Sparkos SS3602 Opamp Rolling In Fosi P4

[dpturner]

In what way do you think it can be misinterpreted? Because as far as I am concerned if the intended meaning is clear, then it is not "imprecise" and its use is fine.

If for example I say "This 10p piece is 10x smaller than this £1 coin" Is there any way it can be interpreted as other than its value is 1/10th?

Yes. 1/11th. Less than/more than imply subtraction/addition. Mathematical pedantry, yes; aka mathematical precision.

 

[antcollinet]

Yes. 1/11th. Less than/more than imply subtraction/addition. Mathematical pedantry, yes; aka mathematical precision.

Only if you are *deliberately* misinterpreting - ie being obtuse... or a pedant.

The intent of the person using the phrase is clear.

 

[pkane]

Less than/more than imply subtraction/addition. Mathematical pedantry, yes; aka mathematical precision.

In "four times lower" the meaning of the word "lower" is not subtraction, but the relative magnitude in the implied comparison.

 

[amirm]

I beg to differ with this, I fall on the side of the arguments presented here https://thebettereditor.wordpress.c...ly see the,innumeracy: times smaller/twice as
Which, you will see, finds the "times lower/less etc." to be imprecise and frowned upon in many style guides and certainly within the scientific community.
Regards,"

You really take writing lesson from someone that wrote this?

"I try never to use them and if I notice them when I’m editing I’ll suggest an alternative. "

You want to throw up on something, it would be "try never." Is it never or try? And why is it a "try" if he/she hates it so much?

Then there is this:

"On the other hand, it’s quite clear that many English speakers don’t notice this problem, and even most of those who do notice are not offended by it. In everyday use, even in writing—and even in technical and academic writing—these constructions appear all the time and are usually understood. If you’re attached to using them, you might as well keep at it."

And as far as I am concerned, Chicago Manual of Style is *the* reference on writing and per author, it is silent on this issue:

"I’ve been unable to find specific guidance in the Chicago Manual of Style, but it probably agrees with these others (help me out, readers, if you can nail this citation). AP Style doesn’t seem to explicitly address it (but if you can prove me wrong on that, please do). "

I use this form because it emphasizes the difference. "So many times better."

Were you confused about what I wrote in my statement?

 

[dpturner]

In "four times lower" the meaning of the word "lower" is not subtraction, but the relative magnitude in the implied co

Only if you are *deliberately* misinterpreting - ie being obtuse... or a pedant.

The intent of the person using the phrase is clear.

the intent is clear, yes. but still mathematically incorrect. four times *what*? if a bridge is ten meters high, and another bridge is four times lower, that means it is 40 meters lower, i.e., a tunnel 30 meters underground. a bridge that is one-fourth as high is a completely different. i see this all the time in popular descriptions of scientific phenomena. and yes, math is my jam.

 

[pkane]

the intent is clear, yes. but still mathematically incorrect. four times *what*? if a bridge is ten meters high, and another bridge is four times lower, that means it is 40 meters lower, i.e., a tunnel 30 meters underground. a bridge that is one-fourth as high is a completely different. i see this all the time in popular descriptions of scientific phenomena. and yes, math is my jam.

The discussion was very clearly about THD+N values in % (these represent a ratio and have no units). What other way would you interpret “four times lower” in this context?

 

[antcollinet]

the intent is clear, yes

Then it is fine. We are not writing a mathematical equation.

 

[DavidM1]

the intent is clear, yes. but still mathematically incorrect. four times *what*? if a bridge is ten meters high, and another bridge is four times lower, that means it is 40 meters lower, i.e., a tunnel 30 meters underground. a bridge that is one-fourth as high is a completely different. i see this all the time in popular descriptions of scientific phenomena. and yes, math is my jam.

So… because “times” implies multiplying you can say something is larger as a whole number multiple but to say something is smaller a fraction makes a clearer statement? Fair enough.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

If I'm asking someone to cut a 4x4 to a specific length, I need to be precise. For example, if I want the new piece to be 1/10th the length of some other pieces that have already been cut, I would either give the exact length in units or explicitly say "cut it to 1/10th the length of the others." If the original pieces are 4 meters long, then the new one should be 0.4 meters.

I wouldn't say "10 times shorter," because that phrase is inherently contradictory, ambiguous and nonsensical, "times" implies multiplication, not reduction.

Science is right there in my browser’s address bar as I type this -rise up!

 

[wwenze]

Can I say "cut it 10dB shorter"?

 

[amirm]

but still mathematically incorrect. four times *what*?

Four times the smaller number equals the larger one.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Can I say "cut it 10dB shorter"?

If you're talking about DSP, then no -that would be phrased as “cut it by 10 dB,” since cut already implies a reduction.

If you’re referring to my 4x4 example, then it doesn’t apply -dB isn’t a unit of length; it’s used for referencing acoustic pressure.

If you wanted to express the 4x4 length using that kind of phrasing, you’d need to use the correct unit. In this case, you’d say, “cut it 3.6 meters shorter” or "cut 3.6 meters off" to get the desired length of 0.4 meters.
In practice one would just use the absolute value.

 

[antcollinet]

If I'm asking someone to cut a 4x4 to a specific length, I need to be precise. For example, if I want the new piece to be 1/10th the length of some other pieces that have already been cut, I would either give the exact length in units or explicitly say "cut it to 1/10th the length of the others." If the original pieces are 4 meters long, then the new one should be 0.4 meters.

I wouldn't say "10 times shorter," because that phrase is inherently contradictory, ambiguous and nonsensical, "times" implies multiplication, not reduction.

Science is right there in my browser’s address bar as I type this -rise up!

Context is everything.

If you are engineering something, and precise unambiguous understanding is critical - or even a matter of life and death (such as - for example - a lunar mission ending in near fatal disaster due to different systems of units being used), then precise, not-open-to-misinterpretation-deliberately-or-otherwise language can (and should) be used.

When you are simply describing the level of THD+N of one device compared to another, then "four times lower" is perfectly acceptable shorthand. Not to mention: pretty-damn-close-to-unambigous-except-for-the-terminally-pedantic. (Having flashbacks to a lifetime career of a (not literal ) billion project manager/engineer conversations )

We are talking (literally ) language here. It is malleable, flexible, changes with time, and yet we still manage to understand what people are saying.

Oh, and the 0.0005% that @amirm used to derive the "four times" should (based on the measured Sinad of the best channel at 105.873dB) have been 0.000508% - or "three point nine three seven times"

But no one noticed, or cared about that little approximation. You know why? Because it doesn't matter in context.


See, I can be a pedant with the best of you.

 

[olieb]

Were you confused about what I wrote in my statement?

Not at all.
In my experience the only expression in this context that tends to be unclear is something like "this is 200% increase/more". One never knows whether that is meant as "now it is 300%" (plus 200%) or "now we have 200%, which is more" (times 200%). The former is correct, but often enough the latter is what is meant.
Your use of "times" makes it abundantly clear that you were talking about a ratio.

And yes, for that 4x4, I can cut it 10dB shorter. Just a bit awkward to say.
dB is not a unit, but a way of expressing a ratio. And "ten times shorter" is as exact as "to one tenth of the length". No ambiguity either.

I agree that one could try to take a little bit of brain load from the reader by saying "P4 has THD+N of 0.0005% or only a quarter of the distortion from the 5532 data sheet." But then this involves fractions and that is not for everyone ;-)
I do not see how this way of expressing is "better". More exact in a technical sense, yes. But a bit cumbersome and therefore harder to read, pedant's language.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

a bit cumbersome and therefore harder to read, pedant's language.

No, I’d actually argue that it makes the text much clearer to read, precisely because it removes ambiguity. And no -this isn’t about being pedantic. In science and mathematics, there’s no such thing as pedantry; there’s only correct or incorrect.

People are, of course, free to label the correct approach as pedantic if they like -but I think they'd be better off sticking to the accurate way of expressing such details, especially when participating in forums with “science” in the title.

I'm sure some will now quote me as being pedantic. My consolation? -I’m right.

 

[pkane]

No, I’d actually argue that it makes the text much clearer to read, precisely because it removes ambiguity. And no -this isn’t about being pedantic. In science and mathematics, there’s no such thing as pedantry; there’s only correct or incorrect.

People are, of course, free to label the correct approach as pedantic if they like -but I think they'd be better off sticking to the accurate way of expressing such details, especially when participating in forums with “science” in the title.

I'm sure some will now quote me as being pedantic. My consolation? -I’m right.

Let's just rename it to Audio Pedantic Review, then I could stop reading and half-expecting to find a discussion about technology and audio (by the way, half-expecting means 50% or 0.5, or 1/2 or 2x lower, or 2^-1, for avoidance of doubt)

 

[JustJones]

Is a 10p coin really 1/11 a 1 pound coin ?

 

[Postkrunk]

We see the distortion slightly rising with frequency with SS3602 as we go above 10 kHz. I re-ran the test and it was repeatable.

So, Sparcos opamp has a lower open loop gain at 20kHz than NE5532. It's a pity. I thought they have implemented a second order correction.

 

[M.C. Logan]

You really take writing lesson from someone that wrote this?

"I try never to use them and if I notice them when I’m editing I’ll suggest an alternative. "

You want to throw up on something, it would be "try never." Is it never or try? And why is it a "try" if he/she hates it so much?

Then there is this:

"On the other hand, it’s quite clear that many English speakers don’t notice this problem, and even most of those who do notice are not offended by it. In everyday use, even in writing—and even in technical and academic writing—these constructions appear all the time and are usually understood. If you’re attached to using them, you might as well keep at it."

And as far as I am concerned, Chicago Manual of Style is *the* reference on writing and per author, it is silent on this issue:

"I’ve been unable to find specific guidance in the Chicago Manual of Style, but it probably agrees with these others (help me out, readers, if you can nail this citation). AP Style doesn’t seem to explicitly address it (but if you can prove me wrong on that, please do). "

I use this form because it emphasizes the difference. "So many times better."

Were you confused about what I wrote in my statement?

I'm British, so I don't lessons from USAicans such as the person you originally quoted. The point I was trying to quote from was really the style guides from reputable publications and the fact that the "times less' family of constructions are mathematically/logically fallacious and that the accurate, and *unambiguously* correct, usage is fractions.

Regards
M

 

[Jimster480]

You really take writing lesson from someone that wrote this?

"I try never to use them and if I notice them when I’m editing I’ll suggest an alternative. "

You want to throw up on something, it would be "try never." Is it never or try? And why is it a "try" if he/she hates it so much?

Then there is this:

"On the other hand, it’s quite clear that many English speakers don’t notice this problem, and even most of those who do notice are not offended by it. In everyday use, even in writing—and even in technical and academic writing—these constructions appear all the time and are usually understood. If you’re attached to using them, you might as well keep at it."

And as far as I am concerned, Chicago Manual of Style is *the* reference on writing and per author, it is silent on this issue:

"I’ve been unable to find specific guidance in the Chicago Manual of Style, but it probably agrees with these others (help me out, readers, if you can nail this citation). AP Style doesn’t seem to explicitly address it (but if you can prove me wrong on that, please do). "

I use this form because it emphasizes the difference. "So many times better."

Were you confused about what I wrote in my statement?

Savage but deserved. I can't stand incorrectly written articles. I've never had an issue with anything you have written.