Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

Is that simply a 'concept'? I would have regarded it as a description
of something which arises in physical reality. 'Concept' seems to me
to be a term which sounds more like it was an abstract idea.


Yes, that's right - 'distortion' is a concept, and not a thing.

You point being that anything we observe in reality and then have a word
for is a 'concept'?


No, cheese is a thing, distortion is a concept.

Does that approach serve any purpose when we are trying to deal with
reality? It seems to me to be no more than playing with words and doing
this as a replacement for dealing with reality. In effect, a displacement
acitivity.


I'd rather dispense with the word distortion TBH.

and not a single or pejorative (in the context of valves discussions
say) fact.
Pejorative would be 'in the ear of the belistener' I guess. :-)


Quite! If (and I say 'if'; I don't know) distortion is the cause of what
I consider to be the 'accurate' sound I get from a valve amplifier and
LPs then it's beneficial.

That is OK for you as an individial if you are making up your own meaning
of 'accurate', etc. The problems arise as soon as you try to communicate
with the rest of us since you are using the Lewis Carroll version. :-)


Still, I'd (kind of) like to know why valves/vinyl sounds better. For
techie types I think the term is 2nd harmonic distortion?

Afraid you have to make decide which you prefer. Playing with words and
confusing the issues, or dealing with reality and being able to communicate
with others.


I don't follow - what choices am I allowed?

The reality, though, is that if the output has a nonlinear relation to
the input then it is a 'fact' that the result is being distorted
according to the relevant definitions. This can be measured, and may
be audible, depending on circumstances.

Whether someone likes or dislikes (or can even tell the difference)
the results is up to them. Of course, I'd like them to be able to make
an 'informed' choice - hence my previous comments. But that isn't
compulsory... ;-


Yes. I think it may follow that you're led my measurement and I'm led by
the sound I hear.

...or it may not. :-)


Blimey, 'ere we go. Only you know!

False and inappropriate dichotomy. :-)

.... *may* follow, *approximate* trend.


Actually I've been trying to point out that I am not 'led' by either in
isolation. I try to be guided or informed by both, and try to be so in
a way that is appropriate for the relevant situations or issue.


Good, that's good.



That's fine in the main, of course - it's your world and it suits you
(and probably many others). I'm not so happy, though, with lumping
enthusiastic commentary and enquiring minds in with 'wilful
ignorance', which I'm afraid is how I read the essence of what you
seem to be saying.
Why are you assuing that enthusiam and enquiry mean wilifil ignorance?
I'd have said the exact opposite. I'm afraid that you are reading into
what I wrote something that I neither said not meant.


You skip from 'nonlinear' audio to 'informed choice' to 'unfounded
claims' to 'wilful ignorance'. I do the first three, but don't consider
myself wilfully ignorant. Delusional but happy maybe :-)

The 'wilful ignorance' arises when people don't want to know about any
measurements or to understand the relevant physics, etc. The 'ignorance'
part comes from them not knowing the measured results or having any
understanding of them. The 'wilful' comes from this being a result of
their deliberate choice, not from not knowing measurements can be
made and their meanings understood. Of course, that's fine if it
keeps one 'happy' but it may mean that any comments they made beyond that
are worthless for anyone else, and may simply mislead or confuse.

It is perfectly reasonable for someone to decide to remain ignorant
about some topic. There are many topics in which each of us have
no interest.

I tend to find interest in just about everything, except sport for some
reason.

However this means our views on such topics may be
worthless.


Or amusing (etc) - depends how they're put across.


The bit where I would go along (in part at least) with your obviously
strong and informed opinions on this arise around the 'unfounded
claim', and the extent to which the adherent rams it down somebody
else's throat. But then I don't think an unfounded claim is incorrect,
or ignorant - wilful or otherwise.

in physical science and engineering 'unfounded' does not simply mean
there is no evidence or plausible argument consistent with what
has been established. Ideas for which there is no evidence one way
or another, and which can't be assessed for consistency are 'untested'
and/or 'unassessed' not 'unfounded'. Such ideas remain speculations
and may be void of value *until* tested, etc.

An 'unfounded' claim is one which clashes with established physics
(i.e. clashes with the evidence which it describes) or is simply
confounded by directly relevant experimental evidence. If you wish to
continue to accept such ideas, you are free to do so, but so far as
science is concerned it then becomes an 'article of faith' on your
part, nothing to do with science.


I still think the 'amplifiers don't sound the same' hypothesis is
interesting, worthwhile and (of course) grossly irritating round these
parts.



An 'enquiring mind' would seek to *understand* what they experience -
and also seek to check if their impressions or ideas have any
reliability or are errors. Enthusiam is one of the things that can
drive this.


OK, no doubt. 'Understanding' is, again, conceptual.

Again you seem fonder of playing with words than with dealing with the
reality. :-)

The point of 'understanding' is that it allows you to deal correctly with
reality. i.e. you can then design, analyse, predict, etc, and find that
things do behave as intended in cases that were not identical with your
original evidence. The 'understanding' is evidence based and tested by
proving successful in such ways - or is discarded/altered as appropriate.

Is it 'conceptual' that when you build a bridge it does not collapse the
next day? If you think so, then your meaning of the word differs from mine.
I would also be reluctant to employ you to build bridges, or walk on/under
any you designed. :-)

And you'd be wise beyond your years :-)


And here I think it's important to define your paradigm. I work in an
applied social science department,

That may be the reason for your approach and the source of some of the
inappropriate nature of some of your arguments/definitions on this group...
:-)


What we're dealing with is a moment of interaction - if you abandon
human experience and discount interaction, then I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm afraid that 'social science' is not a 'science' in the same sense as
physics or engineering, and may well use terms or arguments in a
quite different way. Thus your background may simply be causing you
problems with understanding what I and other have been explaining.


May well. It's applied social science by the way.


FWIW The main reason I've spent decades studying, building, testing,
etc, audio amplifiers and other kit is that I am largely driven by my
enthusiasm for the results - being able to enjoy the music. My point,
therefore, was that measurements, etc, are very valuable (if you
understand them), and allow you to make more progress.


And modesty no doubt forbids the qualification: 'measurement is not all'
:-)

No idea why you wrote that.


You place great store in positivist data. Yet you consider the human
response to that data as significant. 'Sounds rubbish' is not an example
of positivist data. Measurement is not all - you know that, but didn't
feel the need to say it.


Being able to make measurements and analyse designs, etc, does not
prevent you from also listening to the results. There is no inherent
dichotomy here.

Of course.

If there is a problem it is in the area I referred to.

Which remains a tad fuzzy.

To you. :-)

if you really want to make more sense of this it would probably be best if
you did spent some time studying physical science and engineering.
And in learning the scientific method, and the related topics of
experimental design in physical sciences, etc. As it is, your background
may be causing you some confusion.


It may.

Rob