[Lost81]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but this is a croak of s**t
Has anyone done any double blind tests with and without this snake oil gizmo and reported they can tell the difference every time?
Same goes for other useless artifacts such as tube dampeners, quantum physics gizmos and other exotic scams.

Your results are based on casual non-scientific observations, probably biased by the fact that you spent a lot of money for something useless that has no effect on the sound.

Troll  



 

-Lost81

[AKSA]

Hi Yuri,

Welcome to the forum, and thank you for your post.

There is a huge amount of snake oil in most technologies, particularly audio.  I cannot disagree with your sentiment, but there is more to it than simply science.......

We are dealing with people's perception, both through their ears, and their wallet.  Some people like their amplifiers on the verge of instability because it adds tizz and excitement to the sound;  often this phenomenon is exploited in the cable world.  Who is to say they are wrong?  Scientifically it would appear dead wrong, and it's certainly risky, but a moment's quiet appreciation of a less-than-competent public address system will tell you that people are extremely tolerant, even indulgent.

Finally, there is the market.  If you pay a lot of money for something, you are committed, and admitting to a ripoff is very uncomfortable.  That's fine;  everyone's budget is different, and it's their money after all, so let 'em go.

I am leery about absolutist positions on audio 'science'.  This approach has given us amplifiers with vanishingly low measured distortion and flawless reproduction of sine and square waves - but which sound appalling.  No audio science seems able to conclusively reconcile this conundrum to my satisfaction, but I'm just one opinion.   The problem with the zero distortion school would appear to be that this is not what a large proportion of audiophiles want;  the single ended triode with its huge levels of distortion illustrates this perfectly.

I once worked in IT consulting and found that whenever I took a categorical position on something some smart !@#$ always stepped up and proved me wrong.    Consequently I now mollify all my opinions, because I realize that there are a lot of people out there who are coming from the precise opposite direction, and absolutism seems to really get their blood boiling........  You can't change opinions by force!

Cheers,

Hugh

[AKSA]

Now,

Can we get back to this sat diving thang?  I'm fascinated, having enjoyed a few 'extreme' pursuits as a young man (mostly gliding, motocycles, bit of chopper work, no sea stuff sadly).

I heard recently that there is a branch of extreme depth diving which involves breathing an oxygenated fluid.  Anyone know about this?  What is this fluid?  It is said that divers can descend to ridiculous depths, but that they all retire at around 28 on a prince's ransom and then from about age 60 undergo an accelerated osteoporosis, which generally immobilizes them within a few years.

Glen, do you know much about this?

Cheers,

Hugh

[andyr]

Now,

Can we get back to this sat diving thang?  I'm fascinated, having enjoyed a few 'extreme' pursuits as a young man (mostly gliding, motocycles, bit of chopper work, no sea stuff sadly).

I heard recently that there is a branch of extreme depth diving which involves breathing an oxygenated fluid.  Anyone know about this?  What is this fluid?  It is said that divers can descend to ridiculous depths, but that they all retire at around 28 on a prince's ransom and then from about age 60 undergo an accellerated osteoporosis ...

Not quite, Hugh,  pure oxygen becomes poisonous after a certain depth (I seem to remember this is as little as 30') whereas air (which is 20% oxygen) becomes poisonous to the human system at beyond 300' (fellow divers, I know the partial pressure maths don't stack up correctly in the above but a mate of mine went down to 280' on air and survived, so ...).

In other words, "extreme depth diving" involves using "air" which has less oxygen than normal and, for even greater depth, the breathing mixture has progressively more of the nitrogen replaced by helium.

What you might be confusing "deep air diving" with is experiments where they filled the diver's lungs with oxygenated water so he breathed as though his lungs were gills - directly from this water.  Pretty damn hard to breathe but it negated the problem of lung compression with depth (which is why the aqualung feeds you air at progressively higher pressures, the deeper you go).

Regards,

Andy

[kyrill]

andyr, if lung compression becomes a greater risk at greater to extreme depth, then Hugh's suggestion that this liquid is better will be used at extreme depth diving makes sense. doesn't it?

In those environments or for whatever other reason diving-bells or heavy cumbersome diving dresses  are not suitable?

PS Did my share of "extreme depth" diving, never went deeper than 20 meters(colours become bland), to marvel at the fish (occasionally catching one for lunch) and the tropical corals . Made average trips of one hour. I was a fascinated tourist diver. Here in Holland , diving is no fun. Cold often muddy and brown to grey colors

[andyr]

andyr, if lung compression becomes a greater risk at greater to extreme depth, then Hugh's suggestion that this liquid is better will be used at extreme depth diving makes sense. doesn't it?

...

Well, yes, I suppose, Kyrill ... kindof!!

It's not the lung compressions at depth which is the problem ... it's the fact that you have to inflate them with a gas to counter the pressure of the fluid (water) between you and the surface.  What gas should you use??  Pure oxygen becomes poisonous at depth, standard air also becomes poionous at a greater depth - but also has a narcotic effect on the brain ("rapture of the deep" as Cousteau called it) - and helium causes convulsions at even greater depths.

The ideal would be an oxygenated fluid ... but that involves a great deal of muscular effort to breathe through one's lungs and it is only at the experimental stage so far.

Human/fish cloning is the answer!!

Reagrds,

Andy

[EchiDna]

Now,

Can we get back to this sat diving thang?  I'm fascinated, having enjoyed a few 'extreme' pursuits as a young man (mostly gliding, motocycles, bit of chopper work, no sea stuff sadly).

I heard recently that there is a branch of extreme depth diving which involves breathing an oxygenated fluid.  Anyone know about this?  What is this fluid?  It is said that divers can descend to ridiculous depths, but that they all retire at around 28 on a prince's ransom and then from about age 60 undergo an accel ...

ok Hugh, I aint the greatest authority on this, but I can venture a few thoughts. AFAIK, it aint a functional reality YET. The substance to "breathe" is perfluorocarbon and you can read a bit more about the theory here:
http://www.netlab.org:8000/697(1)

and in more detail here:
http://www.allp.com/LiquiVent/lv_tech.htm

Basically it is the breathing of a liquid containing oxygen. Liquids don't compress as much as a gas, thus some of the main problems with breathing air or mixed gases at depth don't exist, you can't absorb a liquid into your blood that can later form bubbles when less pressure is encountered for example.... theoretically you could get down to almost a kilometer down without a 1 atmosphere suit (the hard suits used by deep divers to prevent being crushed by the pressure).

The work you mentioned is the sat diving previously mentioned, people don't retire at 28 though, they normally start at around that age because you need a certain skill set and certain experiance and temperament before anyone would stick you into a diving bell for weeks on end. It is a mighty expensive exercise and not one undertaken with an unknown quantity such as a diver who cannot handle EVERY situation thrown at them due to inexperience or lack of both physical and mental preparedness. It is extremely tough on the body and not something to aspire to IMHO. Sure you can get paid a heck of a lot, like over a years salary in a month of work, but you can only physically do two months of work a year.

[PJ]

From what I understand about the liquid breathing stuff is that it works (people have breathed it), but the extra weight makes it VERY physically difficult to breath.

I think the other major problem is psychological...people simply cant get around breathing it, meaning that most people simply hold their breath until they either pass out or choke and involuntarily breath it in.

The deepest I have ever been was 33m in the abrohlos islands near geralton, north of perth. Not as deep as some of you guys but deep enough for me...

One of our group members suffered heavily from nitrogen narcosis and needed to surface.

[PJ]

BTw, the liquid breathing thing was first seen in The Abyss, a relatively good movie made by James Cameron in the late 80's. It stars Ed Harris.

[AKSA]

Thanks Glen,

Very interesting stuff, this PFC compound.  Must talk again with a friend about this;  he knows this diver guy and could probably find out more.

Cheers,

Hugh

[andyr]

...The deepest I have ever been was 33m in the abrolhos islands near geralton, north of perth. Not as deep as some of you guys bu ...

Hey, PJ,

Pleeze tell me more about the Abrolhos (perhaps better if you email me direct).  I have been wanting to dive the wreck of the Batavia for a long time but I met someone on a dive-boat recently who said it was fairly boring as you couldn't really see anything of the wreck itself?

Regards,

Andy

[Mark_Walsh]

Dear Fellas,

Perfluorocarbons "work" in that oxygen exchange is satisfactory (just) within the lungs with these products.  However, as someone intimated, the work of breathing is too great for human lungs to move the fluid in and out of the respiratory system.  One has to move the fluid to remove Carbon Dioxide from the system (an exponential washout curve exists ... more ventilation, better carbon dioxide removal.)

Also the potential for longer (meaning even over a few days) term damage is huge and not explored, although aapparently experiments are indicating that loss of surfactant is less of a problem with newer agents.

Having fluid in the lungs in itself does NOT remove the problems of oxygen toxicity or of pressure damage to the lungs or of nitrogen/other gas narcosis or decompression illness.  The partial pressures of whatever gases one is "breathing" at any depth remains a proportion of the total barometric pressure at that depth.  Perfluorocarbons only MAY decrease the risk of arterial gas embolism, because we do not even really know how it occurs in normal divers. (Newer perfluorocarbons may also carry less nitrogen, so MAY decrease the risk of the bends, but that is more akin to not using nitrogen in the diving mix rather than a characteristic of the fluid medium itself.)

And the requirement to "feel as though you are breathing" is more than psychological.  They physiology of the "break point", that point where you feel that you MUST breathe after holding your breath, is very complicated and much of it is probably hard wired into the central nervous system, even in the presence of normal arterial and venous blood gases and despite training, as in the free descent breath-holding divers.  Certainly, perfluorocarbon experiments on human "volunteers" require that the diver be of the "right breed" and have anxiolytic (sedative) medication to cope with the drowning sensations.  I do not know how long divers can cope with such conditions, but apparently they are (of late) surviving to tell the tale!

A much more fascinating and elegant chemical is good old pulmonary surfactant which enables our lungs to work at all, from your very first breath to your very last gasp, but this has nothing to do with our discussion about perfluorocarbon respiration.

Just my $0.03 (CPI linked),

MW

[yuri777]

Hi yuri666

By the way your link does not say anything or suggests even something about resonance damping theories or their application. But many modern speaker units and enclosures are full of resonance damping applications. Do you know why ?...  

Why are speakers enclosures dampened?
Could it be, maybe (only maybe) because speakers vibrate????  

but yes, i am sure your ears can tell in a double blind test that your CDs are vibrating from evil resonances put out by your ultra powerful speakers.
Remember, toroids, resistors, capacitors, diodes and even PCB boards themselves vibrate too!
oh, what a disgrace!

Say, would you be interested in a new cement-mixed-with-exotic-desert-sand product to help mitigate those ugly vibrations?
$100 per pound, shipping not included.
Contact me for more info.

[yuri777]

Hi Yuri,

....Who is to say they are wrong? Scientifically it would appear dead wrong, and it's certainly risky, but a moment's quiet appreciation of a less-than-competent public address system will tell you that people are extremely tolerant, even indulgent. ...

I am leery about absolutist positions on audio 'science'. ....... You can't change opinions by force!
 ...

Hi Hugh.
I am not claiming people are wrong, or right.
People are free to do and buy whatever they think is best for them, just like i am free to claim installing a two cent dampening element on a CD makes no difference in the sound whatsoever.

If an independent party is willing to do a double blind test to prove the validity of the statements, i will be convinced...

Absence of something simple such as a double blind test pretty much proves their claims are nothing but lies and the whole thing is a scam.

You are correct, audio is not an absolute science, but it could made into something more science-like, by doing simple double blind testing.
What percentage in the statistical bell curve would be able to tell   between a different set amps using the same technology in a double blind test?
I can bet the percentage is very small.
What does that tell you?

Maybe it doesn't bother you to see snake-oil salesmen big and small making wild claims about their systems and gadgets.
The easiest thing is to turn a blind eye.
Hey, let'em part their fools out of their money...
I can have my fun by exposing the scams.

I challenge the manufacturer of the gizmos to a set of double blind tests in NYC....

Sure, you can't change opinions by force, you can certainly change opinions with Education, which is what i am doing here.
There is nothing snake-oil scammers fear more than an educated consumer!

[Lost81]

Search nearly fatal

The Star
By Kevin Hoffmann

Tue, Jun. 01, 2004

A Lee's Summit man nearly drowned Monday morning while trying to recover his keys at Longview Lake.

The Missouri Water Patrol gave the following account: The man, 54, used a garden hose as a breathing tube and jumped into the lake with a rope and a 20-pound anchor tied to his waist.

He went underwater once and came up without the keys. He went down a second time, lost the garden hose and ran out of breath.

A person on the surface realized something was wrong and pulled the man out with the rope. The victim was unresponsive for a short time but began breathing on his own. He refused medical treatment.

(Source: http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/8806827.htm)

[kyrill]

Is Longview Lake near Melbourne, I suppose somehow?

[Lost81]

Your delta transport already a "senior"is well known for its low jitter.
So you can wait for the DAKSA who will not be bordered by a litle less jitter than the CAL would be capable of with the best now a days clock..
The CAl may have 50 ps jitter (very low already) but can be brought to less than 30 or even 10.

Ah, thanks!

The SuperClock (was it I or II?) claims 7 ps of jitter, with its own dedicated power supply.

There seems to be enough space in the Cal Delta to mount both via standoffs. The price of the SuperClock II with its own dedicated power supply is quite a killer though.


-Lost81

[Tinker]

The SuperClock (was it I or II?) claims 7 ps of jitter, with its own dedicated power supply.

The price of the SuperClock II with its own dedicated power supply is quite a killer though.

Have you looked into building the "Kwak clock?" I don't know what the jitter on this is, but it is meant to be very low if properly built. This might be cheaper and more fun than buying an expensive clock.

7pS ought to be pretty good. FWIW this is the data I have
-100-200pS typical "loose" PLL recovery on CD receivers
-50pS "high end" player performance - this is a good targer spec because there is a paper (somewhere) which has shown this to be a reliable jitter figure which still produces audible jitter, but is rather hard for most folk to spot.
-10-20pS "intrinsic" jitter of high quality clock oscillators, and a number of high end super players: no published data I have seen says that jitter at this level is reliably audible
-3-5pS - best published jitter spec I have seen on a commerical oscillator with a base frequency close to that of a digital audio clock

Of course a major source of jitter problems is not the clock itself but the mush that results from clock propogation through all the CD player circuitry, hence the admonition that the clock must go "right near the DAC" so that it passes through no other gates before activating the update latch on the DAC itself.

Cheers,
   T.

[kyrill]

the Kwak clock 7 is still available as a DIY but superseded by Kwak clock 8 which is by Eiso Kwak himself a magnitude better. The '8" however cannot be build, only ordered as a complete unit. And is as expensive as the (still in my opinion the best of the reasonable priced) LcAudio from Denmark

I have ordered and received the 8 and was a little disappointed how less qualitative it looks compared to the LcAudio. The LcAudio has a dedicated circuitry to balance power fluctuations which may not be on the Kwak. But the looks are of course very irrelevant. However it sounded less on the same kind of TEAC transport as the LcAudio. I must exchange the clocks to be sure.

But for the price of the 8 I would advise people to look for the LcAudio

[soitstarts]

About 8 years ago I was fortunate enough to dive at the Rowley Shoals (300 odd kays off W.A.s coast) After my mate and I did our open water course we didn't barely have time to dry ourselfs before boarding the charter. Man, I'll never forget the experience of pucking as you slip into your wetsuit and then into your respirator on your night/nav dive

Anyway, We did a 'bounce dive' and I stopped at about 33m as I was getting 'narced'. As we were filling out our log books, I asked one of the guys if I could have a look at his computer, He had gone to 91m on one of the cliff dives      Boy, was his missus dark when she found out. (Wasn't me who told her) This guy had done over 300 odd dives and was amazing to watch, he'd be in the water 15 mins longer than us and use a 3rd of the air.

Sorry to ramble on but this thread brought back some magic memories...