Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Learning more about the science of sound
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Learning more about the science of sound - Page 14

post #196 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by EthanWiner View Post


Yes, they are all in cahoots. I once had a "magic product" vendor complain to me that I should go along with the ruse because I'm a manufacturer of audio products. This was in a public forum! I told him I'm too ethical to do that, then pointed out that my company's products (acoustic treatment) actually work and their effectiveness is easily measured.
High-end audio products are way too small a market to attract attention. Even scammers with 100 times more sales, such as the multi-billion dollar "health" products industry, rarely evoke government scrutiny.

--Ethan

Some of the things I read in the product descriptions of certain sponsored items here is quite... I wonder how the admins sleep at nightevil_smiley.gif

post #197 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post

 

This is just plain incorrect - there are endless studies including numerous Govt studies that contradict this - unless you are talking about Wimbledon Singles Finals there is almost always a notable gender gap  (admittedly smaller in the developed world than it used to be) when comparing equivalent work by the two genders. Also look at the percentage of holders of prestige jobs such as Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants(?), CEOs, Higher Govt employees - there is a significant imbalance - see for instance http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/03/gender or http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/gender-gap-on-wages-is-slow-to-close/ or http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/09/1842001/the-10-jobs-with-the-biggest-gender-wage-gap/?mobile=nc.

 

Bureau of labor statistics report 2011 http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2011.pdf

 

Sure you can find one or two exceptions , my missus earns a great deal more than me though we are equivalently qualified/educated, but she is a good deal smarter than me, better published and I'm a lazy sod.

 

Hi Nick,

 

I think you missed the point of my discussion. Taking one line out of something meant for an entirely different purpose and bashing me with it? I don't see the purpose.

 

The industry I work in is very equal.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/03/20/women-are-now-paid-as-much-as-men-in-tech-study-finds/

 

The sources you cite are very left wing and biased accordingly. I'm also rather sick and tired of hearing how bad white men are, I've spent most of my life being put down for no particular reason and I no longer believe it or tolerate it. I don't care to discuss other countries, because that opens many other worm cans and politics that I don't care to debate. I was here to have fun, after all. If you'd like to discuss the meaning of my original post, great. Otherwise, I consider the discussion closed. beyersmile.png

post #198 of 395

A lot of it is up to the interpretation of which factors you're adjusting for, and people could argue about what is proper to consider.  Not to mention the difficulty of working with such complex data, with all the dependencies.  You could cook the books a little either way.  It could get to levels of silly, if you really wanted.  For example, isn't height positively correlated with earning (but how much is legitimately tall people having better-developed brains or skills from better nutrition or self-confidence or whatever, and how much is unintentional wage bias?), and do you account for women being shorter on average?  etc.

 

 

Anyway, I think there was an original conversation about schooling and qualifications.  I'd also suggest that some of the "useless" courses are at least some kind of training and not really a total waste of time.  Well, it depends on the instructor and the circumstances, really.  So I'm not sure if that comes across as an argument that many would be sympathetic to—especially the people in hiring positions that suffered through those things themselves.

post #199 of 395

The sources you cite are very left wing and biased accordingly. I'm also rather sick and tired of hearing how bad white men are, I've spent most of my life being put down for no particular reason and I no longer believe it or tolerate it. I don't care to discuss other countries, because that opens many other worm cans and politics that I don't care to debate. I was here to have fun, after all. If you'd like to discuss the meaning of my original post, great. Otherwise, I consider the discussion closed.

 

Just hold on a minute here. If you didn't want what you said to be up for discussion, you probably shouldn't have posted it on a public forum for everyone else to comment on, especially since you are using it as proof for your argument. Attempts to discredit an opposing claim solely based on where they came from, making hasty generalizations to support your argument, or making ad hoc rules to dismiss opposing evidence, won't fly. You seem to have forgotten that the tech industry is inherently progressive because of its fundamental focus on the now and the future; of course women are probably paid as much in tech as men.

 


I think you missed the point of my discussion. Taking one line out of something meant for an entirely different purpose and bashing me with it? I don't see the purpose.

 

As for this, the reason why it's relevant to address this point is the fact that if your previous argument, which (I think) essentially boils down to "it's pointless to fight the status quo as an individual" loses credibility if the premises you used to make it are proven to be wrong.

post #200 of 395
The tech industry is male dominated.... So the wage comparison is not really reliable.
post #201 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post

Just hold on a minute here. If you didn't want what you said to be up for discussion, you probably shouldn't have posted it on a public forum for everyone else to comment on, especially since you are using it as proof for your argument. Attempts to discredit an opposing claim solely based on where they came from, making hasty generalizations to support your argument, or making ad hoc rules to dismiss opposing evidence, won't fly. You seem to have forgotten that the tech industry is inherently progressive because of its fundamental focus on the now and the future; of course women are probably paid as much in tech as men.

 

Fair enough, but I think this discussion has slipped past my original meaning and intent. I suppose I should simply say that I was trying to encourage you to finish your education, which I think was what you were talking about. It seemed to me you needed some encouragement. I could have been wrong.

 

I cited my parents to demonstrate their personal integrity and principles. I cited my own experience to also demonstrate that even with all the stuff life can throw at you, it is surely possible to get a college degree, and that it is worthwhile to do so.

 

I do believe my primary mistake was throwing the gender comments in. Probably should not have done that. Lesson learned.

post #202 of 395

I have a question regarding stereo crosstalk.

 

If the spec of a product says stereo crosstalk +30db. Does this mean the left and right channels will start bleeding into each other at volumes around and higher than 30db?

 

If the spec instead says it has a stereo crosstalk of -30db, I assume this is bad compared to the former as it means the stereo imaging will be negatively affected at a significantly lower volume?

 

When referring to audio specifications, at what db threshold or range will a person start hearing audible effects of stereo crosstalk. 

post #203 of 395

I'm no expert, but I would guess that it would depend on the dynamic range and the output volume of your music.

post #204 of 395

+30 dB and -30 dB mean the same thing there.  30 dB shouldn't normally be considered a volume level, anyway; dB is a measure of a ratio.  It's when you have 30 dB SPL that it's implicit that the ratio is between a level and the reference (auditory threshold level, which is a pressure in Pascals), so that refers to a certain volume—sound pressure level, really.

 

But anyway, 30 dB crosstalk would mean that the desired signal (L channel in L channel and R channel in R channel) is 30 dB above the undesired signal (L channel info in R channel and vice versa).  The higher the number, the less bleed there is.  If you see -30 dB, they're saying that the undesired signal is 30 dB less than the desired signal. i.e. the same thing

 

For listening to music, about 30 (40?) dB or so is about what you need.  I forget exactly.  I'm pretty sure there's some research or citation to quote, that probably somebody else knows. Note that it usually varies by frequency, and depending on where you're talking about and how it came to be, it may be completely or not quite in or out of phase and so on.  It depends on the sound, how separated the channels are to begin with, the nature of the crosstalk, etc.; also, if you're using headphones then it's probably easier to hear crosstalk as the channels are separated otherwise.


Edited by mikeaj - 5/21/13 at 12:33pm
post #205 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

+30 dB and -30 dB mean the same thing there.  30 dB shouldn't normally be considered a volume level, anyway; dB is a measure of a ratio.  It's when you have 30 dB SPL that it's implicit that the ratio is between a level and the reference (auditory threshold level, which is a pressure in Pascals), so that refers to a certain volume—sound pressure level, really.

But anyway, 30 dB crosstalk would mean that the desired signal (L channel in L channel and R channel in R channel) is 30 dB above the undesired signal (L channel info in R channel and vice versa).  The higher the number, the less bleed there is.  If you see -30 dB, they're saying that the undesired signal is 30 dB less than the desired signal. i.e. the same thing

For listening to music, about 30 (40?) dB or so is about what you need.  I forget exactly.  I'm pretty sure there's some research or citation to quote, that probably somebody else knows. Note that it usually varies by frequency, and depending on where you're talking about and how it came to be, it may be completely or not quite in or out of phase and so on.  It depends on the sound, how separated the channels are to begin with, the nature of the crosstalk, etc.; also, if you're using headphones then it's probably easier to hear crosstalk as the channels are separated otherwise.

ah... Thank you finally understood. Why is db cited in negative or positive values it gets very confusing
post #206 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihaitachi View Post


ah... Thank you finally understood. Why is db cited in negative or positive values it gets very confusing

 

A decibel represents a ratio between two quantities, one of which will be the reference. If something is higher than the reference, the figure is given as a positive. If it's lower than the reference, it's given as a negative.

 

se

post #207 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

A decibel represents a ratio between two quantities, one of which will be the reference. If something is higher than the reference, the figure is given as a positive. If it's lower than the reference, it's given as a negative.

 

se

So the stereo crosstalk of 30 db would be the ratio of desired to undesired signals?

post #208 of 395

Kinda. It tells you how much of the signal leaks from one channel to the other and vice versa.

 

A full-scale (= 0 dBFS) tone in one channel will appear at -30 dBFS in the other.

Or a tone played in the left speaker at 80 dB SPL will also be played in the right speaker at 50 dB SPL.

Or an amp that outputs a tone in the left channel at 1 V will be output in the right channel at 0.0316 V.

 

Ideally, no tone should appear in the other channel at all.

post #209 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post


For listening to music, about 30 (40?) dB or so is about what you need.  I forget exactly.  I'm pretty sure there's some research or citation to quote, that probably somebody else knows. Note that it usually varies by frequency, and depending on where you're talking about and how it came to be, it may be completely or not quite in or out of phase and so on.  It depends on the sound, how separated the channels are to begin with, the nature of the crosstalk, etc.; also, if you're using headphones then it's probably easier to hear crosstalk as the channels are separated otherwise.
30dB crosstalk is adequate for stereo. The difference between 30 and 40dB is barely audible and highly dependent on the material. Most stereo mixes have much less than 40dB of channel separation (same figures, but the inverse of crosstalk).
Edited by jaddie - 5/21/13 at 2:45pm
post #210 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

dB is a measure of a ratio.  It's when you have 30 dB SPL that it's implicit that the ratio is between a level and the reference (auditory threshold level, which is a pressure in Pascals), so that refers to a certain volume—sound pressure level, really.

 

Very small correction that doesn't change the meaning of your post in any way.... sound pressure level (SPL) is a ratio of the sound pressure squared to the reference sound pressure squared.  Also "sound pressure level" specifically refers to the dB representation of sound pressure.  In acoustics, when you say "level" it's implied that you're referring a dB representation.  Lp (SPL), Ldn, Lmax, Lmin, Ln, Leq, Lw are all "level" and they're all in dB.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Learning more about the science of sound