Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]  (Read 33849 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #25 –
Quote from: dwoz on
just transferred 500 MILLION DOLLARS, from banks in the USA to banks in other countries....TODAY.



Yeah, but was was the discussion about?

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #26 –
Yes, but you've offered no proof that the definition of "accurate" you're using is proper.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #28 –
Programs with bugs give wrong answers? Yes they do. Calculations vs. math? I apologize if I've been lose with terminology. Still I think my point is clear.

I think I've lost you. Don't expect me to come and find you. Goodnight.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #29 –

You're right, canar...there's often a LOT of confusion about the difference between accuracy and precision.

If you type "accuracy vs precision" into google, you will come up with a whole bunch of discussion.  It's the subject of whole weeks of science training.

For example, quantization error is a fantastic way to examine it.  accuracy is something that will vary along with bit depth. precision, however, is always the same, regardless of bit depth.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #30 –
Quote from: Notat on
Programs with bugs give wrong answers? Yes they do. Calculations vs. math? I apologize if I've been lose with terminology. Still I think my point is clear.

I think I've lost you. Don't expect me to come and find you. Goodnight.



Well, bugs are certainly one thing.  But it can be a lot more subtle than that.  Computation is "expensive".  Expensive in system resources and expensive in time.  Programming, particularly dsp, has a great deal of carefully considered compromise, to find the right balance between accuracy, precision, CPU load, and computation time. 

Let me say that again:  Lots of the kinds of programming that goes into audio work, is a balanced compromise between system resources and accuracy.  Do you know where that balance is, in your app?

Does this mean I have to pay for my own drink?


dwoz

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #31 –
Quote from: dwoz on
Let me say that again:  Lots of the kinds of programming that goes into audio work, is a balanced compromise between system resources and accuracy.  Do you know where that balance is, in your app?



Yes.

I write most of them, except for the ones that somebody who works for me writes.

And, in audio work, nowdays, the computation load is getting to be irrelevant in many (but not all) cases.

Perhaps you could be more specific. You have responded time after time in generalities, and then avoided being specific. Now, let's be specific, you first.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #32 –
Quote from: dwoz on
My point is this:  Stacking, as a matter of absolute fact, does indeed exist,


I just disproved your sole justifiction for that point, Dwoz.

You don't even have what it takes to give me my due. No concession, just the Dwoz freight train rolling down the valley, jumping the tracks at every turn but somehow unaware of it.

So that now makes me 2, you zero.

I'm a sport - I'll nail you again:

Quote
And cannot be completely remedied by functions applied to later summed artifacts of the process.


There's the same mistake I just corrected you for Dwoz, all over again.

You don't need to *completely* remedy every error. In audio production all you have to do is remedy the error enough so that it is no longer audible.

I'm going to illustrate this quite factually.

Let's say that there is a 3 dB error in an audio system. Let's say that I correct 2.95 dB of it, leaving a 0.05 dB error.

Now in the gospel according to Dwoz (repeated one more time above), I haven't corrected the problem at all because there is still a 0.05 dB error.

In the gospel according to what actually can be heard by the most sensitive ears in any resaonbly well-run listening test, the 0.05 dB error can't be heard. It takes more like 0.3 dB or more to cause an audible difference. At 20 Hz or 20 KHz it takes *much more* than a 0.3 dB to make an audible difference. Much, much, more.

So now who do I believe? Do I believe the gospel according to Dwoz who says that *every* error has to be *perfectly* corrected?

Or do I believe what everybody hears, perchance they should do a good listening test?  Remember, Dwoz does no DBTs. It looks to me like he thinks he's too good to bother. He's got the heavy hitters on the womb, he doesn't need DBTs.

You see Dwoz, arguing with you is just like arguing with your typical audiophile. You have no idea what the actual sensitivity to error of the human ear is. You and psychoacoustics are strangers. You probably have not one clue who Zwicker and Fastl are. Your guiding lights are the "heavy hitters on the womb". JJ can't straighten you out. Ethan can't straighten you out. You are just another golden ear audiophile lost cause. I'm not going to even seriously try. But I will play with you a little more. ;-)

Dwoz you come to us and say:  the womb has the heavy hitters in audio. I don't need no stinkin' DBTs. So we check out one of your womb heavy hitters, say this guy Barry Diament.

Here's audio science according to Barry Diament:

"
Placing a set of roller bearings under my CD player resulted in an across the board improvement in every category used to describe its performance:  frequency extension, dynamic range, soundstaging, overall clarity, etc.  In short, the sound just "opened up" to a degree I wouldn't have believed had I not heard it for myself.  "Floating" the loudspeakers on sets of roller bearings was equally astounding.  As I added sets of roller bearings under my other components, the effect, though more subtle, was cumulative.  Today, all the components in the studio, including the power conditioner, are supported by roller bearings.
"

Take out the roller bearings and slide in the Dwoz demands that all corrections be exactly perfect, and its all the same as far as I can see. Neither Dwoz nor Diament have clue about quantification.

I'm sure that Barry Diament also agrees with your other ideas, Dwoz. Go back to the womb, where you belong. You're comfortable there. They speak your kind science, which is no science at all.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #33 –
Quote from: Notat on
The all-pass discussion is muddying things. There is a tangle of audibility of phase changes and linear system behavior.

The contention that different phase responses are indistinguishable to the ear is debatable as far as I'm concerned. Here's a paper that discusses the issue.

An all-pass is a linear operation. You can apply it at the individual channels or at the sum and you'll get the same sound. What you can't do is apply different linear processes to the individual channels and expect to find some sort of transform that you can apply at the sum to give you the same sound (or invert the individual transforms).



Citing a paper about anti-alias/reconstruction brick wall filters ub a discussion about phase shift in audio production almost looks to me like Dwoz all over again. It's all about quanitification. Brick wall filters are like hydrogen bomb explosions, and most of the phase shifts we see in audio are like firecrackers. Besides, we have numerous examples where even brick wall filters can be sonically innocious.

But you are right about  linear operations summing.

Here's a simple mental experiment that you will no doubt get, but our friend Dwoz will probably *never* get.

Let's say I have a 50 channel mixing console  (real world, as I have a 56 channel mixer) and apply an identical first order low pass filter at 1 KHz  to each and every channel. I now sum the channels. The output will measure to have the identical same frequency and phase response as any of the 50 *identical* low pass filters, with an additional error of <0.0001 or about <1/1000 of a dB or <0.001 dB, due to the nonlinear errors that Dwoz wants Ethan and the rest of us to lay down and die for.

That's right - in the real world, if Dwoz would ever actually do a practical experiment, he would find that that he's arguing day and night over a <0.001 dB (or less) error! I sometimes wonder if guys like Dwoz have even actually measured a AA battery. Doe he even have a decent voltmeter?

How many gold records can you sell based on a < 0.001 dB adjustment? ;-)  Apparently, Dwoz thinks: Lots. Makes you wonder how Elvis ever sold any recordings made on that clapped out vacuum tube broadcast mixer at Sun records, eh? ;-)

And that's what makes the world of golden ear audio what it is, whether high end audiophile or the rolls on ball bearings audio production world of Barry Diament, go around.

They have no idea about quantification.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #34 –
Quote from: dwoz on
I'm sorry, I'm talking about a more real-world extension of your hypothetical.  Instead of "component", use the word "filter" as you have.  But back to the "real world" issue...As soon as you introduce a reactive impedance into your circuit, I think you give up the ability to talk about minimum-phase AND frequency magnitude.  Thus, only in the hypothetical world can you both have your cake and eat it too.


My goodness Dwoz, you really know how to shout your ignorance of audio from the highest roof tops.

Quote from: dwoz link=msg=0 date=
As soon as you introduce a reactive impedance into your circuit, I think you give up the ability to talk about minimum-phase AND frequency magnitude.


You obviously lack a good basic education in electronics, Dwoz. You just showed your complete and total ignorance of Electrical Circuits 214 (a sophomore class).  I think they even teach this in some high schools.

Putting reactances into electrical circuits does *not* eliminate the possibility of that circuit being minimum phase. Quite the opposite,  Every minimum phase analog electrical circuit (no exceptions at all come to mind) *must* contain one or more reactances.  There are actually very few analog electrical circuits with reactances that are *not* minimum phase. The exceptions they are all very intentionally and specially made to be that way - they are called "all pass" circuits.

Time to go back to the womb Dwoz, where ignorant talk like this is what you are comfortable with. I think even Barry Diament would tell you that you were wrong. Maybe not.

BTW Dwoz, that makes 4 gross errors of yours that I've had to correct.

Keep 'em coming!

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Remember, Dwoz does no DBTs. It looks to me like he thinks he's too good to bother. He's got the heavy hitters on the womb, he doesn't need DBTs.

You see Dwoz, arguing with you is just like arguing with your typical audiophile. You have no idea what the actual sensitivity to error of the human ear is. You and psychoacoustics are strangers. You probably have not one clue who Zwicker and Fastl are. Your guiding lights are the "heavy hitters on the womb". JJ can't straighten you out. Ethan can't straighten you out. You are just another golden ear audiophile lost cause. I'm not going to even seriously try. But I will play with you a little more. ;-)

Dwoz you come to us and say:  the womb has the heavy hitters in audio. I don't need no stinkin' DBTs. So we check out one of your womb heavy hitters, say this guy Barry Diament.

Here's audio science according to Barry Diament:

"
Placing a set of roller bearings under my CD player resulted in an across the board improvement in every category used to describe its performance:  frequency extension, dynamic range, soundstaging, overall clarity, etc.  In short, the sound just "opened up" to a degree I wouldn't have believed had I not heard it for myself.  "Floating" the loudspeakers on sets of roller bearings was equally astounding.  As I added sets of roller bearings under my other components, the effect, though more subtle, was cumulative.  Today, all the components in the studio, including the power conditioner, are supported by roller bearings.
"

Take out the roller bearings and slide in the Dwoz demands that all corrections be exactly perfect, and its all the same as far as I can see. Neither Dwoz nor Diament have clue about quantification.

I'm sure that Barry Diament also agrees with your other ideas, Dwoz. Go back to the womb, where you belong. You're comfortable there. They speak your kind science, which is no science at all.


Is this either relevant to the topic or likely to produce anything of value to the enlightenment of anyone?  You have left the realm of the practical (i.e. does stacking hit the threshold of audibility if done, say 125 times as Dwoz mentioned), you are speculating on what dwoz thinks about DBTs, and you are applying the inverse argument from authority--smearing Dwoz based on what Barry Diament says in an irrelevant context. [Diament's problem with Ethan's video, as expressed on the Hoffman forum, had to do with "microdynamics" not being captured by Ethan's four measurements.  Though he was unconvincing, it would at least be on-topic here.]

Dwoz, though his comportment in this thread has not been great, has clearly expressed some investment in enlightenment.  Why not cultivate it instead of lobbing insults?

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #36 –
Quote from: usernaim on
Dwoz, though his comportment in this thread has not been great, has clearly expressed some investment in enlightenment.  Why not cultivate it instead of lobbing insults?


I see zero actual investment in enlightenment by Dwoz. AFAIK, he's only here to straighten us out.  Please show me where Dwoz has recanted even one technical error of any substance. I see where Dwoz just repeats the same errors over and over again.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: usernaim on
Dwoz, though his comportment in this thread has not been great, has clearly expressed some investment in enlightenment.  Why not cultivate it instead of lobbing insults?


I see zero actual investment in enlightenment by Dwoz. AFAIK, he's only here to straighten us out.  Please show me where Dwoz has recanted even one technical error of any substance. I see where Dwoz just repeats the same errors over and over again.


As an observer of human behavior, I think at this point it would take a tremendous amount of humility for Dwoz to admit anything you have said is correct, to an extent that very few people possess. 

That's why places like HA thrive on civil tone.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #38 –
Quote from: usernaim on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: usernaim on
Dwoz, though his comportment in this thread has not been great, has clearly expressed some investment in enlightenment.  Why not cultivate it instead of lobbing insults?


I see zero actual investment in enlightenment by Dwoz. AFAIK, he's only here to straighten us out.  Please show me where Dwoz has recanted even one technical error of any substance. I see where Dwoz just repeats the same errors over and over again.


As an observer of human behavior, I think at this point it would take a tremendous amount of humility for Dwoz to admit anything you have said is correct, to an extent that very few people possess. 

That's why places like HA thrive on civil tone.


I can see what you mean, given that you were unable to admit that you were wrong and that there are no extant instances of Dwoz actually admitting that he was wrong

There is every indication that he will just repeat the same errors again and again.

So then you schleeped in yet another critical jab, continuing to defend your position.

I take a different approach. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'll  just give you your due.

Some people call that humility, I think its just being honest.

I think that valuing politemess  abpve honest is hypocricy.

YMMV.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #39 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I think that valuing politemess  abpve honest is hypocricy.


I certainly did not say or imply that one should not be honest or even critical.  I merely said that insults are counterproductive to discussion that aims at enlightenment.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #40 –
Quote from: usernaim on
As an observer of human behavior, I think at this point it would take a tremendous amount of humility for Dwoz to admit anything you have said is correct, to an extent that very few people possess. 

That's why places like HA thrive on civil tone.


How right you are! I sometimes forget that.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #41 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: usernaim on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: usernaim on
Dwoz, though his comportment in this thread has not been great, has clearly expressed some investment in enlightenment.  Why not cultivate it instead of lobbing insults?


I see zero actual investment in enlightenment by Dwoz. AFAIK, he's only here to straighten us out.  Please show me where Dwoz has recanted even one technical error of any substance. I see where Dwoz just repeats the same errors over and over again.


As an observer of human behavior, I think at this point it would take a tremendous amount of humility for Dwoz to admit anything you have said is correct, to an extent that very few people possess. 

That's why places like HA thrive on civil tone.


I can see what you mean, given that you were unable to admit that you were wrong and that there are no extant instances of Dwoz actually admitting that he was wrong

There is every indication that he will just repeat the same errors again and again.

So then you schleeped in yet another critical jab, continuing to defend your position.

I take a different approach. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'll  just give you your due.

Some people call that humility, I think its just being honest.

I think that valuing politemess  abpve honest is hypocricy.

YMMV.

Well, I'm with usernaim on this one. Once you start hurling insults around you lose credibility and nobody cares whether you're right or wrong anymore. Politeness and honesty are not mutually exclusive

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #42 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I can see what you mean, given that you were unable to admit that you were wrong and that there are no extant instances of Dwoz actually admitting that he was wrong


a) I do not believe  whether I am right or wrong matters to my overall point (which was not to hurl insults).  I did not claim Dwoz had admitted he was wrong, just that he "has some investment in enlightenment."  Even if Dwoz does not seek enlightenment, you would seem to be making a two wrongs makes a right justification.

b) While Dwoz, like you, believes he is right, I would argue that what is his life's work in audio reproduction and the explicit attempts made here to discuss his experience and beliefs (whether they are right or wrong) constitute a clear attempt to understand the phenomena of which we speak, aka enlightenment.  His ego is involved and constitutes another part of his agenda, granted.  My point again is to cultivate the one and not the other.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #43 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I think that valuing politemess  abpve honest is hypocricy.

Personally, I think that valuing both politeness and honesty is important. I, for one, am far more interested in audio than ego.

Sadly, it's spelling that's taking a real beating in this one. 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #44 –
This could have been a thread very worth reading but instead it has become repulsively.

Arnold, if dwoz (or whoever) is wrong and his views can be easily disproved with some basic knowledge in audio engineering, why do you become that personally instead of remaining objective? Thank God, your worst gaucheness have been moved into the recycle bin already.

Please compare andy_c's posts (see above) with your own: they are convincing, competent and free from any personal attack: how greatly relieving for the readers, how good for the discussion itself.
This is HA. Not the Jerry Springer Show.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #45 –
Seconded. Can we please promptly bin the posts containing personal attacks?

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #46 –
Quote from: Notat on
Seconded. Can we please promptly bin the posts containing personal attacks?

I disagree. I think anybody who happens upon HA should be able to see all the posts so they can come to their own conclusions about the value of the post/poster. All that's needed is for mods to enfoce TOS2

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #47 –
I'm all for avoiding personal attacks, but is this really necessary?

Talk about muddying the waters. 

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #48 –
I guess it's not boring so it's all that matters.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #49 –
Quote from: usernaim on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Remember, Dwoz does no DBTs. It looks to me like he thinks he's too good to bother. He's got the heavy hitters on the womb, he doesn't need DBTs.

You see Dwoz, arguing with you is just like arguing with your typical audiophile. You have no idea what the actual sensitivity to error of the human ear is. You and psychoacoustics are strangers. You probably have not one clue who Zwicker and Fastl are. Your guiding lights are the "heavy hitters on the womb". JJ can't straighten you out. Ethan can't straighten you out. You are just another golden ear audiophile lost cause. I'm not going to even seriously try. But I will play with you a little more. ;-)

Dwoz you come to us and say:  the womb has the heavy hitters in audio. I don't need no stinkin' DBTs. So we check out one of your womb heavy hitters, say this guy Barry Diament.

Here's audio science according to Barry Diament:

"
Placing a set of roller bearings under my CD player resulted in an across the board improvement in every category used to describe its performance:  frequency extension, dynamic range, soundstaging, overall clarity, etc.  In short, the sound just "opened up" to a degree I wouldn't have believed had I not heard it for myself.  "Floating" the loudspeakers on sets of roller bearings was equally astounding.  As I added sets of roller bearings under my other components, the effect, though more subtle, was cumulative.  Today, all the components in the studio, including the power conditioner, are supported by roller bearings.
"

Take out the roller bearings and slide in the Dwoz demands that all corrections be exactly perfect, and its all the same as far as I can see. Neither Dwoz nor Diament have clue about quantification.

I'm sure that Barry Diament also agrees with your other ideas, Dwoz. Go back to the womb, where you belong. You're comfortable there. They speak your kind science, which is no science at all.


Is this either relevant to the topic or likely to produce anything of value to the enlightenment of anyone?  You have left the realm of the practical (i.e. does stacking hit the threshold of audibility if done, say 125 times as Dwoz mentioned), you are speculating on what dwoz thinks about DBTs, and you are applying the inverse argument from authority--smearing Dwoz based on what Barry Diament says in an irrelevant context. [Diament's problem with Ethan's video, as expressed on the Hoffman forum, had to do with "microdynamics" not being captured by Ethan's four measurements.  Though he was unconvincing, it would at least be on-topic here.]

Dwoz, though his comportment in this thread has not been great, has clearly expressed some investment in enlightenment.  Why not cultivate it instead of lobbing insults?


Excuse me, but after reading this string of krueger diatribes, can I really be be accused of standing on the low ground, forum ettiquette-wise?  After this WITHERING barrage of outright insults, lies, smear, anger, and even libel, can it be recovered?  You don't KNOW about the nice tone I've taken in this forum, because MANY posts of mine have been removed. 

It would take hours to tease apart the personal attack and vitriol from the actual technical points.

Just to start, I really have no idea who this Diament person is.  I'm sure I have no idea where Krueger is getting this.  I am an admin at the womb, and I have never heard of him.  He is not part of our "little cabal."  So whatever Barry Diament says, is up to Barry Diament to defend, not me.

Also, I see that a lawnmower has gone through this thread, so a great deal of what I've written has been removed. 

Clearly, it is useless.  Arny has declared my proof moot, because I fail to take into account subjective audibility.  Now, if that isn't recognizable as the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty, well, then good luck to you all.  There's really no point.  You scream "objectivity" to the rafters, yet, don't flinch when a subjective measure is casually thrown in.

Stacking either happens, or it doesn't.  That should be the gold standard.  It exists or it doesn't.  If it does exist, then discuss audibility.

Arny, I relenquish the field to you.  You're right, we should never worry about stuff that doesn't pass the DBT sniff test.  I will be buried in a pine-and-cardboard box, because in a double-blind test, I was unable to tell the difference between it and a cherry-and-mahongany box.

Ethan's vid will be famously and derisively ignored, in time, because it is full of equal parts good intention, bad logic, and non-rigorous statements that ultimately don't pass the sniff test.  BUT have fun with it, because what good is it if it isn't fun.

Just do me a favor.  Go back through anything I've ever written ANYWHERE, and see if you can find one place where I am one of these "greasy audiophiles" that I'm now grouped in with.  You cannot do it.  Those writings don't exist, anywhere.  As far as measurement and DBT goes, I have said, and I quote, "if a signal can be represented by a voltage/frequency, then it can be completely defined in math.  If it can be defined in math, then it can be measured.  If two components are shown to measure the same, but demonstrably sound different (i.e. via DBT), then there IS A MEASUREMENT that can describe that difference, we just aren't using it."

If you're using the wrong measurements, then who's the idiot?

thank you, have a FUN life!

dwoz