|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 12, 2018 11:04:13 GMT -6
Good Lord. Just got around to browsing this thread. (The subject just doesn’t interest me) Should I just lock this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 11:07:58 GMT -6
It's all been very well mannered so far, I thought!
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Dec 12, 2018 11:08:38 GMT -6
Good Lord. Just got around to browsing this thread. (The subject just doesn’t interest me) Should I just lock this? You know, I thought maybe you would lock it once it went to religion a couple days ago, but now it's gotten quite interesting. Personally, I'm kinda curious as to where this thing might go next.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 12, 2018 12:33:11 GMT -6
I’m sorry I talked about Science earlier, it was a rant. But there’s a reason.. a good one! I was always in love with science, and a part of me has always wanted to pursue certain scientific fields. As a young adult I started reading extremely technical white papers and peer review journals, hoping to zero in on a discipline I could focus on. It was exciting! All this challenging information to try and digest. Well mostly it helped me go to sleep honestly. I found some easier reading in scientific magazines, basically like cliff notes of the actual studies. So for a few years, before dozing off I’d read scientific articles based on studies from peer review journals. I also learned that actual peer review journals are extraordinarily expensive. A person may be able to subscribe to one or two, but never have enough $ to get a full picture. Well as the years went by I noticed that every published article and entry followed a pattern, much like they teach kids to write essays. And that every new study always promised to the change the world, but never actually caused a blip in the real world. When I was doing a gig at Stanford they allowed free fiber WiFi connected to the science journal library. That’s when I had a very short access to thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed journals. For a couple hours. When I saw that magnitude of exclusive, hard to access overpriced media, I couldn’t help but feel that I had been duped. It all made sense to me. All those PhD students need to get published. And when I think about how many students around the globe absolutely must get published, it’s impossible to conceive how many studies are done. And every single study uses science to claim it’s going to change the world, or they’ve made some important discovery. Hundreds maybe Thousands of them every day. Too exclusive to afford to view. It just kind of left me jaded. Not intending this to be dismissive, but I can't figure out what your point is. I'm not sure what publications you were reading but outlandish claims are almost never to be found in scientific journals. Science is nothing if not circumspect. Trade press "normal" publications will often overstate scientific findings to make something sound more exciting, but the scientific research itself is always packed full of qualifiers and avoids sweeping claims like the plague. My wife is a professor and her field is this exact intersection: science and the public. And the reason the hard-science journals are expensive is the audience is minuscule. They have a mandate (a valid one) to exist but a tiny readership (just academics/researchers). And most researchers get access to journals through their universities, not personal subscriptions. It's an insular system, yes, but it's fiercely self-policing. Just try getting a dubious claim that's not supported by data through the peer-review process and see how you fare. I've seen the rejection letters. The people editing the publication (and the academics/researchers that prospective articles get sent out to for review) have a heavy interest in not letting dodgy material get through the process. Their credibility is their livelihood. I didn’t mean to dismiss science, of course it’s a tried and true platform. I guess I started to see the formula for composition of convincing solid science and I realized there are lots of places for sound science to appear to eliminate leaks and flaws but the leaks could often still be there, just impossible to eliminate without further research and funding. And the easiest way to get published is to taylor the data and analysis away from where the faults may exist, in effect guiding the reviewer away from any doubts about the study. I bet it’s tough to publish an article, especially if the science is the real kind, where it’s just data analysis and posting results. Articles that are promising something new seem to be more common, and probably yeah I did always just get there cherry picked nonsense. But - as long as it checks all the boxes required to be considered “real science”, then it’s ready for publish and let the community argue about the validity, maybe refute it with their own research. If nobody challenges it, the last study is considered the truth, is it not? (AES white papers have some great examples of this, ...not to offend anyone)
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 12, 2018 12:42:20 GMT -6
Good Lord. Just got around to browsing this thread. (The subject just doesn’t interest me) Should I just lock this? Ah crap... if you lock it now, there will be opinions left hanging. I think my last comment probably stirred the pot again, dammit! I think you should let others comment, tear up my comments if they want to. I promise I won’t get upset or anything,
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 12, 2018 13:25:32 GMT -6
I don't think that's how "science works" to be blunt. Of course there are always going to be people at any level trying to find new things. Not everyone in science is an Einstein in the same way that not everyone in music is a Mozart. The important thing is to try hard and keep chipping away. That's how great discoveries are eventually made.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 12, 2018 14:45:31 GMT -6
Not intending this to be dismissive, but I can't figure out what your point is. I'm not sure what publications you were reading but outlandish claims are almost never to be found in scientific journals. Science is nothing if not circumspect. Trade press "normal" publications will often overstate scientific findings to make something sound more exciting, but the scientific research itself is always packed full of qualifiers and avoids sweeping claims like the plague. My wife is a professor and her field is this exact intersection: science and the public. And the reason the hard-science journals are expensive is the audience is minuscule. They have a mandate (a valid one) to exist but a tiny readership (just academics/researchers). And most researchers get access to journals through their universities, not personal subscriptions. It's an insular system, yes, but it's fiercely self-policing. Just try getting a dubious claim that's not supported by data through the peer-review process and see how you fare. I've seen the rejection letters. The people editing the publication (and the academics/researchers that prospective articles get sent out to for review) have a heavy interest in not letting dodgy material get through the process. Their credibility is their livelihood. I didn’t mean to dismiss science, of course it’s a tried and true platform. I guess I started to see the formula for composition of convincing solid science and I realized there are lots of places for sound science to appear to eliminate leaks and flaws but the leaks could often still be there, just impossible to eliminate without further research and funding. And the easiest way to get published is to taylor the data and analysis away from where the faults may exist, in effect guiding the reviewer away from any doubts about the study. I bet it’s tough to publish an article, especially if the science is the real kind, where it’s just data analysis and posting results. Articles that are promising something new seem to be more common, and probably yeah I did always just get there cherry picked nonsense. But - as long as it checks all the boxes required to be considered “real science”, then it’s ready for publish and let the community argue about the validity, maybe refute it with their own research. If nobody challenges it, the last study is considered the truth, is it not? (AES white papers have some great examples of this, ...not to offend anyone) I think you’re just misunderstanding some things but I’m not totally sure and I don’t mean that as a slight. I think you’re wanting there to be an underlying narrative where one doesn’t actually exist.
|
|
|
Post by iamasound on Dec 12, 2018 15:11:51 GMT -6
The kind of thing where the "science" behind the chemical Roundup stating that it is not really bad for you is most likely a big old lie with big money from Monsanto, and now Beyer doing what they can to skew public opinion in the USA. How does something like that happen with peer review studies if there is not lying going on hiding in plain sight? Gosh, it's sole purpose is to kill living matter! I guess it is the same mechanism that denies a round Earth and is the power behind humans having no impact on climate change.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 12, 2018 15:32:32 GMT -6
I don’t know much about roundup, but one night coming up 99 from LA drove past the Roundup(I think it was roundup anyway..foggy memory..) plant about 4am. The smokestacks were chugging like a freight train, and the smell permeated every poor and lasted for hours. A horrible smell like nothing I’ve every encountered. A mix of death, manure and pool chemicals
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Dec 12, 2018 15:38:05 GMT -6
“Science” is both a method and an industry. Both are suceptible to bias, dogma, and every other human weakness. However, I’d say the method of science is less so.
It’s worth noting that although science is often toted as the highest source of knowledge, it is far from the only source of knowledge. Historical record, actuarial data, and even anecdotal observations are alll powerful and legitimate sources of information. They all have their limitations, and distinctions. They all tend to get lumped under one common umbrella of “science”, which I think does everyone a disservice.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Dec 12, 2018 17:32:46 GMT -6
Good Lord. Just got around to browsing this thread. (The subject just doesn’t interest me) Should I just lock this? This thread is an amazing testament to just how civil things are here! Locking it would be a shame. This is the best series of non-sequitors (sp?) I've ever read through!! And I bear some responsibility for the meandering nature of it, sorry, punish me alone boss....
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 12, 2018 18:25:46 GMT -6
For whatever it’s worth, I have no big stake in the thread continuing, nor am I the least bit bothered by meandering conversations.
Though it came wrapped in a “Null Testing” bow, this kind of topic is always about the nature of reality at heart.
And it is nice that no one’s been being a dick.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 16, 2018 11:52:30 GMT -6
“Science” is both a method and an industry. Both are suceptible to bias, dogma, and every other human weakness. However, I’d say the method of science is less so. It’s worth noting that although science is often toted as the highest source of knowledge, it is far from the only source of knowledge. Historical record, actuarial data, and even anecdotal observations are alll powerful and legitimate sources of information. They all have their limitations, and distinctions. They all tend to get lumped under one common umbrella of “science”, which I think does everyone a disservice. Actually, if you want to be completely correct (or nitpicky, depending on your viewpoint), the industry would actually be technology, not "science". Science is the discipline of learning about the world/universe. Technology is the practical application of that learning.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Dec 16, 2018 13:01:37 GMT -6
“Science” is both a method and an industry. Both are suceptible to bias, dogma, and every other human weakness. However, I’d say the method of science is less so. It’s worth noting that although science is often toted as the highest source of knowledge, it is far from the only source of knowledge. Historical record, actuarial data, and even anecdotal observations are alll powerful and legitimate sources of information. They all have their limitations, and distinctions. They all tend to get lumped under one common umbrella of “science”, which I think does everyone a disservice. Actually, if you want to be completely correct (or nitpicky, depending on your viewpoint), the industry would actually be technology, not "science". Science is the discipline of learning about the world/universe. Technology is the practical application of that learning. No, I don't normally see the point of being nitpicky, but since you brought it up...Yes Technology would be included in what I meant as the "industry" of science, but its not limited to just that. Scientists working through research grants, university academics doing research into various fields of tech and science, mechanical/electrical/structural engineers etc working for for-profit corporations, or in business on their own. Scientists/engineers/academic scholars publishing books and giving speaking tours (thinking Neil DeGrasse Tyson here), etc etc. Doctors, surgeons and other medical professionals creating new techniques/equipment/methods etc in medicine. Anywhere someone is making money off the endeavor of science I would include in "industry"...that's not to say they are all the same, or suffer from the same level of bias or outside influence. And I'm sure I've left out alot of people and categories that should be included. But "science", in and of itself is just a method of acquiring knowledge, and of building models that help us explain and predict the behavior of the world we're in. Those models are often incomplete, or rendered obsolete when new knowledge is found, or when new, unexplained phenomenon are observed...but I digress. One last point, since we're being nitpicky and all...Science is A discipline, not The discipline for learning about the universe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 4:36:20 GMT -6
I'll just leave this here, and go and grab the popcorn...
|
|
|
Post by hio on Jan 4, 2019 5:56:26 GMT -6
I'll just leave this here, and go and grab the popcorn... Along with the kosher salt, fresh ground pepper, real butter, and balsamic glaze (balsamic vinegar reduction). Timbre, tambre, timber, tamber, it is all rock and roll anyway!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,928
|
Post by ericn on Jan 4, 2019 9:30:03 GMT -6
I'll just leave this here, and go and grab the popcorn... Along with the kosher salt, fresh ground pepper, real butter, and balsamic glaze (balsamic vinegar reduction). Timbre, tambre, timber, tamber, it is all rock and roll anyway! But we like it !, the rock & roll of course.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 4, 2019 16:30:31 GMT -6
I think Ethan Winer just wants to be right. Science isn’t really about being right. It’s about exploring possibilities and reporting on those, and researching and addressing any and all possible variables. Nobody has the time and money to rule out every variable, that’s where it takes a community to all do a little research and report what they see. And when they report what they see, they don’t need to face any resistance, especially from someone claiming to be “for science” when really there’s some sort of egotistical competition at play. Which a lot of people unfortunately want validation and to be rewarded. Etc.. ah....... ah crap.. why do I get sucked into this?
Lololololololol anyway. I think they are possibly both right, but in defense of Paul there’s a lot, a TON actually, not understood how to measure for. Just think of vintage, how many clones are there and how is it so hard to match exactly? Somehow the measuring just isn’t accurate enough, it could be a flaw that is time related... load related.. phase related... response spectral related... capacitance related... harmonic related... dynamic related.. noise spectrum related... rms related... peak related... temperature related...aliens in the backyard related ;P and on and on and on
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 4, 2019 16:59:15 GMT -6
I think Ethan Winer just wants to be right. Science isn’t really about being right. It’s about exploring possibilities and reporting on those, and researching and addressing any and all possible variables. Nobody has the time and money to rule out every variable, that’s where it takes a community to all do a little research and report what they see. And when they report what they see, they don’t need to face any resistance, especially from someone claiming to be “for science” when really there’s some sort of egotistical competition at play. Which a lot of people unfortunately want validation and to be rewarded. Etc.. ah....... ah crap.. why do I get sucked into this? Lololololololol anyway. I think they are possibly both right, but in defense of Paul there’s a lot, a TON actually, not understood how to measure for. Just think of vintage, how many clones are there and how is it so hard to match exactly? Somehow the measuring just isn’t accurate enough, it could be a flaw that is time related... load related.. phase related... response spectral related... capacitance related... harmonic related... dynamic related.. noise spectrum related... rms related... peak related... temperature related...aliens in the backyard related ;P and on and on and on As an engineer, that's incorrect on one point, you can absolutely measure anything. It always boils down to cost, speed and power. A software plug-in could absolutely model every nuance of every transistor and transformer, but the processing of such a task would render it useless in a DAW due to the speed and cost. In my work I regularly model complete circuit performance, and the simulation take into account every small detail across many attributes. It also cost 20,000$ to purchase this software because it took years of time and teams of people to develop for folks like me to use. Because of this, plugs are just snapshots of the tone of a device they are mimicking. They aren't models at all. They're like pictures. Make no mistake, there is no magic and there are no secrets in electronics and most everything is well understood. It's just that in order for products like plug-ins to be practical and affordable, they can't possibly simulate reality.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 4, 2019 17:28:12 GMT -6
svartThat is something that has always beguiled me about plugin "emulations." Not plugins in general, just hardware emulations. We have to fit this in the DSP or the CPU cycle or whatever. They claim that "no one can hear the difference," things like that. Sacrifices were made. I am just wondering about how real a plugin can be.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 4, 2019 18:54:16 GMT -6
svartThat is something that has always beguiled me about plugin "emulations." Not plugins in general, just hardware emulations. We have to fit this in the DSP or the CPU cycle or whatever. They claim that "no one can hear the difference," things like that. Sacrifices were made. I am just wondering about how real a plugin can be. It's always been about how deep folks want to look(listen). Someone will always hear a "difference" and proclaim it to be a shoddy fake, while others won't hear any difference and they'll say that there it's just like the real thing! Of course egos have a lot to do with it, and so does application. I recently read a guy's blog about pushing some plug-in really hard and it was getting that "analog" saturation, and then it just stopped and went back to clean.. Clearly that meant the coders stopped emulating the saturated tone above some arbitrary level thinking nobody would possibly push it that hard!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 5, 2019 0:15:17 GMT -6
I think Ethan Winer just wants to be right. I don't think so.
Based on my interactions with him and the willingness he has shown to fudge results in order to "win" I have come to believe that he simply wants to prove that anyone who doesn't follw his pronouncements is wrong, which is not the same thing at all.
It's a deep set psychological need to "show up" others, the more highly respected in the field the better. He really and truly wants to be the audio version of the famous debunker James Randi and doesn't care what he has to do to "prove" his position.
It's quite sad, actually.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 5, 2019 0:30:02 GMT -6
As an engineer, that's incorrect on one point, you can absolutely measure anything. In THEORY you can measure anything, but in reality it always comes down to the limits of the technology you have to work with.
Which isd why measurement gear is always being improved.
And then there's that.
They're approximations of a circuit, or sometimes (often) just approximations of some aspects of the circuit's performance.
Within the limits of our ability to measure them, and to duplicate the results. Within the limits of practicality.
"Magic" is simply the aspects that we don't understand...... yet.
^^THIS^^
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2019 1:02:23 GMT -6
Well, I still am a great fan of the Klanghelm MJUC. This is a great emulation of vari mu gear. And Tony is so honest to not even claim his models emulate a certain existing hardware - and really, this is not necessary to have a great sounding plugin. Combined with an excellent sounding console emulation like Harrison's Mixbus 32c it lets you have this analog feeling you have with real hardware. The only thing that surpasses it is the Acustica Audio stuff. Honestly, this is not even emulation of circuits, nifty dynamical convolution with volterra kernel technology lets compare you the result of actual hardware with the plugin directly,(in fact this is the whole concept of it)- at the cost of huge amounts of computation power needed. Plugins like the VIOLET CM (free), a 3-band Limiter/Compressor, are so CPU hungry that you can forget using more than one instance with less than stellar hardware. It is more like for offline usage or in a one-track mastering chain in the DAW. But, wow, it sounds great. I forget about name-dropping of legendary brand hardware units as long as I can get great results with a plugin...
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Jan 5, 2019 6:15:48 GMT -6
Mr. Winer lives the next town over from me. I had been thinking about inviting him over to see my place and have a chat, thought it would be interesting. We can never have too many friends.
|
|