Sound science

[DonH56]

Does this mean you have not used the most common equation in acoustics to guide any of your reasoning about what is going on with sound? Was that because the physics is uninteresting, the form of maths is a bit of a barrier, or perhaps something else?

You realize you have a way of phrasing everything confrontationally and implying ignorance on the part of everyone but yourself?

I would guess the most common equation is the dB, or maybe just a variant of Ohm's Law...

I have dealt with it fairly recently but for some RF plane analysis, not acoustics. To answer your question, while I have used the equation in audio work many years ago (and occasionally since), my career took a different path than audio and when I am piddling on fora like this for fun I rarely think about wave equations. College was over 30 years ago. As a simple-minded hairy-knuckled engineer I tend to use simpler models and series expansions and so forth for theoretical analysis, do not often do something requiring me to solve differential equations, tend to use Mathcad/Maple/Matlab when I do, and just use one of those programs, a simulator, pen and paper (plus my trusty HP calculator), or something like REW or R+D (commercial SW) when looking at audio stuff.

I am not too bright in theoretical math, my bent is more toward the applied stuff (though did hold an honor's GPA in college). I did take a couple of grad courses in acoustics but frankly have to go back to my texts to deal with it these days. I am here for fun and was very interested in following your approach to teaching the theory in this thread. If I am beneath your audience this may not be the place for me and I'll sit back and watch, thanks. - Don

 

[h.g.]

You realize you have a way of phrasing everything confrontationally and implying ignorance on the part of everyone but yourself?

Of course although I would place the full stop after ignorance. I tend to poke at a lack of knowledge rather than promote my own. For example, I did not tell Ethan what "ringing" is in a frequency response and only indirectly answered Amir's challenge about the wave equation. With the exception of Amir to a mild extent, am I doing this for fun or is there perhaps some other purpose to it?

I have been interested in the response to my posts because it would seem that most posters here with an apparently higher than average interest in "audio science" fail to recognize it when it is detached from an authoritative source and not sweetly packaged. Even the school level physics concept of work failed to gain traction in Ethan's ringing thread. Interesting stuff and not what I had expected before posting to this forum.

I am here for fun and was very interested in following your approach to teaching the theory in this thread. If I am beneath your audience this may not be the place for me and I'll sit back and watch, thanks. - Don

You are the second person to address the OP and thanks for that. As an engineer you have been the audience off and on for decades and so are already something of a known quantity. As I am sure you are aware your maths level is generally above not below that of most modern home audio enthusiasts. For me this thread is primarily about the level of interest in the physics/science of sound and whether pitching at the level of home audio enthusiasts is a worthwhile exercise given my interests.

I had not intended to teach anything in this thread but to gauge people's knowledge and interest in the physics of sound as a subject. Made some progress with the knowledge but less so with the interest. I suspect many cannot see a point to it for them and they may well be right. It is more difficult, time consuming and lengthy to write effectively about scientific subjects for a general audience than it is for an audience that already know the basics. Although an interesting task in itself, I am becoming progressively more doubtful about how worthwhile it would be to pick up as a major task linked to other activity. A smaller task on a single theme is being pondered.

 

[h.g.]

Make a video out of it, upload it to youtube and then link it here.

I have had a quick play in the testing area and cannot get an interactive figure to work within a forum post. A brief browse of the web seems to confirm that for security reasons forum software does not usually allow javascript in forum posts. So it looks like an article would have to be hosted somewhere else although the discussion could be here.

 

[amirm]

Of course although I would place the full stop after ignorance. I tend to poke at a lack of knowledge rather than promote my own. For example, I did not tell Ethan what "ringing" is in a frequency response and only indirectly answered Amir's challenge about the wave equation. With the exception of Amir to a mild extent, am I doing this for fun or is there perhaps some other purpose to it?

I have been interested in the response to my posts because it would seem that most posters here with an apparently higher than average interest in "audio science" fail to recognize it when it is detached from an authoritative source and not sweetly packaged. Even the school level physics concept of work failed to gain traction in Ethan's ringing thread. Interesting stuff and not what I had expected before posting to this forum.

No, Don was right on the money. You are boasting about how you are man of science and engineering yet you are not presenting anything that demonstrates that. I just put in a response to your Ethan post: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...multiple-subs-and-sub-eq.185/page-8#post-9064

As I explain there, you are on a different plot completely. You haven't brought any knowledge or understanding the topic, only complaints. This is not why we are here. Go ahead and inform us and we will put up with rudeness. But bring misinformation and lay understanding masquerading as knowledge and I and others will get grumpy with you. This is not a forum populated by audiophiles that don't know the topic so you can just scare them with talk of "science." Collectively despite our small numbers we have incredible amount of real knowledge here. Don't take us lightly and assume you know more than the forum.

 

[Thomas savage]

Rather than engaging in some SAS style covert mission to probe the forums worthiness, why not just get on and post what you want. Really this all reeks of self importance to the point of nausea.

Just get on and post on the subject matter you proclaim to be a expert in. The physics of sound. You never know some may understand, and some more guests reading your post might then take a interest and sign up to join in

Thats how places like this grow!

Oh, and if it goes over a few people's heads... Will the world end? Will the servers catch fire.

Maybe it will raise the bar and help create a better forum.

 

[h.g.]

As I explain there, you are on a different plot completely. You haven't brought any knowledge or understanding the topic, only complaints. This is not why we are here. Go ahead and inform us and we will put up with rudeness. But bring misinformation and lay understanding masquerading as knowledge and I and others will get grumpy with you.

Pointing out where you are wrong is neither complaining nor rude and is providing knowledge. If you had a bit more curiosity about what is going on you might even find it fun to ask why and learn how to look at things in a different way rather then feeling grumpy.

 

[amirm]

Pointing out where you are wrong is neither complaining nor rude and is providing knowledge. If you had a bit more curiosity about what is going on you might even find it fun to ask why and learn how to look at things in a different way rather then feeling grumpy.

You didn't point at where anything is wrong with respect to the technical topics presented by the membership. What you are doing instead is constantly insult the members for not knowing engineering/science/physics while providing none of that yourself. It is rude, improper and tiring. Your posts from here on need to be technical and not personal.

 

[h.g.]

Rather than engaging in some SAS style covert mission to probe the forums worthiness, why not just get on and post what you want. Really this all reeks of self importance to the point of nausea.

Apologies for missing your post yesterday evening. How many months of my spare time do you think I am looking to set aside to get this project off the ground? I suspect you may not have grasped quite what is involved in terms of software to get around the maths.

A few years ago I set aside 4 months of my spare time to kickstart the infrastructure for a community DIY speaker analysis project. It failed to get going primarily because I did not take the time to understand the interests and capabilities those likely to get actively involved. I had worked out what I probably should have done towards the end of the 4 months but that was not a great help. Once bitten twice shy.

In this case it looks as if I may also have started with a misunderstanding of the views and interests of a proportion of the "audiophile objectivist" section of my potential audience. But at least this time I have had the sense to try to work it out before starting the project. In truth it doesn't necessarily stop the project but it does change it if it goes ahead.

Just get on and post on the subject matter you proclaim to be a expert in. The physics of sound.

If you read the posts rather than project you will see that I have not claimed to be an expert or talked about the few small areas where my expertise lies which is almost wholly irrelevant. I have simply demonstrated an understanding of some of the basics of sound (at least to an audience that understands the basics) and it is only the basics that the project requires.

Oh, and if it goes over a few people's heads... Will the world end? Will the servers catch fire.

If the author understands the knowledge and interests of the audience and writes to that then it won't go over their heads. If I was to spend another 4 months of my spare time on a largely unsuccessful project then the world may not end but the server running the local copy of the website stands a fair chance of suffering physical damage.

Maybe it will raise the bar and help create a better forum.

Amir is clearly putting in a lot of time and effort to get things going and good luck to him but what makes a better forum is obviously going to vary with peoples interests. So far this one has yet to settle on a group outlook but my interest in what Amir has called "lay science" suggests my technical interests are possibly more out than in. Nonetheless how some of the people here view things is new to me and interesting.

 

[Thomas savage]

Apologies for missing your post yesterday evening. How many months of my spare time do you think I am looking to set aside to get this project off the ground? I suspect you may not have grasped quite what is involved in terms of software to get around the maths.

A few years ago I set aside 4 months of my spare time to kickstart the infrastructure for a community DIY speaker analysis project. It failed to get going primarily because I did not take the time to understand the interests and capabilities those likely to get actively involved. I had worked out what I probably should have done towards the end of the 4 months but that was not a great help. Once bitten twice shy.

In this case it looks as if I may also have started with a misunderstanding of the views and interests of a proportion of the "audiophile objectivist" section of my potential audience. But at least this time I have had the sense to try to work it out before starting the project. In truth it doesn't necessarily stop the project but it does change it if it goes ahead.


If you read the posts rather than project you will see that I have not claimed to be an expert or talked about the few small areas where my expertise lies which is almost wholly irrelevant. I have simply demonstrated an understanding of some of the basics of sound (at least to an audience that understands the basics) and it is only the basics that the project requires.


If the author understands the knowledge and interests of the audience and writes to that then it won't go over their heads. If I was to spend another 4 months of my spare time on a largely unsuccessful project then the world may not end but the server running the local copy of the website stands a fair chance of suffering physical damage.


Amir is clearly putting in a lot of time and effort to get things going and good luck to him but what makes a better forum is obviously going to vary with peoples interests. So far this one has yet to settle on a group outlook but my interest in what Amir has called "lay science" suggests my technical interests are possibly more out than in. Nonetheless how some of the people here view things is new to me and interesting.

Glad your finding things of interest, a diversified knowladge base would provide the widest scope of interest to the widest potential audience. i don't think initially at least helping to provide this will entail a 4 month investment of your time.. I could be wrong

Hope to see some technically lead reasoned argument from you, someone has to keep amir honest. He is insufferable when allowed to go without challenge

 

[h.g.]

Hope to see some technically lead reasoned argument from you, someone has to keep amir honest. He is insufferable when allowed to go without challenge

My technical reasoning has not kept Amir honest because he will not ask why and enter a discussion in the manner of someone with an interest. He will only preach at me what he thinks. Admittedly I am now providing information designed more to draw out what he misunderstands rather than take the first step to understanding which was where I started. This is because his behaviour degenerated to the name calling you see in the post above and so I quite reasonably responded by teasing him. It relies on a significant degree of arrogance and bigotry in the opponent to work, a simple why and it falls apart, but the frustration generated at not being able to successfully refute anything and where that leads is fun to observe. However, for my sake more than his, stopping it now is probably wise since continuing to tease to make a point that has already been made will at some point become bullying. Also I think some of the readers missed that I was teasing Amir and that hasn't helped the thread.

With the forum as it is at present technically lead reasoned arguments are not happening and this would seem to have far more to do with people rather than the relevant information not being around. Ethan's ringing thread where he asked two questions requiring a modest level of technical understanding and failed to get what he considers a satisfactory response is perhaps a good example to talk around.

The questions were expressed in a slightly odd way which is perfectly normal when people don't understand something and so questions get asked by the people with the knowledge to clarify what is actually wanted. These were asked but they were ignored and an assertion made that he was not mixing things up. So even the initial discussion to clarify the questions did not happen because of normal audiophile behaviour. But the real biggie was this:

"The best proof is measurements. I understand fully what's going on, but empirical evidence trumps theory every time."

No technical discussion can survive thinking like this given the whole point of science is to use reasoning in place of measurements. It is of course the normal audiophile view. For technical discussions to take place people have to be interested in why rather than just what.

In Ethan's case he is floundering for a couple of reasons that I am pretty confident are clear to several members and not just me. Firstly, he does not understand what sound absorption means in terms of physics and hence how subwoofers can absorb sound. Secondly, he does not understand that the information in an impulse response and a frequency response are the same and so he can see changes in his ringing in the frequency response. He was told this directly or indirectly by several people in the thread but it was dismissed/ignored presumably because he has no interest in discussing what is going on and only wants someone to provide him a particular form of plot. Perhaps he will eventually get it but the way he has gone about trying to gather his information is inefficient compared to simply asking why and discussing it when someone gives him the answer in a form he does not understand. He is also alienating the people that know the answers to his questions and so can expect more responses like AJs from them in the future or, more likely, to be ignored.

Now an interesting thing is that Ethan probably already possess all the necessary information in separate compartments in his brain to answer his questions. Asking "what" a lot has filled those compartments but failing to ask "why" has not created the knowledge that links them, removes the duplication and enables things to be worked out without first being told. He knows that active absorbers can be subwoofers of some form even if he is not sure quite how. I am not sure if he recalls what work/energy/power means from school physics and his reading even if he has not considered them with respect to a speaker cone. He almost certainly knows that single resonant systems like speakers in a sealed box have a progressively wigglier impulse response as the peak gets taller and narrower and that it is damping that lowers and spreads the peaks. What he is lacking is the knowledge that fits it all together which can be created by asking why in a technical discussion or more commonly by reading technical literature written to teach rather than provide "what". But of course he has got to want to do this.

So to be a bit more positive what can be done to bring technical discussions to this forum? I suspect the most effective thing that can be done is for people to see a few real technical discussions happen on the forum. A technical problem is raised by a person without the knowledge to solve it, people discuss the technical knowledge that could solve the problem, apply it and see what successfully predicts the solution to the problem. If people see a few examples like this then the penny should drop for a fair few why bypassing the working out bit in the middle, which pretty much everybody here seems to want to do, is not a good idea in the longer term.

The forum needs to be attractive to people that possess the relevant knowledge and know how to apply it. This does not necessarily mean experts but it does mean engineers and scientists that have learnt the basic science behind the relevant subject. So had Ethan posted his question on, say, the alt.sci.physics.acoustics newsgroup 10 years ago when it was active with a few active acoustic consultants chatting about their subject and issues then that would have happened. They may well still be around somewhere but I don't know where.

So what brings people with real technical knowledge to chat on a forum like this? It won't be to gain technical knowledge because that will overwhelmingly flow the other way. One good reason would be to help promote their expertise in support of an income stream elsewhere. This is probably going to require something like a sub-forum with their name on it, giving them a degree of control within that sub-forum so they are confident they can remove what is harmful to their reputation and for most of the posts within the forum to be on topic. This won't prevent abuse elsewhere on the forum and so a degree of support from the moderators would be required if the forum opts to include substantial numbers of those that believe in magic as it currently does. This is of course close to what was done on the WhatsBestForum but it did not seem to be particularly successful. A few years ago I posted a question about this there but was told to go away by a moderator and so I did. Perhaps Amir would like to comment on what he thinks went wrong there and whether he has similar ideas for here.

If the forum contains a significant amount of audiophile nonsense and certainly if it is in the majority then nobody with any sort of reputation to protect outside the closed audiophile world is going consider having their name associated with it even if the title contains the word science. This has been raised before by others and will almost certainly lead to this forum being just the same as every other audiophile forum unless something is done to discourage it.

Other suggestions?

 

[March Audio]

This is all very nice HG. Now can you actually contribute with some useful technical discussion? We havent actually seen any of this from your good self yet, even though there is plenty of implying knowledge and a good dose of criticism of others.

The whole point is that the "audience" of this forum consists of people of all levels of understanding. If you are particularly knowledgeable in a certain area the real skill is being a capable communicator, one who can address all levels. The skill is debating and explaining even in the face of ignorance and sometimes dogma.

There will of course be those that persist in whatever dogma they have, however I think they will find little engagement on this forum.

 

[h.g.]

This is all very nice HG. Now can you actually contribute with some useful technical discussion? We havent actually seen any of this from your good self yet, even though there is plenty of implying knowledge and a good dose of criticism of others.

This thread is about the level of interest in science of sound as a subject, why it might be useful, why it is not happening at the moment, whether this forum wants conventional technical discussions to take place, etc... It is not about how clever I may or may not be which is irrelevant.

The whole point is that the "audience" of this forum consists of people of all levels of understanding. If you are particularly knowledgeable in a certain area the real skill is being a capable communicator, one who can address all levels. The skill is debating and explaining even in the face of ignorance and sometimes dogma.

There is no point trying to forcibly teach science to the overwhelming majority of audiophiles because they are not interested. If you try to push it even in a mild way like I was doing with Amir and Ethan they don't like it. Now Amir and Ethan are from the "objective" end of the audiophile spectrum and responded in a largely civil manner but when the missionary types from places like Hydrogen Audio start bludgeoning "subjective" audiophiles with information they don't want and can only oppose indirectly it is not pleasant to be around.

Showing a person of faith they are wrong in a way they cannot directly refute is not something I am interested in doing within a technical discussion. Outside it no problem. Strange as it may seem to many here I see nothing wrong with people choosing to believe audiophile cables possess properties unknown to science and a luxury goods industry encouraging them in that belief. But I don't want them in the way when discussing technical topics with people interested in technical topics.

There will of course be those that persist in whatever dogma they have, however I think they will find little engagement on this forum.

What proportion of the posts in this forum would you judge as science based versus faith based: none, tiny amount, modest amount, about equal, more, a lot more, all? Exclude the articles just the chat from the members. I would judge it as currently somewhere around modest and likely to fall.

 

[March Audio]

This thread is about the level of interest in science of sound as a subject, why it might be useful, why it is not happening at the moment, whether this forum wants conventional technical discussions to take place, etc... It is not about how clever I may or may not be which is irrelevant.


There is no point trying to forcibly teach science to the overwhelming majority of audiophiles because they are not interested. If you try to push it even in a mild way like I was doing with Amir and Ethan they don't like it. Now Amir and Ethan are from the "objective" end of the audiophile spectrum and responded in a largely civil manner but when the missionary types from places like Hydrogen Audio start bludgeoning "subjective" audiophiles with information they don't want and can only oppose indirectly it is not pleasant to be around.

Showing a person of faith they are wrong in a way they cannot directly refute is not something I am interested in doing within a technical discussion. Outside it no problem. Strange as it may seem to many here I see nothing wrong with people choosing to believe audiophile cables possess properties unknown to science and a luxury goods industry encouraging them in that belief. But I don't want them in the way when discussing technical topics with people interested in technical topics.


What proportion of the posts in this forum would you judge as science based versus faith based: none, tiny amount, modest amount, about equal, more, a lot more, all? Exclude the articles just the chat from the members. I would judge it as currently somewhere around modest and likely to fall.

It is happening. The purely ( and imo loony ) subjective is relatively minimal compared to other forums out there.

They don't like it because you are not communicating effectively. Amir and Ethan are not uninformed. You have said nothing that I have seen yet that actually shows that you are. People do not like being lectured by those who imply superiority.

I totally agree that this forum should not be about audiophile religion, but as I mentioned, I don't see much of that compared to the other forums out there.

If you are looking for discussion only to be above a certain level of technicality then I suspect you are going to be disappointed.

 

[Thomas savage]

My technical reasoning has not kept Amir honest because he will not ask why and enter a discussion in the manner of someone with an interest. He will only preach at me what he thinks. Admittedly I am now providing information designed more to draw out what he misunderstands rather than take the first step to understanding which was where I started. This is because his behaviour degenerated to the name calling you see in the post above and so I quite reasonably responded by teasing him. It relies on a significant degree of arrogance and bigotry in the opponent to work, a simple why and it falls apart, but the frustration generated at not being able to successfully refute anything and where that leads is fun to observe. However, for my sake more than his, stopping it now is probably wise since continuing to tease to make a point that has already been made will at some point become bullying. Also I think some of the readers missed that I was teasing Amir and that hasn't helped the thread.

With the forum as it is at present technically lead reasoned arguments are not happening and this would seem to have far more to do with people rather than the relevant information not being around. Ethan's ringing thread where he asked two questions requiring a modest level of technical understanding and failed to get what he considers a satisfactory response is perhaps a good example to talk around.

The questions were expressed in a slightly odd way which is perfectly normal when people don't understand something and so questions get asked by the people with the knowledge to clarify what is actually wanted. These were asked but they were ignored and an assertion made that he was not mixing things up. So even the initial discussion to clarify the questions did not happen because of normal audiophile behaviour. But the real biggie was this:

"The best proof is measurements. I understand fully what's going on, but empirical evidence trumps theory every time."

No technical discussion can survive thinking like this given the whole point of science is to use reasoning in place of measurements. It is of course the normal audiophile view. For technical discussions to take place people have to be interested in why rather than just what.

In Ethan's case he is floundering for a couple of reasons that I am pretty confident are clear to several members and not just me. Firstly, he does not understand what sound absorption means in terms of physics and hence how subwoofers can absorb sound. Secondly, he does not understand that the information in an impulse response and a frequency response are the same and so he can see changes in his ringing in the frequency response. He was told this directly or indirectly by several people in the thread but it was dismissed/ignored presumably because he has no interest in discussing what is going on and only wants someone to provide him a particular form of plot. Perhaps he will eventually get it but the way he has gone about trying to gather his information is inefficient compared to simply asking why and discussing it when someone gives him the answer in a form he does not understand. He is also alienating the people that know the answers to his questions and so can expect more responses like AJs from them in the future or, more likely, to be ignored.

Now an interesting thing is that Ethan probably already possess all the necessary information in separate compartments in his brain to answer his questions. Asking "what" a lot has filled those compartments but failing to ask "why" has not created the knowledge that links them, removes the duplication and enables things to be worked out without first being told. He knows that active absorbers can be subwoofers of some form even if he is not sure quite how. I am not sure if he recalls what work/energy/power means from school physics and his reading even if he has not considered them with respect to a speaker cone. He almost certainly knows that single resonant systems like speakers in a sealed box have a progressively wigglier impulse response as the peak gets taller and narrower and that it is damping that lowers and spreads the peaks. What he is lacking is the knowledge that fits it all together which can be created by asking why in a technical discussion or more commonly by reading technical literature written to teach rather than provide "what". But of course he has got to want to do this.

So to be a bit more positive what can be done to bring technical discussions to this forum? I suspect the most effective thing that can be done is for people to see a few real technical discussions happen on the forum. A technical problem is raised by a person without the knowledge to solve it, people discuss the technical knowledge that could solve the problem, apply it and see what successfully predicts the solution to the problem. If people see a few examples like this then the penny should drop for a fair few why bypassing the working out bit in the middle, which pretty much everybody here seems to want to do, is not a good idea in the longer term.

The forum needs to be attractive to people that possess the relevant knowledge and know how to apply it. This does not necessarily mean experts but it does mean engineers and scientists that have learnt the basic science behind the relevant subject. So had Ethan posted his question on, say, the alt.sci.physics.acoustics newsgroup 10 years ago when it was active with a few active acoustic consultants chatting about their subject and issues then that would have happened. They may well still be around somewhere but I don't know where.

So what brings people with real technical knowledge to chat on a forum like this? It won't be to gain technical knowledge because that will overwhelmingly flow the other way. One good reason would be to help promote their expertise in support of an income stream elsewhere. This is probably going to require something like a sub-forum with their name on it, giving them a degree of control within that sub-forum so they are confident they can remove what is harmful to their reputation and for most of the posts within the forum to be on topic. This won't prevent abuse elsewhere on the forum and so a degree of support from the moderators would be required if the forum opts to include substantial numbers of those that believe in magic as it currently does. This is of course close to what was done on the WhatsBestForum but it did not seem to be particularly successful. A few years ago I posted a question about this there but was told to go away by a moderator and so I did. Perhaps Amir would like to comment on what he thinks went wrong there and whether he has similar ideas for here.

If the forum contains a significant amount of audiophile nonsense and certainly if it is in the majority then nobody with any sort of reputation to protect outside the closed audiophile world is going consider having their name associated with it even if the title contains the word science. This has been raised before by others and will almost certainly lead to this forum being just the same as every other audiophile forum unless something is done to discourage it.

Other suggestions?

Umm..

We can moderate our own threads so all that's ' required ' is you start one in the right vien and go from there. Really that's all you need to do, I understand your stance. I don't holly disagree with you but I would be very much more in agreement if you lead by example in your own thread. Set the tone.

Look forward to you doing just that, it's what we need here.

 

[h.g.]

It is happening. The purely subjective is relatively minimal compared to other forums out there.

I asked about faith versus science. Subjective is something else and, for example, the oft quoted subjective work by Harman is perfectly respectable science.

They don't like it because you are not communicating effectively. Amir and Ethan are not uninformed.

For example, both have faith that multiple subwoofers do not absorb sound. There is no science involved given simple school level science predicts that subwoofers can equally well create and absorb sound depending on the product of air pressure and cone velocity. It is a faith based on collecting what they want to believe and the dismissing of whatever contradicts it like science and subwoofers sold as active absorbers by reputable companies. It is exactly same the faith that leads people to believe in cable risers, pebbles in jars and other wacky audiophile products.

But I agree there was a fair chance I could have convinced them if that had been my objective rather than to find out why the believed multiple subwoofers cannot absorb sound which is significantly more interesting to me.

I totally agree that this forum should not be about audiophile religion, but as I mentioned, I don't see much of that compared to the other forums out there.

What you and I see would appear to be rather different and likely follows from our different backgrounds. This is fine and interesting. There is no reason for anybody to see things my way if they are happy with theirs and that applies to the wackiest of audiophiles.

If you are looking for discussion only to be above a certain level of technicality then I suspect you are going to be disappointed.

This an audiophile forum not a technical forum and so to assume anything other than the school level physics taught to everyone is likely to be unwise. Even that can be a bit too much sometimes. But the level is not the question it is the interest in the subject because the former is easy enough to address but the latter is not.

 

[March Audio]

I asked about faith versus science. Subjective is something else and, for example, the oft quoted subjective work by Harman is perfectly respectable science.


For example, both have faith that multiple subwoofers do not absorb sound. There is no science involved given simple school level science predicts that subwoofers can equally well create and absorb sound depending on the product of air pressure and cone velocity. It is a faith based on collecting what they want to believe and the dismissing of whatever contradicts it like science and subwoofers sold as active absorbers by reputable companies. It is exactly same the faith that leads people to believe in cable risers, pebbles in jars and other wacky audiophile products.

But I agree there was a fair chance I could have convinced them if that had been my objective rather than to find out why the believed multiple subwoofers cannot absorb sound which is significantly more interesting to me.


What you and I see would appear to be rather different and likely follows from our different backgrounds. This is fine and interesting. There is no reason for anybody to see things my way if they are happy with theirs and that applies to the wackiest of audiophiles.


This an audiophile forum not a technical forum and so to assume anything other than the school level physics taught to everyone is likely to be unwise. Even that can be a bit too much sometimes. But the level is not the question it is the interest in the subject because the former is easy enough to address but the latter is not.

The context of my point was perfectly clear, playing semantics is extremely tedious.

I dont think they have made such statements. Ethan had simply asked a question. A question which demonstrated an open mind even if his current understanding predisposes him to a certain conclusion. You also miss the issue about a real world implementation of a theory. there are many reasons and variables that prevent theories from being effectively implemented.

As I said before, you need not jump to conclusions about my background, you have little real knowledge of it.

You are entitled of course to your incorrect opinion. This is a technical forum and quite different from most of the audiophile forums out there. I do not understand why you keep asserting that it isnt technical, or scientific, or that people have no interest in it being so. Its an ironic position as I have seen very little if any genuine technical contribution from you so far, just criticism and argumentativeness. Its an open forum and inevitably will attract a range of opinions and positions, so I am not sure what you are expecting.

It just strikes me that the forum content just isnt to your liking and attuned to your sense of science or technicality. As such you are welcome to search elsewhere for a forum that suits you.

 

[h.g.]

The context of my point was perfectly clear, playing semantics is extremely tedious.

It seemed clear to me that you had misunderstood the question and were answering about "subjective audiophile" without including a substantial proportion of "objective audiophile" in the faith based category. So I gave an example to help clarify things. Your denial, lack of interest in discussing disagreement with concrete examples/evidence while getting miffed illustrates yet again why little technical discussion is taking place here. Any interest in "why" you possess is simply too weak to overcome the barriers put up by other concerns.

I dont think they have made such statements.

Reading the thread should determine that one way or the other.

You also miss the issue about a real world implementation of a theory. there are many reasons and variables that prevent theories from being effectively implemented.

Can you provide examples of this from the threads.

As I said before, you need not jump to conclusions about my background, you have little real knowledge of it.

Can you give an example of where I have done this? Along with the other members of this forum, I am interested in what you have to say, how you view things and what you do and do not find interesting.

You are entitled of course to your incorrect opinion.

Can you give an example or two.

This is a technical forum and quite different from most of the audiophile forums out there. I do not understand why you keep asserting that it isnt technical, or scientific, or that people have no interest in it being so.

Because most of the people here have little to no interest in "why" only "what" as outlined above. Science is the "why" and not the "what".

Its an ironic position as I have seen very little if any genuine technical contribution from you so far, just criticism and argumentativeness. Its an open forum and inevitably will attract a range of opinions and positions, so I am not sure what you are expecting.

I am not expecting anything, I am trying to work out what it is and the degree to which it serves my interests. I expect everyone else is doing likewise to some extent until the forum settles down.

It just strikes me that the forum content just isnt to your liking and attuned to your sense of science or technicality. As such you are welcome to search elsewhere for a forum that suits you.

Do you read my posts as seeking status within the group here? It would seem to be a rather strange way of going about it if that was the case. Is it possible to just be interested in what is going on without having to like or dislike it? Perhaps try to determine the degree to which some people may be interested in the "why" rather than just the "what" and how it may hook into my activities and interests elsewhere?

 

[March Audio]

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.

 

[March Audio]

You didn't point at where anything is wrong with respect to the technical topics presented by the membership. What you are doing instead is constantly insult the members for not knowing engineering/science/physics while providing none of that yourself. It is rude, improper and tiring. Your posts from here on need to be technical and not personal.

This

 

[Thomas savage]

It seemed clear to me that you had misunderstood the question and were answering about "subjective audiophile" without including a substantial proportion of "objective audiophile" in the faith based category. So I gave an example to help clarify things. Your denial, lack of interest in discussing disagreement with concrete examples/evidence while getting miffed illustrates yet again why little technical discussion is taking place here. Any interest in "why" you possess is simply too weak to overcome the barriers put up by other concerns.


Reading the thread should determine that one way or the other.


Can you provide examples of this from the threads.


Can you give an example of where I have done this? Along with the other members of this forum, I am interested in what you have to say, how you view things and what you do and do not find interesting.


Can you give an example or two.


Because most of the people here have little to no interest in "why" only "what" as outlined above. Science is the "why" and not the "what".


I am not expecting anything, I am trying to work out what it is and the degree to which it serves my interests. I expect everyone else is doing likewise to some extent until the forum settles down.


Do you read my posts as seeking status within the group here? It would seem to be a rather strange way of going about it if that was the case. Is it possible to just be interested in what is going on without having to like or dislike it? Perhaps try to determine the degree to which some people may be interested in the "why" rather than just the "what" and how it may hook into my activities and interests elsewhere?

Well I want to know why! I just hope I can understand the answers

So please h.g feel free to start us off! And hopefully inspire more of the kind of inquiries your alluding to.

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