Topics that always end in a pissing contest

Marbles · « **Reply #20 on:** 25 May 2006, 04:05 pm »

Quote from: pacifico

If you pee on the third rail in the NYC subway..will it kill you? This is one of the more daring pissing contests.

Mythbusters did a show on this..their conclusion was that it would be dificult to kill yourself if you were standing up, but if you knelt and peed on it it could or would kill you because as it gets farther from your body the "stream" turns into unconnected drops.

There are documented cases of it killing people though....

arthurs · « **Reply #21 on:** 25 May 2006, 05:46 pm »

doesn't the topic "who can piss farther" usually end up in a pissing contest?

James Romeyn · « **Reply #22 on:** 25 May 2006, 08:04 pm »

Quote from: Ethan Winer

Yes, this happens whenever there's no audible difference but people think there is. This is the "next frontier" in audio research - understanding why people think they hear a change even when none could possibly exist. ...

I disagree. No "...change could possibly exist...? In other words, a change is impossible. Impossible is a loaded word. Is it not true that in order to claim that a change is impossible, 100% pure unadulterated subject knowledge is required? "Impossible" is only correct to the extent that the observer's knowledge is perfect & encompasses anything & everything that there is to know about the subject. Impossible requires complete, perfect, pure, & unalterated sensory awareness. Impossible implies absolutle, real, 100% perfection in one's analytical abilities. To the extent any of these are lacking, impossible is the incorrect word. Change could indeed certainly exist. Seeing as humans are quite flawed & imperfect in the above described qualities, which are generally applied to supernatural beings like God, the statement must be false.

But I'm not going to try to convince anyone otherwise. The same bad reasoning used in the first statement can & would likely be the refuge in defending it. Perfect ultimate knowledge doesn't exist on earth. Whatever you don't know you don't know that you don't know, because it's nature is that it is unknown. So the same imperfect analytical tools will be used to defend the original claim.

I also think that this point of view stifles the purpose here in the circles, because the purpose is to share one's knowledge of the audio hobby. As soon as one posts that someone's claim is "impossible", the subject of that label has been indirectly (or directly) labeled either a liar or delusional.

For this reason I'd like to voice my opinion that Ethan stop making his claim of perfect knowledge. It's argumentative & stifles debate imo. It's the very opposite of the forum's purpose, imo. If he wants to believe it, fine, just stop voicing it here. He can do it in fight club or he can start his own "The Omniscient Audiophile" forum.

eric the red · « **Reply #23 on:** 25 May 2006, 11:23 pm »

Quote from: RibbonSpeakers.net

I disagree. No "...change could possibly exist...? In other words, a change is impossible. Impossible is a loaded word. Is it not true that in order to claim that a change is impossible, 100% pure unadulterated subject knowledge is required? "Impossible" is only correct to the extent that the observer's knowledge is perfect & encompasses anything & everything that there is to know about the subject. Impossible requires complete, perfect, pure, & unalterated sensory awareness. Impossible implies absol ...

Hey-You're having a pissing contest in the pissing contest thread! Nice one!:lol:

jules · « **Reply #24 on:** 25 May 2006, 11:38 pm »

1st. prize self fulfilling prophecy ... Digi G.

1st. prize most unpredictable ... John R.

quote: "Discussions with five-year olds concerning the need to "aim.""

1st. prize most predictable ... RibbonSpeakers.net

Special Commendation: ... http://www.webehave.com/ttTargets.htm

c'mon council, if these people can really argue that potty training increases language and vocabulary skills [potty-talk?] they deserve their own forum here.

Special mention, easiest path award ... sound bitten:

quote "Lotsa beer makes me piss , so I'll say any topic while drinkin' lotsa beer ."

jules

JohninCR · « **Reply #25 on:** 26 May 2006, 01:10 am »

Quote from: Ethan Winer

...This is the "next frontier" in audio research - understanding why people think they hear a change even when none could possibly exist. ...

It's called psychoacoustics, the scientific study of the perception of sound, and the use of that word in any post, results in a prompt attack by the "believers".

Ethan, I'm glad that you specifically mentioned speaker wires, because it's the easiest thing in the world to test. All it takes is a $5 A/B switch from Radio Shack, which allows an immediate, seamless, and uninterrupted switch from one set to the other. Then let someone else control the switch. What amazes me is that the "believers" won't spend the $5 and 5 minutes to verify their truth, but they don't think twice about spending hundreds or thousands on cables.

OTL · « **Reply #26 on:** 26 May 2006, 01:46 am »

Quote from: arthurs

doesn't the topic "who can piss farther" usually end up in a pissing contest?

Nope. It's "who can piss the longest", in these parts.

Why is the wet spot always right next to my zipper instead of halfway down my thigh where it should be?

Woodsea · « **Reply #27 on:** 26 May 2006, 06:44 am »

HD-DVD vs Blue-Ray
360 vs PS3
Cheech vs Chong

vs

when bad grammer gets the reader confused
God vs god uh oh

Just remember you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can always offend anyone at least once without thinking.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #28 on:** 26 May 2006, 07:28 am »

Quote from: arthurs

doesn't the topic "who can piss farther" usually end up in a pissing contest?

Don't know about farther....but hotter I'd say....

[/list:u]

Marbles · « **Reply #29 on:** 26 May 2006, 12:01 pm »

He better go to the doctor and get that looked at!!!!

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #30 on:** 26 May 2006, 02:28 pm »

Jim,

> Impossible is a loaded word. Is it not true that in order to claim that a change is impossible, 100% pure unadulterated subject knowledge is required? <

Well, okay, but let's look at this from a practical perspective starting with frequency response. If the response of a device measures flat within 0.01 dB between 10 Hz and 50 KHz, I'm confident proclaiming that nobody can possibly hear the deviation. All it takes is a few minutes playing around with a good digital equalizer to determine that a change of 0.01 dB is inaudible.

Likewise for distortion. This is usually expressed as a percentage of the total signal, but distortion can also be expressed as being some number of dB below the signal. So let's say a device has total THD + IM at 0.01 percent. That equates to the sum of all distortion components being 80 dB below the music or speech. Each individual component will be even softer. I'm not sure anyone could hear something 80 dB below the music even if the music stops. But distortion is present only while the sound is playing, so the music masks the distortion. Again, a few minutes with a decent audio editor program will prove this is the case.

Related to the audibility of distortion, IM distortion can have substantial harmonic energy farther away from the original sound than THD, which reduces the masking effect. That is, when playing a 9 KHz and 10 KHz tone at the same time, the 1 KHz IM result is more audible because the 9 and 10 KHz tones are so far away in frequency. While this is true in theory, if you try it (as I have) in a DAW program, you'll find that at 80 dB down you still can't hear the 1 KHz component.

> I'd like to voice my opinion that Ethan stop making his claim of perfect knowledge <

I see this type of attitude as far more damaging than my claim of having a thorough understanding of this stuff. I may be an insufferable know-it-all, but I would never suggest that opposing opinions be stifled.

--Ethan

_scotty_ · « **Reply #31 on:** 28 May 2006, 04:20 am »

As always Ethans, and anyone elses, belief system and worldview are uniquely his own and may not
be personally applicable to anyone else. The foundation of all disagreements
starts in the belief that your personal understanding of how your world works
has any validity to, or applies to anyone else but yourself. Even if you believe your understanding has a solid foundation in science there is always something you don't know and something new learn. What one don't know yet encompasses the extent of ones ignorance.
Scotty

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #32 on:** 28 May 2006, 03:17 pm »

Scotty,

> Even if you believe your understanding has a solid foundation in science there is always something you don't know and something new learn. <

Agreed. And I already acknowleged I'm an insufferable know-it-all.

> What you don't know yet encompasses the extent of your ignorance. <

Then please enlighten me! I have made a number of very specific statements, explained why I believe they are true, and gave several examples. So far nobody has shown the error in my logic or refuted any of my points. Saying, "You don't know everything" is not much of a rebuttal. So please let's hear it! What - technically and specifically - is incorrect about any of the points I've made here?

--Ethan

_scotty_ · « **Reply #33 on:** 28 May 2006, 04:21 pm »

Rather than guess at the limits your world view imposes as boundries to what can and cannot be heard or the point at which you say that didn't happen a few brief explanatory statements on you part would helpful to understand your viewpoint of what can and cannot exist. Statements beginning with I believe or I know this is so are fine.

Quote

Well, okay, but let's look at this from a practical perspective starting with frequency response. If the response of a device measures flat within 0.01 dB between 10 Hz and 50 KHz, I'm confident proclaiming that nobody can possibly hear the deviation. All it takes is a few minutes playing around with a good digital equalizer to determine that a change of 0.01 dB is inaudible.

I don't disagree with this statement but it fails to completely describe why two
circuits with identical Fs measurements sound different and no sucessfull
audio circuit designer would attempt to design circuits based on this criteria alone.

Quote

Likewise for distortion. This is usually expressed as a percentage of the total signal, but distortion can also be expressed as being some number of dB below the signal. So let's say a device has total THD + IM at 0.01 percent. That equates to the sum of all distortion components being 80 dB below the music or speech. Each individual component will be even softer. I'm not sure anyone could hear something 80 dB below the music even if the music stops. But distortion is present only while the sound is playing, so the music masks the distortion. Again, a few minutes with a decent audio editor program will prove this is the case.

Related to the audibility of distortion, IM distortion can have substantial harmonic energy farther away from the original sound than THD, which reduces the masking effect. That is, when playing a 9 KHz and 10 KHz tone at the same time, the 1 KHz IM result is more audible because the 9 and 10 KHz tones are so far away in frequency. While this is true in theory, if you try it (as I have) in a DAW program, you'll find that at 80 dB down you still can't hear the 1 KHz component.

Once again I don't disagree with the above statements content and you have proved empirically to yourself the limits of your hearing in this area but this narrow specific test won't explain how two opamps with .0000%
distortion can and do sound different.
Scotty

Hogg · « **Reply #34 on:** 29 May 2006, 01:28 am »

Obviously threads like this always wind up in a pissing contest.

Jim

jules · « **Reply #35 on:** 29 May 2006, 05:55 am »

I dunno Jim, I'm still hopeful that we might get some insightful self examination on the overall topic of pissing contests and how to avoid their pointlessness in future.

For my money the best/[worst] pissing contest ever was the interminable self aggrandisment contained in the 45 pages of "Axioms of Infinite Madness" [what sort of wankey title was that anyway?]. Luckily, two of the main offenders there, Scott Mayo and doug s are no longer with us and maybe that's a damn good reason for keeping bans on indefinitely

jules

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #36 on:** 29 May 2006, 04:08 pm »

Scotty,

> I don't disagree with this statement but it fails to completely describe why two circuits with identical Fs measurements sound different <

First you have to establish that two circuits with identical measured response actually can sound different. (Where the only thing different is their response.) As far as I know this has never been proven. Since that premise defies all that is known about how audio works, the burden of proof is clearly on you.

> this narrow specific test won't explain how two opamps with .0000%
distortion can and do sound different. <

Same answer as above. Prove to me that there really is an audible difference and then we'll have something to discuss.

--Ethan

jules · « **Reply #37 on:** 29 May 2006, 10:38 pm »

aaagh ... I concede Jim, it's clearly a lost cause

jules

_scotty_ · « **Reply #38 on:** 29 May 2006, 10:42 pm »

Ethan, thank-you for illustrating the boundaries of your world view in your
previous post. As the differences in how circuits sound is a perceptual experience centered on the sense of hearing and cannot be experienced through the written word on a forum the burdon of proof would be on me to provide you with a listening experience where you could have a chance of hearing the differences for yourself. Even under those conditions I could not guarantee that you hear the same differences that I or others might hear
owning to the differing nature of peoples perceptual filters. In a nutshell we all don't experience the same reality.
All far as this discussion is concerned I don't think it can go any farther,we live in two different worlds and have two different perceptual horizons.
Maybe someday you will hear something that is not dreamed of in your philosophy. With apologies to Will S.
Scotty

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #39 on:** 30 May 2006, 02:06 pm »

Scotty,

Even after all of that, you have still not addressed any of my points. Not even one. You haven't explained by what mechanism two circuits that measure the same might sound different. You haven't told me if you've ever played around with tiny (0.01 dB) changes in an equalizer and heard a difference. You haven't explained how artifacts 80 dB below the program could possibly be audible given what is known about the masking effect. Or anything else. All you've done is repeat endlessly that I don't know everything (duh), and that I have a limited world view. Whatever that has to do with audio.

Look Scotty, I like a good technical discussion as much as anyone else, but it takes two people to have a discussion! If I'm the only one addressing the actual facts of audio, you're right - it is pointless.

--Ethan