Advice: Amp building
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:42:50 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote

snipt 4 now

OK. What do we try next - different flavour ice cream??

:-)


Well, OK. Provided they are from Marine Ices opposite the Roundhouse.
They've been there about fifty years, make their own and they are
incomparable. Sorry, that means we can't compare them, I think ;-)


Don, I'm late for outta here - I'll get back later or tomorrow am.

I think the bottom line is you're going to hafta pootle up here with a
selection of those ices in a cold box and here my stuff for yourself. Then
you can report back to the group how crap it all is!! :-)


tugs waistband straight on underpants, flings back cloak


**Up, up and awaaaaayyyy**....!!

whoooossshhhh

:-))


Now there's a thought; may well happen too. I'll have to check out the
temperature profile of cold boxes first.


Won't you need the initial temperature of the ices and the ambient
temperature in your car to get anything like a meaningful graph?

:-)

Anyway, always welcome if you are curious enough to venture that far from
the Smoke!! ;-)

Advice: Amp building
 

In article , Nick
Gorham
wrote:
Rob wrote:


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.

Well I think its a central point of the method that for something to
exist it should be observable, either directly or through its effect on
other things.

I've not yet checked the reference myself. The requirement for
observability is nominally a pre-condition for the method to be applicable.
Not part of the actual method as such. However a report of a
perception *could* be an 'observable'. But you would then need to employ
appropriate experimental protocols, etc, as I've tried to explain in
another posting. The reason being that the exprimental/test protocol would
have to test if the report by the listener was reliably linked to what
they said was the 'cause', or was due to something else.

The scientific method is quite applicable in such cases. However the
experimental proceedures required can be quite time consuming and
demanding. This in turn means that explaining their relevance can be quite
complicated. I had a stab in the previous posting, but I'm not sure how
clear that was, despite being long.

This topic does crop up every now and then on this group, and a full
explanation can be quite long and complex, so I may have a go sometime at
writing out a considered explanation of the method and experimental
techniques, as they would apply in a case like reports of a perceived
change in the 'sound' which are then said to be due to a change of
something like an amplifier or a cable or some other item. Then put this on
a webpage. People could then read this and comment on it, and I could
correct it until it was fairly clear.




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

Its an odd think Wiki, I don't think its any less accurate than most
other sources, its just its inaccuracy is obvious, where most texts as
they have no means of being changed are assumed to be fixed in stone.
Its at least as accurate as any history book, it works on the basis of
the truth being what enough people agree it is :-).

Alas, that isn't how the scientific approach works... ;-

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

Advice: Amp building
 

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:24:30 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Rob wrote:


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.

Well I think its a central point of the method that for something to
exist it should be observable, either directly or through its effect on
other things.


I think you have that backwards. For a thing to be observable, it
should exist. The other way round is dependent on the state of the
art.


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

Its an odd think Wiki, I don't think its any less accurate than most
other sources, its just its inaccuracy is obvious, where most texts as
they have no means of being changed are assumed to be fixed in stone.
Its at least as accurate as any history book, it works on the basis of
the truth being what enough people agree it is :-).

It is possibly more accurate, as we (I'm assuming it is we and not
just me) don't particularly believe what it says, and search out
alternatives for confirmation.

d

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

Advice: Amp building
 

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:26:01 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


Waddya mean hassle? You'd have been bored silly. Within a couple of
days you'd have been in the shed bolting a steam engine into your lawn
mower. :-)



No need - there's nothing wrong with the one that's already on it! ;-)


Watt or Trevithick?

d

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

Advice: Amp building
 

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:26:51 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


It all revolves around the use of English, when it comes down to it
really, doesn't it? For me the word better in the context of a
reproduction system has an objective measure to do with comparing what
comes out with what goes in. For you it is just another word for
preferable. We ain't gonna agree here, are we?


Nope! :-)

It's the same with 'accurate' - that means *sounds right* to me, AFAIAC it's
got bugger-all to do with 'distortion figures'...!!


Tell me, when you are cutting firewood for your speakers what do you
consider to be accurate? Looks right or measures right? I know I can't
eyeball stuff like that - the ruler is boss.



OK. What do we try next - different flavour ice cream??

:-)


Well, OK. Provided they are from Marine Ices opposite the Roundhouse.
They've been there about fifty years, make their own and they are
incomparable. Sorry, that means we can't compare them, I think ;-)


A sort of small 'high end, cottage industry' manufacturer that renders the
cheap, mass-produced stuff somewhat bland and uninspiring by comparison,
then....???

:-)


Yup - just as well there wasn't an original ice cream they were trying
to make it taste like, innit?

d

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

Advice: Amp building
 

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:27:30 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Now there's a thought; may well happen too. I'll have to check out the
temperature profile of cold boxes first.


Won't you need the initial temperature of the ices and the ambient
temperature in your car to get anything like a meaningful graph?

:-)

The aircon almost forms icicles on max. I think I'll be ok.


Anyway, always welcome if you are curious enough to venture that far from
the Smoke!! ;-)


Ta very much - I'll let you know.

d

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

Advice: Amp building
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:26:51 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


It all revolves around the use of English, when it comes down to it
really, doesn't it? For me the word better in the context of a
reproduction system has an objective measure to do with comparing what
comes out with what goes in. For you it is just another word for
preferable. We ain't gonna agree here, are we?


Nope! :-)

It's the same with 'accurate' - that means *sounds right* to me, AFAIAC
it's
got bugger-all to do with 'distortion figures'...!!


Tell me, when you are cutting firewood for your speakers what do you
consider to be accurate? Looks right or measures right? I know I can't
eyeball stuff like that - the ruler is boss.


Oh no it ain't....! :-)

Like everything else, you measure some bits and others have to 'toe the
line'...!! (IYSWIM)

Explanation: The designs/drawings I have used often have dimensions like
'53.6 mm' which just ain't going to happen (other than by luck) when working
with MDF - even the board supplier/fabricator near me only claims working
accuracy to 0.5 mm!! And quite often the dimensions simply do not add up!
Sometime you have to decide which is the important dimension and the board
gets cut where it hits the pencil mark!!

Tell you what - if you do come up and get here early enough I can
demonstrate this and you can take a pair of Needles away with you:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/needles/needles.htm

(I still have this notion that a couple of people *working nippy* can knock
a pair of these up in an afternoon and emulsion paint dries in 20 minutes
this time of the year!! ;-)

Are they worth having? Oh yes - fine for a small room or used as computer
speakers! (At least *two here* have looked for the subwoofer they don't have
and don't need! ;-)


A sort of small 'high end, cottage industry' manufacturer that renders the
cheap, mass-produced stuff somewhat bland and uninspiring by comparison,
then....???

:-)


Yup - just as well there wasn't an original ice cream they were trying
to make it taste like, innit?


You mean their 'chocolate' flavour doesn't taste like chocolate then??

(What about 'vanilla'? What does that taste like?? :-)

Advice: Amp building
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:26:01 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


Waddya mean hassle? You'd have been bored silly. Within a couple of
days you'd have been in the shed bolting a steam engine into your lawn
mower. :-)



No need - there's nothing wrong with the one that's already on it! ;-)


Watt or Trevithick?



*Garratt* of course! (Wot else? :-)

http://users.powernet.co.uk/hamilton/

(One of the *inventors* of the 'production line' assembly method, btw -
ignore all that **** about Henry Ford.....)

Advice: Amp building
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:27:30 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Now there's a thought; may well happen too. I'll have to check out the
temperature profile of cold boxes first.


Won't you need the initial temperature of the ices and the ambient
temperature in your car to get anything like a meaningful graph?

:-)

The aircon almost forms icicles on max. I think I'll be ok.


OK, but you'll have to factor in your journey time. Don't know about up to
the North Circular (4 mph?) but you can put 85 mph down as a comfortable
average for the A1..!! ;-)





Anyway, always welcome if you are curious enough to venture that far from
the Smoke!! ;-)


Ta very much - I'll let you know.



OK. Weekends are not best (off out again in a few minutes!!) - otherwise
anytime!

Advice: Amp building
 

In article ,
Wally wrote:
The best recordings capture the performance and the acoustic of the
venue very closely indeed ...

Which is all fine and jolly, provided we like the acoustic of the venue.

If you don't, buy a different recording.

... - and just simply won't be 'improved' by
anything you do at home. Changed, however, they certainly can be.

Indeed, and if it is being changed, then I think the idea is to change
it to something that is preferred.

Which really can't be done with any success without ruining the sound of
the instruments.

--
*A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all *

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