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

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


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.

....yet cheese is not milk. :-)

I'm afraid that the problem here is with your understanding of the the
topic, not in the topic (distortion) being discussed.

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.

I'm afraid that it is defined and has a specific meaning. It means what we
have been trying to explain to you. If you dislike this, then I'm afraid
the problem is yours.



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

Sweeping (and inaccurate) simplification, I'm afraid.

First 'better' does not mean 'different'.

Secondly, you are confusing a value judgement with a measurable and
perceivable property/result (distortion) which can take many forms.

Thirdly, 'valves' and 'vinyl' are gain devices and a form of polymer. Not a
specific example of an amplifier, or a LP or a replay system.

Finally, there are many sources of signal alterations in both LP systems
and other, and in both SS and valve designs. So again I don't know who
these 'techie types' are, but your statement looks to me like a string of
vague and inaccurate terms.

BTW If you want a totally different example of a way in which an LP may
sound different to a CD keep yer eyes open for the issue of HFN that will
appear cover-dated August 2007. 8-] Also have a look at the 'Clipping on
CD' thread. :-)

The point here is that any 'differences' may have little to do with 'valve'
or 'vinyl' per se, but a great deal to do with how they may be used.


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.

I've noticed that a lot of modern humour seems to be based on what IIRC an
American described as 'shmo humour' (if I have spelled that correctly). The
idea being that 'hilarious' things happen because the main character is a
shmo or dimwit. Personally, I tend to find this type of 'comedy'
uninteresting.


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

More 'boring' than 'irritating' I think. :-) At least that is my
reaction to seeing the same claims and ideas I've seen countless times
over the last 20-30 years.

One reason is that the statement you make simply misrepresents the
situation. Some do in some situations, others won't in others. Confusion
between inherent and situation-dependent, etc, etc.

Another is that such assertions aregenerally based on people never having
done any appropriate forms of comparison test, being unaware of the many
that have been done, and not really understanding the engineering,
physics, etc, involved.

People pop up on this group and elsewhere, make pretty much the same
sweeping claims, ignore or dismiss the evidence we have, avoid the
distinctions that can be made, then after a while go away without bothering
to put their claims to a test. I've lost count of how often this happens.

So if you wish to take this further, perhaps you should arrange to engage
in a test of what you believe. run in a way that the rest of us can see the
results and assess how the comparison was done. Otherwise is what you are
saying anything other than a waste of time?...



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 :-)

Considering how old I am, that would be remarkable. :-)



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.

Not quite sure what the above means. :-) However FWIW my view of science
tends to be based on the classic 'Popper' approach of testability and
falsifiability. No idea how that relates to what you wrote.


Measurement is not all - you know that, but didn't feel the need to say
it.

Actually I thought it was clear from what I said. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html