• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not anymore. It’s a device purporting to support HDMI 2.1, when it fails to meet the specification.. it was after review and eye brows raised by the public, they decided to make a comment explaining this tidbit.

Is any of the things I am saying getting through to you, or are you going to keep asking single questions to replies you never acknowledge certain portions of, and simply just go and ask away constant questions that should have been clear to anyone with memory retention ability of the discussion occurring?

Based on your next reply, I’ll either give closing statements, or continue. There is no way you’re proceeding in good faith if you’re still asking questions like this. So I’ll be asking some questions now. This has gone on long enough, and I’ve assumed you’ve grasped things I’ve repeated multiple times. Let’s find out if you have.

I will repeat a question I haven’t gotten an answer for. I want it explained to me, even if LG or whoever, provides information pre-release, that their TV will support HDMI 2.1, at what point in your rational do you figure they should be disqualified form being able to use the sticker on their advertising of the device. I want an explanation on what you think companies ought be doing to satisfy being about to advertise a “standard” at which point they’de be allowed to use it in advertising material?

Next, do you think standards should be based on the understanding that a minimum threshold should be satisfied? If so, I want you to tell me what that threshold would be if you were for instance one of the people in the HDMI forum that agreed upon the specs for HDMI 2.1?

Lastly, do you think it makes sense to offer “optional” portions of a “standard” while also still not differentiating in terms of labels - the difference between a manufacturer fulfills the minimum supported portions of a standard, while still being granted the ability to advertise the product, no better, nor worse, than a competitor that supports the full specification with all options?
The HDMI spec is backwards and forwards compatible, so a device compliant with one version is also compliant with any other version. A source will generally select the highest resolution video mode it can produce and the display can accept. Is your complaint that the LG TV doesn't support _everything_ the HDMI 2.1 spec permits? How would you advertise a display that needs more bandwidth than HDMI 2.0 allows but less than the maximum HDMI 2.1 provides? What about a display that uses the full available bandwidth but doesn't have eARC, perhaps because it is a pure display without any audio source?

I view an HDMI label in conjunction with the full spec sheet. If a device advertises 4K resolution and carries an HDMI 2.1 sticker, I assume it is able to receive and display a 4K video signal over an HDMI 2.1 compliant interface as opposed to, say, DisplayPort. I do not assume it can display an 8K image just because the HDMI 2.1 spec allows such devices to be made.

A compatibility sticker should not be confused for a spec sheet.
 

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
The HDMI spec is backwards and forwards compatible, so a device compliant with one version is also compliant with any other version. A source will generally select the highest resolution video mode it can produce and the display can accept. Is your complaint that the LG TV doesn't support _everything_ the HDMI 2.1 spec permits? How would you advertise a display that needs more bandwidth than HDMI 2.0 allows but less than the maximum HDMI 2.1 provides? What about a display that uses the full available bandwidth but doesn't have eARC, perhaps because it is a pure display without any audio source?

I view an HDMI label in conjunction with the full spec sheet. If a device advertises 4K resolution and carries an HDMI 2.1 sticker, I assume it is able to receive and display a 4K video signal over an HDMI 2.1 compliant interface as opposed to, say, DisplayPort. I do not assume it can display an 8K image just because the HDMI 2.1 spec allows such devices to be made.

A compatibility sticker should not be confused for a spec sheet.

Thank goodness, so you were feigning ignorance.

Glad to see you made the distinction between a display spec and an I/O standard. LG in this case, they didn't adhere to HDMI 2.1 compliance, as HDMI 2.1 is the transmission standard, and they decided to forgoe the full bandwidth, even though their displays have the ability to handle the full transmission bandwidth if needed.

How would you advertise a display that needs more bandwidth than HDMI 2.0 allows but less than the maximum HDMI 2.1 provides? What about a display that uses the full available bandwidth but doesn't have eARC, perhaps because it is a pure display without any audio source?

Well that isn't something left up to me, and should be done in concordance with engineers, and consumer interest bodies. As for SPECIALLY how I would address the hypothetical if I had to, simply put, that display wouldn't be given the sticker. It either supports HDMI 2.1, or it gets dropped to HDMI 2.0 certification. But the question is nonsensical in the first place, because it presupposes I would grant the notion that "max" and "minimum" portions of a standard should exist in the first place. You ask this question when the whole time I detest the circumstance that allows you to even ask it, like when you say "but less than the maximum"... 'Less than the maximum' tosses it into whatever spec it can fulfill. If the TV maker should be offered something in the way of concessions for his sake, then he would get HDMI 2.0, but get your spec sheet ready to explain to customers why it's only 2.0 and not 2.1. But that's the problem industry has, they don't want to do that, they want to teeter as much as possible on the edge of false advertising. And is the reason we're having this conversation now.

I could ask you the same question I just answered, on exactly would you handle the definitions and regulation of "standards"? Maybe you can offer some insight in detail.

You need to provide your rational on when should a standard be considered as met, and when it isn't. Until you do this, you're in the same position of critique I level against these standards-groups.

I view an HDMI label in conjunction with the full spec sheet. If a device advertises 4K resolution and carries an HDMI 2.1 sticker, I assume it is able to receive and display a 4K video signal over an HDMI 2.1 compliant interface as opposed to, say, DisplayPort. I do not assume it can display an 8K image just because the HDMI 2.1 spec allows such devices to be made.

Except you haven't defined what a "HDMI 2.1 compliant interface" constitutes in reality to you personally (nor did LG, which is why I don't understand how they can say the CX series have HDMI 2.1 ports, yet for the 4K televisions, they're butchered bandwidth-wise), which gets to the crux of the issue. What's to defend against potential future abuse as standards have more and more optional portions that offer zero for a manufacturer that supports all of it, and another that supports only certain or single portions of it?

My criticisms are quite old, and they have hit industry hard in the past. Which is why you see many different standards for display performance popping up, while others depreciating. UHD-Premium being the newest kid on the block that has the most support in terms of membership. Though during the initial 4K era, this was an unspeakable mess, and people had almost no idea what they were buying because they were just being shown stickers at the show floor. With respect to something like audio, I'm sure you know more than I about the mess power ratings bullshit that was occuring decades ago that had the federal government getting involved it was so bad.


You seem to just have an issue with wrapping your head around what the definition of standards should serve as. But I'll wait and see how you answer the main questions, I can't understand what motivation you have for whatever platform of pushback you think you're relevantly serving here.

Maybe one last question will help you wrestle with this better. If I make a TV for example, who's hardware supports literally no single HDMI 2.1 exclusive capability, but I decide to opt to simply support HDMI 2.1 connectors so I can get more eyes on my TV at the store. I'd just like to remind you that you're not far off from a sensible position. if you recall, you acknowledge the nonsense:

On some level, I do agree with you that optional parts of standards can be annoying and confusing. Nonetheless, there is a place for this, provided it is done right. If it doesn't makes sense to require all devices to support a particular feature, a good spec will say something along the lines of "you may optionally support Feature X, and if you do, this is how it must be done." The HDMI spec isn't the best example here (the HDR formats are a mess), but at least it guarantees that any compliant source connected to any compliant display will show _something_.

Misleading advertising is a problem, but I think it's wrong to blame that on the specs. The advertisers will always find a way to misrepresent.

Two final things, the first - advertisers won't find a way, if legal loopholes aren't kept, and we get those "proper specs" that detail how and what can be done, and in which way. And then provide clear incentive for advertising but in a way that avoids current nonsense, and oncoming nonsense. As the "confusion" (as you say) among the general population aspect, is what motivates my position.

The second, I chose HDMI to show how even with it being relatively sensible standard wise. It shows non-compliance doesn't really cost manufacturers much. If you really wanted to see what my whole shtick is about, we could talk about HDR and see for yourself what it looks like when my concerns reach virtually end-game. (Though we'll leave that for another day, as I grow tired of this talk in general). I'm simply typing too much, for a topic I'd never thought I'd have to invest so much typing for.
 

Snarfie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
1,168
Likes
925
Location
Netherlands
Boy oh boy isn't that the truth. What we learned is that the monte carlo simulations of markets are right, they more or less instantly collude, become either monopolies or oligopolies, and the nonsense about the "invisible hand" is nothing but that. Nonsense.

Regarding the Monte Carlo model it is a legetiem question what it can not do or better what it is depended of. The same can be said from Black-Scholes option model. I spoke some weeks ago a market maker that went bust because he could not predict his hedge model based on dividend strategy (that worked for him for years without any problems) that went wrong in a few days time. Models work if all unknown variableness/data are put in basically that is not possible IMO. The problem is that these models are put forward/used as a sort of insurance based on science which it is not. You have to trust the person who decide which risk/data is put in sign here...

What Monte Carlo methods cannot do:

Although extremely flexible and obviously useful for many risk assessment problems, Monte Carlo methods have four significant limitations that risk analysts should keep in mind. (1) Like most methods based on probability theory, Monte Carlo methods are data‐intensive. Consequently, they usually cannot produce results unless a considerable body of empirical information has been collected, or unless the analyst is willing to make several assumptions in the place of such empirical information. (2) Although appropriate for handling variability and stochasticity, Monte Carlo methods cannot be used to propagate partial ignorance under any frequentist interpretation of probability. (3) Monte Carlo methods cannot be used to conclude that exceedance risks are no larger than a particular level. (4) Finally, Monte Carlo methods cannot be used to effect deconvolutions to solve backcalculation problems such as often arise in remediation planning. This paper reviews a series of 10 exemplar problems in risk analysis for which classical Monte Carlo methods yield incorrect answers.

source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10807039609383659?journalCode=bher20
 
Last edited:

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
Maybe one last question will help you wrestle with this better. If I make a TV for example, who's hardware supports literally no single HDMI 2.1 exclusive capability, but I decide to opt to simply support HDMI 2.1 connectors so I can get more eyes on my TV at the store.
If you did that, you'd be technically correct insofar all prior HDMI versions are subsets of HDMI 2.1. It would still be dishonest, since there would be an implication that the TV offered at least one feature that _requires_ HDMI 2.1. The sticker should, IMO, reflect the minimum spec revision required to fully utilise the capabilities of the device, even if an even more capable device is possible within the same spec.

LG in this case, they didn't adhere to HDMI 2.1 compliance, as HDMI 2.1 is the transmission standard, and they decided to forgoe the full bandwidth, even though their displays have the ability to handle the full transmission bandwidth if needed.
This is the part that doesn't make sense. If the most demanding video mode supported doesn't require the full bandwidth, what is the problem? How would you send it more data, and what would you expect the TV to do with the excess?

You seem to have a different expectation of what the HDMI spec should be than what its authors intended. The initial version, based on DVI, allowed pixel rates _up to_ 165 MHz. A standard-definition DVD player with HDMI output is still compliant even though it never comes close to that maximum rate. The spec exists to ensure that if a compliant source is connected to a compliant display, you will get a picture. Subsequent HDMI revisions have increased the _available_ data rate to enable ever higher resolutions and refresh rates. The bandwidth actually used still depends on the needs of the selected video mode.

The second, I chose HDMI to show how even with it being relatively sensible standard wise. It shows non-compliance doesn't really cost manufacturers much.
Where is the non-compliance? Which aspect of that LG TV is in violation of which paragraph of the HDMI spec?
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
what WAS the OP again??
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
Yes, I know. I think it was a trolling post.
 

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
Yes, I know. I think it was a trolling post.

It went the way those threads usually go. BTW, there were no such threads in the 70ies. Then a few in the late 80ies. Then all threads seem to self organize in the same way since.

Hmmmm, morphic resonance?
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,208
Likes
7,587
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Yes, I know. I think it was a trolling post.
Someone who was mad with science because it was mean to him.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
Iv deleted two posts , clearly they were nothing to do with the OP and politically divisive.

I want to reopen this thread but not have to worry this will flare up again so the two members involved are receiving thread bans .

Thread open , behave please.
Dang, you mean I missed all the fun. :( ;)
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
Regarding the Monte Carlo model it is a legetiem question what it can not do or better what it is depended of. The same can be said from Black-Scholes option model. I spoke some weeks ago a market maker that went bust because he could not predict his hedge model based on dividend strategy (that worked for him for years without any problems) that went wrong in a few days time. Models work if all unknown variableness/data are put in basically that is not possible IMO. The problem is that these models are put forward/used as a sort of insurance based on science which it is not. You have to trust the person who decide which risk/data is put in sign here...

What Monte Carlo methods cannot do:

Although extremely flexible and obviously useful for many risk assessment problems, Monte Carlo methods have four significant limitations that risk analysts should keep in mind. (1) Like most methods based on probability theory, Monte Carlo methods are data‐intensive. Consequently, they usually cannot produce results unless a considerable body of empirical information has been collected, or unless the analyst is willing to make several assumptions in the place of such empirical information. (2) Although appropriate for handling variability and stochasticity, Monte Carlo methods cannot be used to propagate partial ignorance under any frequentist interpretation of probability. (3) Monte Carlo methods cannot be used to conclude that exceedance risks are no larger than a particular level. (4) Finally, Monte Carlo methods cannot be used to effect deconvolutions to solve backcalculation problems such as often arise in remediation planning. This paper reviews a series of 10 exemplar problems in risk analysis for which classical Monte Carlo methods yield incorrect answers.

source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10807039609383659?journalCode=bher20

Yes, I'm aware of the problems with many kinds of analysis, Monte Carlo among them.

The real world results, now and in the 1920's, however, fully validates the Monte Carlo analysis, in fact to a frightening extent. Gresham's law emerges naturally, and the abuse takes over.
 

Snarfie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
1,168
Likes
925
Location
Netherlands
Yes, I'm aware of the problems with many kinds of analysis, Monte Carlo among them.

The real world results, now and in the 1920's, however, fully validates the Monte Carlo analysis, in fact to a frightening extent. Gresham's law emerges naturally, and the abuse takes over.
Gresham would turn in his grave if hé had knoledge about Quantitative easing When Will people notice that their current dollars, euro's loosing like hell it intrinsic value. Negative interest rates time has no value ??? same as confiscating money lol.
 
Last edited:

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
If you did that, you'd be technically correct insofar all prior HDMI versions are subsets of HDMI 2.1. It would still be dishonest, since there would be an implication that the TV offered at least one feature that _requires_ HDMI 2.1. The sticker should, IMO, reflect the minimum spec revision required to fully utilise the capabilities of the device, even if an even more capable device is possible within the same spec.


This is the part that doesn't make sense. If the most demanding video mode supported doesn't require the full bandwidth, what is the problem? How would you send it more data, and what would you expect the TV to do with the excess?

You seem to have a different expectation of what the HDMI spec should be than what its authors intended. The initial version, based on DVI, allowed pixel rates _up to_ 165 MHz. A standard-definition DVD player with HDMI output is still compliant even though it never comes close to that maximum rate. The spec exists to ensure that if a compliant source is connected to a compliant display, you will get a picture. Subsequent HDMI revisions have increased the _available_ data rate to enable ever higher resolutions and refresh rates. The bandwidth actually used still depends on the needs of the selected video mode.


Where is the non-compliance? Which aspect of that LG TV is in violation of which paragraph of the HDMI spec?


I'll close, since you continue ignoring most questions I pose.

So you finally see the dishonesty I kept trying to explain that forms when you have "standards" as the ones we discussed. What the authors intended is precisely the contention, and is what you have acknowledge would be dishonesty in the first paragraph. As for your final question, the violation is on HDMI's part for certifying the TV, when LG themselves have said to Forbes in a statement (if you read the link I provided all those posts ago) the connectors themselves aren't fully HDMI 2.1 compliant.

"While LG covered most of the HDMI 2.1 related specs in its 2019 TVs, including full bandwidth support in all of the HDMI ports for its 4K and 8K TVs,"

LG decided to re-allocate the hardware resources of 2020 chipsets optimizing for AI functions including CPU&GPU and supporting full bandwidth in only 2 ports of 2020 8K TV series (ZX series, NANO99, NANO97, NANO95). And the rest of the ports of 8K TVs and all HDMI 2.1 ports of 4K TVs have lower bandwidth than 48 Gbps but support up to 4K 120P 4:4:4/RGB 10bit. We apologize for not flagging this earlier to you.”

This was literally the sort of thing I was referencing when I spoke about getting HDMI 2.1 spec'd connections, but then not supporting aspects of what HDMI 2.1 brings.

The fact that you acknowledge that would be dishonest, and the fact that LG is apologizing right there, shows the crux of the sort of issue that is born from the current notion of standards in the industry.

You can have closing comments.
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
Gresham would turn in his grave if hé had knoledge about Quantitative easing When Will people notice that their current dollars, euro's loosing like hell it intrinsic value. Negative interest rates time has no value ??? same as confiscating money lol.


Well, you have to compare that to the massively increased efficiency of manufacture and durability. It's not simply a question of money.

There is more than enough food in the world, but "fiscal responsibility" in the middlemen means it rots instead of getting to market at a lower price, because the accountant ONLY talks to the stockholders. You can't eat fiat currency. Especially with the new designs.

Cars are easy to manufacture now, but they cost a lot more than they should. We stick to old methods there partially because new methods cost money and partially because the same accountants push for regulations that make new, better cars illegal. At the same time, they push back on requirements for efficiency so they can continue with their 1970's technology.

Mazda can make a 40MPG highway sporty car. I know, I own one.

TV's, stereos, computers are mastered as far as design and hardware. So they are cheap.

Accountants and "lean and mean" are why pretty much every product FROM the USA is out of stock now. No tolerance for disruption, no ability to deal with market shifts, all in the name of fiscal efficiency above all else.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
Was a complaint I had in my work prior to retiring. Things were pushed so close to the edge for efficiency that there is no resilency left for unexpected events.
 
Top Bottom