Cable argument put forward by a scientist

[amirm]

I looked up his intro video and he says he teaches Physics at high-school and college level. He reviews headphones but doesn't want to do any measurements.

 

[wwenze]

Better hope these topics are still being taught in class then:

- Repeated testing and repeatability of results
- Random and systemic causes of measurement errors

 

[lordearl]

Not even sure people need videos to be convinced that cables "matter".

I walked into a hifi store the other day and overheard this conversation:

Customer: "would this cable make a difference to the sound of my system?"

Salesperson: "only if you have a very high end system"

Customer: "I'm only just starting out, so I have a fairly basic amp and speakers at the moment."

Salesperson: "oh right, well, I mean you can upgrade the cable now and the rest of the system later."

Customer: "great plan!"

Unbelievable....

 

[rochambeaux]

Can you get a PhD in STEM? Maybe it's a specialized education degree?

Sure - couple hundred thousand for a PhD in "Southern Tasmanian Existential Music" - qualifies you teach the next generation in an equally marketable field.

 

[Anton D]

Why? What matters is what you do and how you do it, not the piece of paper.

No need to tell me, just the harpies demanding credentials from one side and not the other.

 

[Newman]

The "Science" he knows is not audio science or he would know this:

1. His testing was clearly sighted. So was his wife's. His defense of this is that "I didn't expect it to make a difference so the fact that it did, it means there is a difference." This is a fundamental mistake.

It doesn’t matter what manner of scientist he is: if he has an hypothesis that randomised, placebo-controlled double blind testing is not necessary, then as a scientist he would know that he needs to… put it to the test!

 

[JSmith]

He makes a fundamental mistake a the beginning

So the usual unfounded claims where someone has calculated 1+1 and somehow got 3.14159... yes nothing to see here.


JSmith

 

[Mnyb]

Yes the tweakers has for decades searched for ”the rigth test” that shows that they where rigth all the time Hifi electronics has magical properties hitherty unknown that does not show up at places like cern or jwst where we actively looking for new science 24/7 with thousands of scientists

But semi senile joe in his basement with hearing up to 8kHz will trough his wizzer cone speakers and 5w set amp discover that silver sounds different than copper and advance solid state physics

 

[SIY]

I looked up his intro video and he says he teaches Physics at high-school and college level.

This explains much.

Those poor kids.

 

[mocenigo]

I stumbled on a video series by someone ( Reviews by Wave Theory ) who claims to be a Scientist with dual PhD in Physics and STEM.

Former university professor here: I know what a PhD in Physics is but what is a PhD in "STEM"? STEM is an acronym for "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics" and Physics is therefore in the "S" part of STEM altready. Maybe in "STEM Education"? That would be a title.

 

[mocenigo]

Problem is, he's not an authority in any area he's talking about. There's a lot of that going around these days.

I have a PhD "Rerum Naturalis", but that was only Diophantine Approximation, an area of Number Theory, which is an area of Mathematics, and am an established Cryptographer, with a couple of standards in my portfolio, and a SoC Security Architect: If tried to talk about quantum chromodynamics or bovine breeding I would probably only make a fool of myself. And even in Cryptography I understand next to nothing about how to design protocols, or areas such as Zero Knowledge Proofs. I would make a fool of myself to try and talk about these areas as well. It is normal: knowledge is getting highly specialised.

Too bad too many people do exactly that. The ONE thing one should learn first is that the amount of things one does not understand consists of almost everything. If one does a PhD and does not get that, then they failed completely, regardless of the degree.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

I have a PhD "Rerum Naturalis", but that was only Diophantine Approximation, an area of Number Theory, which is an area of Mathematics, and am an established Cryptographer, with a couple of standards in my portfolio, and a SoC Security Architect: If tried to talk about quantum chromodynamics or bovine breeding I would probably only make a fool of myself. And even in Cryptography I understand next to nothing about how to design protocols, or areas such as Zero Knowledge Proofs. I would make a fool of myself to try and talk about these areas as well. It is normal: knowledge is getting highly specialised.

Too bad too many people do exactly that. The ONE thing one should learn first is that the amount of things one does not understand consists of almost everything. If one does a PhD and does not get that, then they failed completely, regardless of the degree.

I met Diophantus when I was a kid. Pretty neat guy.

 

[DonH56]

I have been around a lot of really, really smart people, some of whom had PhDs. But there are/were also those who felt a PhD, which requires tight focus on a specialized area, conveys equal competence in all other areas. I.e. an expert in one thing so must be an expert in all things. There is also a tendency to misapply such expertise to inappropriate applications (audio marketing is filled with this). The analogies are endless, but those folk do a disservice to both their specialty and the people who do have expertise in other fields.

When I was much younger I worked with a guy who had a poster saying "Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to us who do." He lived it. He was very smart. He was also a jerk. And he didn't quite know everything.

 

[theREALdotnet]

I met Diophantus when I was a kid. Pretty neat guy.

I remember him, too. He was always wondering how much longer Keith Richard was going to live.

 

[SIY]

I have been around a lot of really, really smart people, some of whom had PhDs.

The two smartest people I have ever known well were 50% PhDs. So perfect scatter. (The non-PhD in that duet was Scott Wurcer)

I have a strong suspicion, but no data, that the guy here has a PhD in education rather than physics. The "Dr" types in the high school I attended (albeit briefly, having been expelled after 10th grade) were all in education.

 

[Jim Taylor]

This conversation reminds me of an old joke.

A young degree-holder applied for a job at a large company. He was hired, and told to report to the section foreman.
The foreman handed him a broom and said, "Until something comes open, just sweep the floors." Our young degree-holder retorted, "I'll have you know that I have been to University and I have a degree!"
The foreman said, "Oh ... I see. Well, watch carefully then, and I'll show you how this thing works."



Jim

 

[Audiofire]

(The non-PhD in that duet was Scott Wurcer)

RIP member Scott Wurcer

Just found out over at diyaudio. https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/scott-wurcer-of-adi-fame-passed-away.410848/ His knowledge of electronics and no nonsense replies will be missed at ASR.

www.audiosciencereview.com

"For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing..." (Plato, Apology 22d, translated by Harold North Fowler, 1966).

 

[Geert]

The "Dr" types in the high school I attended (albeit briefly, having been expelled after 10th grade) were all in education.

I think Dr. Dre is a genius .

 

[Audiofire]

I think Dr. Dre is a genius .

 

[coonmanx]

I'm not a scientist. But I do play one on TV...