Briefly put...facts and alternative facts are equally irrelevant.😮
Why do many discussions about sonic performance disintegrate into technical discusions?
Guys I have noticed that certain members start with technical back and forth in discussions which look like they are self serving, to prove how smart or knowledgable they are, rather then forwarding the OP's original question.
Shouldn’t these discussions be moved into a separate post about technical stuff ie the techical merits of bibolar vs mosfets for example, if these members want to do that?
I think most member don’t care if a Krell amp uses brand x or y for transistors vs a Pass or any other amp, I think most people are more concerned with what the sonic differences there are vs specific technical arguments that are not related to the sonic flavor or design methodologies that these product use to produce their sound, what do you guys think?
Shouldn’t these discussions be moved into a separate post about technical stuff ie the techical merits of bibolar vs mosfets for example, if these members want to do that?
I think most member don’t care if a Krell amp uses brand x or y for transistors vs a Pass or any other amp, I think most people are more concerned with what the sonic differences there are vs specific technical arguments that are not related to the sonic flavor or design methodologies that these product use to produce their sound, what do you guys think?
106 responses Add your response
I tend to agree with your assessment. I’m not really sure why certain folks, and only a few, tend to get bugged down on technical arguments which in most cases the OP didn’t even ask or care about. A more annoying but related gripe I have is some of these members challenge other members who are obviously more qualified in expressing their position in an objective manner. We can argue all day long on subjective opinions but technical subjects are generally based on data and facts, both of which are absolute by definition. The other thing is that all existence is subjective, inescapably so. Tied to the only fact in existence, which is: there are no facts. It is a problem that circles around the drain of the idea of consciousness. We’ve projected, in our subjective existence, that objectivity and facts exist, when they simply do not. Objectivity is an agreed upon idea, in an entirely subjective reality experience. The only fact we know to exist, is that there are no facts. Which, neatly, parallels the particle/wave paradox. Not a coincidence. Facts are an agreed upon reality. An agreed upon projection. They posses no reality of their own - whatsoever. It is not the fundamental, and must always be remembered. This thought is unpopular (viciously so) in engineering science or technical science, mostly due to the conceptual headiness required to grok it. But it is the underlying fabric of theoretical sciences, exploratory sciences, the philosophy of science. These areas of conception are the parent branch of engineering sciences, and engineering thoughts and sciences have no capacity to overrule the origins of objective science and objective reality. There’s a lot of misconceptions about logic and process in engineering sciences, and that area (engineering sciences) does attract people of a certain mindset. Not pondering the greater questions, ie, ignoring them... does not give engineering sciences the stance, position, or credibility to overrule the origins of the fabric and scope of the known nature of reality. If one wants to understand the nature of reality, it is important to consider that none of it is ironed out in nature, shape or causal connections..that it is still..to this day..turtles all the way down. The thinkers do get it and it can be a big bit of width and scope to try and grab it whole. It’s why Elon Musk said that it is ’billions to one’ that we exist in a base reality -and that this has to be a simulacrum of some sort or nature. All cutting edge science and mathematical explorations, etc, all point you in that direction. So people can talk facts and whatnot, but in the final analysis, it means jack. Exactly Squat. In our day to day lives we can ignore these things but they must NEVER be forgotten, even for a second. If you forget or ignore the fundamental carrier of your reality you will find that some of the caricatures that ride on top of it (like engineering science, objective science) somehow, over time... supplant the fundamental reality. Then you’ll end up going far far off course. Like a blind newborn puppy crawling into a corner and crying. No way out. With no idea how to move forward. In essence, in audio..as you (anyone reading this) can then see or hopefully..try and 'get'..that objectivity vs subjectivity..is a mixed bag. At best. Essentially, Objectivity exists in a bubble. An agreed upon format in basis, communications, references and so on..but..in a bubble. A subset bubble of a greater reality. |
First, +1 to the responses by numerous posters which reflected balanced and/or pragmatic viewpoints. Second, +1 to the comments by Wolf_Garcia objecting to the promulgation of gender-based stereotypes, even if the two posters he appeared to be responding to did not intend their comments to be taken that way. Third, I find it ironic that the focus of this very thread, that was intended to deal with technical discussions in other threads that were deemed to be irrelevant or at most semi-relevant, has evolved to encompass discussions of ancient civilizations and even differences between the sexes. Not that I see anything wrong with that (and in fact I see nothing at all wrong with it), but it serves to illustrate that changes in the focus of a thread are often inevitable, whether one likes it or not. Regards, -- Al |
I hear you! Our hobby is not about solving problems like world peace, yet some people seem to take themselves really seriously, especially those who seem to need to "stroke themselves" for all the technical stuff they know about the equipment. I don't see anything wrong with that. If that approach makes you happy, go for it! |
@david_ten I believe you are missing the point! The Greeks under Alexander sought to "uplift and civilize" the savages of the East by imposing the superior? Greek culture on Eastern societies. That was the whole point of the Hellenistic Age. Alexander's adoption of some of the trappings of Persian and Indian culture were an effort by him to alter his image as conqueror to affable civilizer. 🤔 Put simply Greek civilization was imposed upon the East. The East's culture was seen as inferior by the Greeks...indeed the Greeks referred to them as "barbaroi" the origin of the English term, Barbarian. |
| Post removed |
I did't know the Greek-Indian contacts were so extensive for centuries. To add - Persia, also being part of Indo-Iranian civilization, had complicated relations with Ancient Greece, often confrontational but not only. Significant part of Alexander The Great's army settled down in Persia, and not because they really had to. Persia was militarily defeated by Alexander but not quite conquered in a usual sense. Chinese civilization is a totally different thing. |
@hifiman5 There was a decent amount of contact and engagement between the 'ancient' Greeks and the 'less ancient' "~India~" @innaI believe Elizabeth was referring to the far east...specifically China, India, Pakistan. Not mush contact between classical Greek society and those folks! Here's a highly summarized version, courtesy of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece%E2%80%93India_relations): For the Greeks "India" meant only the upper Indus till the time of Alexander the Great. After "India" meant to the Greeks most of the northern half of the Indian subcontinent. The Greeks referred to the Indians (people of present-day India and Pakistan) as "Indói" (Ἰνδοί), literally meaning "the people of the Indus River". Ctesias in his work Indika (Greek: Ινδικά), records the beliefs and view of the Persians about India. The Greek explorer Scylax, in about 515 BCE, was sent by King Darius I of Persia to follow the course of the Indus River and discover where it led. Alexander the Great and his army fought the Indian army of King Porus at the Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and later in another Greek invasion Chandragupta Maurya of India defeated Seleucus 1. Part of today's India became the Indo-Greek kingdoms founded by the successor of Alexander the Great. (Greek conquests in India) The Greek ethnographer and explorer of the Hellenistic period, Megasthenes was the ambassador of Seleucus I at India. In his work, Indika (Greek: Ινδικά), he wrote the history of Indians and their culture. Megasthenes also mentions about the prehistoric arrival of God Dionysus and Herakles (Megasthenes' Herakles) in India. In addition, the epic poem Dionysiaca, mention about the God Dionysus expedition to India. Arrian, in his work Indica (Greek: Ἰνδική) has written about India. Dionysius was also a Greek ambassador at India, sent by Ptolemy Philadelphus. The Heliodorus pillar is a stone column that was erected around 110 BCE in present-day central India in Vidisha near modern Besnagar, by Heliodorus (Greek: Ἡλιόδωρος), a Greek ambassador of the Indo-Greek king Antialcidas to the court of the Shunga king Bhagabhadra. The site is located only 5 miles from the Buddhist stupa of Sanchi. The Greek historian Apollodorus and the Roman historian Justin, affirm that the Bactrian Greeks conquered India. Justin, also describe Demetrius I as "King of the Indians". Greek and Indian sources indicate that the Greeks campaigned as far as Pataliputra until they were forced to retreat following a coup in Bactria in 170 BC. The Greek sophist Philostratus, in his work Life of Apollonius of Tyana (Greek: Βίος Απολλωνίου του Τυανέως), mention that the Greek philosopher Apollonius have travelled to India. The King Phraotes received a Greek education at the court of his father and spoke Greek fluently.[1] Diodorus, quoting Iambulus mention that the king of Pataliputra had a "great love for the Greeks".[2][3] Eusebius mentions that according to Aristoxenus, Indias went to Athens and conversed with Socrates.[4] Buddhism flourished under the Indo-Greeks, leading to the Greco-Buddhist cultural syncretism. The arts of the Indian sub-continent were also quite affected by Hellenistic art during and after these interactions. |
I think this, quoted from above, sums up most of it: "I think that audiotroy is talking about two separate topics here: 1) Threads that go off the rail, off topic what the OP is asking about. 2) Whether technical jargon should be discussed in the forums. Forgive me if I misread you, as I'm not exactly sure which thread you are referring to, but that is what it looks like to me." Beyond that - and not defending arguments, flame wars, or pedantic back and forth, technical details result in the sound. Often, an observation that "A sounds great" is really only true in a specific context - due to technical stuff :-) So if we understand what is REALLY going on, we can have far better understanding of what will result in great sound. That said, finding the root cause, while holding all the other factors constant is really, really hard. G |
falconquest332 posts01-25-2018 10:49amGee, and all I’m trying to do is learn about the science behind the Synergistic blue fuse which uses Quantum Inductive Coupling. Can anyone explain that to me in a non-technical manner? This is going to be real good and how it applies to a fuse ! Your up Geoff!! Cheers George |
| Post removed |
Thinkers want the technical detail and call that the truth. Romantics dismiss that Hang on Elizabeth!, just because one understands the technical side, doesn’t mean your not an "Audiophile" who doesn’t love music also. Because if they didn’t love music they wouldn’t be here!! They’d be on "fridge circuits anonymous" or something, or some pure tech head forum. The gods of Audio EG: Pass, Curl, Hansen ect hang out for tech discussions, and they are Audiophiles. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/index.php or http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=2 But an "Audiophile"/Romantic who also loves music, can have not one shred of knowledge, and will therefore not understand it and tend to dismiss if an ignorant or snake oil purveyor . Cheers George |
I addressed your first paragraph by noting sexist discrimination and cultural issues that contribute to your "it's a fact" statement, and the second paragraph does't apply to anything I've said although maybe that wasn't aimed at my comment…I welcome any approach as relevant, and anyone who doesn't should get out more…example: "You like it because it sounds good to you or maybe because you think it's technically superior, or both." Or maybe it just looks cool…smells good…it's shiny! |
| Post removed |
What percentage of Audiogon members are women? If you are referring to my comment above, I think you misconstrued my intent. I was not making claims about women’s intelligence and scientific capabilities, which I believe are absolutely equal to men’s. It’s a fact, that technical fields are dominated by men. There are well-documented cultural and historical reasons for this. How many women are choosing to go into EE? Why when I watch videos from the audio shows are the great percentage of people there male, white, and over 50? The gear-head discourse is important to those who enjoy and find it meaningful. It’s not accessible to a great majority of folks, not because they lack the apptitude, but because they lack the background and the interest. The early days of personal computers were all about CPU performance and clock speed. How many people know or care about the CPU they have in their laptop? Hobbyists, gamers, those in the industry? We need both approaches. The highly technical will lose the vast majority, but perhaps that is of no consequence. |
People write what they know from experience…shocking! Also, I’m not sure if a car analogy (in which I’ve indulged as I want people to know how sophisticated and cool I am) actually works as cars have design absolutes that can be easily tested, although how you "feel" about cars is another thing. Also it’s sexist and utterly inaccurate to state things like "They (women) are not interested in this infantile nonsense and rightly so, they have better things to do." I can’t let a lame comment (and any other ignorance based sexist nonsense) like that slide as it simply perpetuates stereotypes that just don’t fit in the world today, and it’s not good for anybody. I live in a world populated by many smart, artistic, and strong women, always have, and sexist generalities are simply lazy and kind of dumb. Note that the only reason many women are less likely to be part of the technology world is due to those exact stereotypes promoted by frightened men, religions, and subsequently weak minded women. |
| Post removed |
onhwy614,007 posts01-25-2018 1:30amBecause usually there is a purely technical reason why some equipment or combination of equipment sounds the way it does.+1 minorl571 posts01-25-2018 6:01am+1 The only ones complaining about it are just "some" (not all) of the ones that don’t understand technical reasons, it baffles them, they tend to bury their heads in the sand and believe it’s all witchcraft that gets the good sounds, they can speak that BS as there’s no proving anything. If they just did a 2 week basic electronic course they would understand a lot better and stop whining about what they don’t understand. PS: They wouldn’t last 2 seconds at these places, where all the brains of this industries live and breath for a bit of banter. People like Pass, Curl, Hansen rip, ect ect ect all reside at these links, why because there’s no BS witchcraft in design, just technology and measurements. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/index.php or http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=2 Cheers George |
Try designing and building an amplifier or pre-amp or DAC without using technology. There is a lot of subjectivity in the high end audio world, but without technology we are back in the stone ages. Want to talk subjectivity? ask almost any high end audiophile how they feel about Bose...... then ask a regular off the street person that questions. That subject, like politics are what I typically stay away from with people and non-audiophiles. They just think we are real snobs. I have absolutely no problem talking technology. Often it is a technical reason that is the proper response to an OP's issue. I remember my first amplifier design class in college. Build an amplifier with the following specifications: 1. output impedance of X 2. Input impedance of Y 3. power output of z wpc into 8 ohm load 4. Totally discrete circuitry. your choice FET or BJT or both 5. Frequency range of 20 hz to 20 kHz minimum and stable 6. Class A or AB 7. include all equations showing operating characteristics 8. Gain of P First an Engineer must design suitable circuitry and then sound the device for the sound one is looking for. Today, most are using modifications of existing circuit designs that are well know for their operating characteristics and sound quality. Technology comes first. enjoy |
One problem I can foresee is some folks who demand or at least encourage are non technical. You cannot explain things that are technical to non technical people. Period. The issue is they think they know what the word technical means but they don’t. They assume it’s something everybody can easily grasp, something that makes sense. But obviously that’s not really true. |
From a practical perspective, understanding the technology mainly helps one to achieve their own objective listening goals faster and probably more affordably than otherwise. Not to say there are not other ways to achieve subjective personal listening goals as well leaving the technology totally out of it. Technical and non technical people both want good sound. They just have different tools and means at their disposal to get it. It’s not reasonable to think they will agree on the same approach. Isn’t that pretty much what makes the world go round? Move on...nothing special to see here..... |
Men are from Mars and women are from Earth. They are not interested in this infantile nonsense and rightly so, they have better things to do. As for some members mentioning their wives and girlfriends, if they really have them, it is because they are part of their audiophile gear to be proud of and to exhibit. There is always room for some technical discussion in any thread, I think, just not to the point of overtaking everything else. |
The only way to know the affect on a circuit of a particular part is to build x then take out the part in question, and put in the other part and then listen.Yes, using what before listening? That's right!! the dreaded laws of electronics test equipment and measurements. There isn't a piece of audio equipment worth it's salt that hasn't been designed using these, and if there were, I'd suggest a very wide berth. Cheers George |
George, Technology is in reality in terms of subjective ways of telling a difference are useless in correlation to what you can perceive. The only way to know the affect on a circuit of a particular part is to build x then take out the part in question, and put in the other part and then listen. Some speaker designers have tried many brands of the same level of cap in their circuits before figuring out exactly which one they use. In terms of pure statistical data guys. Take a gas chromatograph pour in a bottle of ripple, a bottle of 15 dollar table wine and a 1,000 bottle of wine and see what your results look like? Drive three different sports cars on the same road and see what the specs tell you. Erik subjective experiences are just that, a particular set of criteria for that person, we usually don’t pass judgement on a product until we have heard it on a number of occasions. Dave and Troy Audio Doctor NJ |
I enjoy talking tech, but I am happy to leave discussions that stick to subjective impressions as well. Neither is perfect. Lots of "subjective" opinions don't match up to what I hear at all, or seem overly effusive in ways that seem more tied to price tags than actual performance. On the other hand, lots of "technical" discussions I see are naive, or ascribe subjective results to a particular type of tech. A really good example of this is fans of a particular brand of DAC chipset used in a DAC as being responsible for all of the sound. My point, I think, I hope, is that we can have both. I think there is something to be said about focusing more on the results, especially when armchair geeks start attacking designs for x or y flaw which isn't actually in the product. Like wine, some want to talk taste, some price, and some fermentation. Let's enjoy the journey and discoveries together. Best, E |
Without technical reasons as well as subjective reasons for X vs Y, then the BS will flow unquestioned, and then that would be a voodoo forum. When posters ask for advise for a problem or choice on something, I think it only helpful to give them not just recommendations, but a technical reason why those recommendations are given, otherwise you could be talking through your hat. Too many times I've seen advice given on say what to amp to buy, without them first knowing what speaker that amp is going to have to drive, or visa versa. Or on the danger side of things, suggestions of some to owners play to around with different value mains fuses, by those that should clearly not be suggesting anything in this area. Cheers George |
I think that audiotroy is talking about two separate topics here: 1) Threads that go off the rail, off topic what the OP is asking about. 2) Whether technical jargon should be discussed in the forums. Forgive me if I misread you, as I'm not exactly sure which thread you are referring to, but that is what it looks like to me. As for 1, I do agree that I have seen many threads go off the rails, and it is rather disappointing to witness. Some threads have done this so badly, that I've deleted all of my posts in that thread, just so that it won't appear in my feed anymore. I've lost interest in the derailed thread. For the second question, I don't like to totally focus on technical aspects, but I am very interested in some technical details. What kind of transistors or tubes an amp uses, MM, MI, or MC phono cartridge, metal dome or soft dome tweeter, dynamic, electrostatic, or planar speaker, can all be helpful information when trying to contemplate a reply. These details, and many more, about a product I think can be useful information in these forums. Sure, some folks can go too far, with too much information. However, others can not provide enough information to get any helpful responses as well. I think following topic number 1, if the OP clearly states that he is only interested in sound, and not technical aspects, that his request should be honored, and if someone wants to go into technical details about that topic, they should start their own thread. However, if the OP does not rule out technical questions, the forum should be open to ask them. |
So does lack of encouragement for women to be involved in STEM I look forward to seeing more women engineers and fans in all areas of science and technology. Look up Heddy Lamar. I bet if she was alive today she'd have lots to say about speaker and amplifier design. https://www.biography.com/people/hedy-lamarr-9542252 |
