Advice: Amp building
 

Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote


I think that works pretty well. Over on the digital tv ng (where DP is
sweetness and light!) you wouldn't believe the evangelism that goes with
the CRT/LCD/plasma etc debate (well, you would), all backed up with some
stonking technobabble. Understanding that 'preference counts' causes all
sorts of difficulties.


I've only just twigged 'DP' - I thought it was a typo for 'DLP'!!

:-)

Still telling people they are *wrong* is he??

No - it's curious, he's hardly ever argumentative, and often offers
advice, mainly recommending his own telly stuff. He even asks questions :-)

Rob

Advice: Amp building
 

Another Wally wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
I don't agree. The technology is led by the tobacco and petrochemical
industries from what little I see and know. Now the art *and* science of
motor racing (and indeed audio) is something I'm interested in, but I
can't see it getting many ng inches here at least. Can you explain in
scientific terms why Schumacher (say, erm Michael) drives cars faster than
anyone else? I would wager that his car is set up in some very peculiar
ways, as his team techs see it.



Michael Schumacher has judgement and reflexes that, on a good day, give him
an edge on his opposition. The team is at the forefront of the sport with
much money to spend to assist in maintaining that position. Team techs are
not there to set the car up in any non-peculiar ways, they are there to make
adjustments that result in faster lap times while maintaining reliability
and keeping the relevant stresses and wear rates within what are determined
to be acceptable limits for the event. In lower levels of competition you do
get drivers with undesirable driving techniques who require the car to be
set up in "peculiar ways" for them to achieve their fastest times, however,
these drivers are typically not competative in the highest levels of racing.



I didn't know that was all there was to it, but there it is. How do you
know that btw - is it in an autobiog or something?

Rob

Advice: Amp building
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Don Pearce
wrote:

The 'analogy' Andy gave was, actually, quite useful - it does show his
lack of grasp of the scientific method and how it can be applied in
such cases. The key point is, indeed, that you would *measure the
results*. However it is more than that.


What is 'the' scientific method - intrigued!

Pretty much, it what I summarised. The key point is that you set out to
collect data in a way that allows you to assess the results for relevance,
reliability, etc. In particular, you test in ways where the outcome can
'falsify' the ideas you before you started.

That's fine, but I'm concerned about where your original
ideas/hypotheses come/came from.

The purpose of collecting a fair amount of data/results is to enable you to
see if the results aren't likely to be due to 'chance'. It also is to allow
you to 'randomise' other factors which may be altering the individual
results as a result of an uncontrolled variable.


Are you saying that any one circumstance (a fast lap time, say) can be
explained by a finite number of variables? Is that the theory behind
your method? I don't think you're saying quite that (yours might be a
reasonable or approximate truth), but in this context I'm unclear
how/why/if you rank variables. To understand 'the' method I'd have to
know how, as a point of method, these things are dealt with.

The purpose of trying to exclude some factors (e.g. not telling the
'driver' what arrangement/chance is being tried) is to see if their
opinions on what is going on mean anything.

That's OK as it goes, and is a reference to DBT I suppose. The problem
in an audio context (and motoring) is that you cannot, I think, isolate
or reduce testing to fixed/certain variables.

The idea is also to see if you can 'catch out' the ideas people have and
find they have flaws, or are making an error. Not simply to find 'support
for a belief'.

The actual experimental protocol would vary according to the aims of the
specific area being investigated. So for a specific case we'd have to lay
out a more detailed set of methods.


There is a simple difference in your view of 'the' scientific method and
mine. I believe that some data is not not 'seen', and some is not
measurable in a consistent fashion. I would cite the driver's actions
and the
listener's experience here. Your method, as I see it, could relegate
these variables during tests in an unacceptable way.

If you wanted to check if what the driver said was reliable, you would
repeatedly make small changes *without the driver knowing the details*
and then observe the results. You would do this enough times in a
'randomised' manner to get results whose sigificance could be assessed
for reliability.

This would mean that not only you could determine which 'changes' or
arrangements were 'best' for the task. It would also tell you if the
driver's opinions were any guide to this, or not.


Maybe, but you wouldn't necessarily end up with a very good, or
consistently quick, car.

Indeed. There is no guarantee in advance that ones ideas or experiments
will lead to any specific desired 'result' in terms of performance. The
process does stand a good chance of doing so, however, if the participant's
ideas have any real relevance and worth. But all the scientific method
promises is that you can test and assess the results, and that others can
also do so for themselves and *not* simply have to accept your conclusions
simply because you assert them.


I'd agree, but that comes back to ideas, variables, recording results,
analysis and conclusions. These are not matters of on/off/yes/no (etc.),
and I would have thought any 'the method' would have ways of dealing
them. I'm afraid I still don't know what this is - I'll keep looking
though :-)

Rob

Advice: Amp building
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:53:45 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

And sound from an audio system differs from this... how?
In that there is an original to which it may aspire. ...
What does aspiration to an original have to do with getting the emotional
response you want from what you hear?


If you believe that the musicians, singers etc have a clue what they
are doing, and publish a product containing the emotion they want to
impart, then a system that delivers that without overlaying a load of
other stuff is a very useful aspiration.


I think you're absolutely right - a system that conveys emotion. If your
system does that - gets most of that message across as you
remember/interpret it, then so much the better. I think we'd agree that
'emotion' can't be bottled, much less measured.

It is perfectly possible, as Keith has ably demonstrated, to put
together a system with totally different aspirations, but that is a
very idiosyncratic point of view and hence in the long run probably
unhelpful as a paradigm.
Why is it unhelpful?

The word idiosyncratic would be the important one.


I don't think Keith has a different set of aspirations, although I do
think his approach is unorthodox and out of the box (so to speak). It's
certainly changed my way of thinking about reproducing music.

Rob

Advice: Amp building
 

Rob wrote:


I'd agree, but that comes back to ideas, variables, recording results,
analysis and conclusions. These are not matters of on/off/yes/no (etc.),
and I would have thought any 'the method' would have ways of dealing
them. I'm afraid I still don't know what this is - I'll keep looking
though :-)

Rob



I may have got this wrong, but if you are looking for a description of
"The" scientific method, this is a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

--
Nick

Advice: Amp building
 

Nick Gorham wrote:
Rob wrote:


I'd agree, but that comes back to ideas, variables, recording results,
analysis and conclusions. These are not matters of on/off/yes/no
(etc.), and I would have thought any 'the method' would have ways of
dealing them. I'm afraid I still don't know what this is - I'll keep
looking though :-)

Rob



I may have got this wrong, but if you are looking for a description of
"The" scientific method, this is a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


Cheers Nick - you're quite right in the sense of Jim's post. My point
was that there are other methods, and anomalies within that method, and
reliance on observable phenomena (which that methods tends towards) will
end in tears.

I'd add that the good ol' Wiki is not always accurate - I've put a
couple of things up that have never been challenged or edited.
Frightening :-)

Rob

Advice: Amp building
 

In article ,
Wally wrote:
Why should he?

So that it has some meaning?

What makes you think it hasn't?

Words generally do. When used correctly.

--
*Don't use no double negatives *

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

Advice: Amp building
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
I think that works pretty well. Over on the digital tv ng (where DP is
sweetness and light!) you wouldn't believe the evangelism that goes with
the CRT/LCD/plasma etc debate (well, you would), all backed up with some
stonking technobabble. Understanding that 'preference counts' causes all
sorts of difficulties.

Nothing like the technobabble you get here.

If someone wants a TV they can hang on the wall, they have no option but
to get a plasma or LCD type. And if you want a large screen CRT is ruled
out.

However, for the very best quality picture up to about 32", CRT wins every
time.

In the larger screen sizes of floor standing installations there are pros
and cons between LCD, Plasma and DLP. I chose DLP because space isn't a
problem and it is better value for money.

--
*If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?

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

Advice: Amp building
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Wrong Don. (At least in my case!) I have almost no originals to compare
- when I play music it is the original. Fidelity to me is being able to
tell a violin from a viola, or a clart from an oboe or tenor saxophone,

You have pretty low sights, then, given very basic equipment will allow
this.

it's got bugger all to do with how the music might have sounded in some
venue somewhere, half a century ago!

You don't think reproduced music should sound 'like it did'?

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

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

Advice: Amp building
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
It helps, I think, to remember that the amplifier is only one part in
the 'music replay' chain and how an amp works in a system is more
important to me than how it may measure in isolation.....

A decent amp will work in any system. A poor one may require compromises
load wise, etc. Unless you are specifically tailoring an amp to a speaker
- which is often done in pro use, but scientifically, it becomes nothing
but a pleasurable guessing game.

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

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