[gaineso]

I think part of the problem is that a number of people cannot relate to the math where they can relate to the sound. Perhaps I should start a thread on Decibels and how logarithms work.

John B


I thought we did that, in sort of layman's terms.

Yeah, I like tech discussions, but some of them get a little out of control with people substituting what is obviously "opinion" for "facts".

Anyway, we probably do need more real science, but make sure the thread is ID'd as such so that newbies, who MIGHT not be interested, and others who aren't technically inclined can skip it without getting all glassy eyed trying to understand some of it.

my $0.02, USD.

 

[morphsci]

Well I am sure this will be taken the wrong way, but what the hell.

First of all science is more than using the appropriate jargon and terminology when you are trying to explain something. It is a way of thinking about how to disprove something in order to increase the base of knowledge. Science is a lot more than just being sceptical and saying "prove it." Science is hard work. For a lot of people, myself included, this is my hobby not my vocation. If I was to apply the scientific rigor I use in my work to this board, then I would have to suspend all levesl of acceptance of what is said here since there is rarely, if ever, sufficient data given for a rational scientific assessment.

That being said, if you want to discuss things from a scientific perspective you should probably take kwkarth's advice. You should also develop a thick skin because I have never seen a perfect experiment or an unambiguous result in anything other than trivial experiments.

Oh and if I didn't like science, it wouldn't be my profession.

 

[AndreYew]

At this point, I feel compelled to make the following distinction: science is a philosophy, while math, EM theory, etc. are tools. Science is a way of doing things, or an attitude, and it can use mathematical tools, physical tools, or whatever else it needs.

Science is coming up with a testable hypothesis, and performing an experiment to prove or disprove that hypothesis. Science is also a philosophy of doubt, so the harshest critic of any experiment should be the experimenter --- in any lab report or paper, every possible source of error or confusion in experiment should be reported. No one should be able to come up with an objection to your experiment that you haven't already thought of.

Math, and various physical theories (like Newtonian mechanics or electromagnetic theory or quantum mechanics) are just tools that are useful to the extent that their predictions match physical reality, or their predictive ability of experimental data. Many of these theories are very, very good, like Newtonian mechanics which was used to do things like land people on the moon, send probes out of the solar system, etc., and are based on math, so an understanding of math is essential to using these theories and understanding them.

Coming back to the subject at hand, electromagnetic theory is what allows engineers like Danny to have more than a snowball's chance in heck of designing a decent amp in a deterministic way. The theory allows him to predict what happens when he changes the circuit, instead of trying something, listening, trying something else, and so on. Putting it down because you don't understand it now is just closing yourself off from a huge and very useful part of the world. I think it's great the Joe is asking the questions he's asking, because he's curious, he'll learn something fairly deep that's applicable to many things outside of headphone amplification, and the questions can be well-formed.

Ultimately, it will lead to a more informed consumer, and the more of those we have around, the better the products will hopefully become. They will become better because an intelligent, aware consumer will demand higher levels of quality.

--Andre

 

[dngl]

The reason some of us discredited you recently was because you told a member not to buy an OTL amp because it would sound bad with the Senns. First of all, the MG Head OTL is a high impedance amp, but it still sounds good. Secondly, the Melos is an OTL amp and it has an output impedance of .5 ohms. I agree that your impedance theories would be ideal, but in real life there are high impedance amps that still sound good with the Senns.

 

[Neruda]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bloggs Also I'm really starting to agree with violeta about the elitism here. When you ask how to improve the sound of your rig most people just go like 'spend more money'. Now that's not surprising. But ask *why* it is that the more expensive components are better and some people here would say, 'what, you think you can get something out of nothing, you dumbass?' That's not the *point*--the point is that it's not all that unreasonable to ask where all that extra money you spend *go* in the equipment--in what way is it improved? I've inherited a skeptical streak from my father--if I don't understand why something is so, I tend not even to believe that it really *is* so. So don't go like 'it's more expensive, of course it's better'. I'll take none of that ********

Most of the people in this forum are here because they're interested in saving money. I certainly am. Very few people here are into buying $1,000 interconnects or putting weights onto their equipment. My own opinion is that it's very easy to make an awesome-sounding system for $100,000, but making an awesome-sounding system for $3,000 is a heck of a lot more fun, because it's hard. When it comes to IC's, most people are trying to find a really nice one that sells for cheap (like the outlaw IC's that Kkwarth and I both like a lot), not a really expensive one for the sake of having something that costs a whole lot.

What I'm getting at is the fact that I rarely see people going crazy about spending money and never wondering whether or not their system is improving. In fact, I think you need to be really gullible to think that. There are some, that I'll grant you, but they're not the rule.

You also have to understand that a Sony V6 is not a Sennheiser HD600, and an Airhead is not a Max; and if you want to improve your system to the HD600/Max level then you'll have to spend more money and upgrade your V6 and airhead. Upgrading is not a mortal sin, as long as you can appreciate the changes.

Finally, NO ONE here that I know of is against great cheapies like the KSC-35 or the sennheiser MX500. Have you ever seen anyone here get insulted or called a dumbass becuase they wanted to know why the HD600 is better than a KSC-35? Get over yourself! so you're mad, I can understand that, but don't try and make yourself believe that this is what the forums are like. GROW UP.

and if you really don't like us elitests, then leave. simple as that. No skin off our noses, but we certainly don't want to see anyone leave...

 

[skippy]

most of the techie guys hang out around the DIY forums, so perhaps technical questions might gain more responses and less criticism there.

i'm familiar with the rudiments of speaker driver designs, and i, for one, am very interested in learning about headphone transducer design.

 

[Hirsch]

Since I am a scientist, at least on my good days, I'd have to come down in favor of science. Unfortunately, some of what appears to be science isn't.

There is an unfortunate tendency in some instances for people to practice a form of pseudo-science, that is, take a scientific hypothesis, from that deduce empirical reality, and advise others on that basis. It doesn't work that way. Empirical reality IS. If a hypothesis can't explain it, the hypothesis has to give, because reality usually won't.

 

[kwkarth]

Hey, maybe we should start a "noodle head forum" for those of us that don't have much time for DIY, but still like to discuss the good old days when the aroma of rosin core solder filled the house and slipsticks were found in every desk drawer.

Mom would say; "What are you doing now?" I would answer; "Nothing, just noodling around."

Cheers!

 

[Satori]

I'm all for more technical discussions. After all no one has said I have to read every post. If one doesn't interest me, I go to the next.

 

[The Quality Guru]

I am honestly pretty divided on whether or not audiophilia is really dependent upon science or not. Obviously, though, without the science and technical basis for all of the electrical components and what not, audiophilia would not exist- but I'm not denying the science involved in that. But if we take for granted the technical aspects (which I sort of do; that just proves that I am not a DIYer- but I have to hand it to the DIYer's who DO NOT take the scientific aspect of audio for granted) and leave them to others to figure out, then we are left with the subjective aspects of audio, the ones for which this forum was designed, so that we could talk about them! So, in brief, I think that (a) science IS undeniably necessary for audio and the criticism of audio (audiophilia) to exist, but I think that audiophila itself is more the discussion of subjective aspects of audio, which contains some objectivity, but is mostly subjective things like how things sound, etc. This is all IMO, though . . . (had to add the IMO, you know, just as a precaution to protect myself from the hailstorm of fire and wrath that might be shoved upon me if everyone disagrees with my statements

)

 

[Dusty Chalk]

I suspect that what you are seeing is that people just don't know the answer. So if fewer knowledgeable people post, but the thread-crappers (and I include myself amongst the guilty, although it's not that black-and-white) remain constant, then what you are going to see is a rise in the crap ratio. Which, in itself (that is, apparent rises in pseudo-science) will cause more crap.

The only thing we can do is try to contain ourselves. If we don't know the answer, then don't post.

Hey, that was almost a scientific explanation for the phenomenon that you are observing.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Beilin The reason some of us discredited you recently was because you told a member not to buy an OTL amp because it would sound bad with the Senns. First of all, the MG Head OTL is a high impedance amp, but it still sounds good. Secondly, the Melos is an OTL amp and it has an output impedance of .5 ohms. I agree that your impedance theories would be ideal, but in real life there are high impedance amps that still sound good with the Senns.

Yes, I owe you and kelly an apology for this. That premature judgement was partly caused by indignation when kelly kept on going around saying that you need $1000 amps to start showing the potential of the HD600, when there I was, driving a 580 out of a $160 amp...

And indignation or not, he might be right

But I wouldn't know for quite some time yet--unless I get that MOH loaner

Now is that a $1000+ amp?

And I must admit that I haven't conducted experiments to prove my hypotheses, so hypotheses they remain--ie. not facts.

And yes, when hypotheses collide with facts, hypotheses give, but
1. The 'facts' around here are the opinions of Head-fiers, which, while valuable, I have yet to find out find out for myself...

2. Even if a hypothesis fails, it's still interesting to know exactly *why* it fails, instead of being called a noodlehead for forming an incorrect hypothesis...

Anyway, it's nice to see that my kind of thinking actually has much support around here

It just didn't seem that way looking at my threads because the wise people don't post when they don't know the answer, apparently

Peace

Joe

 

[The Quality Guru]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bloggs the wise people don't post when they don't know the answer, apparently

Be greatful, though. Head-Fi is lightning fast in most cases compared to HeadWize, where people take DAYS upon DAYS to repsond to some posts.

 

[ai0tron]

Half the time Joe Bloggs is assigning random values for X,Y and Z then pretending he just made a math equation.

x=joe

y=nonsense

z=equalization

z + x = y

LOOK IM A MATHEMATICIAN.

ANYONE WHO DOESNT AGREE JUST ISNT AN ENGINEER AND IS ONLY RIDICULING ME BECAUSE THEY DONT UNDERSTAND!!!

Yeah. right.

Yeah I have so many NEW ideas, like equalizing crappy phones to sound BETTER than HD600's!!! SOME LIKE MY IDEAS BUT THEY ARE NEW IDEAS AND NEW IDEAS GET RIDICULED!!

YOU DONT LIKE SCIENCE DO YOU!!

 

[setmenu]

I am sure with some people the mysterious and subjective
pleasures of music get tied up with the technological mechanism
of replay.[Quite naturally too, I think with a half decent system]
The phsycological response[mechanism] to those very sounds becomes the tool used to assess and evaluate the qualitys
of the playback system ,where the electronics etc are viewed
with the same attitude as the music judgement criteria and in
the absence of a sound electronics/electromechanical theoretical
grounding muddled thinking can often result.

To reduce a hifi to theory and parts will remove mystisism and
shatter illusions[where have I heard that before?]..show some people the inside of their cd player
and often the reaction is 'Is that all it is just air space and weird little bits'...what did they expect?
Styling of components ouside shells plays more of a part than
just making it fit the home decor[if hifi ever does!].
If your amplifier looks like a piece of sculpture, then add another
piece of sculpture to make it sound better!
Who would sit a little block ontop of an occiliscope [or a microwave oven come to think of it] to improve its performance?

Blah blah blah.

That said ,audio design IS a subtle art.
And learning about it enhances my enjoyment of it.


One final thing , Joe Bloggs when someone says such and such is
just nonsense.. if they want to believe that and investigate no
further.
Fine,more fool them if they end up paying for a BS product because of it.


Skippy
Transducer design is an interest of mine too.....hehe.

Setmenu