Golden Ears Fail Again

Markw

It is a pity that an individual (you) who has contributed positively in the past to many threads can become a carricature of very individuals he is trying to correct, goes to show how a huge ego and stupid pride can do a lot of damage to an otherwise intelligent individual. Get over it and you are getting more pathetic, big sulk!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theaudiohobby

Markw

It is a pity that an individual (you) who has contributed positively in the past to many threads can become a carricature of very individuals he is trying to correct, goes to show how a huge ego and stupid pride can do a lot of damage to an otherwise intelligent individual. Get over it and you are getting more pathetic, big sulk!

---

Strike two and still no balls.

More bluff and bluster, eh? All sizzle and no steak I'd say. What grade are you in, anyway?

As you are learning, simply cutting and pasting words from the internet without understanding the concepts of what they are saying and jumping onto dogpiles without understanding what is being discussed can be a double edged sword, eh? Looks kewl at first glance but when used excessively, the veneer proves to be quite shallow. Well, we're scratched the veneer and we're down to the real substance now.

I'm pretty sure you've pretty much shown us how valuable and researched your contributions are and simultaneously clarified your position in the intellectual pecking order in this community.

Hey, you jumped all over me saying I was wrong and still don't see where you blew it. I'm simply returning the favor and giving you a chance to redeem yourself and show the world how really, really smart you are.

Want to take another swing? One more and yer out!

Well, we've hijacjked this poor thread enough and it'e really not fair to the others here. Any more comments to me on my matter can be made on the original thread in the speakers forum. To make it easier fot you, here's a link to take you there. I'll not bring this up again in this thread (in Audio Lab) unless, of course, you do.

http://forums.audioreview.com/speakers/can-you-hear-9894.html

See ya there I hope. I Iook forward to learning from you there.

Of course, if you have issues with Robo, then this is the place to air them. I look forward to you teaching him a thing or two.

Thanks for playing.

I pity you, basically reduced yourself to a big sulk because someone pointed an error in a post of yours, a huge bruised ego..what to do? It is a pity that you joined the thread just to continue sulking, thankfully you have decided to put a stop to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theaudiohobby

I pity you, basically reduced yourself to a big sulk because someone pointed an error in a post of yours, a huge bruised ego..what to do? It is a pity that you joined the thread just to continue sulking, thankfully you have decided to put a stop to it.

---

Tell ya what. I'll make that a ball to keep the game going.

So, you've got two strikes and one ball.

I'm waiting... http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9894

I thought you said your prior post was the last post on the subject, help yourself, stop sulking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Tell ya what. I'll make that a ball to keep the game going.

So, you've got two strikes and one ball.

I'm waiting... http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9894

---

Nobody cares, big sulk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theaudiohobby

I thought you said your prior post was the last post on the subject, help yourself, stop sulking.

---

As I said, and you can quote me on this, "I'll not bring this up again in this thread (in Audio Lab) unless, of course, you do."

...and you did.

I'm still waiting... http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9894

I'd call that a foul to keep the game alive. Two strikes and one ball.

Have fun sulking then...the floor is open.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theaudiohobby

Have fun sulking then...the floor is open.

---

Thanks for playing, kid. You've made my point quite well. ...and you wonder why most people simply ignore your input and don't respond?

You might want to be a little more careful whatyou say and who you say it to. I think you're gonna be called out a lot more when you open your snippy mouth.

Hope yer arse can keep the promises your mouth makes. I gotta say, it don't look too promising from what I can see here though.

It's all about credibility, kid, and simply calling names, reposting ambigious text you don't understand, bold print and smily faces doesn't cut it.

Come back in a few years when you grow up and can keep up with the class.

Markw out..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Thanks for playing, kid. You've made my point quite well

---

What point, that you made a gaff, and you then proceeded to make a fool of yourself in this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theaudiohobby

What point, that you made a gaff, and you then proceeded to make a fool of yourself in this thread?

---

What are you, the black knight or what?

I'm waiting... http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9894

C'mon in. the water's fine... but watch out for the killer rabbit.

Seriously, you could always start over with a new moniker as long as you learn from this and don't make the same mistakes you did under this one.

Just for grins, I decided to check out my old textbooks regarding electric theory and application. Here are the three I checked, they are quite dusty but I don't think electromagnetic theory has changed much since I bought these books:

Weidner, R. T., & Sells, R. L. (1965) Elementary Classical Physics, Volume 2 (Electromagnetism and Wave Motion). Allyn and Bacon, Inc.:Boston

Corson, D. & Lorrain, P. (1962) Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves. Freeman and Company:San Franscisco

Ristenbatt, M. P., & Riddle, R. L. (1966) Transisitor Physics and Circuits, Second Edition. Prentic-Hall:Englewood Cliffs, NJ

None of these textbooks include either the phrase "frequency domain" or "time domain" in either the topic index or TOC.

Now, I know these books are not recent (I took these subject a while ago), nor are they as authorative as your Google searches; but humor me and check out your textbooks. Please provide a reference to the key concepts of time and frequency "domains". Such books are a cure for ignorance. Any explanation as to why these books don't mention this assumedly basic concept?

I don't claim to be anything but a "layman" when it comes ot electric theory and especially electric circuit theory, but I sure am not accpeting high end pundits as experts. I care not that the audio hobby club makes up stuff to talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobotCzar

Now, I know these books are not recent (I took these subject a while ago), nor are they as authorative as your Google searches; but humor me and check out your textbooks. Please provide a reference to the key concepts of time and frequency "domains". Such books are a cure for ignorance. Any explanation as to why these books don't mention this assumedly basic concept?

I don't claim to be anything but a "layman" when it comes ot electric theory and especially electric circuit theory, but I sure am not accpeting high end pundits as experts. I care not that the audio hobby club makes up stuff to talk about.

---

Common RobotCzar, at what point did I quote a high-end audio pundit? Why not try look at a book on audio circuits or digital audio instead, I doubt that a book on Electromagnetic waves will cover IMD nor harmonic distortion either, so the first two books are useless wrt both concepts.

There was a post here from our resident troll referencing a certain textbook a minute ago. Whoppened?

Thankfully, a quick browse located a suitable book

Paul Horowitz, Winfield Hill The Art of Electronics, Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (1989)

cites both concepts in the index, I do not have access to the book but judging from the page reference (Pg 23), they are basic concepts.

... the crux of the matter is what do they say about it? As it stands, this link says nothing.

If you're trying to prove you don't simply post what you find searching the internet without understanding them, this really doesn't look too promising.

I found this page from the site pretty cute, though.

http://www.artofelectronics.com/uses.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theaudiohobby

Thankfully, a quick browse located a suitable book

Paul Horowitz, Winfield Hill The Art of Electronics, Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (1989)

cites both concepts in the index, I do not have access to the book but judging from the page reference (Pg 23), they are basic concepts.

---

Gee, you didn't read the book. What a surprise. You know it's right though and that it backs your misconceptions regarding frequency and phase. Right.

As I have tried to make clear to you, but you don't seem to be able to "get" is that it doesn't matter what somebody writes in a web site or book (fer crisakes, Robert Harley wrote a book). What matters is the validity of the source. You are never going to find a valid source simply by Google searching---give it up. I can find book reference to all kinds of high end nonsense (or flat Earth theories), that doesn't make them valid.

Why is it you think a book on "audio circuits" (whatever those are) would be different that one on electronic circuits? Aren't audio circuits electronic? Aren't electrical waves carrying an audio signal following the same laws of physics as those carrying other signals? Do differences in the "frequency domain" and "time domain" apply only to audio signals?

I have also tried to explain that these concepts can be used to divide up the topic for instructional purposes, but have no physical identity. You simply don't hear me because you think you know something. Does Mr. Horowitz back up your claims about the significance of the "domains". I have pointed out several times that frequecy and phase are both time related (in fact time defined) and they are aspects of the same physical entity (air pressure waves or electrical waves), but you do not respond. I think you do not because you do not understand these concepts. What do I have to do to get you to explain how errors in the "time domain" are resulting in bad audio? (And please explain why audio cirucuit designers keep ignoring this "problem".)

Please clarify your status as a layman, expert, hobbiest, or ...whatever. If you are a layman, then where do you get off "correcting" people about things you don't understand? State your opinion or better yet make a point, don't act like you have some special knowledge because you read a magazine and can do a Google search. And let me know if you want to talk about the issues, drop references, call names, or impugn character. I am willing to make you look bad on all accounts, but not so as it drags on and on as if staying power settles the issues.

"The Art of Electronics", Horowitz & Hill (Cambrige)

"I've hunted high and low for good electronics textbooks. This one is the best, bar none. No extraneous math, lots of insider's information ... and a huge range of topics covered clearly and thoroughly. So well written that I've had difficulty putting it down!" -- CoEvolution Quarterly

I did find "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" referenced in the Index for Page 23, but they are not apparent in the TOC. Since I have not read this book (but the numerous favorable reviews suggest that I should), I do not know if the authors consider "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" to have useful meanings, or if they view thse terms as foolish. Since both are cited as being on Page 23, based on prior experience I would anticipate the latter.

Synonyms for Domain

Area
Field
Province
Realm
Sphere
Sphere of Influence

I suppose an enterprising poultry dealer could lure Audiophiles with "Free Domain Chickens" ........

RobotCzar,

You ask for a textbook that references the concepts, I provide you one and you retort saying "You know it's right though and that it backs your misconceptions regarding frequency and phase" How would you know that without the reading the book first? Or did you forget that you specifically asked for textbook references, if you want to know what is in the book, you can either read it yourself or ask me to get it rather than build castles in the air which is how you got yourself into a mess in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mash

I did find "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" referenced in the Index for Page 23, but they are not apparent in the TOC. Since I have not read this book (but the numerous favorable reviews suggest that I should), I do not know if the authors consider "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" to have useful meanings, or if they view thse terms as foolish. Since both are cited as being on Page 23, based on prior experience I would anticipate the latter.

---

Ya..ya.. and the sub-heading of that section was called debunking audiophile myths, nice try though.

Mr A-H
Re your
"Ya..ya.. and the sub-heading of that section was called debunking audiophile myths, nice try though."

Have you read this book? You are telling us that "the sub-heading of that section was called debunking audiophile myths" ?

How interesting!

I have read MANY technical books, and having several similar terms cited on a common page early in the book was usually a poor sign. Either the author(s) dismissed the validity of the terms or they considered the terms inferior to more precise terms.

B/t/w this book is available from Amazon.com for $56 delivered, and for $54 delivered from bookpool.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobotCzar

Why is it you think a book on "audio circuits" (whatever those are) would be different that one on electronic circuits?

Aren't audio circuits electronic?

Aren't electrical waves carrying an audio signal following the same laws of physics as those carrying other signals?

Do differences in the "frequency domain" and "time domain" apply only to audio signals?

Does Mr. Horowitz back up your claims about the significance of the "domains"?

What do I have to do to get you to explain how errors in the "time domain" are resulting in bad audio?

And please explain why audio circuit designers keep ignoring this "problem"?

---

RobotCzar,

I have distilled all the questions you have in your post, do you have anymore questions to the list before I go away and answer them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mash

I have read MANY technical books, and having several similar terms cited on a common page early in the book was usually a poor sign. Either the author(s) dismissed the validity of the terms or they considered the terms inferior to more precise terms.

---

Really Mr. Mash...most technical books introduce basic concepts in their introductory chapters, and then expand on these concepts in subsequent chapters. You are assuming too much Mr. Mash, trying reading the TOC of the book in question, it should give you a clue.

Really, Mr. A-H

W/r/t your
"You are assuming too much Mr. Mash, trying reading the TOC of the book in question, it should give you a clue."

I DID read the Table of Contents, twice, and carefully.

As I wrote before, "I did find "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" referenced in the Index for Page 23, but they are not apparent in the TOC. "

In other words, "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" are nowhere to be found in the TOC. Nope. Not there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mash

B/t/w this book is available from Amazon.com for $56 delivered, and for $54 delivered from bookpool.com

---

http://www.freegiftworld.com/gift.html?nopop=1&ADTGID=11324&xid=0&CID=39216&SID =KE87833

All ya gotta do is move to the states. There ya go, TAH. Don't say I never did anything for ya.