It has been said that an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less. High mental focus is common among high achievers, and may explain this.
The basis of engineering is supposed to be science and good science is always consistent with itself in terms of the basic facts, but not always its emphasis. Most of the errors I see result from questionable conclusions that people reach based on the true information that they have learned, or people who simply are not up-to-date in terms of an area they they are expounding upon. The most common shortcoming I see is people who are educated as EEs, but know very little or nothing about psychoacoustics.
A variation on that is someone who is relatively new to audio, reads a lot on the wrong audio sites which are probably the majority of them, and then spouts off these new found truths on people who know better.
(1) If you go to dinners sponsored by your local audio engineering society, you will find that the experts often disagree with great enthusiasm in person.
(2) Most of the disagreements are either in areas that are freshly evolving, an area that they are currently struggling with, or things that are not that important, all things considered.
All good science converges.
that is true, but psychoacoustics (is that a science?) must be tiny branch on a very big tree. and certainly I'm gonna have a problem when a highly focused individual from that branch tries to make global pronouncements setting back circuit design /analysis back to the stone ages. problem forsure! common one, not so much, Psycho indeed.
how about this , I promise I wont go out on your branch if you keep off the trunk.
Last edited:
Thanks for providing such a great example of the point I was trying to make about Psychoacoustics.
People who question whether Psychoacoustics is even a science usually do so because their knowledge of the field is limited to a naive analysis of the word psychoacoustics (without even checking a dictionary or encyclopedia) and probably thinking that it is heavily influenced by areas like psychology or psychiatry.
Anybody who takes a few seconds to look up the word on Wikipedia or a similar source would know otherwise, so we know that a person who makes this error probably generally operates at a very shallow intellectual level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics
ok personal attacks prove your point, wow you completely hit bottom on your 1st. try, nice
Last edited:
If there was a personal attack, where was this person mentioned by me by name?
I was commenting on a post which was identified using standard conferencing tools for doing so.
hi yeah when you quoted me, the text that follows is either reference to or about. please try to stay focused on the subject not the person is it too hard for you? so are you suggesting that psychoacoustics be added to all EEs training so they aren't so weak in that area? this is opportunity to highlight the importance of that obscure field to what now?
edit BTW I'm being rhetorical now. you hit bottom and I don't feel like climbing up with you from there.K
Last edited:
I don't see a lot of links to papers posted through out the forums. I think this would be good for discussions. It could be helpful to have the help of one another in understanding the science that is out there. Maybe it would filter out a bit of nonsense too. Just an idea.
Last edited:
Interesting. You fault me for making a personal attack which was just a comment on some quoted text, and then you insult my intelligence?
If all personal attacks are wrong, then why is your personal attack above somehow justified?
I'm just making observations about the world about me.
MIT may think so:
Lecture Notes | Acoustics of Speech and Hearing | Electrical Engineering and Computer Science | MIT OpenCourseWare
University of Michigan may think so:
EE:S Prospective Student Info
Drexel University may think so:
http://music.ece.drexel.edu/files/YoungmooKimCV.pdf
UCLA may think so:
UCLA General Catalog 2013-14: Electrical Engineering Course Listings
UC/Berkely may think so:
http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/eecs20/papers/spe1.pdf
etc. etc. but you obviously disagree, and who are they? ;-)
If you attend the Graduate Program in Acoustics at PSU, (as I did) then Psychoacoustics is a required subject. It is most certainly not obscure (just because you don't know about it.)
like I said look around the tree of science is very large indeed. so sorry your branch is often feels ignored, I see what is happening on a very wide area.
Calling Earl a "Master" could be interpreted as damning with faint praise given his actual formal credentials. ;-)
So Mr. Internet Alias, why don't you list out which of your credentials justify your attacks on him?
I just checked a search of your posts infinia and found that at least 25% contained statements that were demeaning to their target, IOW personal attacks.
Have you noticed that this forum is about Audio?
That limits its scope quite a bit.
All of Science can be relevant, but as it applies to audio.
Within Audio Engineering I have shown that many large influential authorities find Psychoacoustics (which if you study it, is as much about hard, empirical science as anything) has emerged strongly in the recent 20 or so years.
Hmm, the word recent may explain a few things....
if questioning his circuit design choices in another thread is attacking him I don't know what to say.
so its come from the bottom up to ... a willy wagging contest. this proves my 1st point
Last edited:
No, I'm limiting myself to being narrowly on-topic, just your attacks on this thread.
Which point is that? Your first point on this thread appears to have been:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/283844-love-respect-all-great-minds-here-4.html#post4553984
"abhorrence to folks that try to use the forums to push their services, products, or some other BS agenda."
Perhaps you are ummm, slipping off-topic?
yup if pushing products fails and you (one who remains in uniform of a pro") continue to want to hang with the DIYers aka hobbyists, lets see, it must fall under BS agenda. close?
PS anyways I reckon we've come full circle. sorry if you feel I was attacking Earl I'm sure he's a great guy in person.
PS anyways I reckon we've come full circle. sorry if you feel I was attacking Earl I'm sure he's a great guy in person.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.