[melomaniac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've heard the word coined in many lights

hm... now that's psychoacoustics

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by melomaniac /img/forum/go_quote.gif hm... now that's psychoacoustics

THERE YOU SEE! lol j/k.

But joking is psychoacoustics also Oo. So are emoticons.

Dave

 

[bhd812]

I think LOL cats make the sonic difference....


always have they just were never known cause Ceiling Cat has not come down from the Ceilings yet...yelp!

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhd812 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think LOL cats make the sonic difference.... always have they just were never known cause Ceiling Cat has not come down from the Ceilings yet...yelp!

Rofl, most off topic post ever hah.

But it's clearly the static the cat produces from brushing against your slacks that transfers into a net charge in the air and thusly creates dipoles in the atmosphere which affects how the transducer sounds!!!

Dave

 

[Assorted]

Edit: Nevermind, you're still in high school, and are wanting to major in biochem. You can still read if you want, the continuation of the frivolous debate.

Quote:

I fail to see the point still.

Here is the premise of your objective:

- you are conducting research in a technical field for a 1st year course
- you are asking here for opinion, implying subjectivity in a well researched area
- using opinion as a "fun fact" in a research paper where you are arguing physical property
- using this subject because you want to dip your toes into the ocean of condensed matter physics

Honestly, it sounds like you are more interested in what people thinks, rather than getting a grasp of science. Opinion is used in academia as peer review, where people learned in the subject gives a valid, well researched and thought of opinion.

Who said I am?

I bolded the part where you implied there is no better place to inquire the wonders of electrical engineering than a board where flamewars occur. Flamewars do not consist of objectivity (research paper aim), it's a byproduct of global communication, anonymous posting and false facts.

Quote:

Remember when gay meant happy? Colloquialisms. The defense rests lol.

Gay became homosexual is a pathetic attempt at manipulating the meaning of a technical term called into something that's not, especially for a "research paper" whose object is to present an accurate report on your research.


Why do I insist on literature? Because It doesn't require you sink your head into EE textbooks to understand concepts that are otherwise much too advanced for the public. It is no wonder why there are book reviews and political talk on the newspaper, while there is no technical discussion on the LHC.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is the premise of your objective: - you are conducting research in a technical field for a 1st year course - you are asking here for opinion, implying subjectivity in a well researched area - using opinion as a "fun fact" in a research paper where you are arguing physical property - using this subject because you want to dip your toes into the ocean of condensed matter physics Honestly, it sounds like you are more interested in what people thinks, rather than getting a grasp of science. Opinion is used in academia as peer review, where people learned in the subject gives a valid, well researched and thought of opinion. Who said I am? I bolded the part where you implied there is no better place to inquire the wonders of electrical engineering than a board where flamewars occur. Flamewars do not consist of objectivity (research paper aim), it's a byproduct of global communication, anonymous posting and false facts. Gay became homosexual is a pathetic attempt at manipulating the meaning of a technical term called into something that's not, especially for a "research paper" whose object is to present an accurate report on your research. Why do I insist on literature? Because It doesn't require you sink your head into EE textbooks to understand concepts that are otherwise much too advanced for the public. It is no wonder why there are book reviews and political talk on the newspaper, while there is no technical discussion on the LHC.

"Here is the premise of your objective:
- you are conducting research in a technical field for a 1st year course
- you are asking here for opinion, implying subjectivity in a well researched area
- using opinion as a "fun fact" in a research paper where you are arguing physical property
- using this subject because you want to dip your toes into the ocean of condensed matter physics"

Here we go again! Yay. Why does it matter if it's a first year course or a 400 level biotech course? Have you never read a persuasive research paper that has a survey of a population in the topic? For example lets say someone is writing a paper about Kroc's childhood marketing scheme and they say "in a recent survey 80% of the people asked whether or not trans fats are healthy answered no. The same percentage of people answered that McDonald's food contains trans fats and that it was unhealthy in a server conducted by blah in blah". There is nothing wrong with using facts from the public perspective to give background on a topic.


"Honestly, it sounds like you are more interested in what people thinks, rather than getting a grasp of science. Opinion is used in academia as peer review, where people learned in the subject gives a valid, well researched and thought of opinion."

Honestly, I do not understand why you think you know what I'm thinking. Did I write anywhere that I am using public opinion solely to substantiate my claims? You do not know me, nor do you need to feign that you can read my mind.


"I bolded the part where you implied there is no better place to inquire the wonders of electrical engineering than a board where flamewars occur. Flamewars do not consist of objectivity (research paper aim), it's a byproduct of global communication, anonymous posting and false facts."

Sigh. Where would I get more opinions about what components of an interconnect affect audio reproduction, in a supermarket, a kindergarten, or a community of people who willingly signed up to a forum that deals with audio?

"Gay became homosexual is a pathetic attempt at manipulating the meaning of a technical term called into something that's not, especially for a "research paper" whose object is to present an accurate report on your research. "

I do not know whether or not you have read the assignment for my paper but I'm assuming my professor does not overnight parcels to Canada for you. I do not mean to disseminate casuistry but that will be rectified with research. On this topic, what are your credentials to bash a public survey, expose flaws in terminology, read my mind, understand my specific assignment, and apparently sign up for the head-fi debate club?

"Why do I insist on literature? Because It doesn't require you sink your head into EE textbooks to understand concepts that are otherwise much too advanced for the public. It is no wonder why there are book reviews and political talk on the newspaper, while there is no technical discussion on the LHC."

What if that is what I want to do? I'd argue that there is no technical discussion because it is not of great public interest. A degree in English requires the same amount of work as a degree in biochem or EE.

Phew, never a dull moment. Honestly, that arthropod must be crawling past the ol' pyloric right about now.

Dave

 

[csroc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hydrogen audio absolutely abhors 320k LAME MP3 and worships VBR V0. It would be interesting to see this thread in their boards.

Hydrogenaudio is full of loonies, but at least a lot of them have a better sense of what's reality than a lot of people here

 

[myinitialsaredac]

"Edit: Nevermind, you're still in high school, and are wanting to major in biochem. You can still read if you want, the continuation of the frivolous debate."

Fin.

Dave

 

[montell]

One guy in this topic is right.

The Head-Fi community consists of a bunch of regular guys who bought ipods and just wanted to have better earbuds. Hydrogen audio is really where you should be at. That is where the real pro's are.

 

[Assorted]

You seem to enjoy arguing with me rather than writing out the research paper. I sure am (troll). Very well...

Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif Have you never read a persuasive research paper that has a survey of a population in the topic? For example lets say someone is writing a paper about Kroc's childhood marketing scheme and they say "in a recent survey 80% of the people asked whether or not trans fats are healthy answered no. The same percentage of people answered that McDonald's food contains trans fats and that it was unhealthy in a server conducted by blah in blah". There is nothing wrong with using facts from the public perspective to give background on a topic.

Marketing and engineering are two completely different subjects to write on.


Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif Where would I get more opinions about what components of an interconnect affect audio reproduction, in a supermarket, a kindergarten, or a community of people who willingly signed up to a forum that deals with audio?

Maybe you can ask your statstics department whether a sample in an enthusiast community has any relevance in proving a point about hard boiled science. We aren't even talking about theoretical physics, superconductors or some extreme circumstances.


Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd argue that there is no technical discussion because it is not of great public interest

I hope you're kidding. The LHC is a great scientific milestone that's been on numerous front pages. Books are easier to read than technical data. It is a mystery why there aren't as many physics majors as there are liberal arts majors.


I hope I'm not opting-out too early and ending the fun, but I have to go wash my dog, and spice up my research paper on Special Relativityby asking the public what thoughts are conjured up in their heads when they think of E=mc².

 

[Assorted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by csroc /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hydrogenaudio is full of loonies, but at least a lot of them have a better sense of what's reality than a lot of people here

I wouldn't be too sure about that. They answer questions asked by the few, hence a niche community.

 

[csroc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't be too sure about that. They answer questions asked by the few, hence a niche community.

Well that is certainly true, but that's not really what I'm talking about.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif You seem to enjoy arguing with me rather than writing out the research paper. I sure am (troll). Very well... Marketing and engineering are two completely different subjects to write on. Maybe you can ask your statstics department whether a sample in an enthusiast community has any relevance in proving a point about hard boiled science. We aren't even talking about theoretical physics, superconductors or some extreme circumstances. I hope you're kidding. The LHC is a great scientific milestone that's been on numerous front pages. Books are easier to read than technical data. It is a mystery why there aren't as many physics majors as there are liberal arts majors. I hope I'm not opting-out too early and ending the fun, but I have to go wash my dog, and spice up my research paper on Special Relativityby asking the public what thoughts are conjured up in their heads when they think of E=mc².

I still have over a month to finish up my paper, the process has just begun.

Marketing and engineering are two very different subjects, but who said that would be a marketing paper. One could further that argument into a scientific discussion of why hydrogenated oils take so long to breakdown. My point was that there is no sense writing a paper above your audience, and since I have enough room, I should inform my audience as to what I am writing about. It sparks interest in reading the paper. You seem to still fail to see the point that this is not proving jack. I am merely using it to:
Provide background information
Spark reader interest
Provide a change from the 500 other research paper to be handed in

I am not using these surveys to argue a point or substantiate a claim, please understand that.

The blanket statement " Books are easier to read than technical data" is like saying everyone likes the k701 or everyone likes the hd650. It is completely false. Maybe if you took a survey asking a large group whether or not they find books easier to read than technical data we'd be somewhere

Also, some do prefer to read about intermolecular forces rather than Big Brother.

Your paper would be better off if you asked a community that knew what special relativity was

Dave

 

[csroc]

As long as you recognize you're asking the opinions of a community heavily biased towards one side of thinking on the issue and talk about that in your report, then there's nothing particularly wrong about it I suppose, it just doesn't really provide anything revealing about the world of audio nuts.

Best thing to do would be to have an outside voting location and post threads on all sorts of active audio forums (here, hydrogen, audioholics, etc) and let a broader base vote. The people here are largely accepting of the idea that cables do make an audible difference. Without commenting on the validity of such beliefs, it's the easier belief for someone to understand and take as their own, as the task of potentially proving it false and understanding why is fairly complicated.

In any case I may continue to read this thread and your other thread, but discussion won't go anywhere on this topic. As has been said by many others on many other places, the best way for someone to find for themselves is to put their beliefs to the test. Many won't, and many who try don't do it correctly (sighted cable swaps for example). I've certainly had the opportunity to listen to cables of various grades on systems of various grades and I know what my ears tell me, but also what proper testing and physics tells me.

 

[Kees]

I don't want to go into discussion about why you ask this question or how you are going to use the answers, but the question itself is wrong.
Like many before me, all of the answers are correct, except psychoaccoustics, which has nothing to do with the subject.
What made you think that only one of your suggestions could be the cause a difference?