An Astronomer, Physicist, Engineer and salesman are in a bar when a lady walks in....

[esldude]

This is an unusual bar.  Once a week it has group discussions about astronomy.  The woman is wanting to find out what is a good brand of telescope to buy for her sister’s birthday.  

 

The woman, a bit sheepishly, speaks up to start a discussion topic.  She says, “I know the earth and planets are separated from the stars by a crystal sphere, and I’d like to get a really good telescope that lets you see that crystal sphere. So what kind will do that, and how much will it cost?”

 

The astronomer speaks up and says, “mam, I am afraid you are mistaken, there are no crystal spheres in the heavens of which you speak.”  The crowd in the bar is not happy with that.  Such discussions have occurred in the past.  The crowd is generally an empirical group who says if the eyes see it it must be so.  A regular bar patron speaks up, “I dare you sir astronomer, we see the planets glow with a steady beam, and stars twinkle as you perceive them in the sky.  It is common knowledge among all the astronomer public that light passing thru the crystal sphere is what causes the twinkle.”  This chain of events has occurred in the past.  The bar has rules to prevent these disagreements from spilling out into rather forceful activities in the street.  

 

The astronomer, in simplified manner, tries to explain how light from a planet and a distant pinpoint source of a star are different and this explains the twinkle not any crystal sphere.  The crowd in the bar has had enough of this.  The only optics knowledge required was given with your own two eyes. Those who use a more strictly rational nay scientific method of discussion are not held in high regard.  They tend to be inflexible and condescending willing to ride roughshod over obvious perceptions of anyone who will look.  They often kill just the kind of fun these astronomical aficionados like to have looking at the heavens.  The astronomer is shuffled off to a small backroom. They allow those who wish to speak in such manners using logic, and theory, and science as the supreme arbiter of what is so to speak among themselves in the back room.  They’ll not have it out front in the general public area.  It upsets too many people who just want to have a little fun with whatever they can see in the celestial heavens above.

 

The aerospace engineer tries a slightly different approach.  Explaining how we’ve sent spacecraft well beyond the edges of the solar system without encountering any crystal spheres.  The crowd isn’t being taken in by that one.  They ask if any spacecraft have made it to one of the stars.  When the engineer answers no, well no one pays attention to him.  How can you possibly say the crystal sphere isn’t just beyond where the spacecraft have made it so far.  He tries to speak up more, but they know engineer types and send him on into the backroom with the astronomer.  

 

The lady is just wanting some simple advice on getting a good telescope.  Various members in the bar tell her how seeing the crystal sphere’s isn’t an easy task.  One needs to have a fine instrument, and even then it takes long term viewing to perceive them.  You can’t even quite perceive them directly, but you’ll in time get an appreciation for the spheres and other effects of just the right bit of optical gear.  The lady has done a little homework and asks about a few models she has seen on offer.  She is told those aren’t suitable.  So many details that resolution specs miss aren’t going to point one in the right direction.   For instance one can’t use a scope that uses a tracking mechanism driven by switching power supplies.  Despite any measurement of the movement accuracy it jitters the tracking.  This wipes out the ability to see objects that twinkle or don’t near the crystal sphere.  She’ll have to restrict her choices to expensive linear power supplies on tracking.  Further she learns you must use crystal lenses to see crystal spheres.  The explanation being the same material will resonate in harmony with the crystal in the heavens allowing one to see it.  At this point the physicist speaks up to explain no such thing happens.  The crowd is well aware of him.  He’s always a curmudgeon spoil sport.  They immediately tell him he must leave or go to the backroom with the engineer and astronomer.  

The salesman in the bar works for a well known vendor of high quality telescopes.  The crowd points toward him as the man to talk to.  The woman is told he indeed has instruments with crystal lenses, linear power supplies and other accessories known to help see the crystal spheres.  And warns her even then one doesn’t directly perceive the sphere’s, but in time comes to sense their presence if the instrument is good enough.  He says since she is at this weekly meeting he’ll give her a sweetheart deal below retail.  For $18,000 he’ll get a complete setup to the woman’s sister.  The dear woman thanks him, but she didn’t expect she’d need to spend so much for her sister’s birthday.  She’ll have to find another gift to give her sister.  

 

Now everyone at the weekly astronomer gathering is on equal footing.  The woman could have gone on back to the small room in the rear if she wanted to hear what the astronomer, physicist or engineer had to say on the matter.  Hardly any need to bother herself though in a discussion that seemed rather complex.  Everyone else knew what she wanted and agreed on what was required in very simple terms.  She just won’t be able to get a good enough telescope for her sister’s birthday.  Which is all she needs to know for now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fas42]

Oh, dear ......

 

The gremlin in the joke is the axiom that the crowd believe in a non-existent "crystal sphere" - which occurs because they are not given a convincing explanation for why stars twinkle ... who's at fault here?

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Oh, dear ......

 

The gremlin in the joke is the axiom that the crowd believe in a non-existent "crystal sphere" - which occurs because they are not given a convincing explanation for why starts twinkle ... who's at fault here?

Don’t know, Frank, not enough car metaphors here for me figure it out. Maybe you can help? 🧐

[fas42]

Right ... okay, there's a celestial highway out there; little green men are scurrying about in their jalopies - and the light from the stars is interrupted, twinkles as one of these conveyances passes between the star, and us ... QED.

 

Actually, thinking about it a bit more ... we could use something like that to try and find planets ... just a thought, 😜.

[danadam]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

The gremlin in the joke is the axiom that the crowd believe in a non-existent "crystal sphere" - which occurs because they are not given a convincing explanation for why stars twinkle ... who's at fault here?

But science doesn't know everything and regardless of your explanation you are close minded if you don't give the same credence to crystal sphere theory.

 

I and many members here can see crystal sphere. If scientists and engineers can't detect it, it just means we don't know what to measure yet. Oh, and it is because of posts like this some of those members left recently. I propose that a new "Astro-Objective" sub-forum is created and such posts moved there. Maybe they will come back then.

 

😉

 

[Teresa]

Thanks for the great story @esldude . Me, being a thrifty buyer I could envision a new person being turned-off of computer audio by some of the high prices and bizarre (to me) products praised by some members of AS by not knowing an affordable solution may be in the Objective-Fi forum. Excellent points.

[Blackmorec]

The difference between this little story and the audiophile community is that the astronomers have a perfectly good and valid explanation as to why stars twinkle.

 

Would you like to give me the same explanation for

• why cables make a difference to sound quality
• why a product sounds worse before it sounds better and needs time to run in
• Why changing a DC cable on a network switch is audible
• Why 2 otherwise identical bit perfect data streams can sound completely different, depending on the network that delivered them

If you can provide a scientifically based explanation, you’re certainly one of very few who can. All these people who left did was deny that stars twinkle, along with insulting people who made the observation. They were a crushing bore and from a forum point of view, were the equivalent of Mercapton in a wine bouquet....an off flavour that contributes nothing positive and simply spoils the wine. 

 

For me a good engineer is one who looks at the subjective evidence and tries to explain it scientifically. A bad engineer on the other hand merely ignores the observation and scoffs at the observers, 

[Rexp]

Maybe people hate themselves for not being able to see the crystal sphere. 

[Speedskater]

4 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Would you like to give me the same explanation for

• why cables make a difference to sound quality
• why a product sounds worse before it sounds better and needs time to run in
• Why changing a DC cable on a network switch is audible
• Why 2 otherwise identical bit perfect data streams can sound completely different, depending on the network that delivered them

How could a scientist give an explanation for things that seldom happen and even then are situation specific.

but some explanations might be:

• uncontrolled variable
• defective or incorrectly configured component
• poor listening test protocol

 

[StephenJK]

Do we really need another conversation on the same topic?

[christopher3393]

19 hours ago, esldude said:

This is an unusual bar.  Once a week it has group discussions about astronomy.  The woman is wanting to find out what is a good brand of telescope to buy for her sister’s birthday.  

 

The woman, a bit sheepishly, speaks up to start a discussion topic.  She says, “I know the earth and planets are separated from the stars by a crystal sphere, and I’d like to get a really good telescope that lets you see that crystal sphere. So what kind will do that, and how much will it cost?”

 

The astronomer speaks up and says, “mam, I am afraid you are mistaken, there are no crystal spheres in the heavens of which you speak.”  The crowd in the bar is not happy with that.  Such discussions have occurred in the past.  The crowd is generally an empirical group who says if the eyes see it it must be so.  A regular bar patron speaks up, “I dare you sir astronomer, we see the planets glow with a steady beam, and stars twinkle as you perceive them in the sky.  It is common knowledge among all the astronomer public that light passing thru the crystal sphere is what causes the twinkle.”  This chain of events has occurred in the past.  The bar has rules to prevent these disagreements from spilling out into rather forceful activities in the street.  

 

The astronomer, in simplified manner, tries to explain how light from a planet and a distant pinpoint source of a star are different and this explains the twinkle not any crystal sphere.  The crowd in the bar has had enough of this.  The only optics knowledge required was given with your own two eyes. Those who use a more strictly rational nay scientific method of discussion are not held in high regard.  They tend to be inflexible and condescending willing to ride roughshod over obvious perceptions of anyone who will look.  They often kill just the kind of fun these astronomical aficionados like to have looking at the heavens.  The astronomer is shuffled off to a small backroom. They allow those who wish to speak in such manners using logic, and theory, and science as the supreme arbiter of what is so to speak among themselves in the back room.  They’ll not have it out front in the general public area.  It upsets too many people who just want to have a little fun with whatever they can see in the celestial heavens above.

 

The aerospace engineer tries a slightly different approach.  Explaining how we’ve sent spacecraft well beyond the edges of the solar system without encountering any crystal spheres.  The crowd isn’t being taken in by that one.  They ask if any spacecraft have made it to one of the stars.  When the engineer answers no, well no one pays attention to him.  How can you possibly say the crystal sphere isn’t just beyond where the spacecraft have made it so far.  He tries to speak up more, but they know engineer types and send him on into the backroom with the astronomer.  

 

The lady is just wanting some simple advice on getting a good telescope.  Various members in the bar tell her how seeing the crystal sphere’s isn’t an easy task.  One needs to have a fine instrument, and even then it takes long term viewing to perceive them.  You can’t even quite perceive them directly, but you’ll in time get an appreciation for the spheres and other effects of just the right bit of optical gear.  The lady has done a little homework and asks about a few models she has seen on offer.  She is told those aren’t suitable.  So many details that resolution specs miss aren’t going to point one in the right direction.   For instance one can’t use a scope that uses a tracking mechanism driven by switching power supplies.  Despite any measurement of the movement accuracy it jitters the tracking.  This wipes out the ability to see objects that twinkle or don’t near the crystal sphere.  She’ll have to restrict her choices to expensive linear power supplies on tracking.  Further she learns you must use crystal lenses to see crystal spheres.  The explanation being the same material will resonate in harmony with the crystal in the heavens allowing one to see it.  At this point the physicist speaks up to explain no such thing happens.  The crowd is well aware of him.  He’s always a curmudgeon spoil sport.  They immediately tell him he must leave or go to the backroom with the engineer and astronomer.  

The salesman in the bar works for a well known vendor of high quality telescopes.  The crowd points toward him as the man to talk to.  The woman is told he indeed has instruments with crystal lenses, linear power supplies and other accessories known to help see the crystal spheres.  And warns her even then one doesn’t directly perceive the sphere’s, but in time comes to sense their presence if the instrument is good enough.  He says since she is at this weekly meeting he’ll give her a sweetheart deal below retail.  For $18,000 he’ll get a complete setup to the woman’s sister.  The dear woman thanks him, but she didn’t expect she’d need to spend so much for her sister’s birthday.  She’ll have to find another gift to give her sister.  

 

Now everyone at the weekly astronomer gathering is on equal footing.  The woman could have gone on back to the small room in the rear if she wanted to hear what the astronomer, physicist or engineer had to say on the matter.  Hardly any need to bother herself though in a discussion that seemed rather complex.  Everyone else knew what she wanted and agreed on what was required in very simple terms.  She just won’t be able to get a good enough telescope for her sister’s birthday.  Which is all she needs to know for now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Dennis. This would be a great topic for the new Objective-Fi Subforum :  https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/forum/130-objective-fi/

[esldude]

9 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

The difference between this little story and the audiophile community is that the astronomers have a perfectly good and valid explanation as to why stars twinkle.

 

Would you like to give me the same explanation for

• why cables make a difference to sound quality
• why a product sounds worse before it sounds better and needs time to run in
• Why changing a DC cable on a network switch is audible
• Why 2 otherwise identical bit perfect data streams can sound completely different, depending on the network that delivered them

If you can provide a scientifically based explanation, you’re certainly one of very few who can. All these people who left did was deny that stars twinkle, along with insulting people who made the observation. They were a crushing bore and from a forum point of view, were the equivalent of Mercapton in a wine bouquet....an off flavour that contributes nothing positive and simply spoils the wine. 

 

For me a good engineer is one who looks at the subjective evidence and tries to explain it scientifically. A bad engineer on the other hand merely ignores the observation and scoffs at the observers, 

The actual situation in mind when I wrote this: tube amps vs others.

 

We have the explanation and many audiophiles have other ideas about it being an unmeasurable superiority. 

[StephenJK]

48 minutes ago, esldude said:

The actual situation in mind when I wrote this: tube amps vs others.

 

We have the explanation and many audiophiles have other ideas about it being an unmeasurable superiority. 

Remember with tube amps that the output transformers with their ability to deliver stored energy along with soft clipping make direct output rating comparisons to a solid state design difficult to do. 
 

That 75 W tube design could be equivalent to a 100 or 125 W solid state. 
 

As far as the sound goes, I only ever had an Audio Research tube amp, and you would expect that to sound and measure well. 

[esldude]

53 minutes ago, SJK said:

Remember with tube amps that the output transformers with their ability to deliver stored energy along with soft clipping make direct output rating comparisons to a solid state design difficult to do. 
 

That 75 W tube design could be equivalent to a 100 or 125 W solid state. 
 

As far as the sound goes, I only ever had an Audio Research tube amp, and you would expect that to sound and measure well. 

Actually the AR tube amps weren't much different than other good tube amps.  Some of their tube preamps could be very good.  They'd have low distortion and flat bandwidth at low powers, but rising distortion and lesser bandwidth at higher powers.  Many AR amps list their spec as -3 db at 80 khz at rated power.  That actually isn't very good and would indicate likely audible response droops at high power.  Rated power was also given at 1% THD. Output impedance is enough to alter response with many loudspeakers. The sound has an explanation. 

 

They did sound good in use.  

[StephenJK]

40 minutes ago, esldude said:

Actually the AR tube amps weren't much different than other good tube amps.  Some of their tube preamps could be very good.  They'd have low distortion and flat bandwidth at low powers, but rising distortion and lesser bandwidth at higher powers.  Many AR amps list their spec as -3 db at 80 khz at rated power.  That actually isn't very good and would indicate likely audible response droops at high power.  Rated power was also given at 1% THD. Output impedance is enough to alter response with many loudspeakers. The sound has an explanation. 

 

They did sound good in use.  

The last I had was a VS-115 upgraded with KT120’s. A great winter amp. 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

The actual situation in mind when I wrote this: tube amps vs others.

 

We have the explanation and many audiophiles have other ideas about it being an unmeasurable superiority. 

 

Yes, we've been here before, Dennis 😜 - but the answer remains the same ... many times tube amps get more of the critical things right, in the subjective arena; which is why they have their fans.

 

Interesting this has come up ... a couple of days ago I was wandering around some audio forum stuff, and came across a thread which started along the lines of, "What does one get if one uses valve amplifiers?" - and post after post listed all the things that I hold near and dear, about competent sound!! 🤩

 

Rule of thumb: the more one refines playback of a rig, the more you get all the genuinely satisfying stuff that people like about tube things; and, you get extra doses of everything that is positive about solid state equipment. You could almost call it: The Best of Both Worlds, 🤣.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, SJK said:

As far as the sound goes, I only ever had an Audio Research tube amp, and you would expect that to sound and measure well. 

 

A solid 😄 memory of a high end system, vinyl, using monster Audio Research Reference amps - with treble which was ripping layers of skin off, inside my ears - this was a PA on steroids ... "warm, cuddly sound?" ... not quite ...  🙂.

[StephenJK]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

A solid 😄 memory of a high end system, vinyl, using monster Audio Research Reference amps - with treble which was ripping layers of skin off, inside my ears - this was a PA on steroids ... "warm, cuddly sound?" ... not quite ...  🙂.

And, in your estimation, would that be a subjective or objective opinion?

[astrotoy]

As probably the only (or one of a very few) astronomers in the group, I found the OP story very interesting.  One thing I have learned since starting my studies in astronomy almost  sixfty years ago is that it can be very humbling.  For example, I would modify the OP story just a bit, setting it in 1860.  The astronomer, physicist, and engineer would be explaining why the crystalline sphere is nonsense, and that instead the space between the stars was filled with an invisible aether which was the only way light waves could travel to us.

 

When I completed school we were pretty confident we understood the contents of the universe, studying stars, planets, galaxies, the interstellar medium, the intergalactic medium, and one of the few questions not resolved was how much the universe's expansion was slowing down, and whether the expansion would go on forever, or would stop and come back on itself. 

 

Today, we observe that the universe is speeding up its expansion, not slowing down, and all the things that we studied in the universe appear to be about 5% of the actual universe, with major unknown components we call dark matter about a quarter and dark energy the rest.  Dark because we cannot detect them except indirectly and because we have no idea what they are.  

 

So we have come from having a very complete understanding of almost everything in the universe (what we call the visible universe) to only understanding about 5%, this in a few short years. 

 

Larry

[fas42]

1 hour ago, SJK said:

And, in your estimation, would that be a subjective or objective opinion?

 

It was an understandable distortion anomaly, explained to me by the owner of the rig, later that evening. The Benz cartridge had a distinctive "warming up" characteristic, and required at least an hours play to fully stabilise - which was true, an exquisite rendition of a classic David Oistrakh recording occurred later on, and countered everything I had felt earlier.

 

So, the "state of tune" becomes critical when one is aiming high - simplistically thinking that putting the right ingredients together automatically guarantees optimum results, every time, is not a good attitude to have.

 

Some of the very best replay I have heard on other people's systems have been where 'extreme' tweaking was done - a Goldmund Reference turntable which was left running 24/7, "because the bearing needed too long to get to its best state, otherwise".

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, astrotoy said:

 

So we have come from having a very complete understanding of almost everything in the universe (what we call the visible universe) to only understanding about 5%, this in a few short years. 

 

Larry

 

So aren't we lucky, in the audio world, to have people who have reached 100% understanding - and who have no trouble berating others for not keeping up ... 😁.

[pkane2001]

24 minutes ago, astrotoy said:

As probably the only (or one of a very few) astronomers in the group, I found the OP story very interesting.  One thing I have learned since starting my studies in astronomy almost  sixfty years ago is that it can be very humbling.  For example, I would modify the OP story just a bit, setting it in 1860.  The astronomer, physicist, and engineer would be explaining why the crystalline sphere is nonsense, and that instead the space between the stars was filled with an invisible aether which was the only way light waves could travel to us.

 

When I completed school we were pretty confident we understood the contents of the universe, studying stars, planets, galaxies, the interstellar medium, the intergalactic medium, and one of the few questions not resolved was how much the universe's expansion was slowing down, and whether the expansion would go on forever, or would stop and come back on itself. 

 

Today, we observe that the universe is speeding up its expansion, not slowing down, and all the things that we studied in the universe appear to be about 5% of the actual universe, with major unknown components we call dark matter about a quarter and dark energy the rest.  Dark because we cannot detect them except indirectly and because we have no idea what they are.  

 

So we have come from having a very complete understanding of almost everything in the universe (what we call the visible universe) to only understanding about 5%, this in a few short years. 

 

Larry

 

Hey, Larry. As one (amateur in my case) astronomer to another: that 5% is far too optimistic an estimate  The real existence out there is much larger and much less known than the tiny corner that we can see directly and indirectly with our instruments and senses. 

 

We didn't create this world. We can't run experiments on the larger universe, but mostly observe, try to simulate it, and try to explain what we see. But, we did create electronics and audio. We understand these topics perhaps just a little better than 5%, simply because we designed 100% of it, built it, measured it, studied it, refined it, and can continue to do so. Audio isn't a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, it's not hidden from us by billions of light years. We know a lot, and we are continually refining our knowledge.

[fas42]

52 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

 Audio isn't a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, it's not hidden from us by billions of light years. We know a lot, and we are continually refining our knowledge.

 

If it isn't, then why is it so easy for almost anyone to pick when they hear music from out of sight, to immediately pick whether it's real, or fake?

[pkane2001]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

If it isn't, then why is it so easy for almost anyone to pick when they hear music from out of sight, to immediately pick whether it's real, or fake?

 

2-channel stereo isn't perfect for recording or reproduction of a complete, realistic sound field. It's a simplified approximation. Don't know how many times the guests at my house were startled by sounds outside the house, only to get an explanation that it was just the surround sound . And my system isn't all that special, a simple 5.1 HT setup, although with room/curve correction applied.

 

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

2-channel stereo isn't perfect for recording or reproduction of a complete, realistic sound field. It's a simplified approximation.

 

 

In what way is it a "simplified approximation" - and how is it being 2-channel stereo relevant, when you listen to the sound from just outside the doorway to the room, say?