Civility

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

What science are we uncertain about? What repeatable, verifiable results are we talking about. Reference please. 

Yeah I totally get conflicting papers, results and that doesn’t bother me, but which papers are we talking about?

 

In my experience on audiophile forums, the thought process goes something like this:

 

"Science can't explain why I believe A sounds better than B, ergo, I'm free to dismiss science and ignore the concepts of expectation and confirmation bias.  Besides, like ML says, audio is supposed to be fun".

 

I find that variations on this are more or less the "subjectivists mantra", to use a term popular on the forum ("subjectivists").  In a thread from several months ago, I seem to remember something like "feeling vs. knowing", which may be more descriptive, but still doesn't totally fit.

 

Am I the only one noticing that a thread about civility is really a thread about "feeling vs. knowing", and those who "feel" are the ones demanding civility?  I've said before that audio gear to me is the same as the toaster or vacuum cleaner.  But some apparently "feel" their gear.

 

And before someone airs out the old, "skeptics don't like listening to music" trope, I listen to music at least 3-4 hours per day, every day.  And I quite enjoy it.

 

 

[wgscott]

10 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Am I the only one noticing that a thread about civility is really a thread about "feeling vs. knowing", and those who "feel" are the ones demanding civility? 

 

 

No.

 

There does seem to be a correlation between those demanding "civility", creepy stalking behavior, and occasional overt threats.

[wgscott]

On 9/27/2012 at 6:50 AM, jhwalker said:

 

I agree it's amazing, but I saw the exact opposite - so not so f-ing simple, after all.

 

Particularly in this thread, the malice and ganging-up has come almost exclusively from the so-called "subjectivists" - in fact, there's a whole page or so that is nothing but ganging up on the poor "propeller-heads", lots of venom about people who have more ego than brains, etc.

 

The lack of civility has been quite firmly on the subjectivist side of the street

 

Amazing, for sure.

 

Fortunately, we are in a new political era now, where truth and honest good-will prevail, so all of this has changed for the better.

[mourip]

53 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Fortunately, we are in a new political era now, where truth and honest good-will prevail, so all of this has changed for the better.

 

Serious question. What country do you live in?

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

In my experience on audiophile forums, the thought process goes something like this:

 

"Science can't explain why I believe A sounds better than B, ergo, I'm free to dismiss science and ignore the concepts of expectation and confirmation bias.  Besides, like ML says, audio is supposed to be fun".

 

In my experience Science has no opinion about what A nor B sound like, aside from, perhaps, some AES papers most of which have little to say about individual components.

 

I'd say rather, that given this is a hobby, I'm free to ignore whatever I please.

 

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I find that variations on this are more or less the "subjectivists mantra", to use a term popular on the forum ("subjectivists").  In a thread from several months ago, I seem to remember something like "feeling vs. knowing", which may be more descriptive, but still doesn't totally fit.

 

Am I the only one noticing that a thread about civility is really a thread about "feeling vs. knowing", and those who "feel" are the ones demanding civility?  I've said before that audio gear to me is the same as the toaster or vacuum cleaner.  But some apparently "feel" their gear.

 

I'm hardly a "subjectivist". Civility is expected.

 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, mourip said:

Serious question. What country do you live in?

One with sarcasm.

[mourip]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

One with sarcasm.

 

Thanks. I thought so or hoped so. Just checking...

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, plissken said:

In my case I've done my homework. Including when you posted a paper attempting to bolster your point about bits not being bits and I quoted the section about clock domain boundaries being best done using FIFO buffers.

 

Haha! Perhaps you missed the intention of my point then? I never suggested that bits shouldn't be bits in that, certainly treating digital information as 1s and 0s is critical. I am certain that not all indeterminate phase clock domains are not crossed using FIFO buffers, indeed PLL is probably the norm, and so there can be artifacts. Corners are cut all over the place in order to meet price specifications. You know a $100 DAC can't have $200 in parts.

 

In any case these are the issues that can be discussed back and forth in a technical fashion. That's all good discussion.

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

There does seem to be a correlation between those demanding "civility", creepy stalking behavior, and occasional overt threats.

 

That behavior is never ever acceptable.

 

 

I don't think this behavior is correlated to those demanding "civility", despite isolated examples. The flip side is that real scientists such as @alfe who work in the electronics field have been chased out of here considerably due to a lack of respect and that lowers the value of the discussions for all of us (well at least for me).

 

Perhaps @bdiament is another example, more on the "subjectivist" side but given his vast experience I, for one, always welcomed his comments and posts (even if I couldn't always understand a scientific basis for all of them). another huge loss for us.

 

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

delusional might have both a common meaning and a DSM meaning - dunno

 

Yes! of course there is the "Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder" diagnosis in the new DSM (5)  

[Ralf11]

May we all have Safe Spaces.

 

Keep the grizzlies away from the bacon in our cabins and the wolves away from our courtyards.

[wdw]

4 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

In my experience on audiophile forums, the thought process goes something like this:

 

"Science can't explain why I believe A sounds better than B, ergo, I'm free to dismiss science and ignore the concepts of expectation and confirmation bias.  Besides, like ML says, audio is supposed to be fun".

 

I find that variations on this are more or less the "subjectivists mantra", to use a term popular on the forum ("subjectivists").  In a thread from several months ago, I seem to remember something like "feeling vs. knowing", which may be more descriptive, but still doesn't totally fit.

 

Am I the only one noticing that a thread about civility is really a thread about "feeling vs. knowing", and those who "feel" are the ones demanding civility?  I've said before that audio gear to me is the same as the toaster or vacuum cleaner.  But some apparently "feel" their gear.

 

And before someone airs out the old, "skeptics don't like listening to music" trope, I listen to music at least 3-4 hours per day, every day.  And I quite enjoy it.

 

 

 

To my mind, you seem somewhat paranoid.

 

Though I do wonder why you need to humiliate people...from your post.

 

"But some apparently "feel" their gear."  

 

Really, Coggly Dimwit?..that is just purely insulting...hey and that, my comment, on a civility thread I started.

 

"really a thread about "feeling vs. knowing", and those who "feel" are the ones demanding civility?"

 

Seriously, you need to get out a bit more.  And, of course, the "knowing" is all on your side...absolutely charming...you're just a wonderful guy.

[plissken]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Haha! Perhaps you missed the intention of my point then? I never suggested that bits shouldn't be bits in that, certainly treating digital information as 1s and 0s is critical. I am certain that not all indeterminate phase clock domains are not crossed using FIFO buffers, indeed PLL is probably the norm, and so there can be artifacts. Corners are cut all over the place in order to meet price specifications. You know a $100 DAC can't have $200 in parts.

 

In any case these are the issues that can be discussed back and forth in a technical fashion. That's all good discussion.

 

Find me an Ethernet PHY, PCIe bus, RAM bus, CPU L3/2/1 cache, USB bus that is PLL and then I'll agree. 

[jabbr]

17 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Find me an Ethernet PHY, PCIe bus, RAM bus, CPU L3/2/1 cache, USB bus that is PLL and then I'll agree. 

 

Well look you can read just as easily as I can but offhand ... https://www.microsemi.com/document-portal/doc_view/126475-the-basics-of-synchronized-ethernet-synce

 

http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/application-notes/EE-269.pdf

 

I mean the number of implementations are endless...

[TubeLover]

On 9/25/2012 at 1:59 PM, Jud said:

 

I think cosy social corners for exchanging listening experiences are very, very valuable. Consider the decreasing frequency with which some of the true experts here (professionals, including Barry) are sharing insights. I think if things were a bit cosier and more social, they'd share more and we'd learn more. (Think of it as an opportunity to exchange ideas with a particularly interesting professor in the pub after class.) So I think actually that rather than the two things you mention being at odds, a more social atmosphere would foster development of the site as a valuable knowledge resource.

 

Well said Jud! I too regret the degree to which we have lost input from some of the experts because of behavior here at CA.

 

JC

[plissken]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Well look you can read just as easily as I can but offhand ... https://www.microsemi.com/document-portal/doc_view/126475-the-basics-of-synchronized-ethernet-synce

 

http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/application-notes/EE-269.pdf

 

I mean the number of implementations are endless...

 

From the linked article:

 

However, Ethernet equipment designers often lack in-depth understanding of synchronization and may underestimate

the complexity of the issue.A common assumption is synchronization over Ethernet can be

achieved merely by replacing the free-running crystal oscillator used for Ethernet Physical Layer Device

(PHY) with a general purpose synchronization device (PLL).Certainly, this is not the case

and designs based on such anassumption are destined to fail.

 

 

Also this from the same article you linked to (and is supports my claim about

MIXED signalling systems):

 

Any Gigabit or 10GbE PHY

device should be able to support

synchronized Ethernet, so long

as it provides a recovered clock

on one of its output pins. The

recovered clock is cleaned by the

PLL and fed to the 25MHz crystal

oscillator input pin on the PHY

device. Some new Ethernet PHY

devices provide a dedicated pin

for the synchronization input. The

advantage of this approach is that

frequency input can be higher

than 25MHz—higher clock fre

-

quencies usually have lower jitter.

In addition, this approach avoids

any potential timing loop prob

 

This is talking about link to link to link Ethernet. I'm talking about Ethernet PHY over to

PCIe or USB bus.

 

The 25MHz referred to is what is a common clock for Ethernet PHY's and then clock

multiplied from there.

 

Again we are talking about clock domain boundaries between these systems and:

 

Find me an Ethernet PHY, PCIe bus, RAM bus, CPU L3/2/1 cache, USB bus that is

PLL *for clock domain boundary crossing* and then I'll agree. 

 

 

[plissken]

BTW I don't believe Alfe to be an EE. He's over at AudioScienceReview and routinely getting taken apart by Amir, DonH, BE17.

[wgscott]

5 hours ago, mourip said:

 

Serious question. What country do you live in?

 

I've been asking myself the same thing lately.

[Ralf11]

Cowifornia??

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, TubeLover said:

Well said Jud! I too regret the degree to which we have lost input from some of the experts because of behavior here at CA.

 

1+

[esldude]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Haha! Perhaps you missed the intention of my point then? I never suggested that bits shouldn't be bits in that, certainly treating digital information as 1s and 0s is critical. I am certain that not all indeterminate phase clock domains are not crossed using FIFO buffers, indeed PLL is probably the norm, and so there can be artifacts. Corners are cut all over the place in order to meet price specifications. You know a $100 DAC can't have $200 in parts.

 

In any case these are the issues that can be discussed back and forth in a technical fashion. That's all good discussion.

 

It is possible for $5000 DACs to have $200 in parts.  

[Teresa]

15 hours ago, crenca said:

So, if in someones world view - in their experience they find your experience "delusional", then that is "rude"?  In other words you get to define and defend your universe, but when someone else's universe tells them that your universe is unreal (or more to the point has unreal and delusional aspects) then their universe becomes persona non grata (because you are saying "I don't want to hear about your universe Samuel, you are "rude").

 

...Samuel and all other "objectivists" assume this reality, that it is real, and that it can not be ignored without self deception.  Is such an assumption "rude"?  If so, does this make reality "rude" and an offense in-of-itself to the radical subjective self?

 

It is fine to believe someone’s experience is delusional, however calling their experience delusional is uncivil IMHO. Also no one has exclusivity on their version of reality. Subjectivists don't view reality as abstract concepts, instead what is real is what is experienced by our 5+ senses. And we are not afraid to admit other people may experience things differently than we do. 

 

In short, some things are better kept to oneself. 

 

15 hours ago, 4est said:

The title of this thread is "Civility", and I do not promote anyone stating another is delusional outright. It is simply, as he put it, rude, regardless of how I think or feel. This goes both ways IMO. One can have dissent without fanning the flames using ad homenims...

 

I agree completely.

 

13 hours ago, plissken said:

 

I'm not about to simply say I 'disagree' with some flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, homeotherapy, memory water advocates, faith healers, spoon benders, just to spare their 'feelings'. I'm not going to feed the delusion either.

 

I'm also not concerned about hurting their feelings. I don't have to be tolerant of people that hold a viewpoint that is intolerable compared the preponderance of evidence that is contrarian to their view point. 

 

That's the benefit of being on the correct side of the debate. You have a higher ground that you get to speak from.

 

I believe silently disagreeing is enough and the civil thing to do. For example, I believe the explanation of the Earth as an oblate spheroid is likely true but I don’t go to the Flat Earth Society and call them delusional as that would be uncivil. In addition, I'm not feeding what I believe to be their delusion and by not interacting I don't have to worry about hurt feelings either.

 

BTW I have read hundreds of your posts and you seem to be on the wrong side of every debate, including this one. 

 

12 hours ago, jabbr said:

In many cases some people seem to hide behind “science” when science isn’t there. They assert certainty where certainty isn’t there. They assert that science says X,Y or Z without a single quote from a single article which has studied the topic — not even a quote from a textbook !

 

calling someone else “delusional” without doing your own homework is ... well “rude” or “arrogant” are nice ways to put it.

 

Believe me, this isn’t about science vs delusion.

 

I agree. I feel many objectivists use the word "science" as a weapon to stifle any discussion they disagree with.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

I agree. I feel many objectivists use the word "science" as a weapon to stifle any discussion they disagree with.

 

I would agree and right up until the time it no longer suits them.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 hours ago, plissken said:

I'm not about to simply say I 'disagree' with some flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, homeotherapy, memory water advocates, faith healers, spoon benders, just to spare their 'feelings'.

very civil of you.

15 hours ago, plissken said:

I'm also not concerned about hurting their feelings.

 

What a guy.  Are you planning on going into politics ? wait are you......?

 

15 hours ago, plissken said:

That's the benefit of being on the correct side of the debate. You have a higher ground that you get to speak from.

 

That " higher ground" could just be a pile of crap

[jabbr]

8 hours ago, plissken said:

Again we are talking about clock domain boundaries between these systems and:

 

Find me an Ethernet PHY, PCIe bus, RAM bus, CPU L3/2/1 cache, USB bus that is

PLL *for clock domain boundary crossing* and then I'll agree

 

Agree, don’t agree ... This is a moving target. I’m unsure what overall point you are trying to make. I have always said that FIFO should be used *for clock  domain crossing*. (Search my multiple posts on this) Google for a few seconds and do your own reading.

 

When using PLL you may synch not cross the clock domain and this can lead to higher jitter. This gets technical and waaaay OT here. There are countless examples. 

 

If if you are interested in actually implementing eg an Ethernet interface, Xilinx’s Vivado has a free version that you can download and do a lot with.