It's not really that complicated.
You can do math and never care about physics or engineering (that's what most theoretical mathematicians do, to be honest - others have to look up the practical implications of their findings because they don't really care).
Good luck doing Physics or Engineering work ignoring math.
You can do math and never care about physics or engineering (that's what most theoretical mathematicians do, to be honest - others have to look up the practical implications of their findings because they don't really care).
Good luck doing Physics or Engineering work ignoring math.
Just yanking your chain, Shaman. BTW, appropriate handle for your profession.
It's just that I feel mathematicians are more bent towards the pure idea, and the engineers are the lucky guys who get to turn the idea into reality. It's a symbiotic relatinship, I think, both are equally needed. I don't think either is more important, I think they are equal.
I am strongly reminded of a text I read in a Swiss engineering magazine, Technische Rundchau, way back in 1969 - the difference between theory and practice:
Theory is when everybody knows how it should work, but it doesn't;
Practice is when nobody has the slightest idea how, but it works beautifully.
Just my 2 cents' worth.
Hi,
Dedicated follower of Kant and communist theorist Charles Mordechai put it:
"Practice without Theory is blind,
Theory without practice is sterile"
Most writers emphasise rightly that the division between theory in practice is a false one, the should inform the other, best in personal-union, that is the Theorist should be an accomplished practician, the practician an accomplished theorist.
Then we will have synthesis, such as has been present with many who in earlier times worked out and derived the theories that still underpin much of what we do.
One might even places the debate here about measurements and sound quality in the context of "Theory vs. Practice".
The accomplished practician tell the accomplished theorist: "Your theories are sadly lacking, your measurements are meaningless.", meanwhile the accomplished theorist tells the accomplished practician "You have no theory, you do not know what you are doing.".
The practician rejects theories that fail to work in practice, the theoretician rejects any practical experience or empirical results that do not fit his theory.
Either side holds part of the whole; yet they prefer shouting abuse at each other across the no-mans land between the deeply dug trenches to actually putting together the part each holds.
If they did they could at least see if the combination gives a better idea about the shape and nature of the puzzle (to find a complete solution may be too much too hope), and each will walk away knowing more of the whole picture, so they better know where to investigate next.
Yet such a co-operative approach to any human endeavour including audio seem a dream not to be realised any earlier than the magnum opus of the al-chymists.
Ciao T
Dedicated follower of Kant and communist theorist Charles Mordechai put it:
"Practice without Theory is blind,
Theory without practice is sterile"
Most writers emphasise rightly that the division between theory in practice is a false one, the should inform the other, best in personal-union, that is the Theorist should be an accomplished practician, the practician an accomplished theorist.
Then we will have synthesis, such as has been present with many who in earlier times worked out and derived the theories that still underpin much of what we do.
One might even places the debate here about measurements and sound quality in the context of "Theory vs. Practice".
The accomplished practician tell the accomplished theorist: "Your theories are sadly lacking, your measurements are meaningless.", meanwhile the accomplished theorist tells the accomplished practician "You have no theory, you do not know what you are doing.".
The practician rejects theories that fail to work in practice, the theoretician rejects any practical experience or empirical results that do not fit his theory.
Either side holds part of the whole; yet they prefer shouting abuse at each other across the no-mans land between the deeply dug trenches to actually putting together the part each holds.
If they did they could at least see if the combination gives a better idea about the shape and nature of the puzzle (to find a complete solution may be too much too hope), and each will walk away knowing more of the whole picture, so they better know where to investigate next.
Yet such a co-operative approach to any human endeavour including audio seem a dream not to be realised any earlier than the magnum opus of the al-chymists.
Ciao T
Interesting that TheShaman calls them 'theoretical' whereas to the rest of us and to themselves they're known as 'pure mathematicians'
Pure/theoretical mathematicians is actually the same. Depends on the language I suppose.
And indeed there are mathematicians who would consider an applied mathematician having just a "good overview" of mathematics or oversimplifying it or not having enough "background" knowledge.
Then again applied mathematicians make fun of some of their colleagues who took the easy way out and dealt with the mathematics of economics or something. I guess it's human.
Regarding pure/theoretical mathematicians, most of them are gurus in some specific field (e.g. number theory) but detached from reality (i.e. theoretical) - and a bit crazy. It should be noted that the most talented ones have a good grasp of many fields of math as well as the practical implications of their work.
Anyway, we work together (basically we need them). So it's essential to put our differences aside, mock the physicists or engineers (who need us to understand their work or how to make something that will actually work, respectively) and make friends.
Last edited:
Hi,
Yes, very droll. I prefer:
"Theory with practice is empty speculation.
Theory must be tested against practice.
Theory provides terminology and methodologies
for ananlysing practice, but does not guarantee
good practice"
Ciao T
Yes, very droll. I prefer:
"Theory with practice is empty speculation.
Theory must be tested against practice.
Theory provides terminology and methodologies
for ananlysing practice, but does not guarantee
good practice"
Ciao T
I have met mathematicians who aren't safe near sharp objects, but I have also come across engineers who could not be let loose in the vicinity of an equation. Physicists, of course, combine the best features of both: they can invent new mathematics (e.g. Dirac, Heaviside) which the mathematicians then struggle to formalise, and they can develop products using counter-intuitive science which doesn't fit the naive mechanistic models and approximations which engineers are often taught. Of course, I could be biased!
A big problem is that people who are expert in one field may have difficulty grasping just how profound is their ignorance in other areas.
A big problem is that people who are expert in one field may have difficulty grasping just how profound is their ignorance in other areas.
When people talk about the need for formal education to do engineering, I usually say that it's almost essential for learning mathematics --- maths are hard to "dig out" on your own, even with some very good texts.
I worked with a tech at UCLA years ago who was quite energetic and bright, but had crippling math difficulties and anxieties, compounded by confusions arising from the syntax of computer programming languages that he wrongly mapped onto basic algebra (really awful misdirection!). He wanted to do, and did somehow manage to do, astronomical research instrumentation, but it was a guess-and-by-gosh affair. He also managed to wear out the switches on the beloved shop Tek 475 in short order, having to deploy every this-delayed-by-that-intensified-by-the other feature constantly, when a simple trigger setup would have been quite adequate in 99% of the cases. I was horrified.
A good example of his handicap came when I explained how a fixed-pattern associated with dark current and other vagaries of the photodiode detector had to be subtracted from data before a division could be performed to correct for responsivity. He just could not get this, as to how a simple quotient of one data block with a flat field data block wouldn't give the right answer, this latter having been appropriate to the detector system he'd worked with at Lick Observatory as a night assistant.
Again. IMO the more maths the better, but beware of becoming obsessed.
I worked with a tech at UCLA years ago who was quite energetic and bright, but had crippling math difficulties and anxieties, compounded by confusions arising from the syntax of computer programming languages that he wrongly mapped onto basic algebra (really awful misdirection!). He wanted to do, and did somehow manage to do, astronomical research instrumentation, but it was a guess-and-by-gosh affair. He also managed to wear out the switches on the beloved shop Tek 475 in short order, having to deploy every this-delayed-by-that-intensified-by-the other feature constantly, when a simple trigger setup would have been quite adequate in 99% of the cases. I was horrified.
A good example of his handicap came when I explained how a fixed-pattern associated with dark current and other vagaries of the photodiode detector had to be subtracted from data before a division could be performed to correct for responsivity. He just could not get this, as to how a simple quotient of one data block with a flat field data block wouldn't give the right answer, this latter having been appropriate to the detector system he'd worked with at Lick Observatory as a night assistant.
Again. IMO the more maths the better, but beware of becoming obsessed.
Last edited:
Matematician bought a bookshelf in a store, when he was a student. When he tried to fix it on his wall he took nail and hammer, but could not do that because he oriented the nail wrong way, head on wall, hammering a tip. Of course he returned the shelf back to the store saying that the shelf is incompatible with his wall!
When he got retired their colleagues presented him a big vase for flowers. His wife was a mathematician as well, and she said: "Look, while you were teaching them they showed you respect, now they presented you unusable vase, it has no opening on top!" "Well", he answered. "You are right my darling; this vase even don't have a bottom!"
Edit: I saw some engineers who could not solve a problem if they did not see solutions of such problems before, and they used "Rules of Thumbs" way beyond their applicability. I call them, "Rules of Dumbs".
When he got retired their colleagues presented him a big vase for flowers. His wife was a mathematician as well, and she said: "Look, while you were teaching them they showed you respect, now they presented you unusable vase, it has no opening on top!" "Well", he answered. "You are right my darling; this vase even don't have a bottom!"
Edit: I saw some engineers who could not solve a problem if they did not see solutions of such problems before, and they used "Rules of Thumbs" way beyond their applicability. I call them, "Rules of Dumbs".
Last edited:
In late 1970'th I used also diode clippers combined with optical attenuators: feedback signal for attenuator is a function of current through clipping diodes. Should I patent it? It sounded very clean for such fast attack that it had.
Nice story Wave
Anyway, I think we all agree that it would be pretty impossible to be a good engineer if you didn't have a reasonable grasp of mathematics.
Once in a while you need to calculate a resistor value or a low-pass frequency ...
Right, and you can't solve engineering problems effectively if you did not learn as a kid to solve random physics and math problems.
And now that just about everyone here has agreed that we need both theory and practice, and that you're dead in the water without some fast Fourier analysis running in your head, we have - The Parachutists!
The Aliens who drop in and do what is implicitly not possible according to many people here.
If memory serves, messers Conrad and Johnson are economists by training, who used to work for banks ... IMF or WB or some such.
Goddam! And what about those guys who made two Transformers movies, you think they had to know higher maths to create that scientific show?
The Aliens who drop in and do what is implicitly not possible according to many people here.
If memory serves, messers Conrad and Johnson are economists by training, who used to work for banks ... IMF or WB or some such.
Goddam! And what about those guys who made two Transformers movies, you think they had to know higher maths to create that scientific show?
Last edited:
Hi,
I never add these to my home amp's (I did consider adding to AMR's Amp's clipping detection force linked to the volume control but eventually decided against it).
But in my Pro-Audio Days I added these clipping limiters religeously to any amp in my hands.
The "guest engineer" from a "guest band" once over-drove the system so badly, after I had repeatedly asked him to contain the amount of overdrive, we had 24pcs fried Electro Vocie 18" Drivers.
The Gig was a washout.
We spend days just pulling the drivers out of the bass-bins to have them re-build.
The driver re-builder we used (remember, this was eastern europe, there where not many) only had a handful of exchange units and spare parts for a few more and it would take weeks to get the recone kits via west germany. So we used every re-coner in the (small) country to get halve our drivers back before the next weekend.
So we had to scrounge, scrimp, beg borrow and whatever we could get to get some kind of sound system together. I drove around the whole week collecting drivers and pulled an all-nighter with some of the roadies fitting the drivers back into the bass bins. We had some loaded with JBL, some Gauss, some Peavey Black widow and some with really crappy cheapos with stamped frames. But we had sound.
After something like that you add clipping limiters. I later even added positive feedback to them so would limit more as you continued to turn up the wick if they where already engaged. The system would drop out majorly and other engineers kept it clean after this cut in a few times..
Still lost the occasional driver (happens), but I never again had a system wide blow-out.
Ciao T
I never add these to my home amp's (I did consider adding to AMR's Amp's clipping detection force linked to the volume control but eventually decided against it).
But in my Pro-Audio Days I added these clipping limiters religeously to any amp in my hands.
The "guest engineer" from a "guest band" once over-drove the system so badly, after I had repeatedly asked him to contain the amount of overdrive, we had 24pcs fried Electro Vocie 18" Drivers.
The Gig was a washout.
We spend days just pulling the drivers out of the bass-bins to have them re-build.
The driver re-builder we used (remember, this was eastern europe, there where not many) only had a handful of exchange units and spare parts for a few more and it would take weeks to get the recone kits via west germany. So we used every re-coner in the (small) country to get halve our drivers back before the next weekend.
So we had to scrounge, scrimp, beg borrow and whatever we could get to get some kind of sound system together. I drove around the whole week collecting drivers and pulled an all-nighter with some of the roadies fitting the drivers back into the bass bins. We had some loaded with JBL, some Gauss, some Peavey Black widow and some with really crappy cheapos with stamped frames. But we had sound.
After something like that you add clipping limiters. I later even added positive feedback to them so would limit more as you continued to turn up the wick if they where already engaged. The system would drop out majorly and other engineers kept it clean after this cut in a few times..
Still lost the occasional driver (happens), but I never again had a system wide blow-out.
Ciao T
Hi,
And AFAIK they do the company building and marketing, but not the circuit design (though after serving some early CJ gear I'm questioning that), they pay people to do the math for them.
The guys who made the movies probably had non. The guys who created the software that was used for all the CGI and the guys that designed the Computers that did the rendering etc., we may safely presume, knew how to add and then a bit more...
So, no aliens, just "Business-men"...
Ciao T
And AFAIK they do the company building and marketing, but not the circuit design (though after serving some early CJ gear I'm questioning that), they pay people to do the math for them.
Goddam! And what about those guys who made two Transformers movies, you think they had to know higher maths to create that scientific show?
The guys who made the movies probably had non. The guys who created the software that was used for all the CGI and the guys that designed the Computers that did the rendering etc., we may safely presume, knew how to add and then a bit more...
So, no aliens, just "Business-men"...
Ciao T
Last edited:
Hi,
Given how often the EPOS Tills in the Supermarkets or their operators "glitch" it would be pretty much impossible to go shopping without getting ripped off if one does not at least have the ability to add, subtract discount, multiply multiple items and so on...
I often have this kind of conversation:
Till Girl: XXX Money please.
Me: You or your Till made a mistake, the correct amount is YYY.
Till Girl: No, it is XXX Money.
Me: No, I calculated from the prices on the shelfs etc. and it is YYY.
... various levels of arguments ensue ...
... Eventually the supervisor orders a re-swipe and finds an item was swiped twice or I find the line where the EPOS had one price and the rack another ...
Till Girl: Sorry about the trouble Sir.
Me: No worries. You are cute, give me your number and we have coffee?
Till Girl: In your Dreams.
Me: It's a date.
If you are, like me, a heavy hitter in the gourmet food and deli section such mistakes can be costly...
Ciao T
Given how often the EPOS Tills in the Supermarkets or their operators "glitch" it would be pretty much impossible to go shopping without getting ripped off if one does not at least have the ability to add, subtract discount, multiply multiple items and so on...
I often have this kind of conversation:
Till Girl: XXX Money please.
Me: You or your Till made a mistake, the correct amount is YYY.
Till Girl: No, it is XXX Money.
Me: No, I calculated from the prices on the shelfs etc. and it is YYY.
... various levels of arguments ensue ...
... Eventually the supervisor orders a re-swipe and finds an item was swiped twice or I find the line where the EPOS had one price and the rack another ...
Till Girl: Sorry about the trouble Sir.
Me: No worries. You are cute, give me your number and we have coffee?
Till Girl: In your Dreams.
Me: It's a date.
If you are, like me, a heavy hitter in the gourmet food and deli section such mistakes can be costly...
Ciao T
Hi,
And AFAIK they do the company building and marketing, but not the circuit design (though after serving some early CJ gear I'm questioning that), they pay people to do the math for them.
Goddam! And what about those guys who made two Transformers movies, you think they had to know higher maths to create that scientific show?
The guys who made the movies probably had non. The guys who created the software that was used for all the CGI and the guys that designed the Computers that did the rendering etc., we may safely presume, knew how to add and then a bit more...
So, no aliens, just "Business-men"...
Ciao T[/QUOTE]
Thorsten, my dear fellow, don't be too literal. I was only kidding.
However, now that you mentioned it, I seem to remember that in an interview, Mr Johson did mention that he and his colleague Mr Conrad did actually design some of their first products ...
Is that too hard to bear?
I mean, look, all that was said is nice and fine, but several times I have come across 100% scientifically designed amps, which had exemplary behavior in purely electric terms, but which sounded like pure crap. No matter what is needed along the way, in the end, it all comes down to the designer's hearing, it's the designer who gives the product its "voicing". He decides when is enough enough, or when something should be done anew.
Scientists and engineers sometimes tend to design for science, not for people. Not all, not all the time, of course, but sometimes.
Any decent economist would be quite good at maths. The weakness of economics is that when creating their equations they make false assumptions about how markets work etc. They then find a correct solution to the wrong equation. Physicists are now beginning to muscle in on economics, using either better assumptions or (shock!) the results of actual experiments or simulations of how people really interact. It turns out that economic systems can exhibit behaviour analogous to phase transitions. To some extent this explains the world crash, which most economists did not see coming.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.