[chaos215bar2]

Strictly speaking, gravity accelerates.

 

[Joe Rasmussen]

So, are you going to provide some credible evidence or not?

No! Has never worked before, so go away... please!

 

[Steve999]

Strictly speaking, gravity accelerates.

That’s interesting. Thanks. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/Acceleration-of-Gravity

Would it be true to say that we can describe the effects of gravity (warping of space-time, etc.), but we do not yet know the cause of it? Aren’t as-yet detected “gravitons” one hypothesis?

Here’s an interesting and perhaps somewhat related development—some evidence of the idea of sound being in the form of particles, called “phonons,” first hypothesized by Einstein in 1907, and now reportedly detected by quantum-microphones. Apparently when phonons vibrate at some frequencies they are heat particles, and when vibrating at other frequencies they are sound particles?

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-physicists-particles-quantum-microphone.html

 

[bigshot]

the history of many who have had to suffer in order to benefit mankind is depressing.

Let me know when you have something solid to offer. Until then, I'll just ignore you. The rest of us are trying to help people, not just prop ourselves up.

 

[chaos215bar2]

That’s interesting. Thanks. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/Acceleration-of-Gravity

Would it be true to say that we can describe the effects of gravity (warping of space-time, etc.), but we do not yet know the cause of it? Aren’t as-yet detected “gravitons” one hypothesis?

Here’s an interesting and perhaps somewhat related development—some evidence of the idea of sound being in the form of particles, called “phonons,” first hypothesized by Einstein in 1907, and now reportedly detected by quantum-microphones. Apparently when phonons vibrate at some frequencies they are heat particles, and when vibrating at other frequencies they are sound particles?

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-physicists-particles-quantum-microphone.html

I don't want to take this too far off topic, but if you're interested, I highly recommend this series: https://www.pbs.org/show/pbs-space-time/. If you can, start from the beginning, as it frequently builds on previous episodes.

I'm afraid I know just enough about gravitation, general relativity, and quantum mechanics to know that I won't be able to manage an explanation without butchering the topic (after all, some of the most important unanswered questions in modern physics lie right at the intersection of those topics), but I can do my best to describe what a phonon is.

Phonons are not particles, they describe a quantum of vibration within a material (a discrete packet of energy, effectively). It's really just a mathematical description of a physical behavior, but there are many parallels between phonons and real particles. (The similarity between "phonon" and "photon" is quite intentional.) Since both sound and heat are indeed vibrations within a material, I would expect that both could be described using phonons.

 

[KeithEmo]

I agree - but only somewhat.

We all live our lives based largely on assumptions of what other people think and will do.
For example, we assume that the other guy stops at red lights, and goes when they turn green.
It would be almost impossible to drive without being able to trust that assumption - and it is usually true.
However, I also don't give a second thought to the fact that everyone will be driving on the right side of the road.
And, while that works fine here in the USA, it could get me in a lot of trouble in England (where they drive on the left).
(I'm also pretty sure that, in some other countries, they commonly eat a variety of different sorts of eggs.... including specifically fertilized chicken eggs in some places.)

For an excellent example.... I just has a Whopper at Burger King yesterday....
But I didn't eat any meat that day....
(Because what I ate was the new meatless hamburger they've been advertising recently - Wasn't it obvious to you?)

The problems arise when we make assumptions about what other people think is obvious... and they turn out to be wrong.
For example, if I were to complain to a stewardess that "the pig sitting in the seat next to mine is making noise", he or she had better NOT assume that "pigs don't fly".

For an example that's more specific to this discussion.

As someone with an engineering background, and who has worked for a long time with oscilloscopes, I tend to follow what we learned in school about waveforms displayed on a screen.

Which is:
"When you look at a sine wave on an oscilloscope screen, even if there is several percent of THD, it usually won't be visible."
"And, if there is so much distortion that it is clearly visible on an oscilloscope screen, then it will almost certainly be accompanied by audible differences."
And, in general, this even holds true when the primary frequency involved is itself inaudible.
If the distortion is severe enough that it "makes the waveform look odd" then it is almost always accompanied by at least some audible distortion.
This is why many engineers look at an MP3 file on an oscilloscope screen and reason: "Anything that looks that bad can't possibly sound right...." and take that as their default assumption.
(I know at least one elderly engineer, whose hearing is failing, who will say: "It sounds fine to me....but it's pretty obvious from the display that it can't sound right to people with good hearing".)

Therefore, when I look at oscilloscope images of the ringing associated with different DAC filters, my "obvious assumption" is this:
"They look very different - so they probably also sound different".
Notice that I did not assert that an audible difference actually exists.
What I said was that my DEFAULT ASSUMPTION would be that, with such large visible differences, the most likely situation would be that an audible difference exists.
So, to me, the claim that "they all sound the same" is the exceptional claim - and the claim that requires the exceptional proof - and not the other way around.
And I find it quite odd that so many people are so sure that "no audible difference exists" - "just because a few measurements are more or less similar".

When you say you had eggs for breakfast, do you qualify it by stating it's an "unfertilized chicken egg not including it's shell" or do you assume people will make the correct assessment unless unusual qualifiers are stated? If you had an ostrich or turtle egg for breakfast, I'm willing to assume you would mention it.

I believe the same level of standard assumptions exist when discussing "flying pigs" and many other typical points of discussion. I don't think we need to be pedantic - we should all have the intellectual honesty to state any unusual scenarios/qualifiers when they exist.

 

[KeithEmo]

You bring up an interesting point......

Which more closely describes the reason why this thread exists?:
1) "To encourage scientific discussion that might perhaps lead to extending our current knowledge....."
2) "To educate people about currently accepted scientific theories and knowledge....."
3) "To protect ignorant people from believing the wrong things (specifically when they may be protected from nefarious vendors seeking to separate them from their cash using various devious pseudoscientific claims)....."

I was sort of under the impression from the title that the purpose was:
- to discuss whether there were actually measurable performance differences that could specifically be attributed to the difference between R2R and D-S topologies
- to discuss whether there were audible differences between the two DAC topopogies
- if such differences were posited to exist - to discuss the correlation between them - if any...

I sort of missed the part where the purpose was: "to explain to people who believe they hear a difference why they must be wrong".
Just for the record, I personally suspect that neither topology is necessarily "audible better", or even that they are "audibly different", but I'm at least willing to consider discussion on the subject.
(From the examples of products I've heard, there are often audible differences, but those can usually be attributed to easily measurable differences unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the topology involved....)

I was sort of hoping to see a scholarly discussion...
Perhaps with some details about the specific measurable differences...
And maybe some specific proposed ways in which we could test the audibility of each...
Has ANYONE ever made up a set of samples, with various amounts of various types of ringing deliberately added, and tested them on a significant sample of people, to see how much is audible?
(Or is it both more fun, and less work, to argue endlessly about why such a test would be "an obvious waste of time".)

Let me know when you have something solid to offer. Until then, I'll just ignore you. The rest of us are trying to help people, not just prop ourselves up.

 

[bigshot]

Claiming to hear a difference doesn't mean much without any other sort of verification. There are plenty of reasons to hear differences that have nothing to do with different topologies. The problem is that people rush past determining if there is a difference and go straight to dreaming up reasons for a difference to exit.

 

[KeithEmo]

Again... I would agree with you as long as you don't take it too far.

Human perception is certainly fallible, often inaccurate, and often subject to all sorts of biases and external influences.
However, that does not justify simply dismissing it as "totally meaningless".

Perhaps the best analogy would be to a different human sense perception - taste.
I very much doubt that you or I could say with any accuracy how many milligrams of salt were present in our dinner last night.
And I'm pretty sure that neither of us could state, with any degree of accuracy, whether it contained "the proper amount, according to Escoffier, in the appropriate text".
However, if you were to say that you always found the dinners at a certain restaurant to be "rather salty", you would not expect to be told:
"We all know that humans can't judge chemical composition accurately. Stop bothering us until you can produce a lab report showing the actual salt content."
Instead, you would expect your observation to be noted, and taken for what it is....
An opinion, from an observer, and a statement based on a human experience....
(And I haven't seen many suggestions that food critics should all be replaced with far more accurate mass spectrometers...)

And, likewise, some people insist that tube gear sounds better....
And that claim is no less valid that the well documented fact that most test subjects report that "meat doesn't taste as good when you color it bright green"....
And, if you find that the difference disappears when they can't see what equipment they're listening to, then you've proven that the cause is psychological rather than auditory.
But that fact still doesn't make it some sort of blasphemy to discuss it...
(And, technically, it also doesn't mean that they didn't hear a difference.... although they may not understand why they heard it.)

Claiming to hear a difference doesn't mean much without any other sort of verification. There are plenty of reasons to hear differences that have nothing to do with different topologies. The problem is that people rush past determining if there is a difference and go straight to dreaming up reasons for a difference to exit.

 

[bigshot]

It's simple. You do a controlled test to see if a difference exists. If you can't detect any difference, for all practical purposes you can stop there and move on to bigger and better things. But some people don't do that. They so dearly want there to be a difference, they try to think of theoretical reasons why there *might* be a teenie tiny difference they missed, or they question the testing methodology. It's a waste of energy that could be better spent elsewhere. The truth is, we're talking about something to play Rush albums on in your family room. You don't need to split atoms. If you can't hear it easily, it probably doesn't matter. There are too many things that really count to waste time on things that really don't.

 

[castleofargh]

Human perception is certainly fallible, often inaccurate, and often subject to all sorts of biases and external influences.
However, that does not justify simply dismissing it as "totally meaningless".

while I don't think we have to dismiss all uncontrolled impressions, I do think that we have enough reasons to do just that if we want to. we have ample evidence that those are fallible and will be affected in some ways by other senses or biases already present in the brain. that's more than enough reason to reject sighted impressions when trying to get facts.
obviously some events are found at levels, amplitudes, frequencies so nominal for our ears that nobody would mistake them for something else. like recognizing a piano sound as coming from a piano, or noticing massive clipping, or very high noise levels, etc. I probably won't demand a blind test to prove that the listener can recognize a piano from a cow bell. chances are that I'll just accept his testimony from uncontrolled listening. but as soon as things happen close to hearing thresholds(or beyond), it's another story. our level of confidence in our subjective impressions should clearly reflect that and drop near or at zero.
I can see ambiguity concerning non obvious cues that someone might still decide to identify as "night and day different"(the trouble of subjective quantification). but I see no ambiguity when it comes to sighted impressions of events near or beyond typical human hearing threshold. then I will reject them all by default and do believe it is the only correct choice. once we get confirmation through controlled method, that will be the time to agree that the listener did hear stuff all along.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I am struck by the fact that you now have to be more brave than ever before. And your motive will be questioned: "So you think you are so great?" while putting on a pedestal the Einsteins of the past while skewering the possible Einsteins of the future.
[2] A reasonable person does not demand proof, he demands explanations. He opens up the discussion, he does not kill it.
[3] No! Has never worked before, so go away... please!

1. Again, how does just repeating a falsehood make it true? Einstein of the past (the actual Einstein) presented his theories with a significant amount of supporting reliable evidence (mathematical) and wouldn't have dreamt of doing otherwise! In what way is an Einstein of the present or future treated any differently? Your repeated untrue statement is still as untrue as the first time it was shown to be untrue!

2. Please point out where it states this is the "Reasonable Person" forum. This isn't the "reasonable person" forum it's the Sound Science forum, how is it possible that you don't know this considering it says so in great big letters and you've been specifically told several times? How is that in any way "reasonable"? Furthermore, I don't recall anyone here "demanding proof", we've just demanded reliable evidence and, I would contend that many "reasonable people" would also require reliable evidence.

3. Clearly that's utter nonsense, which is the exact opposite of the truth. Credible/Reliable evidence is the ONLY way that science ever works! You apparently not understanding and refusing to abide by this most basic, defining principle/tenet of science, in an actual science forum, is just ridiculous! To any even marginally "reasonable person" it's obvious who should "go away"!

For example, if I were to complain to a stewardess that "the pig sitting in the seat next to mine is making noise", he or she had better NOT assume that "pigs don't fly".

Huh? Of course I would assume that "pigs don't fly" because you stated the pig was sitting! Obviously the pig is sitting and the plane is flying (not the pig) or are you saying that the pig is flying and the plane is sitting? If the pig were sitting in the pilot's seat, would the pig be flying then? Are pigs even allowed into flight school? A pig in a jet airliner would be cruising at over 400kph but science states the fastest flying animal is the Peregrine Falcon (at over 320kph). Ergo science is wrong, not only can pigs fly but they're the fastest flying animal! In fact, aren't Peregrine Falcons actually slower than cr@p (if I go to the toilet on a jet airliner)? If I sit a pig on a speed boat travelling at 100kph, is the pig swimming at 100kph? Are pigs the best/fastest at everything?

Tough questions, thank god I'm asking them here in the science forum, can you imagine the ridiculous responses I'd get in the "cables" forum?

G

 

[KeithEmo]

Actually, i think you've got the part about the pig backwards....

If someone were to challenge a good scientist about having seen a pig fly.
What the scientist would definitely NOT do would be to say: "You're nuts. Of course pigs can't fly."

He or she would say something like....
"Gee, I'm sorry, I was saying that current day pigs, with no genetic modifications, cannot fly under their own power, because they don't have wings."
"I assumed that we were discussing the situation in terms of those basic assumptions. Let me be more concise this time around."
In other words, the scientists would understand the limitations of his counter-claim, and be quite willing to spell them out in detail.

For example, if you want to refute someone's claim that they can hear the difference between DACs with different ringing characteristics, you might say, quite concisely:
"There is lots of evidence to support the claim that a typical human cannot hear steady state sine waves at frequencies much past 20 kHz."
"Since the ringing you're talking about occurs at much higher frequencies, I am assuming that the results with steady state sine waves are also true for all other conditions."
"And, that being the case, I consider it extremely unlikely that ringing at frequencies above 20 kHz would be audible either."
"And, incidentally, so far there seems to be little if any credible evidence to the contrary."
("However, since very little testing has actually been done under those conditions, it is remotely possible that I may someday be proven wrong.")

Sadly, the world is filled with not only good scientists, but poor scientists....
Who either treat science as if it were religious dogma....
Or fall into the common human failing of "NIH" ("not invented here" - which, in this case, refers to assigning excessive weight to their own personal beliefs).

Seventy years ago, some scientists took the time to explain that "the idea that matter consists of protons, neutrons, and electrons is just a convenient model that is often useful".
(And many poor scientists, lazy scientists, and scientists who took it for granted that we already knew that and wouldn't be confused, simply stated it as a "fact".)
Likewise, there are still many people who still think there is a "debate about whether light is a wave or a particle".

We also tell children in grade school that "we have tides because the moon's gravity pulls on the oceans so they pile up on the side nearest the moon."
(Which, of course, doesn't exactly explain why we have a second high tide on the side of the Earth more or less opposite the position of the moon at the same time.)
It's only in the higher grades (if ever) that we explain the matter in detail...
And we often don't bother to explain it at all until and unless they ask...
And many people never seem to notice that the grade school explanation doesn't really make complete sense at all...

There is FAR more to real science than "taking the latest accepted scientific fact and 'dumbing it down so the general public can sort of get the general idea' ".

1. Again, how does just repeating a falsehood make it true? Einstein of the past (the actual Einstein) presented his theories with a significant amount of supporting reliable evidence (mathematical) and wouldn't have dreamt of doing otherwise! In what way is an Einstein of the present or future treated any differently? Your repeated untrue statement is still as untrue as the first time it was shown to be untrue!

2. Please point out where it states this is the "Reasonable Person" forum. This isn't the "reasonable person" forum it's the Sound Science forum, how is it possible that you don't know this considering it says so in great big letters and you've been specifically told several times? How is that in any way "reasonable"? Furthermore, I don't recall anyone here "demanding proof", we've just demanded reliable evidence and, I would contend that many "reasonable people" would also require reliable evidence.

3. Clearly that's utter nonsense, which is the exact opposite of the truth. Credible/Reliable evidence is the ONLY way that science ever works! You apparently not understanding and refusing to abide by this most basic, defining principle/tenet of science, in an actual science forum, is just ridiculous! To any even marginally "reasonable person" it's obvious who should "go away"!



Huh? Of course I would assume that "pigs don't fly" because you stated the pig was sitting! Obviously the pig is sitting and the plane is flying (not the pig) or are you saying that the pig is flying and the plane is sitting? If the pig were sitting in the pilot's seat, would the pig be flying then? Are pigs even allowed into flight school? A pig in a jet airliner would be cruising at over 400kph but science states the fastest flying animal is the Peregrine Falcon (at over 320kph). Ergo science is wrong, not only can pigs fly but they're the fastest flying animal! In fact, aren't Peregrine Falcons actually slower than cr@p (if I go to the toilet on a jet airliner)? If I sit a pig on a speed boat travelling at 100kph, is the pig swimming at 100kph? Are pigs the best/fastest at everything?

Tough questions, thank god I'm asking them here in the science forum, can you imagine the ridiculous responses I'd get in the "cables" forum?

G

 

[bfreedma]

Actually, i think you've got the part about the pig backwards....

If someone were to challenge a good scientist about having seen a pig fly.
What the scientist would definitely NOT do would be to say: "You're nuts. Of course pigs can't fly."

He or she would say something like....
"Gee, I'm sorry, I was saying that current day pigs, with no genetic modifications, cannot fly under their own power, because they don't have wings."
"I assumed that we were discussing the situation in terms of those basic assumptions. Let me be more concise this time around."
In other words, the scientists would understand the limitations of his counter-claim, and be quite willing to spell them out in detail.

For example, if you want to refute someone's claim that they can hear the difference between DACs with different ringing characteristics, you might say, quite concisely:
"There is lots of evidence to support the claim that a typical human cannot hear steady state sine waves at frequencies much past 20 kHz."
"Since the ringing you're talking about occurs at much higher frequencies, I am assuming that the results with steady state sine waves are also true for all other conditions."
"And, that being the case, I consider it extremely unlikely that ringing at frequencies above 20 kHz would be audible either."
"And, incidentally, so far there seems to be little if any credible evidence to the contrary."
("However, since very little testing has actually been done under those conditions, it is remotely possible that I may someday be proven wrong.")

Sadly, the world is filled with not only good scientists, but poor scientists....
Who either treat science as if it were religious dogma....
Or fall into the common human failing of "NIH" ("not invented here" - which, in this case, refers to assigning excessive weight to their own personal beliefs).

Seventy years ago, some scientists took the time to explain that "the idea that matter consists of protons, neutrons, and electrons is just a convenient model that is often useful".
(And many poor scientists, lazy scientists, and scientists who took it for granted that we already knew that and wouldn't be confused, simply stated it as a "fact".)
Likewise, there are still many people who still think there is a "debate about whether light is a wave or a particle".

We also tell children in grade school that "we have tides because the moon's gravity pulls on the oceans so they pile up on the side nearest the moon."
(Which, of course, doesn't exactly explain why we have a second high tide on the side of the Earth more or less opposite the position of the moon at the same time.)
It's only in the higher grades (if ever) that we explain the matter in detail...
And we often don't bother to explain it at all until and unless they ask...
And many people never seem to notice that the grade school explanation doesn't really make complete sense at all...

There is FAR more to real science than "taking the latest accepted scientific fact and 'dumbing it down so the general public can sort of get the general idea' ".

I work with a number of PHD level scientists, a few who are recognized in their field as thought leaders.

I asked a few this morning if pigs can fly. All responded "No" with no further qualification. Apparently not all scientists (even good ones) are as pedantic as you believe them to be.

 

[Leporello]

Not implying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that what you do here is not science, it is Cargo Cult Science. The arguments presented here lack the depth of understanding, thoroughness, and integrity needed. The problem is that most people here are so convinced that they know how science works that they keep fooling themselves and never actually get to the good stuff (ie. genuine science).

Yes, humans are petty, envious, greedy, jealous and think too highly of themselves. Most scientists are fundamentally wretched people, like everyone, like me. You rarely see scientific ideals fulfilled, even in science. What was your point again?

So 'Sound science' is not as scientific as some of its members would like to think? Big news.