[knucklehead]

The sad thing is, I've seen very few genuine trolls come through here. Most are just "religious" faith-based types, and a few were just off the reservation crazy. I can't recall the last time I've seen anyone in here making disingenuous statements and arguments just to try and get a rise out of people.

As I said, "troll" has largely devolved into a general purpose epithet people hurl at those they either just don't like or disagree with.

se

I've heard what you said -- did you hear what I said?
 
I said trolling behavior ... as in fishing. Not a creature that live under bridges. I've never called anyone a troll here.

 

[dazzerfong]

OK, side-stepping political discussion and all:
 
Could anyone explain how an analog filter is designed from a digital one? I keep hearing my lecturers go on about making a digital filter first with defined parameters, but I never learnt how it actually gets made into an analog one. 

 

[knucklehead]

  OK, side-stepping political discussion and all:
 
Could anyone explain how an analog filter is designed from a digital one? I keep hearing my lecturers go on about making a digital filter first with defined parameters, but I never learnt how it actually gets made into an analog one. 

Don't ask me  ...  I'm just here for my interest in how cults work.   

 

 

[Steve Eddy]

Plus the moderators will never allow scientific methods to be implemented anywhere around this site. It goes against every fibre of the head fi sponsor community.

Personally I don't mind the DBT-Free Zone policy. No reason why people can't be allowed to share their subjective experiences without being hassled by anyone asking them to prove it. The reason why the same policy was originally first put into place over there is because people were being harassed by an "objectivist" from Audio Review. Though it didn't help that a moderator from Audio Asylum was routinely going over to Audio Review and stirring up Schiit over there until the owner of Audio Asylum finally told him to knock it off.

Anyway, the problem here, just as it was over there, the rule isn't implemented properly. People would be making objective claims in the DBT-Free Zone, which by all rights should be open to question and/or challenge, but those making the claims would then run and hide behind the mommy' skirt of the DBT-Free Zone policy and were allowed to get away with it.

If the other forums are to be DBT-Free Zones, effectively an objective-free zone, then anyone making objective claims on those forums should be dealt with in the same way as an objectivist harassing someone who is only sharing their subjective experience. Similarly, Sound Science should be declared a Subjective-Free Zone.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

I've heard what you said -- did you hear what I said?

I said trolling behavior ... as in fishing. Not a creature that live under bridges. I've never called anyone a troll here.

I never said you did. I was referring to the behavior of others.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

OK, side-stepping political discussion and all:

Could anyone explain how an analog filter is designed from a digital one? I keep hearing my lecturers go on about making a digital filter first with defined parameters, but I never learnt how it actually gets made into an analog one. 

Some filters can only be implemented in the digital domain.

se

 

[dazzerfong]

Some filters can only be implemented in the digital domain.

se

Oh, of course, but I'm saying when you're trying to design an analog filter, you usually design it digitally, then implement it analog-wise. How do you do that?

 

[Steve Eddy]

Oh, of course, but I'm saying when you're trying to design an analog filter, you usually design it digitally, then implement it analog-wise. How do you do that?

Usually using simulation software like SPICE.

se

 

[dazzerfong]

Usually using simulation software like SPICE.

se

I've used SPICE for circuits, but never for filter design. Say hypothetically you didn't have SPICE, say you got the transfer equation of the filter: how do you go from there?

 

[knucklehead]

I never said you did. I was referring to the behavior of others.

se

Plausable deniability is a wonderful thing ... 

 

 

[Brooko]

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

can't say you're wrong on any point. but again aren't all those the symptoms and not the sickness?
take 5. and 6. together. how can we stop FFbookman from posting "320≠40k" 300more times to say that mp3 sucks, when I alone have already explained to him twice that it is a total nonsense argument. bitrate and sample rate aren't the same thing, and mp3 isn't PCM. different units, and different format, that should be compelling enough to stop pretending they're the same stuff right? but as you say he doesn't read and doesn't care. and he posted it once more a few days ago on the wave vs flac topic when he now fully knows and has been told by several people that it was wrong to do it.
it has become his main argument, comparing apple and oranges in a strawman argument and just wait for a guy like bigshot or stan or myself to blow a fuze. all the troll has to do is have patience. as in our actual headfi rules, we have zero practical way to stop a troll.
what is right and fair in this system? nothing. what you suggest is for us all to always be cool, always be wise, and always treat him with respect... by ignoring his posts or him entirely.
so the answer against one guy misbehaving is that the entire forum has to move around him without touching him. where is that normal and fair?
 
how can we expect a public forum to be able to behave like that? parent can't do it with their own kids on a daily basis, of course stuff will blow out of proportion, and of course someone(probably me) will bite at the troll. if not the first time, if not the second, one day for sure we all know I will. it's only a question of time and the troll doesn't mind for that as he can go all day long and it will never cost him anything. because there is no rule against posting nonsense again and again and again.
 
in sound science, science should be the ruler. and claims should never ever come without backup.
a false claim or a fallacy is used. the normal action is what we already do, we call it what it is.
at that point 3 possible ends:
 
1/ the guy understands why what he said is wrong and he isn't blinded by his own ego. he will just admit he was wrong, or at least stop posting his erroneous stuff.
2/ the guy's ego would let him burn the world before he ever admits to not being a knowing being, and he will just continue to talk nonsense until the day he dies. nothing in the actual headfi can prevent him from doing so in sound science, and at some point someone will get made at him and will not be wrong. but he will get a ban or a locked topic or deleted post. and that's just wrong.
3/ we get some matter of law saying that unsubstantiated claims and fallacies should be posted outside of sound science: the guy is reminded of the TOS and stops on his own from fear of the police. or he doesn't, and instead of all going crazy over his BS, we can just ask a modo to take matters in his own end and stop the troll. end of the problem. nobody got killed, no kitten was hurt, and we can at long last talk about what interests us instead of running in circle with a troll posting the same claims again and again.
 
I don't know about you, but I find 3/ to be one hell of a progress. that's what I ask in my previous post. the problem needs to be treated, not the symptoms. and the problem is that nothing can be done against a guy who decides to post a nonsense claim 10 times a day. in sound science we need to have the moderators and the law on the side of science and facts. that's what I'm asking for.
 
about simple easy to understand resources, it's the thing about science and facts, they are most of the time complex stuff, and simplifying them is only making them false. we have examples of that all over the forum on both sides of objectivism and subjectivism sadly. that's when people use values or definitive statements as weapons with no regard to the magnitude of those values or how they compare to the rest of the audio chain.
 as soon as we try to make things simple, we distort reality. you think we can explain cables in a simple way? how? if the guy has no background in electricity how do we convince him? by making a statement and just expect him to trust us?
yes sometimes a cable will make an IEM to sound very different. and yes other times no matter the cable, the sound will always be audibly the same. both can be real depending on external factors. we try to make it simple with rule of thumbs and saying to people that cable won't matter if they respect the at least 1/10 damping ratio, so that variations in FR should stay below 1db and thus not really matter.
but then they take the impedance of an IEM as stated in specs, so at 1khz only. and when cables do make a difference because the 30ohm IEM in fact goes as low as 8ohm, they come back to us telling we lied. so now we need to explain that impedance changes over frequency. even though it is perfectly understood, how do we make that simple? we now need to have people learn how to read and impedance graph. I really wish I knew how to make stuff simple and still true.
and that's not even starting with how the amp behavior might change with different loads... how can that relate to people asking "what's the best sounding device?"
 
TBH I've started to make some stuff several times to "make it simple", but I can never go through because there would always be something need more explaining that nobody will want to learn. I tried making that just to give the basics of PCM on a french forum, it was really made to be for the lay person and nothing advanced. I ended up making a 13pages .doc

who would want to read 13pages with a conclusion saying that it's just the very surface of digital conversion? ^_^
 
I always wanted to make a graph showing loudness, dynamic of formats, and distortions on the same axis with several formats and devices to put the values into perspective so that people would stop crying over stuff at -120db as if it was audible on a system that fails to resolve -80db. but I just don't know how without being wrong.
if I put a range value for headphone distortions, what should it be? I have no clue. I certainly have an idea about where that should be, but what values can I put on both sides without being a liar?
same with an amp, do I use the specs they give with no load, or should I try to find some average "in real usage" with the volume turned down and the noise floor now much more closer to the music? how to do that when there are so many amps and so many headphones combo possible? I again have a fair idea about a range of values, but no way to make a graph about it as I don't know where to start and where to end. if I do I would at some point be wrong. is that acceptable? to shortcut the truth as a mean to educate people? I don't know if I have the right to pretend objectivity without actually using it. but such a graph even false would certainly shut a great deal of arguments about highres, jitter, EQ distortions, low pass filters, or how colored tube amps are hifi... showing how all of those are a joke compared to an average audio chain resolution.
is a compromise of truth still truth just because it's closer to reality than other claims?
 
 
as you can see I'm very passionate and boring(sorry people) about those stuff. I always felt lucky to be able to find great souls willing to help and educate me on the web. a total stranger wasting his time for me for free! probably the best human thing still happening on that planet. as I obviously can't ever hope to repay those guys because they know so much more than I do, I take it that I should in turn do the same when by luck I happen to know a little about what someone wishes to learn. it's my little own wheel of karma ^_^, and then those guys might explain stuff to other guys and we all share our knowledge and the world ends up a better place where ignorance doesn't have to win.

 

 
I "spoilered" it because I don't want to clutter replies up with too much length.
 
In general response - even though it has been covered already - I still stand by what I suggested.  Treat everyone politely with a reply that lists facts, figures, references. Ask for proof of what they are claiming (if they are making claims).  If they then choose to just repeat the same things (ie totally ignoring your reply), then the worst thing you can do is escalate.  Take the higher ground.  Simply block the person, and report his posts.  If enough of us do that - then the troublemakers (ie the guys looking simply to stir trouble) will be the ones on the receiving end.
 
The problem I see is that in order for something to escalate, there has to be another participant.  When it does - the guys in this section are seen as the bad guys.  Don't give them the opportunity. What troubles me even more are when I see an EE in the main forum referring to SS as the Science Fiction section.  If we're not able to present factual evidence in a calm and instructional manner - then there is no point in even having an SS section.
 
On your other point about dumbing things down - that's the last thing I want to do.  But you can still instruct in laymans terms.  Steve's done it plenty of times.  What I'm suggesting is a series of threads we can then point people to that have things spelled out reasonably basically so anyone can understand.  Eg - on cables (forgive me SE if I get this wrong):
 
We know that there are four factors that can affect the fidelity of sound: Noise, frequency response, distortion, time based errors.
We know that that main factors to cable changes involve: resistance, inductance and capacitance
 
I just grabbed a quote from SE in another thread:

 In the electrical domain, the audio signal exists as nothing more than voltage and current versus time. So you have a time domain and a frequency domain. In order for a cable to make any actual audible difference, it must alter the signal in the time to main and/or the frequency domain. And we can measure any alterations in each of these domains to levels orders of magnitude lower than our ability to perceive. And it has been shown over and over again that unless a cable is broken, or incompetently designed, it will not alter the signal sufficiently in either domain as to be audible.

To put it bluntly, getting an audio signal from point A to point B without any audible degradation has been a "solved problem" for probably close to a century.

And the copper/silver/whatever debates are particularly absurd. All a wire brings to the table is its conductivity, which on the applications side of things manifests as simple resistance. And a given amount of resistance is a given amount of resistance regardless if it's from a copper wire or a silver wire. There is no otherworldly property that distinguishes the two.

 
Now if we had a thread the explained the basics, then took the results from two different cables (silver and copper), applied the math, and show (without doubt) an example of change being below the audible level - then it becomes very easy to refer people to the appropriate thread.
 
You won't influence the true believers, but you might educate/influence the people (like me) who simply didn't know - when i first came here.
 
Lets face it - until I was encouraged to perform actual ABXs on my music in different formats (redbook vs high-res vs DSD vs lossy), I would have been the first to trot out the old myth that lossless sounds better and high bit-rate lossy was inferior.  Thankfully I was encouraged to search for the truth as it pertained to me.  I am now the better for that info 

 

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Hi Brooko! Nice to see you here.

Re cables, it would be particularly interesting to see two claims dissected thoroughly: 1. skin effect 2. diode effect from oxidation. I have a good understanding on (1) but re (2) all I know is that you guys think it's bollocks. But how so?

 

[Brooko]

That's why I'd love to see a thread where:
 

• Factors that could be different in a cable are recognised
• How those difference can be calculated
• Then examples (real world) of what the differences mean audibly

 
Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to contribute .......

 

[Steve Eddy]

I've used SPICE for circuits, but never for filter design. Say hypothetically you didn't have SPICE, say you got the transfer equation of the filter: how do you go from there?

Calculator, notepad, breadboard and a junk box of parts.

EDIT: Just noticed. What is an analog filter but a circuit?

se

 

[julian67]

You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry.

-Abraham Lincoln​

My top 4:

haemorrhoids, socialism, weak beer, people who think they are objective and rational just because they claim it to be so.