muzzagruzz Posted November 18, 2018 Posted November 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Addicted to music said: Mmmm.... i must have the wrong M51 then....how disappointing.... Or, your particular M51 isn’t sensitive to power! You must have an extra special version, lucky you!
Martykt Posted November 18, 2018 Posted November 18, 2018 On 25/10/2018 at 1:15 PM, Yngvi said: We need a double blind test. There ya go Yngvi, tested.... all the fuses just got kinda blurry and I kept seeing two fuses for some reason..... !! Still trying to figure out the results from the triple blind test....
Addicted to music Posted November 18, 2018 Posted November 18, 2018 24 minutes ago, Martykt said: There ya go Yngvi, tested.... all the fuses just got kinda blurry and I kept seeing two fuses for some reason..... !! Still trying to figure out the results from the triple blind test.... Just to let you know and for the fun of it, i threw in a 6inch nail in the triple blind test .... now I’m totally confused, can’t tell what I did with the results..... 1
eltech Posted November 21, 2018 Posted November 21, 2018 (edited) On 25/10/2018 at 10:36 AM, Lazz said: Here are some preliminary results of my recent testing of fuses kindly supplied by Ka Lok Chan. He probably should have just recorded the output of the amp into a dummy load rather than an open air recording. It might have told us more about what the fuse is doing. It would eliminate many variables. When I was a kid - 15 years old. The fuse blew in my hand-me-down amp from my Dad so I soldered a nail where the fuse went. I thought it sounded much better. I'd never heard of audiophile fuses. But I swore by the nail. (100% true story) What's that saying again? When all you've got is a nail everything looks like a fuse? Edited November 21, 2018 by eltech 1
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted November 21, 2018 Volunteer Posted November 21, 2018 1 hour ago, eltech said: He probably should have just recorded the output of the amp into a dummy load rather than an open air recording. It might have told us more about what the fuse is doing. It would eliminate many variables. When I was a kid - 15 years old. The fuse blew in my hand-me-down amp from my Dad so I soldered a nail where the fuse went. I thought it sounded much better. I'd never heard of audiophile fuses. But I swore by the nail. (100% true story) What's that saying again? When all you've got is a nail everything looks like a fuse? presumably the fuse blew for a reason, perhaps a lucky escape for you if you just stuck a nail in there instead 1
davewantsmoore Posted November 22, 2018 Posted November 22, 2018 On 11/11/2018 at 8:41 AM, agelessgoodguy said: Has anyone concerned thought to write to author about his testing, readings and results etc, he's on FB? On 11/11/2018 at 2:13 PM, davewantsmoore said: I just shot off a question, and will let you know the answer. On 18/11/2018 at 7:43 PM, muzzagruzz said: Other important considerations concern his testing methodology. I got a reply from Pete Kendall. The data was captured using a handheld smartphone.
eltech Posted November 22, 2018 Posted November 22, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said: presumably the fuse blew for a reason, perhaps a lucky escape for you if you just stuck a nail in there instead From memory I first wrapped the blown fuse in aluminium foil. The amp powered up and worked, so I then installed the permanent solution... I thought you'd know the other saying which is that the transistor is there to protect the fuse Edited November 22, 2018 by eltech 1 2
muzzagruzz Posted November 22, 2018 Posted November 22, 2018 1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said: I got a reply from Pete Kendall. The data was captured using a handheld smartphone. Wow, a smartphone. I’m really impressed at the level of sophistication he has employed.
davewantsmoore Posted November 22, 2018 Posted November 22, 2018 He commented that "while the smartphone has limitations ... they are the same for each fuse". This overlooks the fact that if you take multiple reading of the same sound, with the handheld smartphone .... they will all be different. It is simply not accurate enough to capture this level of detail repeatably. 2
Addicted to music Posted November 22, 2018 Posted November 22, 2018 51 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said: He commented that "while the smartphone has limitations ... they are the same for each fuse". This overlooks the fact that if you take multiple reading of the same sound, with the handheld smartphone .... they will all be different. It is simply not accurate enough to capture this level of detail repeatably. .....now that will come down to the type of phone he is using..... the results IMHO is that if he used an ifone, the results will be ......
davewantsmoore Posted November 22, 2018 Posted November 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Addicted to music said: .....now that will come down to the type of phone he is using..... the results IMHO is that if he used an ifone, the results will be ...... The bigger issue is that it is handheld.
Addicted to music Posted November 22, 2018 Posted November 22, 2018 Just now, davewantsmoore said: The bigger issue is that it is handheld. Nuffing wring with a handheld device Dave, it’s the operator who’s at fault for inaccurate readings... 1
joz Posted November 22, 2018 Posted November 22, 2018 5 hours ago, davewantsmoore said: I got a reply from Pete Kendall. The data was captured using a handheld smartphone. What he asked Siri? 2
Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted November 23, 2018 Posted November 23, 2018 On 22/11/2018 at 7:33 PM, Addicted to music said: Nuffing wring with a handheld device Dave, it’s the operator who’s at fault for inaccurate readings... Would a smartphone held in place, for example on a suitable tripod, work?
davewantsmoore Posted November 23, 2018 Posted November 23, 2018 18 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said: Would a smartphone held in place, for example on a suitable tripod, work? It would be better. Then it would come down to the specific microphone. A super duper high quality microphone isn't as important as some might expect ..... but you need to know you are obtaining repeatable data (by taking repeat data, and comparing it).
Zaphod Beeblebrox Posted November 24, 2018 Posted November 24, 2018 15 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said: Would a smartphone held in place, for example on a suitable tripod, work? As Dave said, it would be better. However, the experiment is daft. I have been trying to think of a suitable analogy in an area that is more easily understood. I believe I have worked something out: It would be like trying to work out how much power a car has, by measuring the amount that the planet's rotation is slowed, by a car accelerating on a drag strip that has been oriented East - West. IOW: There are easier, more accurate ways to determining such things. Taking a photo of an audible result is stupid.
sloper Posted November 24, 2018 Posted November 24, 2018 2 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said: It would be like trying to work out how much power a car has, by measuring the amount that the planet's rotation is slowed, by a car accelerating on a drag strip that has been oriented East - West. There would be 2 cars on the dragstrip so the results are null and void much like unscientific tests, with no defined method or calibrated test equipment. regards Bruce
Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted November 24, 2018 Posted November 24, 2018 6 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said: As Dave said, it would be better. However, the experiment is daft. I have been trying to think of a suitable analogy in an area that is more easily understood. I believe I have worked something out: It would be like trying to work out how much power a car has, by measuring the amount that the planet's rotation is slowed, by a car accelerating on a drag strip that has been oriented East - West. IOW: There are easier, more accurate ways to determining such things. Taking a photo of an audible result is stupid. I believe the experiment was based on recording through the inbuilt microphone of the smartphone, not taking a photo. Unfortunately the recordings were taken from different positions relative to the speakers.
davewantsmoore Posted November 25, 2018 Posted November 25, 2018 On 24/11/2018 at 12:08 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox said: As Dave said, it would be better. However, the experiment is daft. If we are trying to work out what are the differences .... Recording the output of speakers with a microphone is a lot better than analysing the output of the speakers with ears. ... but the trick is ensuring that good data is captured, and then presenting and analysing it in a meaningful way. That wasn't done at all. I would very much guess that the data is garbage ... but any, even half arsed, analysis of the data would have shown that one way or another. Of course, poking around inside the amp, or measuring the output of the amp .... would be a much better plan, as it removes the variables of the speaker from the equation. On 24/11/2018 at 6:58 PM, Eggcup The Daft said: I believe the experiment was based on recording through the inbuilt microphone of the smartphone, not taking a photo. Yes, that's what he did. The "take a photo" part was when he captured the screenshot of the data that was on the phone's screen. On 24/11/2018 at 6:58 PM, Eggcup The Daft said: Unfortunately the recordings were taken from different positions relative to the speakers. He said it was "taken from the same position" .... but with a smartphone microphone, even the smallest movement of the mic, or the smallest change in position, will show a huge change in the captured response.
Recommended Posts