|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
140.99.98.4
In Reply to: RE: nice response posted by Tony Lauck on June 05, 2010 at 18:45:35
"Let me try a completely different example to illustrate what I meant. It is easy to find a beautiful woman. It is easy to find an intelligent woman. It is not so easy to find a beautiful intelligent woman."
That analogy is so perfect..... As if one might not find a woman beautiful because of her intelligence. We don't all share the same definition of beauty (resolution).
I can conjure scenerios where RFI or other interference could actually be preferable to none and in fact added noise or interference might be perceived as greater resolution. I'm not talking just about masking effects (where noise might mask recording artifacts) that some might appreciate I'm talking about audible noise being percieved as detail.
But alas the analogy perfectly reveals my problem with your original comment.
Follow Ups:
That was not even close to what was said. You have taken a dramatic leap into the absurd.
Resolution (outside the digital context) is not some quantifiable engineering dimension, it's a matter of perception.
Just like beauty. What's a beautiful woman? The one who gives me a hard one just looking at her body or the one empowers me or whatever I might decide defines a beautiful woman? What dimension are we discussing when we talk about beauty?
It's the same thing with resolution (outside of the digital context). It's a matter of perception not dimension.
your failure to understand the howling logical fallacy you constructed.
Try to focus on the quote I pulled from your post: "As if one might not find a woman beautiful because of her intelligence."
Now go back to Tony's previous post and check to see if that is indeed what he said, or if you leapt there all by yourself.
He said resolution was an independent engineering dimension from rfi/noise suppression.
I say that statement is incorrect - Can a woman be beautiful if she lacks intelligence? I say no.
Surely from my POV noise suppression is as major dimension of resolution, just like intelligence is a major component of beauty.
If you don't get it just move.
It is quite obvious that you have no idea what the logical fallacy that I called you out on actually was. Try going back to my post, read it slowly, and se if you can figure it out.
I give you a hint: it didn't have anything at all to do with either your points or Tony's points about resolution.
Another hint: it had to do with how egregiously you systematically misread and/or misinterpret other people's comments.
Yet another hint: it has to do with Tony's "completely different example."
And telling me to move on? That's precious, Don. Particularly coming from someone who earned his walking papers from Critics' Corner. Just keep in mind that you are just one more Prophead poster, with no more influence around here than any other individual poster.
any number of occasions.
You said -
"Now go back to Tony's previous post and check to see if that is indeed what he said, or if you leapt there all by yourself."
Of course he didn't say that but he raised an analogy with his original comment and that of a beautiful woman being a seperate dimension than an intelligent woman.
Just like his original comment claimed resolution was a seperate engineering dimension than rfi/noise suppression.
The analogy is perfect but I disagree with them both for the same reason I disagreed originally -
beauty is not independent or seperable from intelligence
resolution is not independent or seperable from noise/rfi reduction.
There is nothing wrong with my logic nor I'm I abusing the intentions of Tony's original comments or follow up. I disagree with both of them.
but I'll bite anyway.
"Been made a fool of?" Really? That's a hoot, Don. Your powers of projection are immense. But I'll go do a little search to find one of those moments when I was made the fool by you. Its going to take a while. Of course you could help out and link one of those moments when your superior logic and knowledge really showed me. Yep, I'm still smarting from all those Don_T smackdowns.
Now back to your comprehension issue: your "logic" as presented by this piece of sheer genius, "beauty is not independent or seperable from intelligence," is an arguable opinion held by you, and hardly represents a universal truth. But that's really beside the point, as you STILL have no idea how badly you butchered Tony's analogy with your interpretation.
Here's Tony's post in question: "I did not posit an inverse relationship or any kind of causal relationship for that matter. Let me try a completely different example to illustrate what I meant. It is easy to find a beautiful woman. It is easy to find an intelligent woman. It is not so easy to find a beautiful intelligent woman. Adding constraints makes a problem more difficult."
Here's what you so brilliantly replied: "As if one might not find a woman beautiful because of her intelligence. We don't all share the same definition of beauty (resolution)."
That reply is such a nonsensical misreading of the analogy that you should be ashamed to have written this zinger: "There is nothing wrong with my logic nor I'm I abusing the intentions of Tony's original comments or follow up. I disagree with both of them."
I think you may have a case against your high school for malpractice.
I told you to "move on" originally because I am very familiar with your obstinacy ."Now back to your comprehension issue: your "logic" as presented by this piece of sheer genius, "beauty is not independent or seperable from intelligence," is an arguable opinion held by you, and hardly represents a universal truth. But that's really beside the point, as you STILL have no idea how badly you butchered Tony's analogy with your interpretation."
OK I admit it would be very difficult for me to find an unintelligent woman beautiful. It is my opinion of course.
"Here's Tony's post in question: "I did not posit an inverse relationship or any kind of causal relationship for that matter. Let me try a completely different example to illustrate what I meant. It is easy to find a beautiful woman. It is easy to find an intelligent woman. It is not so easy to find a beautiful intelligent woman. Adding constraints makes a problem more difficult."
Ok he said that.
But what he said that I am in disagreement with is
"In the real world of engineering, rejection of spurious signals is one design dimension and resolution is a different design dimension. "
As if we can have poor rejection of spurious signals in a high resolution system.
Just like I could never find a unintelligent woman beautiful (his analogy not mine) I would never conclude a noisy system is a high resolution one.
Granted one might try to claim in a noise free environment that such a system is high resolution - fair enough. Just like if I was stranded on an island or stuck in an institution I would eventually learn to see brain damaged, convicted or moronic woman as being beautiful.
I don't live on an island nor do I have a noise free environment. I live in the real world.
Edits: 06/09/10 06/09/10
There it was, right in front of your face, and you STILL don't see how badly you mangled the analogy. Just keep plowing ahead, oblivious to your howling error in logic. The issue of resolution is irrelevant to why I'm laughing so hard at you that my sides ache. I'm not sure I've ever run across anyone so arrogantly unaware of his own stupidity as you.
"Obstinate?" I'm surprised you spelled it correctly, but dear Don, the word defines your participation on this forum. You've demonstrated this in several sub-threads of this very topic.
Shame on me for thinking you were trying to participate in this thread.
You do it so well without any help at all. I didn't make up a topic: you're the one who can't understand a simple analogy.
Ever wonder why the threads in which you post end this way, regardless of debating partner?
I had in mind a woman before she speaks:
"Is your mouth a little weak
When you open it to speak
Are you smart?"
Next time I will just give a Venn diagram rather than attempting unsuccessfully to reach a common denominator.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I do remember your comment and why I objected to it.A high resolution system must be unaffected by noise, rfi or any other external influence or pure and simply it is not a high resolution system.
This is not rocket science and I can't believe any self respecting engineer or component designer would argue otherwise.
To say, and believe that a system is high resolution because it is effected by such external influences is one of the most ludicrious ideas bantered about around here. You might as well have a cheap low resolution system for crying out loud! I guess it's ok to hear external interferences instead of circuit generated noise and dynamic limitations as long as the system costs alot of money? LOL!!!!
"I had in mind a woman before she speaks:"
Hmmmm kind of like high resolution before you've heard it. Such vicarious existences some of us lead.
Edits: 06/08/10
"I had in mind a woman before she speaks:"
Hmmmm kind of like high resolution before you've heard it. Such vicarious existences some of us lead.
You appear to be clueless when it comes to the lyrics of Jazz standards.
"A high resolution system must be unaffected by noise, rfi or any other external influence or pure and simply it is not a high resolution system."
A competent engineer understands that a system operates in an environment. If the environment is suitably noise free there is no need for a system to be immune to external noise and interference. A system with poor noise immunity might have a limited marketplace or might require a specialized installation, but if operated in a suitable environment might produce excellent results.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
None of that has anything to do with the original point of contention.
"None of that has anything to do with the original point of contention."Disagree. I'm done trying to explain this to you. I've made my best shot and failed.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 06/09/10
All you had to do was agree that spurious noise and external influences effect our perception of a systems resolution.
Apparently that was asking too much.
Another epic fail!
"All you had to do was agree that spurious noise and external influences effect our perception of a systems resolution."
I already agreed with you.... back on June 5.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
1.) A system isn't high resolution if it's being influenced by external noise.
2.) As a system's "resolution" increases there is absolutely no reason to expect it to become more susceptable to noise.
In your comment you try to distinquish between low resolution systems and high resolution systems effected by noise. My God man there's no difference other than the price - they are both low resolution systems.
"A system isn't high resolution if it's being influenced by external noise."
I agree with this statement, as modified:
A system isn't high resolution while it's being significantly influenced by external noise.
"As a system's "resolution" increases there is absolutely no reason to expect it to become more susceptable to noise."
I disagree completely with this statement. Take my present system. When it is powered off it is extremely low resolution. (No more so than a brick.) It is also extremely insensitive to noise. When powered on it it experiences a huge increase in resolution (Although I make no claims as to it being "high" resolution it does resolve the difference between Chet Baker and Frederich von Stade singing "My Funny Valentine".) Unfortunately when powered on it becomes susceptible to noise from a variety of sources, including most obviously a nearby cell phone. I could easily provide a technical explanation on why there is a positive correlation between resolution and susceptibility to interference but I picked an example that should be understandable by all "air breathers".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
and needs to be fixed.
Sure Tony there probably is a correlation between increasing resolution and susceptability to external noise.
That being said anyone can "expect" whatever they please. Unlike you however I don't expect an increase in susceptability to external noise as a systems resolution increases, and certainly don't require it as proof of a systems resolving ability.
"Unlike you however I don't expect an increase in susceptability to external noise as a systems resolution increases, and certainly don't require it as proof of a systems resolving ability."
This is as egregious an error of basic logic as your last epic gaffe (remember the one about beauty and intelligence that you butchered so badly?).
You might consider spending some time investigating some of the basics of syllogisms. But by all means don't if you don't really want to, as your errors are very entertaining.
I doubt it is possible to pick up the basic elements of logical reasoning from a book. Without a certain amount of innate logic "hard wired" into one's mind (or brain if you prefer) it simply isn't possible to follow the reasoning in logic books. I'm not saying that books on logic aren't useful, but they all place certain minimum requirements on reasoning ability from the get go. In a way it's like bootstrapping a computer system.
Alternatively, there's the matter of internal noise "between the ears". One of the most serious limitations of logical reasoning is its inability to get back on track after so much as a single error in logic. In particular, if one has a single contradiction, caused perhaps by a temporary mental glitch, then one can continue to use logical deduction and prove all possible statements. In my opinion common sense is at least as important as logic. Much humor comes from clashes between "logic" and common sense.
All this is speaking in general terms, of course, without reference to any particular person and without excluding any particular person. Or as Richard Bach once wrote, "Everything in this book could be wrong."
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Ie. when one is unable to discern differences between marketing/psuedo science and technology it's a programming error not a bootstrap issue.When one refuses to admit "resolution" and noise are mostly one and the same engineering dimension cleary his thinking process is broken.
My female analogy goes like this - you come home and find some guy on top of your woman. After a herculean effort you remove the guy, you give her a bigger allowance and then go whistling happily on your way without realizing there is in fact another guy underneath your woman. All you had to do is look and listen to others but you refuse to do so instead chosing simply to broadcast your superior intelligence and experience as well as your contentment with your wife's fidelity.
Beat me with a stick buddy. Hope you like my cheerleader she's a fiesty one.
Edits: 06/17/10
that I feel sorry for your life experiences. No one, no matter how repugnant, should have to suffer through what ever made that seem like a smart analogy to the problem at hand.
And truthfully I'd be getting really turned on if your name was Roberta or Hillary or something.
But alas something really good ends up turning really gross in the end.
I see you still can't understand how you butchered up a simple syllogism. But it remains very entertaining to see you return to your old Don_T days where your only response to any type of criticism at all was to revert to schoolyard-type bullying. You are not very bright Don, and every time you post, the bulb gets even dimmer.
And really, leave your little sexual fantasies aside. The day you stop your boorish behavior and participate in a discussion without resorting to your dismissive arrogance, I'll stop responding to you. You have not adjusted your attitude one tiny bit since you were banned. It might also help if you had even the slightest ability to comprehend what others write, but that may be asking for too much at one time.
that may have only been on the LP (!) of the soundtrack to Holy Grail, where a professor of logic gets all flustered because his wife, when told that "all mackerel are fish, and that all fish live in water, deduces not that all mackerel live in water, but that fish live in trees, or that I do not love her any more..."
There is the basic issue of common sense, which can indeed provide great humor when it is uncommonly nonsensical; there is the issue of the egregious logical gaffes, which are often hysterical; and there is the issue of reading incomprehension, which is more sad than funny, unless combined with the previous two, in which case we're talking hernia-inducing milk-out-the-nose belly laughter.
Not sure why you keep bringing up this point.
The problem here is if the system resolution is being reduced by interference can it still be considered a high resolution system. Obviously NO! It's not a high resolution system it's a noisy one, really no different than any other less costly system similarly lacking in transparency.
I keep trying to get through to you. It does appear hopeless. I chose my words carefully. You have not showed the ability to read these words carefully and understand their logical implications.
You say that you are an electrical engineer. From your posts I am having a great deal of difficulty believing that you are a good one. Engineers design systems to operate as intended within a defined environment, which would seem to place the onus on any engineer to at least understand the concepts of "system" and "environment" and how the two interact according to the appropriate physical laws (in your case, electrical in nature).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
it's you that continues to deny the obvious. Noise is noise - whether it's a poor circuit design, cheap components or susceptibility to external influences it all leads to diminishing transparency and a lack of resolution.
Your POV only indicates your willingness to accept and justify this kind of poor performance from expensive audio equipment.
Me I find little satisfaction if I am hearing noise and distortion not audible on a lesser system. It's just the other half of the half assed low resolution stuff we are trying to get away from.
You and a couple of others around here keep telling me I don't understand what you are saying - bs your POVs have clearly been stated. It's you guys that need to extricate yourselves from the hooks that are binding to you.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
Your points have been made. Your points have been heard. Endlessly repeating yourself doesn't make any of your points correct. It just reinforces the clear impression that you are quite set in your opinion, and oblivious of your lack of knowledge.
Thanks for providing such a continuous and entertaining stream of audiophool drool.
...rather than attempting unsuccessfully to reach a common denominator.
Pat D doesn't understand the performance difference between a Ferrari Modena and a Mercury Grand Mo.
rw
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: