I agree that the method has flaws and I have never made any claims regarding audibility implications of such measurements. But it makes me wonder why you have promoted that thread more than 10 times, and even on other forums.
Because I think people should know there is a method that works with something they are probably already familiar with, FFTs. That's true even though the method is nonquantitative. At least it gives people something.
Also I think it gives some physical insight in to what noise skirts are, and how they relate to spectral lines (which to say how the skirts relate to frequencies).
Also I think it gives some physical insight in to what noise skirts are, and how they relate to spectral lines (which to say how the skirts relate to frequencies).
Last edited:
We again have the disconnect and cognitive dissonance between objective performance quantification and audible performance impairments with music.
If we measure for measurements sake, without working on reconciling measurements with audible fidelity impairments, we are wasting time better used for other things.
ASR is a bunch of most unscientific mouthebanks and carnifolk practicing a cargo cult ("The Cult of SINAD" ?). They pretend to act in a manner that is scientific, is made to appear scientific, but in reality is the anathema of science. And no, I'm not saying that because I got banned there, I got banned there because I said this, defended my position and in painstaking detail supported my position.
Just like HD, noise and pretty much everything else in audio, connected to human hearing absolute values are meaningless, everything imust be weighted based on human hearing.
I lost the gfx from a book, it was one of my favorite examples, which illustrated that the 100th harmonic at a level of -100dB can be audible in the presence of -30dB H2, that is at a nominal SPL of 100dB @ 20Hz and based on actual science.
Phase noise aka jitter audibility needs weighting, to judge if (say) 100pS RMS total phase noise of a certain spectrum is at least potentially audible in itself, what secondary effects may occur and what the audibility potential is.
It is the step of reconciling real word happenings with the abstract that makes science and validated the existence of science and it's useful to Humanity. Otherwise we might as well have stuck witchdoctring which would be equally useful and valid.
If we measure for measurements sake, without working on reconciling measurements with audible fidelity impairments, we are wasting time better used for other things.
ASR is a bunch of most unscientific mouthebanks and carnifolk practicing a cargo cult ("The Cult of SINAD" ?). They pretend to act in a manner that is scientific, is made to appear scientific, but in reality is the anathema of science. And no, I'm not saying that because I got banned there, I got banned there because I said this, defended my position and in painstaking detail supported my position.
Just like HD, noise and pretty much everything else in audio, connected to human hearing absolute values are meaningless, everything imust be weighted based on human hearing.
I lost the gfx from a book, it was one of my favorite examples, which illustrated that the 100th harmonic at a level of -100dB can be audible in the presence of -30dB H2, that is at a nominal SPL of 100dB @ 20Hz and based on actual science.
Phase noise aka jitter audibility needs weighting, to judge if (say) 100pS RMS total phase noise of a certain spectrum is at least potentially audible in itself, what secondary effects may occur and what the audibility potential is.
It is the step of reconciling real word happenings with the abstract that makes science and validated the existence of science and it's useful to Humanity. Otherwise we might as well have stuck witchdoctring which would be equally useful and valid.
It's a hobby forum. If people like to measure, they can measure, if they like to listen, they can listen, if they like to do calculations, they can do calculations. They don't need to reconcile anything with anything unless they think it's fun to do so.
This forum doesn't claim to be an "audio science" forum, unlike some.
That said, its probably a good thing to encourage fellow members to learn and to grow. That's not the same as forcing them.
I tend to think of Thor's sometimes colorful language as his way of encouraging learning and growing. And of course, also his way of discouraging the false path of pseudoscience.
EDIT: BTW, I don't find it especially fun to design PCBs. Its more like I feel its something that needs to be done. I don't like most of the process, but it lets me make some progress with the hobby part. And maybe it helps some other forum members if I share some stuff. The hobby is kind a yin and yang thing. Its not only about doing what is fun.
That said, its probably a good thing to encourage fellow members to learn and to grow. That's not the same as forcing them.
I tend to think of Thor's sometimes colorful language as his way of encouraging learning and growing. And of course, also his way of discouraging the false path of pseudoscience.
EDIT: BTW, I don't find it especially fun to design PCBs. Its more like I feel its something that needs to be done. I don't like most of the process, but it lets me make some progress with the hobby part. And maybe it helps some other forum members if I share some stuff. The hobby is kind a yin and yang thing. Its not only about doing what is fun.
Last edited:
They do to claim or imply relevance.
Now relevance is usually implied if making results public.
Otherwise I might post about my last root canal, or how I visited the beach.
I do not think of my language as colourful. Very few 4 letters, usually no excremental, scatological or expletive language.
Perhaps using a large vocabulary is now colourful? When I went to school size of vocabulary was one indicators of reading comprehension.
What I am trying to do most is for folks to think about what they do and to question what they do.
We live in a scientific age where we have at hand the scientific method to separate what really works from witchdoctoring, which doesn't work.
Otherwise, if you have a cut you would still be putting weapons salve on the blade of the knife, not betadine on the wound, after which you would ignore the wound and let it fester and go gangrenous waiting for the weapons salve to do it's job, until you had to have your arm amputated, instead of lining up the wound edges and putting liquid bandage (aka superglue) on the wound, leaving barely a scar after a week or two.
Having tools available does not require for then to be used, but if you see someone trying to drive in nails with a rock, pointing out that we have electric and pneumatic nail gun's or at least a hammer available that do a better job is indicated.
Now if the answer is "but I enjoy driving in nails with a random rock...", well, there is that and all we can do is to mutter something under our breath, sagaciously shake our head and film everything on our smartphone and upload it to TikTock where no doubt, far from being considered a cautionary tale it will set off a trend of driving in nails with a rock and claiming the method totally superior.
Maybe I'm wrong and we are after all NOT living in a scientific age.
And now for something completely different.
Thor
Last edited:
I chose to refer to that use of language as colorful. There are other words that might be more apt, such as sarcastic, disrespectful, etc., but I don't know your exact motivation for those choices. I do think they evoke some sense of what colorful language may be intended to convey.
Changing the subject for a moment, we do live in a relative scientific age. Isn't the problem the disrational nature of much of human thought? It isn't humans don't think, its that their thinking is often lazy because it has to be, given the capacity of the human brain. Also humans also tend to question other people's thought more than their own.
Last edited:
I do not see hidden sarcasm or disrespect. Simple statements of facts. Or do you disagree that what I stated are facts?
Could the same facts have been asserted in a more passive and less illustrative way? Maybe. Would that have been able to impress the facts on the readers mind in same as the language I selected? I selected for impact and to be memorable.
Not to insult or attack anyone. Facts don't attack, insult or offend.
Offense is NEVER given, but taken (another fact).
Thor
Are they mouthebanks and carnifolk? If so, then they must not believe what they profess to believe; instead they must be intentionally deceiving people? OTOH, don't cargo culters believe what they say?
Precisely.
At least for some there, who clearly state that their measurements have no bearing on perceived sound quality and that the site is not about sound quality? Yet they offer purchasing advise and take in money for their purchasing recommendations and pretend to people that they will get a satisfying experience if they follow their recommendations, without providing any evidence.
Do Cult Leaders believe in their own Cult's that they created? Or is it just the true believers?
The philosophy that is peddled is a cargo cult. The Believers follow a cargo cult.
Is it possible that the leaders instead follow a much older cult, the one that is often called the root of all evil?
Thor
@Markw4 and @rfbrw You are native speakers of English as far as I know and I'm curious now what colorful (or colourful) language means. I know Spock used "colorful metaphor" as a euphemism for swearing in Star Trek IV: The voyage home, but is it usually used like that? Or is it a more general term for unusual and creative use of language?
As we exist on opposite sides of the Atlantic and the landmass of the US between us, it might be a stretch to suggest we speak the same language but for me colourful has always alluded to swearing.
Here you go on colorful: https://www.google.com/search?q=col...CDM5ODdqMGo3qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/colorful
"Their work ushered in a new era of poetry, characterized by vivid and colourful language, evocative of elevating ideas and themes."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/colourful-language
So, I would say that if the people referred to as mouthebanks and carnifolk are literally just that, then the descriptions would not constitute colorful language. However, using that type of language without good proof can get you sued. A jury might find find it rude and offensive, to say the least.
On the topic of so-called objectivists, Jakob2 once posted this theory on their beliefs:
IME this kind of obsession is often to find in people who converted themselves from "golden-ear" to "non-golden-ear" , usually by doing some kind of "blind tests" without knowledge about propper sensory testing.
So they decide having erred all the time when perceiving differences between electronic audio devices (including cables and other stuff) under the premise that the measured numbers are below the known hearing thresholds.
The next step in the reasoning seems to be that they did not just have fooled themselves (when believing these differences exist) but were misled by a world wide conspiracy of manufacturers, reviewers and sales men. This way it is obviously easier to accept the former illusion. "It wasn't my fault, I was tricked into it...."
In this state of belief it is (IMO) apparently extremely difficult to accept informations that provide evidence contrary to the new belief, as it would mean to accept that he might have triple-fooled himself during the conversion process.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/colorful
"Their work ushered in a new era of poetry, characterized by vivid and colourful language, evocative of elevating ideas and themes."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/colourful-language
So, I would say that if the people referred to as mouthebanks and carnifolk are literally just that, then the descriptions would not constitute colorful language. However, using that type of language without good proof can get you sued. A jury might find find it rude and offensive, to say the least.
On the topic of so-called objectivists, Jakob2 once posted this theory on their beliefs:
IME this kind of obsession is often to find in people who converted themselves from "golden-ear" to "non-golden-ear" , usually by doing some kind of "blind tests" without knowledge about propper sensory testing.
So they decide having erred all the time when perceiving differences between electronic audio devices (including cables and other stuff) under the premise that the measured numbers are below the known hearing thresholds.
The next step in the reasoning seems to be that they did not just have fooled themselves (when believing these differences exist) but were misled by a world wide conspiracy of manufacturers, reviewers and sales men. This way it is obviously easier to accept the former illusion. "It wasn't my fault, I was tricked into it...."
In this state of belief it is (IMO) apparently extremely difficult to accept informations that provide evidence contrary to the new belief, as it would mean to accept that he might have triple-fooled himself during the conversion process.
Last edited:
Yes, my mistake. It was too late to correct.
So Mountebank for the act of selling stuff that does not work and is not based on science or proven in sience to believers.
Carniefolk to the act of operating an outlet (for the carnival owners).
Cargo cult, ritual action and the expectation of rational results from irrational means.
Cargo Cultists for all the sheep that buy at the outlet that is part of the cargo cult which practices ritual actions and promises rational results.
Is my use of the anglosaxon language inaccurate in the context of ASR?
Please educate me. English is my third language, so my competence in it's use often leaves something to be desired.
Being German my very direct and candid speech reflects side of my upbringing.
Thor
Having spend half my life in the Anglosphere (UK and Hong Kong), I'm mostly with the British usage, Colourful Language = swearing, scatology, f-words etc., all the fu.., sh.. etc. words.
Perhaps the former colonials over there have a different use, which is why many in Britain insist that what is spoken over there is not American English, but American, while what we speak is not British English, but English.
Thor
Ideas are being sold there, in a sense, for free. But what is being sold for money over there and by whom, where is there is intention by the seller to deceive? IOW, how does the scam work to fleece the suckers? Because that seems to be the implication of there being mouthebanks and carnifolk.
Perhaps more accurate to call them ignorami?
Last edited:
If you use this definition of colourful, as opposed to the more common one in the UK, guilty as charged, I am seeking to communicate with "vivid ... language, evocative of elevating ideas and themes."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/colourful-language
In modern english we do have the concept of describing activities briefly by referencing a similar occupation.
Richard Milton, for example in his Book "Forbidden Science" I believe referred to the phenomenon as a lack of "moral affordability".
I would also note that among people descended from religious phanatiques this inability to navigate between scylla and charybdis of Ideas they are involved with is more frequent than among more relaxed folk.
It would make an interesting point of study, if by exporting all religious extremists to the new world, Europe, the old world acquired a genetically more tolerant outlook while the offspring of the more extreme people are still prone genetical to great acrimony. It could explain a lot of the things that puzzle us Europeans about many things in America, not the least politics. We have course had and have our own extremists, but usually tempered by a more level headed majority. It could also account for offense being taken where non was intentionally offered, intended or even considered.
Just thinking out loud, again, kindly do not take offense.
It is fundamentally challenging for any believer (which includes the disbeliever, but not the unbeliever) to integrate new and conflicting information into their worldview. The stronger the inclination of the individual towards a strong (dis)belief the harder it becomes to get back on the level.
It is easy to arrive at the conclusion that everything counter to one's belief is wrong and must be suppressed.
Again, we have a conflict between the scientific mode of thinking (belief requires evidence) and the religious mode of thought (belief is the evidence).
That again is moral affordability. It is often surprising to observe such behaviour in obviously well educated and highly intelligent individuals. Surely realising one way of self deception it should be possible to avoid falling into it's opposite and rationally one should be able to self-analyse enough to see the hubris of going to extremes?
Ok, enough philosophy.
Thor