multiple speakers and SPL

[J M Fahey]

My personal opinion , which agrees with much of whatīs said above, is that basically and except a few Medical cases, we are all smart and have the same brains ... just we focus on different things.

Musicians sometimes tell me "you are an Encyclopedia" or "Iīd like to know many "difficult" things as you do" , etc.

REALLY? we are all the same.

Ask the typical ball head Argentine about Football (the kind played with a ball and your ... ummmm .... feet that is ) and they can tell you , play by play (not kidding) every game played by their favourite team since at least 1925, plus all World Cups and a bunch more .

We *all* have about 100 BILLION braincells ... we fill up those "bottles" with anything we fancy.

My kids, at 6/7 years old, knew by heart all 160 (or was it 320?) Pokemons, PLUS their variations/evolutions.

And so on and on and on.

It looks unusual when somebody remembers 5000 schematics or songs or ancient battles or, why not, the whole Bible, verse by verse ... no big deal, just different focusing.

As of Evolution, itīs powerful but sllloooowwwww !!!! (at least for our idea of Time).
For any relatively important change it takes, say, 10000 to 50000 years to show detectable differences ... which means we have basically same brain as our 10000 to 50000 y.o. grandparents.

[Chuck H]

My personal opinion , which agrees with much of whatīs said above, is that basically and except a few Medical cases, we are all smart and have the same brains ... just we focus on different things.

Musicians sometimes tell me "you are an Encyclopedia" or "Iīd like to know many "difficult" things as you do" , etc.

REALLY? we are all the same.

Ask the typical ball head Argentine about Football (the kind played with a ball and your ... ummmm .... feet that is ) and they can tell you , play by play (not kidding) every game played by their favourite team since at least 1925, plus all World Cups and a bunch more .

We *all* have about 100 BILLION braincells ... we fill up those "bottles" with anything we fancy.

My kids, at 6/7 years old, knew by heart all 160 (or was it 320?) Pokemons, PLUS their variations/evolutions.

And so on and on and on.

It looks unusual when somebody remembers 5000 schematics or songs or ancient battles or, why not, the whole Bible, verse by verse ... no big deal, just different focusing.

As of Evolution, itīs powerful but sllloooowwwww !!!! (at least for our idea of Time).
For any relatively important change it takes, say, 10000 to 50000 years to show detectable differences ... which means we have basically same brain as our 10000 to 50000 y.o. grandparents.

THAT^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In this regard I think we could equate evolution to advancement using eschertrons observation that homos brain is wired primarily to learn and my observation that we practice symbolic behavior. While we may be more advanced (relative to modern culture) we are not smarter.

Ancient seafaring island hoppers that eventually populated every archipelago down to Australia and back up to Japan were said to be able to read the sky, weather and cloud formations, watch migrating birds and otherwise just look around at what there was to know and could detect the presence and location of land to as much as a hundred miles!!! FWIW line of sight to the horizon is three miles. Modern mariners sort of know how they did it but so far no one today can. Many of the journeys made by these early migrants were out into the open ocean under specific weather conditions with the intention of a distance such that there was no turning back. The current archaeological record supports the likelihood that people had reached Australia by 50,000 years ago!

[Justin Thomas]

What I have read from evolutionary science is that we are getting dumber. Hunter/gather lifestyle makes you remember where every source of food is, when they will be ripe, which things will kill you if you eat them, how to kill a mammoth, etc. Oh, and a simple infection might kill you so you better be careful and not get one.

Mike Judge made a movie aboat dat...

Jusrin

[Enzo]

"Smart" is a cover term for a range of qualities. To be smart you need:

1. Basic intelligence - the ability to look at information and make valid conclusions.

2. Knowledge - data about the world in which we live.

3. Wisdom - the ability to make decisions that benefit.

An intelligent guy who knows nothing won't be "smart." A guy who knows many things but is stupid will not be "smart". And a guy who knows many things and has intelligence but is a fool, well, he isn't "smart" either.

[J M Fahey]

Ancient seafaring island hoppers that eventually populated every archipelago down to Australia and back up to Japan were said to be able to read the sky, weather and cloud formations, watch migrating birds and otherwise just look around at what there was to know and could detect the presence and location of land to as much as a hundred miles!!! FWIW line of sight to the horizon is three miles. Modern mariners sort of know how they did it but so far no one today can. Many of the journeys made by these early migrants were out into the open ocean under specific weather conditions with the intention of a distance such that there was no turning back. The current archaeological record supports the likelihood that people had reached Australia by 50,000 years ago!

Easter Island people got *stuck* there (just look at a map, thatīs *really* the middle of nowhere) because their canoes had a definite "shelf life", they rot in a few years, usually no big deal because they made new ones BUT they used all big trees as rollers to transport their head statues and some kind of rat ate the nuts which were the tree seeds so no new trees even if waiting a couple decades.

So they got stuck some 500/700 years until Europeans arrived ... but their oral tradition remembered, with precision enough to reach them, (IF they had boats that is), islands **1600 miles away to the North West**

[HaroldBrooks]

I once saw a list of all the great Polymaths from the past starting from the renaissance and it is astounding how few you have in the contemporary age, but how many there were years ago.

Great creative and multifaceted minds like Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, and Von Goethe - (just to name three) were much more common in the past than present.

Each one of the few I mentioned were responsible for Huge leaps in Science, Philosophy, Math, Engineering, Art, Literature, etc... Not in just one single area, but in several at the same time, and all at a genius level.

So IMHO, people are getting much dumber as time goes on. Look at the art, and look at the music of the past as two critical and important markers, in addition to just math and science.

Today you have a bunch of idiot savants running around pounding there chests because they are good at one thing (smart phone anyone ?). Yes, they and I would be idiots in the renaissance world, and without the comforts afforded by the successive discovery and inventions of the past, we wouldn't be able to exist as we do.

Then there's the towering Greeks and Egyptians of the ancient world... Volumes that would fill a library, it would take.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann...ity_and_crisis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci

[Leo_Gnardo]

I once saw a list of all the great Polymaths from the past starting from the renaissance and it is astounding how few you have in the contemporary age, but how many there were years ago.

Does Richard Feynmann count? Top notch "outside the box" physicist, and mad crazy bongo player. I'll give him a vote!

[Chuck H]

I once saw a list of all the great Polymaths from the past starting from the renaissance and it is astounding how few you have in the contemporary age, but how many there were years ago.

Great creative and multifaceted minds like Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, and Von Goethe - (just to name three) were much more common in the past than present.

Each one of the few I mentioned were responsible for Huge leaps in Science, Philosophy, Math, Engineering, Art, Literature, etc... Not in just one single area, but in several at the same time, and all at a genius level.

So IMHO, people are getting much dumber as time goes on. Look at the art, and look at the music of the past as two critical and important markers, in addition to just math and science.

It's true enough that most of the documentation we have today isn't written in accessible format like early on when the philosophies and sciences were part of every education. But you need to consider that our culture is very different now. And certainly there were more individuals educated in multiple disciplines, that you're correct in pointing out, we don't see today. But it's not like the shining stars of history were the only ones to exist. There were plenty of whores, whore mongers, drunkards, thuggies and blockheads. You don't read about every day village life for the town pump or the butcher. Looking at history in literature is a sort of "best of the best" and "worst of the worst" thing. And in this case "worst" means criminal genius. I really think if one could break down the language/cultural barriers that there's plenty of reference to modern day genius. If you can take it in perspective. What you're recognizing, and I do too, is that there's a substantial lack of cross reference skills between philosophies and sciences that was more apparent when more individuals were scholarly in multiple disciplines. Rare today. Well... With the exception of Juan

[Enzo]

We have our geniuses today as well, but we don't see them out here in the unwashed masses. Wonder what they will think of Alan Turing in a hundred years? How do we determine they are less common now? Over centuries there have been many, but were there several Newtons in his time? Or a half dozen DaVincis back when he was around? Who among us peons knows what is going on at CERN? Or even here at the FRIB? You could walk right past them and never know they were there.

[olddawg]

Yeah.. my bad with the name. Still loud as living f@@k... lol..

[The Dude]

Off topic, but speaking of modern day geniuses.....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/scie...age/vi-BBVQTfg

[Chuck H]

Off topic, but speaking of modern day geniuses.....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/scie...age/vi-BBVQTfg

Wow! IMO that video actually trivializes the accomplishment. But I suppose it has to be conveyed to ordinary mortals in some accessible way But really, imagine that she likely spent hours doing research on where and how to look. Not to mention learning WHERE to look for the opportunity to catch the right image that couldn't be discounted as a "nebulous cloud" or whatever (I don't know anything about it). My point is just that they sort of made it lighthearted, but I'll bet the actual process was anything but that.

[pdf64]

When this debate came around over at TGP a while back, Celestion kindly verified the +3dB thing, see https://www.thegearpage.net/board/in...#post-13867942

[J M Fahey]

I canīt log on at TGP for over a year now, can you please cut and paste here the Celestion "verification"?
Thanks.

[pdf64]

I canīt log on at TGP for over a year now, can you please cut and paste here the Celestion "verification"?
Thanks.

Oh dear, of course, the post is from user id GT100

I asked DR Decibel the question about weather adding a second cab makes it any louder.
To my surprise he couldn't give me an answer that he was sure of.
So they did the comparison in a semi anechoic chamber and plotted the results.
They sent me three pdf files:

http://home.townisp.com/~yesrie/set-up.pdf

http://home.townisp.com/~yesrie/cabinet%20response.pdf

http://home.townisp.com/~yesrie/difference curve.pdf

Here is the text from the email:

"So.. we did an experiment with two identical cabs in semi-anechoic conditions (no reflections in front of the speaker) using a microphone at a distance of 1 metre at a point between the two speakers so the distance between each speaker and the microphone was the same. The attached cabinet response shows the measured result for the single cabs in red and the two cabs together in blue. It makes no difference if the cabs are series or parallel wired. To make it clearer to see the differences I've also normalised the response of both cabs against the single cab. A guitar speaker is as pistonic as it gets around 200-800Hz and it's pretty clear there's a 3dB lift in this region. Above this frequency the cone is breaking up while becoming increasingly directional and as the mic is not pointing in the centre of the speaker the energy is dropping off. At the bottom end there is a nice boost where the speakers have coupled..."