Sound science

[h.g.]

Hg, it is clear you are a deflector, one who has no real contribution to provide in a technical respect to the forum.

I understood just fine thanks and frankly you appear to be blathering about nothing based on a pretty skewed perception.

Yes reading the thread your interpretation of Amirs and Ethan's contribution is incorrect.

Yes I can provide an example, if you have a look you will find I have been unsuccessful in implementing a two sub mode cancelling system. That is not to say it is impossible, just real world factors get in the way of implementation.

An example? There are plenty of examples of technical discussion in this forum.

You are talking utter nonsense. Of course People are interested in why.

Sorry you most certainly do appear to be expecting something.

Sorry I don't know what you are talking about. All I want to see you contribute in a genuinely useful technical/ scientific sense. So far all that has been seen is you being critical, implying knowledge and some kind of superior understanding of science which the rest of the forum contributors apparantLy lack.

I have absolutely zero requirement or need to establish precisely how much people want to know "why". That's your personal requirement for your definition of what is required of this forum.

I suggest you put up or shut up.

Or, if you prefer, no-one wants to know why. You are totally correct it's an utterly unscientific forum with no technical content. What now? It appears you need to look elsewhere for what you need.

I carefully went through your previous post pulling out a series of topics that could be discussed and you respond with largely content free emoting. Why don't you want to discuss?

About the only thing of substance I can see in your tirade is that you tried and failed to achieve something using two subwoofers. Not that it has anything to do with the topic of this thread which is people's interests in the science of sound but do you want to discuss that in a calmer manner?

 

[h.g.]

Well I want know why!

Why to what?

Still looking forward to this... But now I know what those Westlake dac guys feel like

Sorry but I don't know what a Westlake DAC is or the controvesy/issues that surrounds it. Do you have a link?

 

[March Audio]

I carefully went through your previous post pulling out a series of topics that could be discussed and you respond with largely content free emoting. Why don't you want to discuss?

About the only thing of substance I can see in your tirade is that you tried and failed to achieve something using two subwoofers. Not that it has anything to do with the topic of this thread which is people's interests in the science of sound but do you want to discuss that in a calmer manner?

You didn't, you deflected from the actual issue. Your perception is skewed and there is very little to discuss. People simply are discussing "what and why". It is your position that has little substance. You obviously have no contribution to make in terms of technical or scientific matters. You have only criticised implying a superior position with regard to scientific and technical matters.

It's not a tirade and I am perfectly calm. I am simply agreeing with the views that have already been posted by others. The fact that with your post above you continue to attempt to draw pointless arguments as opposed to contributing something scientifically or technically useful. You clearly don't understand how you come across or the contradiction of your position.

My point regarding subs directly addressed one of your questions. I have talked about it in the sub thread. If you have anything useful to contribute to the subject you can go there.

I have no intention of engaging with you further until such time that you decide to contribute something technical or scientifically useful. To do so would be a monumental waste of time.

It's quite ironic and somewhat amusing that you exemplify precisely thing you are complaining about.

 

[March Audio]

Why to what?

It's precisely this sort of thing that's the problem. A direct and clear response to one of your points is met with feigned ignorance. A deliberate response intended to create circular pointless argument. Designed to short circuit any actual progression of discussion.

Do you think people don't understand what you are up to?

 

[Thomas savage]

We have all made our points clear, please no more of this pointless back and forth. It's not contributing anything and serves no purpose however well intentioned.

A good effort to understand each other has been made by all sides, the lack of progression is self evident.

Why continue? ....

If you want to fine but do it on Skype not here.

 

[Duke]

So the trickier second question is what might the level of interest be among people with an interest in home audio?

I am very much interested in the WHY that you who understand the math and science behind sound production and reproduction are conversant with. I'm also very much interested in the psychoacoustic implications.

To give you one data point regarding your audience here, it wasn't until I had flunked freshman calculus three times (spread out over two different colleges) that it became clear I wasn't going to be an engineer after all. So I'm a slow learner on multiple fronts. That was 35 years ago, and while "Calculus for Dummies" sits optimistically on my bookshelf, I'd much rather read your explanations than pretend to follow your derivations.

 

[h.g.]

I am very much interested in the WHY that you who understand the math and science behind sound production and reproduction are conversant with.

The focus of the question was scientific knowledge about sound itself rather than the application of it to home audio which is likely to be significant at least among "objective audiophiles". It is good to see one or two stating an interest to counter those demonstrating an opposition.

I'm also very much interested in the psychoacoustic implications.

I have little interest in this side of acoustics beyond the basics needed to guide sound radiation in rooms and so you will have to look to others for those details.

To give you one data point regarding your audience here, it wasn't until I had flunked freshman calculus three times (spread out over two different colleges) that it became clear I wasn't going to be an engineer after all. So I'm a slow learner on multiple fronts. That was 35 years ago, and while "Calculus for Dummies" sits optimistically on my bookshelf, I'd much rather read your explanations than pretend to follow your derivations.

Derivations that use images rather than maths tend to be straightforward to follow and better aligned with how most seem to store concepts in the brain. I recall in a job interview 30 years ago being asked a question along these lines with respect to using CFD to teach fluid mechanics which was not far off becoming an option at the time and not fully understanding the question. I didn't get the job but thought about what I should have said afterwards. Maths today still remains the primary tool to get fluid mechanics across to engineers rather than CFD.

 

[Cosmik]

I am ambivalent about maths. It seems to me that the ability to 'do' maths can be nothing more than an ability to learn and perform certain tricks. It is undoubtedly a valuable skill, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the person doing it is getting a deeper understanding of whatever it is they are working on (although it can do).

One view of audio would be that the ideal system should reproduce headphone listening wherever you are in the room, but without having to wear headphones. Someone else might think that it is self-evident that the ideal system should be a pair of omnidirectional point sources. Someone else might think that speakers should be be uniformly directional, or that they should resemble whatever it is that most recording engineers listen to. Could a mathematician help us decide which would be the best system? I don't think so - and that is what makes the hobby interesting. If someone starts giving a mathematical explanation of something in audio, I always try to remember that even though it appears 'scientific' it is only another way of describing some narrow point within the context of much wider, undecided questions.

 

[RayDunzl]

Derivations that use images rather than maths tend to be straightforward to follow and better aligned with how most seem to store concepts in the brain.

 

[RayDunzl]

Let's build an Acoustic Cloud Chamber, critically balanced so the difference between compression and rarefaction makes the waves visible.

 

[h.g.]

I am ambivalent about maths. It seems to me that the ability to 'do' maths can be nothing more than an ability to learn and perform certain tricks. It is undoubtedly a valuable skill, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the person doing it is getting a deeper understanding of whatever it is they are working on (although it can do).

Maths is the tool that allows us to 'do' science (i.e. engineering). Scientific knowledge predicts the outcome of experiments and that is normally expressed mathematically (e.g. F = m*a). So a low level of maths means a person cannot really perform the working out bit between scientific principles and the answers that hold an interest for many here. Unfortunately what this forum shows is that it is also likely to lead to little to no interest in real scientific knowledge which is now somewhat abstract and of little direct use. Once that has gone faith is likely to guide decision making leading to the stuff and nonsense we see on the forum where scientific knowledge is denied at the same time as trying to embrace the answers it provides. Not that there is anything wrong of course with stuff and nonsense when it comes to hobby interests.

One view of audio would be that the ideal system should reproduce headphone listening wherever you are in the room, but without having to wear headphones. Someone else might think that it is self-evident that the ideal system should be a pair of omnidirectional point sources. Someone else might think that speakers should be be uniformly directional, or that they should resemble whatever it is that most recording engineers listen to. Could a mathematician help us decide which would be the best system? I don't think so - and that is what makes the hobby interesting. If someone starts giving a mathematical explanation of something in audio, I always try to remember that even though it appears 'scientific' it is only another way of describing some narrow point within the context of much wider, undecided questions.

People get in a muddle like this by failing to first formulate what they want to achieve in the form of a testable hypothesis which is of course the first step in the scientific method. Maths comes into later on assuming you want to do something with the knowledge. So rather than "view of audio" try to sharpen it up to something testable. Multi-channel, stereo, binaural,...?, speakers, headphones, earbuds?, size and type of room?, etc... When people don't try to do this, it rather gives away that they want to waffle rather than sort things out and get something done. Again, not that there is anything wrong with this if chatting down the pub or on a forum.

 

[Cosmik]

Maths is the tool that allows us to 'do' science (i.e. engineering).

It's interesting that you equate engineering with science, and that you make maths central to it. Maybe, but only in one direction (it is not commutative..?). Many people think that the ability to do maths makes a person a scientist, or that if an engineer launches into a mathematical description of something they must be a scientist by another name. This is part of what I was saying: people are unduly impressed by a person who has learned how to do the 'tricks' of simple calculus.

Scientific knowledge predicts the outcome of experiments and that is normally expressed mathematically (e.g. F = m*a). So a low level of maths means a person cannot really perform the working out bit between scientific principles and the answers that hold an interest for many here. Unfortunately what this forum shows is that it is also likely to lead to little to no interest in real scientific knowledge which is now somewhat abstract and of little direct use. Once that has gone faith is likely to guide decision making leading to the stuff and nonsense we see on the forum where scientific knowledge is denied at the same time as trying to embrace the answers it provides. Not that there is anything wrong of course with stuff and nonsense when it comes to hobby interests.

People get in a muddle like this by failing to first formulate what they want to achieve in the form of a testable hypothesis which is of course the first step in the scientific method. Maths comes into later on assuming you want to do something with the knowledge. So rather than "view of audio" try to sharpen it up to something testable. Multi-channel, stereo, binaural,...?, speakers, headphones, earbuds?, size and type of room?, etc... When people don't try to do this, it rather gives away that they want to waffle rather than sort things out and get something done. Again, not that there is anything wrong with this if chatting down the pub or on a forum.

Are you saying that everything audio-related can (and should) be formulated into a testable hypothesis? I don't. You might think that science could formulate a hypothesis for finding the 'best' attributes for an audio system (for a particular listener in a particular room perhaps), but I don't think it could. The reality is that humans get bored and seek out novelty. Science cannot pin down human foibles. An actual case mentioned within this forum yesterday: the expensive DAC that features pretty large zero-crossing glitches. A DAC with glitches is hailed by some as the best sounding DAC ever (it has such "depth", it is "holographic!"). In ABX tests, it might even have been demonstrated 'scientifically'. But after a few months (long after the experiment has ended) the listeners might get bored and seek out another, different, 'sound' and hail it as the best ever. Science could not have anything meaningful to contribute to such human fickleness. I, on the other hand, am happy to take on "faith" that linearity (or as close as I can get to it) is best - despite what any scientific experiment based on ABX purports to tell me.

Edit: just had a thought. Could you create a testable hypothesis that could determine whether vinyl sounds (to an audiophile) better than CD? I am digital only, "on faith". Measurements would show that CD is more linear, but would also show that it has a sharply-defined bandwidth. Maybe vinyl's other characteristics are more pleasing to the ear also (frequency-related crosstalk perhaps..?). This would be a point of contention that presumably could only be tested using ABX. But how could the experiment be 'de-biased' if the hiss and scratches of LP are so obvious, audibly?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

It's interesting that you equate engineering with science

Audiophiles don't? What do they believe the basis of engineering is, or imagine what the core curriculum is like?

 

[Cosmik]

Audiophiles don't? What do they believe the basis of engineering is, or imagine what the core curriculum is like?

I am talking specifically about "equating" the two things, and that a lay person can run away with the idea that an engineer is a scientist. This would be wrong. An engineer can probably get by without ever resorting to 'the scientific method', for example.

 

[Cosmik]

In the Schiit amplifier review linked to in the 'Glitchy Schiit' thread, the manufacturer says that they know their bias/protection algorithm works because of:

Many late nights watching the microprocessor dump real-time numbers on a screen, and many iterations of code that help distinguish bias and faults from transient current draws caused by musical output.'
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/...ed-amplifier-measurements#f3qqDCq5qf7dztM8.99

(if you haven't read it, a reviewer has difficulties measuring the distortion level because the amp assumes the test tones are non-musical, and therefore must be a fault, so the amp goes into protection mode).

The algorithm is based on maths (sort of). Indeed the creation of it could be formulated as a scientific experiment, except... a non-mathematician non-scientist could probably see that it is open-ended. There is no way of knowing what form art (in this case music) will take. It is entirely possible that someone might want to create a musical piece featuring a continuous sine wave (someone like John Cage perhaps). 'Science' and maths would be nothing but a fig leaf for a concept that a lay person could spot was flawed. Even if the amp doesn't ever 'go wrong' with real music, listeners who know about the algorithm will (quite justifiably) always be on edge listening for it. This, in itself, makes the concept flawed, regardless of any 'science'.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I am talking specifically about "equating" the two things

Right, that (real) engineering is science. Audiophiles understand neither, so no surprise they see no equivalence. It's precisely why they believe in nonsense. Again, the foundation of engineering is science and application of science and all the core curriculum sciences in any field of engineering.
Yes, much of that involves math.

This would be wrong.

No, it would indicate education vs ignorance. 99% of what we discuss is related to stereo and here, the science of stereo...invented by Alan Blumlein...an engineer. Engineering is science even though audiophiles can't grasp that fact.

An engineer can probably get by without ever resorting to 'the scientific method', for example.

Right, especially "audiophile" injurneers. So could a Chemist or Physicist also. So what if they can all "probably get by without resorting to the scientific method"?
That makes real engineering non-science to audiophiles?

 

[Cosmik]

Right, that (real) engineering is science.

No, it is the occasional application of science, and a lot of other stuff like choosing parts from a catalogue without any recourse to hypotheses and experiments, then placing the switch 3 inches from the left of the panel because it looks about right. Or what is your definition of "real"?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

No, it is the occasional application of science

Wrong. Engineering is the application of science.

and a lot of other stuff like choosing parts from a catalogue without any recourse to hypotheses and experiments, then placing the switch 3 inches from the left of the panel because it looks about right.

That isn't engineering.
Again, no surprise audiophiles cannot discern engineering, or know anything about it.

 

[Cosmik]

Wrong. Engineering is the application of science.

Ah, we're getting somewhere. Yes, the application of science. Like a lawyer applies the law, but the legislators create (or 'do') the law. They're not the same thing.

Edit: I sense a quibble and deflection in the offing. Change "laywer" to "lawyer's clerk" and "legislator" to "lawyer".

That isn't engineering.
Again, no surprise audiophiles cannot discern engineering, or know anything about it.

What have audiophiles got to do with it?

You haven't given us your definition of "real" engineering. I take it you consider yourself to be a "real" engineer? And therefore a scientist?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Ah, we're getting somewhere. Yes, the application of science.

Yes, you are finally getting somewhere. That's what engineering is, the application of science. Just like with a Chemist or Physicist. Applied science.

You haven't given us your definition of "real" engineering.

Not "my" definition. The application of science. That's what engineering is.

What have audiophiles got to do with it?

Everything.