A social device to put others at a moral disadvantage. Me? I apply some judgement first if that rubs folks the wrong way, too bad.
Dick tells a story about mains noise and filtering, then says:
Have I got that right?
Scott then draws his own conclusions, as invited:RNMarsh said:
but Dick then complains that Scott has drawn the wrong conclusions:scott wurcer said:
So a story about mains and filters is not a story about mains and filters, and an invitation to draw our own conclusions must be understood to be an invitation to draw the same conclusions as the story teller.RNMarsh said:
Have I got that right?
What I've found for some forty-odd years is just how reluctant people can be to sit and think about things.
Just be with a problem. Calculate if you can, if things are quantitative enough at that point. But think. Ponder.
Of course this behavior tends to drive management crazy. I had the great good fortune for years of essentially being my own boss, and having an indulgent department chair and some other supporters among the rest of the faculty. But countering this advantage was a paucity of test equipment. For a long time the only scope I had was a 535 with a CA plug in. 10MHz and low sensitivity. There were a few other items. So in many cases I built my own test equipment.
In the case of the spectrometer, I couldn't spend more than $50 a day on parts. Anything over that, presuming the expenditure could be approved, had to go through the university's purchasing dept. But what this meant was rather than buying modules, I bought raw parts.
I learned a lot. And after many years, I even started to be able to estimate completion times.
Yes. I noticed when I worked in IT that as we got better software development facilities (e.g. VDU screens, interactive access to compilers) all that happened is that we could produce bad code more quickly; it still took the same time (or longer) to produce good code. The reason was that if you knew you could only get one (or maybe two) compile runs each day you spent a lot of desk time reading and re-reading your code to find as many bugs as possible.bcarso said:
Later on the temptation was to fix one problem and throw the code at the computer again. We could fairly quickly get a system which sort-of-worked but remained flaky.
Yes! I worked a mid-afternoon-into-mid-graveyard "schedule", and the few people I encountered in the middle of the night were grad students carrying stacks of punchcards down to the IBM mainframe, and returning with printouts. "Just got to fix one more bug..."
No. it wasnt and isnt about filters. Its about corellating listening with tests and measurements. Like several other examples I also gave. get it, yet?
On another subject - test equipment background --- I realize that my life may not be typical of others on this forum; I came from a lower middle class family; But I was accepted by LLNL based on a comprehensive , timed examination. I worked where we had a 1 Billion dollar a year budget for R&D. 500 of the best PHD's that could be found. A wide range of R&D - Thats all we did. For 25 years. If it had already been done, then there was no need for us to do it. Nothing made to sell. I appreciate what the best test equipment did in terms of time and speed and finding solutions to get complex projects complete on time. So, later, when i could afford it, I too invested in good test equipment and have never regretted it.
Thx,
Richard
Test equipment is fine, but your "dot" references were to listening anecdotes, not actual listening tests, so the correlations were... questionable. I don't have to tell you that a good engineer with minimal test gear will get far more accurate and useful results than a novice with a state-of-the-art lab.
Likewise, someone with a basic understanding of how to do controlled listening tests (and an appreciation of why they and their buddies are not immune to the vicissitudes of having a human brain) can accomplish far more on correlating measurements to actual SOUND than someone with a fine lab but an 18th century understanding of perception.
Likewise, someone with a basic understanding of how to do controlled listening tests (and an appreciation of why they and their buddies are not immune to the vicissitudes of having a human brain) can accomplish far more on correlating measurements to actual SOUND than someone with a fine lab but an 18th century understanding of perception.
I agree -
I agree.
I agree. Fortunately, it isnt a novice who buys complex and expensive equipment and trys to use it.
I agree here too. I knew this background before coming here with another set of points to look at. Nothing has been 'proven' either way. Just some interesting intellectual correlations, i thought. With the weight of Meta data or masses but not with individual ABX testing or other.
Thx,
Richard
I agree.
I agree. Fortunately, it isnt a novice who buys complex and expensive equipment and trys to use it.
I agree here too. I knew this background before coming here with another set of points to look at. Nothing has been 'proven' either way. Just some interesting intellectual correlations, i thought. With the weight of Meta data or masses but not with individual ABX testing or other.
Thx,
Richard
Last edited:
I just saw a wonderful PBS story with a UC Berkeley scientist -- he said they think we/they understand about 4% of what exists to be known.
Add that to what my wise Apache women friend says -- If you are so sure and think you know, then you have nothing new to learn.
Thx - Richard (Dick) Marsh
Add that to what my wise Apache women friend says -- If you are so sure and think you know, then you have nothing new to learn.
Thx - Richard (Dick) Marsh
I can tell you some funny stories also... When they see simple and elegant design, they make round eyes: "Add this took you so long time to design it?"
I can tell you some funny stories also... When they see simple and elegant design, they make round eyes: "Add this took you so long time to design it?"
Simple and (I think at least) elegant followed, when I went to work doing electronics for powered small loudspeakers. Almost diametrically opposed to the constraints of academia, although as I described my work was low-budget compared to Ed Teller's emporium at the height of the Cold War as related by Richard.
One more funny story: when I showed to my partner (marketing and purchasing guy) a picture of half-finished prototype he started crying: "You ruined so nice chassis!"
Well you have to punch some metal to make an omelette, I always say (isn't that how the saying goes?) I think that reads better than "Hog out a billet", although hog suggest bacon.
He was probably talking about dark matter/dark energy, possibly out there in galaxies and the universe. He was unlikely to be talking about audio electronics in our homes, and might conceivably be concerned to hear that his remarks might be taken out of context and misapplied to audio - unless of course you are suggesting that dark matter/energy might explain some of the mysteries which allegedly exist in audio.RNMarsh said:
People with genuine knowledge are usually acutely aware of the boundaries of that knowledge. People lacking knowledge sometimes like to pretend that everyone else is as confused as they are. And why does 'knowledge' always have to come from 'wise Apache women' or the like?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.