You're picking up the strawman technique from Trevor?
As you wish.
Alternatively, you could participate in the discussion by answering my question to you earlier. Its a characteristic of trolls to make claims but then not return to engage in the resulting discussion.
Fair enough - I guess I owe you an answer. I have no idea if you are an engineer or not. I also don't know anything about Charles Altmann, but this is what he himself states: "I have been tweaking with audio amplifiers for some time. Although I have studied electronics some years ago, as I started with amps, I had no idea of how an audio amplifier would function."
Does that make him a qualified engineer? I don't know.
Now, how about you, in turn, telling what this has to do with anything at all?
So it rather looks like your original contention 'all engineers' doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.
Notice that you yourself moved the discussion onto engineers, now you change 'engineer' into 'qualified engineer'.
What it has to do with anything at all is for you to tell us, seeing as you brought the 'hive mind' of 'all engineers' up. What was your point precisely? If you were saying that a large proportion of engineers in digital audio engage in groupthink then I find myself agreeing with you.
Notice that you yourself moved the discussion onto engineers, now you change 'engineer' into 'qualified engineer'.
What it has to do with anything at all is for you to tell us, seeing as you brought the 'hive mind' of 'all engineers' up. What was your point precisely? If you were saying that a large proportion of engineers in digital audio engage in groupthink then I find myself agreeing with you.
The hive mind quip was only in response to your assumption that I somehow was the user "skamp" on another board - just because I borrowed one line from the posting you linked to.
You put a smiley after your "You are skamp and I claim my five pounds" statement, so I assumed it was fair game to continue in a facetious style.
Let's not get into a discussion about audiophile groupthink...
Lobby Lud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So would you like to substantiate the claim or were you just parroting skamp? If you really mean it then let's see some meat on the bones so we have something real to chew on. I took it you just put it in as a throwaway since you provided no corroboration for its veracity.
Ah I wasn't talking about 'audiophile' groupthink, I agree that would be quite boring. If you note I referred to engineers in digital audio which isn't quite the same group of people.
I think it is a "claim" in the same sense as your claim about me being "skamp".
But I guess a reference to the wikipedia entry on the appropriate idiom/meme is called for:
Drinking the Kool-Aid
And on that bombshell....
Exhibit one for why its you that's drunk the Kool-Aid. It was a question not a claim, but for some reason (perhaps sloppy editing, perhaps Freudian who knows?) you deleted the question mark. It was a question in the form of an invitation - will you put up, or shut up?
Exhibit one for why its you that's drunk the Kool-Aid. It was a question not a claim, but for some reason (perhaps sloppy editing, perhaps Freudian who knows?) you deleted the question mark. It was a question in the form of an invitation - will you put up, or shut up?
I know I really should not respond to this any more, but I call your BS.
Here is the *full* quote of your message:
You are skamp and I claim my five pounds
Could you please point out the question mark I deleted?
And on that bombshell....
<edit> Its struck me on reflection that the sentence you began with 'I think its a claim' might have been referring to your own earlier posting concerning Kool-Aid and I took the 'it' to refer to what you'd quoted directly above coz I can't think why you would have an opinion (rather than direct knowledge) of what you yourself wrote.
Attachments
Last edited:
Where have I used a strawman fallacy ?
You have failed to show me people who design silicon based on non technical objectives that can't be quantified. I just gave you a few examples of silicon fabs that design silicon such as audio power devices used in audio applications based purely on technical objectives !! None of that subjective clap-trap that you go on with comes into it at all !! The silicon in DSP's is not designed based on subjective audio qualities and yet they are used for audio applications as well as many non audio related applications.
If anything it is you that keeps resorting to the use of fallacy of special pleading by saying that subjective performance is not relevant or important in audio design because it is audio !! You have not proven why audio is the exception to the rule !!
Last edited:
Check back over the thread - I've pointed the places out and quoted you so as to make it clear.
The evidence speaks against you on this claim. I showed you but you refused to look - saying an hour of your time was too long. One can lead a horse to water....
I think you mentioned one (Sanken was it?) and I've not disputed it.
Chapter and verse for the alleged 'subjective clap-trap' ?
I agree. What's the problem?
Because that audio is a special case hasn't been my argument anywhere on this thread. Do you ever give up with the strawmen?
Hee-hee - this thread is getting every bit as silly as I expected it would. We want to improve digital sound, but not by improving the numbers. Conventional engineering measurements seem to be excluded, for being hopelessy 'subjective' - a post on another site asking for numbers being ridiculed by the OP. I note that the poster over there was not asking for just numbers, but numbers to augment the recommendations he had already seen. It seems a reasonable request, except to a rabid 'subjectivist'.
The OP now says he has some news for us which he will reveal in due course. So this is a blog. The first post does not actually say what the purpose of the thread is. It just says that the thread should use a systems perspective, while it pursues the unstated aim. The OP must understsand that this forum area hosts public conversations; private conversations and blogs belong elsewhere.
I have seen threads like this before, where the OP keeps dangling some supposed new idea before us. When it eventually emerges into the daylight it usually turns out to be either wrong or trivial. People with a genuine new idea usually put it in the first post so we can all see it and comment on it.
The OP now says he has some news for us which he will reveal in due course. So this is a blog. The first post does not actually say what the purpose of the thread is. It just says that the thread should use a systems perspective, while it pursues the unstated aim. The OP must understsand that this forum area hosts public conversations; private conversations and blogs belong elsewhere.
I have seen threads like this before, where the OP keeps dangling some supposed new idea before us. When it eventually emerges into the daylight it usually turns out to be either wrong or trivial. People with a genuine new idea usually put it in the first post so we can all see it and comment on it.
Check back over the thread - I've pointed the places out and quoted you so as to make it clear.
The evidence speaks against you on this claim. I showed you but you refused to look - saying an hour of your time was too long. One can lead a horse to water....
and you couldn't even provide a summary of that video and why it is relevant to your argument. !!
You may as well have posted a link to a movie.
And yet again you did not listen to my explanation for why I didn't provide it. Because I'm unwilling. The 'relevance to my argument' bit is a new introduction though and its relevant to rebutting your earlier claim. If you check back you might find out which of your many unsubstantiated claims it fits.
As Krishnamurti once remarked, truth has to be ascended to, it can't be brought down.
Is it the royal we - can I take it you're on board with the central premise then?
That would be you choosing to see what you want to see. I'm not excluding them - here's a quote from my first post:
This doesn't mean the traditional measurements no longer matter, but that they're not so appropriate to focus on when the aim is subjective enjoyment.
Indeed its worthy of ridicule.
Asking for the numbers is a reasonable request I agree.
The word 'news' wasn't a word I used, nor is it my meaning. Again you choosing to spin the thread the way you'd like to spin it
Indeed he does understand that, the description 'blog' is your term again not mine. More spin
Its again your spin that this thread is about 'some new idea'.
Not such a bad attempt at a troll DF96 but no dice this time
Since you fessed up to expectations at the start I put the whole post down to confirmation bias myself, but I'm not sure how to test my hypothesis. Any ideas anyone?
Last edited:
And I'm unwilling to waste an hour of my time to scour through a video when you can't even provide a summary or reference points in that video. Posting a link to a video without any additional comments is just a classic red herring and would not be accepted by any reputable academic or professional institution.
The new idea is in his blog. His dac design breaks every engineering rule in the book. It can't possibly work properly ever !! Without a proper pcb design with ground plane it will have loads of ground bounce and EMC issues, let alone added noise and distortions
Sorry abaxilotto you'll have to do better than that. In this case the measurements will definitely confirm the poor performance of this design !
Last edited:
As we are into red herrings and straw men, I might as well chuck in this. The relevant part comes at 6:15: KLF - The Rites Of Mu.
I suggest we all step back, get our popcorn, and wait for abraxalito to present his ideas - no point in getting into a pointless argument about semantics unless he/she actually presents something worth spending mental energy on.
His dac design breaks every engineering rule in the book. It can't possibly work properly ever!! Without a proper pcb design with ground plane it will have loads of ground bounce and EMC issues, let alone added noise and distortions
As he/she confirms himself/herself: "The prototype is listenable now, but a bit too much background noise/hum pickup to do serious listening."
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.