonlinearity, and the materials chosen specifically for their nonlinear properties. I recall a colleague who used to build non-linear pulse lines for pulse compression/peaking. He found some HV caps by a given maker that had truly 'awful' levels of dielectric nonlinearity when hit with multi-kV pulses. His comment was that their slogan should be, "Don't take the **** out of our capacitors: it spoils their usefulness!" ;- The point being that most well-made caps simply didn't do this to such a level. [2] Based on reported levels of audibility arising from frequency response differences. However, recently I have become interested in the human sensitivity to audio arrival time differences. Detectable differences as reported seem to be smaller than implied by 20 kHz hearing limits. I am looking out for more evidence on this. I'd also be interested in that. However it does not surprise me. The sensors for a given frequency band may have response interactions whose timings have nothing to do with the physical limitation of the ability of the upper HF sensors to detect 20kHz. The processes are distinct, I assume. FWIW I have a recollection of reading about the above somewhere. I think there may be a reference to it in one of the papers I refer to in the articles on hearing on my Audio Misc pages. Can't recall, though, as I did that some years ago... 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: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... [snip] OK. This is where it hangs. If someone says he 'perceives' (can see, discern, determine, tell &c.) a difference, then I take it that he is under the impression there is a difference - effectively the same thing, IOW... [snip] Sure. The fact that someone says he perceives a difference in no way means there is one. The proof of that pudding is in testing, as you say. Until disproved, his belief is based on his apparent perception. [snip] While you are not wrong *per se* to persue a high degree of accuracy in the words used by people to say that they can [any of the above] differences between bits of kit, or before and after tweaks/substitutions I do think the context in which the phrases are used should be be borne in mind. I agree. (And with what I snipped above.) Understanding the concept is more important than understanding the question (sign language?) and provided that the word used/misused is generally understood by all others concerned, I have no problem with the use of the word 'perceive' in the context we have discussed here - for instance, Overall, yes, that seems fine to me. However the snag is that some people may have not followed the context. What you said above makes sense to me, but we have the situation where we may have to re-explain this context to avoid confusions. Plus my impression that the use of 'perceive' in situations like this has more than once led to arguments at cross-purposes. Indeed, once people start to get 'emotional' about this they may become unwilling to accept this has happened once the fuse has been lit. :-) Hence my reaction to pop up a 'warning flag' that this can occur. I'd agree though that my wish for more 'precise' language can, itself, get in the way of some discussions. With 'fuzzy' real languages like English you can't always get clarity without some fuss first... I may be more sensitive than usual to this as I am currently reading the 'answers' perhaps sic in exam papers. Noting how some people seem to misunderstand what most have found perfectly clear! I suppose that the reality is that whatever words or explanations you use, the diversity of human minds, and the fuzzness of language, means that some will not understand what was actually meant. All you can do then is to try alternative approaches until sufficient pennies have dropped. :-) 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....
On 2006-05-26, Don Pearce wrote:
On 26 May 2006 10:22:30 GMT, John Phillips wrote: On 2006-05-25, Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , John Phillips 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. ... ... 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. I agree that in the case of a coupling capacitor the ideal design drops a negligible *signal* voltage across it. The article and its test are of dubious relevance there. However, consider the case of a single-pole RC filter. In the pass-band substantially the full signal voltage appears across the capacitor. But do remember that in a low pass filter, the opposite situation applies. In the passband, the capacitor looks to all intents and purposes like and open circuit, so it still doesn't matter what the dielectric is doing. Now, at the top of the passband, where the capacitor is starting to matter, some of this might happen, but at that point the filtering action is going to attenuate any products. Of course they will probably be outside the audio band as well. Good point. However even if the current in the capacitor is low, the RC product and therefore the -3 dB point may be modulating with the voltage amplitude. I will have to think if this effect is negligible. -- John Phillips |
Digital volume control question....
"Jim Lesurf" wrote Overall, yes, that seems fine to me. However the snag is that some people may have not followed the context. What you said above makes sense to me, but we have the situation where we may have to re-explain this context to avoid confusions. Plus my impression that the use of 'perceive' in situations like this has more than once led to arguments at cross-purposes. Indeed, once people start to get 'emotional' about this they may become unwilling to accept this has happened once the fuse has been lit. :-) The thing is, does this really matter? As well as context, we have the circumstances to consider: This is an open forum attended *voluntarily* by a cross-section of different people with varying communication skills, restricted to the written word only - no handwaving, face-pulling &c. and no pix or diagrams unles they post a bit of Show n Tell. AFAIAC, there is some duty of understanding on the part of the 'communicatee(s)' and it's up to them to get clarification on any point that may have been poorly made. If things get a little heated from time to time it's not a big problem in my book - that's mainly because it is possible to post into this sort of forum with a high degree of impunity and I have to admit it can spice things up a bit from time to time. (Turgid exchanges of factual accuracy in clipped, precise, *correct* terms may be helpful and informative but they aren't always very entertaining!! ;-) Hence my reaction to pop up a 'warning flag' that this can occur. I'd agree though that my wish for more 'precise' language can, itself, get in the way of some discussions. With 'fuzzy' real languages like English you can't always get clarity without some fuss first... I may be more sensitive than usual to this as I am currently reading the 'answers' perhaps sic in exam papers. Noting how some people seem to misunderstand what most have found perfectly clear! That's the nature of human beans. I don't like 'examinations' per se - I think it's as good a way of weeding out possible future genius as you can get! I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who was destined to find a cure for the common cold/cancer (or both) wasn't stopped in his tracks by the 'examination system'!! (Think Winston Churchill here....) I suppose that the reality is that whatever words or explanations you use, the diversity of human minds, and the fuzzness of language, means that some will not understand what was actually meant. All you can do then is to try alternative approaches until sufficient pennies have dropped. :-) Indeed - consider your drift well and truly caught!! ;-) |
Digital volume control question....
Serge Auckland wrote: Andy Evans wrote: As to audio quality, a conductive plastic pot will have zero effect on audio quality. Here's another view from Allen Wright (designs amps) "Vishay cermet are good. One of the biggest con acts has been the pushing of conductive plastic pots to the audio industry. I don't care what the brand is - if they make a CP and a cermet (or even a quality carbon) then my experience is that the cermet KILLS the CP for sonic quality. The VISHAY cerment (made by their french wing Sfernice)) sounds. like two good fixed resistors, the identical looking CP sounds like ****! Allen Oh dear someone else who thinks resistors have a sound. A pot, whether cermet, conductive plastic, carbon or whatever is a pure resistance (discounting irrelevant tiny amounts of capacitance and inductance- wirewound pots excepted) and consequently are linear to the limits of measurement. Therefore how any pot can be better than another for sonic qualities is beyond me. Pots vary in the accuracy of their law, the noise made when being altered, tracking on stereo, how long they last before track wear is evident etc. Sonic differences are just not there. The funny thing about this is that the referenced Mr Wright says he likes Vishay Sfernice's cermet pot, yet Vishay Sfernice themselves promote the conductive plastic version as better for audio. Nothing to do with 'having a sound' btw - it's simply that cp pots have lower rotational noise ( they don't crackle when turned ). You might care to know that famous high-end UK recording console maker Neve uses those very same cp pots that Mr Wright rejects. Graham |
Digital volume control question....
Eiron 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. So is it not the case that metal film resistors have lower noise than carbon ones, The difference is less than it used to be. Carbon film has simply got better. and that this gives an audible and measurable difference in phono and microphone preamps? With regard to noise it *can*. It's a question of whether in any given circuit the excess noise of a resistor plays a significant part in the overall total noise. Often, resistor excess noise may not be the big issue. Poor quality resistors can also have excessive popcorn/flicker noise. That applies to poor quality metal film as much as it does to carbon too. * Excess noise is the part of a resistor's noise that isn't accounted for by ordinary thermal noise. Note that this is a question, not a statement. I haven't measured anything recently. I have. Graham |
Digital volume control question....
Arny Krueger wrote: "Serge Auckland" wrote in message Nick Gorham wrote: 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. Very, very true. A ridiculous way to make such a test. I can find *no* difference whatever between the various plastic film dielectrics in a real world application whatever using Audio Precision test gear. The business about ceramics is very old news and it seems he didn't test the perfectly linear low-K types ( not available as 0.1 uF ) Furthermore, there's a very neat trick to avoiding any trouble with aluminium electrlytics as coupling caps too ( as practiced by good pro-audio manufacturers ). Graham |
Digital volume control question....
Serge Auckland wrote: I have never measured any increase in THD with a capacitor in circuit in the amplifiers I have designed. This is true of all sorts of cap, electrolytic, tantalum, polyester, polystyrene. I've only seen it with small value electrolytics as coupling caps at low frequencies and very high signal levels with low load impedance on the load end of the cap ( *where the voltage across the cap starts to become significant* ). Even so, the numbers are quite low. Roughly from memory with 10uF and a signal of 10V rms @ 20Hz into a 600 ohm load it was somewhere around 0.03%. Reduce the signal level to something more typical, increase the load R, increase the frequency and most of all using a larger cap ( to a more sensible 100uF ) all reduce the figure. In fact with 100uF I simply couldn't measure *anything* except with very high signal levels @ 20 Hz and even then it was barely out of the test set noise floor. In more typical real world use even the electrolytics produce no measurable THD ( AP THD floor is 0.0008% or -102 dB ) Graham |
Digital volume control question....
Nick Gorham wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: 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. Utter rubbish. I suggest you measure *across* it. Graham |
Digital volume control question....
"Keith G" wrote in message
"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. different. 15,300 actually..... The myth here is that Google results are unchanging. The current number is "about 14,300". YMMV. However, 10,000 or 100,000 aren't signfiicantly different in this context. It's all "lots". BTW thanks for distracting the discussion on a trivial point - that's known as the proverbial "red herring" argument. I knew you couldn't do any better than that - like try to stay relevant. |
Digital volume control question....
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message "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. different. 15,300 actually..... The myth here is that Google results are unchanging. The current number is "about 14,300". YMMV. However, 10,000 or 100,000 aren't signfiicantly different in this context. It's all "lots". BTW thanks for distracting the discussion on a trivial point - that's known as the proverbial "red herring" argument. I knew you couldn't do any better than that - like try to stay relevant. I think you were trying to point out to us all that your preferred rationale was near-ubiquitous. My point that a google search showed that 1) it's relatively minor, and 2) context is important (IOW many of those references could be critical). So I at least was trying to get to the bottom of the basis of your argument, rather than the outputs you generate. Rob |
Digital volume control question....
"Rob" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Keith G" wrote in message "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. different. 15,300 actually..... The myth here is that Google results are unchanging. The current number is "about 14,300". YMMV. However, 10,000 or 100,000 aren't signfiicantly different in this context. It's all "lots". BTW thanks for distracting the discussion on a trivial point - that's known as the proverbial "red herring" argument. I knew you couldn't do any better than that - like try to stay relevant. I think you were trying to point out to us all that your preferred rationale was near-ubiquitous. My point that a google search showed that 1) it's relatively minor, and 2) context is important (IOW many of those references could be critical). So I at least was trying to get to the bottom of the basis of your argument, rather than the outputs you generate. Take no notice of Arny, Rob - he's just whining because he got pulled up for posting a wildly inaccurate 'factoid'...!!* Ya gotta larf tho' - he introduces the point into the thread and then tries to batter me with *irrelevancy* charges! (Besides which, I already tole him it's my thread and I'll take where I want!!) Like this f'rinstance: Go scrute my new/latest 'Faure' horns: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure2.JPG The drivers are just out the box and fitted only an hour or so ago and they *already* sound very **beguiling**!! (Takes weeks to get 'em browned in properly, but they are amazing right from the off!!) My first 'custom' design (OK, *tweaked* Fostex standard design....) Gotta say it - these Visaton drivers are an absolute doddle and a fraction of the price of the equivalent Fostex units. Get them from Neil at Impact Audio: http://www.impactaudio.co.uk/ Top bloke, top service and although his main business is 'industrial' he's an audio enthusiast and very interested in the 'firewood horn' phenomenon!! What about the little placky grilles - do they look OK? * (So, what's new? :-) |
Digital volume control question....
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:21:35 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: Like this f'rinstance: Go scrute my new/latest 'Faure' horns: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure2.JPG The drivers are just out the box and fitted only an hour or so ago and they *already* sound very **beguiling**!! (Takes weeks to get 'em browned in properly, but they are amazing right from the off!!) My first 'custom' design (OK, *tweaked* Fostex standard design....) Your carpentry is definitely improving - but the cable entry? Do tell! d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Digital volume control question....
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:21:35 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: Like this f'rinstance: Go scrute my new/latest 'Faure' horns: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure2.JPG The drivers are just out the box and fitted only an hour or so ago and they *already* sound very **beguiling**!! (Takes weeks to get 'em browned in properly, but they are amazing right from the off!!) My first 'custom' design (OK, *tweaked* Fostex standard design....) Your carpentry is definitely improving - but the cable entry? Do tell! Hexcuse me? I take it you are referring to the Jerichos (the Faures are the black ones) - you tell me how you would run the cable?? See here for a glimpse of the internals: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/jerichos.JPG (Note the fakkin' sawdust everywhere!!) We *horn builders*.... pauses for effect ....like to run our cables so the drivers can be taken out in a jiffy and the cable pulled all the way out and swapped without fuss - I can thread a new cable through the big 'ole the front in moments! (The cable has a big knot in it inside, so it can't pull on the driver's connector lugs! ;-) The Faures have a standard (banana plugs &c.) terminal tray in the back, you'll no doubt be relieved to hear, you old *conventionalist*....!! :-) |
Digital volume control question....
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:54:09 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:21:35 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: Like this f'rinstance: Go scrute my new/latest 'Faure' horns: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure2.JPG The drivers are just out the box and fitted only an hour or so ago and they *already* sound very **beguiling**!! (Takes weeks to get 'em browned in properly, but they are amazing right from the off!!) My first 'custom' design (OK, *tweaked* Fostex standard design....) Your carpentry is definitely improving - but the cable entry? Do tell! Hexcuse me? I take it you are referring to the Jerichos (the Faures are the black ones) - you tell me how you would run the cable?? Getting old, y'see. These days I can't tell a Quad from a Hinari. See here for a glimpse of the internals: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/jerichos.JPG (Note the fakkin' sawdust everywhere!!) We *horn builders*.... pauses for effect ...like to run our cables so the drivers can be taken out in a jiffy and the cable pulled all the way out and swapped without fuss - I can thread a new cable through the big 'ole the front in moments! (The cable has a big knot in it inside, so it can't pull on the driver's connector lugs! ;-) The Faures have a standard (banana plugs &c.) terminal tray in the back, you'll no doubt be relieved to hear, you old *conventionalist*....!! :-) Well thank goodness for that! Don't those drivers accept standard speaker "spade" connectors - the small and a bit smaller ones? Got to be a bit easier than threading wires. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Digital volume control question....
Keith G wrote:
Take no notice of Arny, Rob - he's just whining because he got pulled up for posting a wildly inaccurate 'factoid'...!!* Ya gotta larf tho' - he introduces the point into the thread and then tries to batter me with *irrelevancy* charges! (Besides which, I already tole him it's my thread and I'll take where I want!!) Like this f'rinstance: Go scrute my new/latest 'Faure' horns: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure2.JPG Impressive! I was outnabout looking for some power tools, for shelves mainly, but with a possible 'dual use' in mind :-) In the end relied on the trusty jigsaw, but it has to be said you've got those edges sorted. Plenty of room in here for a few more speakers: http://www.ifyoucan.org.uk/music/pics/musicroom.jpg .... at the moment. I've been trying to ween myself off the Beard amp (under the telly atm) for some months now, but it's going nowhere (quite literally, weight of the bloody thing), and still does something remarkable to the music. The drivers are just out the box and fitted only an hour or so ago and they *already* sound very **beguiling**!! (Takes weeks to get 'em browned in properly, but they are amazing right from the off!!) My first 'custom' design (OK, *tweaked* Fostex standard design....) Gotta say it - these Visaton drivers are an absolute doddle and a fraction of the price of the equivalent Fostex units. Get them from Neil at Impact Audio: http://www.impactaudio.co.uk/ Top bloke, top service and although his main business is 'industrial' he's an audio enthusiast and very interested in the 'firewood horn' phenomenon!! They'd be from the 'industrial units' at about 8 quid a throw? What about the little placky grilles - do they look OK? Well, they do look a *little* bit like standard fit mid-70s Datsun :-) * (So, what's new? :-) Nowt :-) |
Digital volume control question....
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:54:09 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:21:35 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: Like this f'rinstance: Go scrute my new/latest 'Faure' horns: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure2.JPG The drivers are just out the box and fitted only an hour or so ago and they *already* sound very **beguiling**!! (Takes weeks to get 'em browned in properly, but they are amazing right from the off!!) My first 'custom' design (OK, *tweaked* Fostex standard design....) Your carpentry is definitely improving - but the cable entry? Do tell! Hexcuse me? I take it you are referring to the Jerichos (the Faures are the black ones) - you tell me how you would run the cable?? Getting old, y'see. These days I can't tell a Quad from a Hinari. See here for a glimpse of the internals: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/jerichos.JPG (Note the fakkin' sawdust everywhere!!) We *horn builders*.... pauses for effect ...like to run our cables so the drivers can be taken out in a jiffy and the cable pulled all the way out and swapped without fuss - I can thread a new cable through the big 'ole the front in moments! (The cable has a big knot in it inside, so it can't pull on the driver's connector lugs! ;-) The Faures have a standard (banana plugs &c.) terminal tray in the back, you'll no doubt be relieved to hear, you old *conventionalist*....!! :-) Well thank goodness for that! Don't those drivers accept standard speaker "spade" connectors - the small and a bit smaller ones? Yep. Got to be a bit easier than threading wires. Got nowt to do with it - you only pull the cable if you want to replace it - see the fancy 'fat speaker cable' (pricey OFC stuff) here, for example*: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/fatcable.JPG It doesn't matter how the cable is connected to the driver - personally, I can't be arsed with spades, I solder 'em and then I know they're *connected*.... (I'm with Pinky on cables - they only need to be long enough** and fat enough not to get hot, for me!! ;-) Here's a shot of the terminal tray (speaker tipped forward) to set your mind at rest - no extra chage for the 'sawdust coating'!! http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/terminaltray.JPG *would need a bigger hole drilled..... **helps!! ;-) |
Digital volume control question....
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:38:45 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: It doesn't matter how the cable is connected to the driver - personally, I can't be arsed with spades, I solder 'em and then I know they're *connected*.... I'm with you on that. But the first question still hangs there - why is that big red wire going in through the side rather than the back (not the black speaker)? d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Digital volume control question....
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:38:45 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: It doesn't matter how the cable is connected to the driver - personally, I can't be arsed with spades, I solder 'em and then I know they're *connected*.... I'm with you on that. But the first question still hangs there - why is that big red wire going in through the side rather than the back (not the black speaker)? I already tole you - how TF could you run it through this lot: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/jerichos.JPG (the top is the far end in the pic) and be able to pull it after the cabinet is built and sealed? (Forget tacking 'pull throughs' onto it - let's keep it real!) Terminal blocks/trays on these muthas just ain't done, believe me! - If I had only the one (valve) amp on the go, I would run the wires right into it and hook it directly to the trannies!! Besides, it's a *horn* thing.... :-) |
Digital volume control question....
"Rob" wrote in message ... Keith G wrote: Take no notice of Arny, Rob - he's just whining because he got pulled up for posting a wildly inaccurate 'factoid'...!!* Ya gotta larf tho' - he introduces the point into the thread and then tries to batter me with *irrelevancy* charges! (Besides which, I already tole him it's my thread and I'll take where I want!!) Like this f'rinstance: Go scrute my new/latest 'Faure' horns: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/faure2.JPG Impressive! I was outnabout looking for some power tools, for shelves mainly, but with a possible 'dual use' in mind :-) In the end relied on the trusty jigsaw, but it has to be said you've got those edges sorted. Plenty of room in here for a few more speakers: http://www.ifyoucan.org.uk/music/pics/musicroom.jpg Tray chick! :-) (Can tell you haven't got a woman shacked up there - far too tidy!! ;-) ... at the moment. I've been trying to ween myself off the Beard amp (under the telly atm) for some months now, but it's going nowhere (quite literally, weight of the bloody thing), and still does something remarkable to the music. Gerra pair o' horns on it and prepared to be *stunned* then!! The drivers are just out the box and fitted only an hour or so ago and they *already* sound very **beguiling**!! (Takes weeks to get 'em browned in properly, but they are amazing right from the off!!) My first 'custom' design (OK, *tweaked* Fostex standard design....) Gotta say it - these Visaton drivers are an absolute doddle and a fraction of the price of the equivalent Fostex units. Get them from Neil at Impact Audio: http://www.impactaudio.co.uk/ Top bloke, top service and although his main business is 'industrial' he's an audio enthusiast and very interested in the 'firewood horn' phenomenon!! They'd be from the 'industrial units' at about 8 quid a throw? Yep, them's the ones! (FR10s....) What about the little placky grilles - do they look OK? Well, they do look a *little* bit like standard fit mid-70s Datsun :-) Woah! (It just gets better 'n better, don't it!! :-)) |
Digital volume control question....
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:00:51 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:38:45 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: It doesn't matter how the cable is connected to the driver - personally, I can't be arsed with spades, I solder 'em and then I know they're *connected*.... I'm with you on that. But the first question still hangs there - why is that big red wire going in through the side rather than the back (not the black speaker)? I already tole you - how TF could you run it through this lot: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/jerichos.JPG (the top is the far end in the pic) and be able to pull it after the cabinet is built and sealed? (Forget tacking 'pull throughs' onto it - let's keep it real!) Terminal blocks/trays on these muthas just ain't done, believe me! - If I had only the one (valve) amp on the go, I would run the wires right into it and hook it directly to the trannies!! Besides, it's a *horn* thing.... :-) Easy! You could have put a couple of additional holes through the internal baffles, and pulled it through right at the stage you were at in the piccy. And I'm sure there is plenty of room for the amp in the bottom of that big speaker box - there's a new take on integrated speakers for you... d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Digital volume control question....
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:00:51 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:38:45 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: It doesn't matter how the cable is connected to the driver - personally, I can't be arsed with spades, I solder 'em and then I know they're *connected*.... I'm with you on that. But the first question still hangs there - why is that big red wire going in through the side rather than the back (not the black speaker)? I already tole you - how TF could you run it through this lot: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/jerichos.JPG (the top is the far end in the pic) and be able to pull it after the cabinet is built and sealed? (Forget tacking 'pull throughs' onto it - let's keep it real!) Terminal blocks/trays on these muthas just ain't done, believe me! - If I had only the one (valve) amp on the go, I would run the wires right into it and hook it directly to the trannies!! Besides, it's a *horn* thing.... :-) Easy! You could have put a couple of additional holes through the internal baffles, and pulled it through right at the stage you were at in the piccy. Oh, sure... These buggers weigh 55kg apiece - how much wire do want hanging off them while you work on them, shift them, paint them &c?? (Don't you like the wires where they are???) And I'm sure there is plenty of room for the amp in the bottom of that big speaker box - there's a new take on integrated speakers for you... Hmm.... Haven't you got pertaters to peel or summat?? |
Digital volume control question....
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:19:53 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: And I'm sure there is plenty of room for the amp in the bottom of that big speaker box - there's a new take on integrated speakers for you... Hmm.... Haven't you got pertaters to peel or summat?? Never peel 'em - much nicer with the skin on. Carrots, on the other hand... d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Digital volume control question....
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:19:53 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: And I'm sure there is plenty of room for the amp in the bottom of that big speaker box - there's a new take on integrated speakers for you... Hmm.... Haven't you got pertaters to peel or summat?? Never peel 'em - much nicer with the skin on. Not *mashed* they ain't!! :-) Carrots, on the other hand... Stick with the pertaters, Don - or you'll get Arny bitching about "red herrings" :-) (How TF does he manage to turn a thread about 'digital volume controls' into a discussion about *fish*?? It must be Alzheimers....!! :-) |
Digital volume control question....
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:51:18 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: Not *mashed* they ain't!! :-) Carrots, on the other hand... Stick with the pertaters, Don - or you'll get Arny bitching about "red herrings" :-) Kippers to you, mate. And then only the nasty ones from supermarkets - real ones have hardly any colour (thinking back to a trip to Arbroath years ago). (How TF does he manage to turn a thread about 'digital volume controls' into a discussion about *fish*?? It must be Alzheimers....!! :-) I thought it was supposed to be good for the brain. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Digital volume control question....
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:51:18 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: Not *mashed* they ain't!! :-) Carrots, on the other hand... Stick with the pertaters, Don - or you'll get Arny bitching about "red herrings" :-) Kippers to you, mate. And then only the nasty ones from supermarkets - real ones have hardly any colour (thinking back to a trip to Arbroath years ago). (How TF does he manage to turn a thread about 'digital volume controls' into a discussion about *fish*?? It must be Alzheimers....!! :-) I thought it was supposed to be good for the brain. No, Alzheimers is definitely *bad* for the brain.... Right, here you are then: A while back you asked for a recording from the driver level and the horn mouth on the Pinkies - not easy as the horn mouth is on the rear, but the new Faure horns exit at the front. So, with the mic positioned thusly: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/driverposition.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/hornposition.JPG I made the following (horrendous) recordings - 'normal', 'driver' and 'horn': http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Normal.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Driver.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Horn.mp3 I know the level is too high on the 'close up' recordings. I know they clip. I know they are lopsided, due to removing considerable DC Offset after they were recorded clipping*!! I know all the bad ****.... (These extracts are for an *idea* - I ain't after Plowie's job...!! ;-) (Not for fishmongers neither....!! ;-) Yes, the speakers are raw and yes, they need hoovering out already - I see the sawdust is starting to get through!! :-) Enjoy. Comment. Breathe slow. Appreciate life for the *wonderful* gift it is.... ;-) |
Digital volume control question....
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 20:36:36 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: No, Alzheimers is definitely *bad* for the brain.... Right, here you are then: A while back you asked for a recording from the driver level and the horn mouth on the Pinkies - not easy as the horn mouth is on the rear, but the new Faure horns exit at the front. So, with the mic positioned thusly: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/driverposition.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/hornposition.JPG I made the following (horrendous) recordings - 'normal', 'driver' and 'horn': http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Normal.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Driver.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Horn.mp3 I know the level is too high on the 'close up' recordings. I know they clip. I know they are lopsided, due to removing considerable DC Offset after they were recorded clipping*!! I know all the bad ****.... (These extracts are for an *idea* - I ain't after Plowie's job...!! ;-) (Not for fishmongers neither....!! ;-) Yes, the speakers are raw and yes, they need hoovering out already - I see the sawdust is starting to get through!! :-) Enjoy. Comment. Breathe slow. Appreciate life for the *wonderful* gift it is.... ;-) Ta muchly. That confirms the way I thought they worked - and the horn (transmission line) bits do seem to be tuned pretty much right. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Digital volume control question....
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:37:52 +0100, Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:04:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:51:18 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: Not *mashed* they ain't!! :-) Carrots, on the other hand... Stick with the pertaters, Don - or you'll get Arny bitching about "red herrings" :-) Kippers to you, mate. And then only the nasty ones from supermarkets - real ones have hardly any colour (thinking back to a trip to Arbroath years ago). Not to be pedantic about this, but I'm from Montrose, and an Arbroath smokie is *not* a kipper. Kippers are herrings, an Arbroath smokie is a haddock. To rotate back to a musical theme, essentially the same as Peggy Lee called a 'fine Finnan Haddie', which hails originally from Findon, further up the coast. Was that a haddock? Bugger me - I've spent the last twenty years in a state of confusion over me fish (and me a Faroe man and all!). Oh well - so where do they make kippers, then? (How TF does he manage to turn a thread about 'digital volume controls' into a discussion about *fish*?? It must be Alzheimers....!! :-) I thought it was supposed to be good for the brain. Nah, he likes valves and horns! Now, now. We must make room for all here. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Digital volume control question....
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:37:52 +0100, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Not to be pedantic about this, but I'm from Montrose, and an Arbroath smokie is *not* a kipper. Kippers are herrings, an Arbroath smokie is a haddock. To rotate back to a musical theme, essentially the same as Peggy Lee called a 'fine Finnan Haddie', which hails originally from Findon, further up the coast. No, this is a kipper: http://www.unionjackwear.co.uk/image...orgekipper.jpg (That one is in nice St. Chav colours! :-) Was that a haddock? Bugger me - I've spent the last twenty years in a state of confusion over me fish (and me a Faroe man and all!). Oh well - so where do they make kippers, then? Taiwan, probably..... (How TF does he manage to turn a thread about 'digital volume controls' into a discussion about *fish*?? It must be Alzheimers....!! :-) I thought it was supposed to be good for the brain. Nah, he likes valves and horns! Now, now. We must make room for all here. Certainly - s'not like it's overcrowded in here, izzit?? |
Digital volume control question....
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:47:59 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:37:52 +0100, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Not to be pedantic about this, but I'm from Montrose, and an Arbroath smokie is *not* a kipper. Kippers are herrings, an Arbroath smokie is a haddock. To rotate back to a musical theme, essentially the same as Peggy Lee called a 'fine Finnan Haddie', which hails originally from Findon, further up the coast. No, this is a kipper: http://www.unionjackwear.co.uk/image...orgekipper.jpg (That one is in nice St. Chav colours! :-) That truly is indescribable. Was that a haddock? Bugger me - I've spent the last twenty years in a state of confusion over me fish (and me a Faroe man and all!). Oh well - so where do they make kippers, then? Taiwan, probably..... I wish that was a joke. (How TF does he manage to turn a thread about 'digital volume controls' into a discussion about *fish*?? It must be Alzheimers....!! :-) I thought it was supposed to be good for the brain. Nah, he likes valves and horns! Now, now. We must make room for all here. Certainly - s'not like it's overcrowded in here, izzit?? HELLO (hello.... hello.... hello.... hello....). Nope, just echoes. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Digital volume control question....
"Rob" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "Keith G" wrote in message "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. different. 15,300 actually..... The myth here is that Google results are unchanging. The current number is "about 14,300". YMMV. However, 10,000 or 100,000 aren't signfiicantly different in this context. It's all "lots". BTW thanks for distracting the discussion on a trivial point - that's known as the proverbial "red herring" argument. I knew you couldn't do any better than that - like try to stay relevant. I think you were trying to point out to us all that your preferred rationale was near-ubiquitous. It's not a rationale, its a reasonably common word phrase, given that it is highly specific to the study of perception. My point that a google search showed that 1) it's relatively minor, and 2) context is important (IOW many of those references could be critical). Pardon me, but if that was truely your point, why did it take so much prodding to get it out of you? So I at least was trying to get to the bottom of the basis of your argument, rather than the outputs you generate. No, you were trying to respond to a serious discussion with redicule. End of discussion, on the grounds that casting pearls before swine is generally not wise. |
Digital volume control question....
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:47:59 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: No, this is a kipper: http://www.unionjackwear.co.uk/image...orgekipper.jpg (That one is in nice St. Chav colours! :-) That truly is indescribable. It's to go with the flags on yer car.... ;-) Was that a haddock? Bugger me - I've spent the last twenty years in a state of confusion over me fish (and me a Faroe man and all!). Oh well - so where do they make kippers, then? Taiwan, probably..... I wish that was a joke. So do I - it's not hard to find Union Jack flags with 'Made In Taiwan' printed on them!! :-( Certainly - s'not like it's overcrowded in here, izzit?? HELLO (hello.... hello.... hello.... hello....). Nope, just echoes. Future echoes?? :-) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk