Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Electrical Engineering and Audio

On 3/15/15 10:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
If you believe this...then nothing is truly known, and that includes what you
"also know".


Yep. The one thing that is required of a scientific theory is that it
must be possible to prove it is false. It is considered valid until
that point.

To banish static, Armstrong turned to frequency
modulation, bucking the accepted (and mathematically
"proven") wisdom of the day that FM offered no
advantage over AM.

I think you're confusing science with politics and business. It's never been
beyond people with financial or political motives to make fraudulent scientific
claims. Big money invested in AM did not want FM to succeed. Everything I've
read says that Armstrongs first demo clearly demonstrated superior performance
and in spite of all efforts by RCA and ATT, FM eventually surpassed AM in the
market.


That was after the fact. Before the fact apparently it was a proven
scientific theory that FM could not be better than AM. Once this theory
was falsified by Armstrong's first demo, politics and business entered
in to delay its acceptance. The interesting thing is it was only a delay.

It took FM some 30 years to dominate radio (mostly due to gov't regulatory
meddling). How long did it take digital to surpass analog in audio recordings?


Some would say digital hasn't surpassed analog. My ears aren't good
enough to tell the difference. That wasn't the point. My point was
that Nyquist's theory is just that, accepted until proven wrong. It may
never be proven wrong, but there are people who are trying. It may be
absolutely correct or not, but it is not the gospel some folks believe
it to be.




  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] vocproc@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Electrical Engineering and Audio

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 3:26:43 PM UTC-6, Robert Peirce wrote:
On 3/15/15 10:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
If you believe this...then nothing is truly known, and that
includes what you "also know".


Yep. The one thing that is required of a scientific theory is that it
must be possible to prove it is false. It is considered valid until
that point.


The term is "falsifiable."

To banish static, Armstrong turned to frequency
modulation, bucking the accepted (and mathematically
"proven") wisdom of the day that FM offered no
advantage over AM.


Really? Care to cite these specific mathematical proofs?

I think you're confusing science with politics and business.
It's never been beyond people with financial or political
motives to make fraudulent scientific claims. Big money
invested in AM did not want FM to succeed. Everything I've
read says that Armstrongs first demo clearly demonstrated
superior performance and in spite of all efforts by RCA and
ATT, FM eventually surpassed AM in the market.


That was after the fact. Before the fact apparently it was a proven
scientific theory that FM could not be better than AM.


"Proven" by whom? Where are these proofs?

Once this theory was falsified by Armstrong's first demo,
politics and business entered in to delay its acceptance.


The the politics and economics were there from the start, and
the "technical" and "scientific" "proofs" were proffered in
solely in defense of those non=-scientific interests.

There was plenty of both evidence and technical support
for FM well before Armstrong's demonstration. Once again,
you're missing the point: the argument was NOT a technical
or scientific argument, it was an argument over competing
commercial interests, and "science" was used as a distraction.

The AM vs FM arguments are very similar to the sordid argument
a couple of decades earlier in the Edison (DC) vs Westinghouse (AC)
"debate." Edison resorted to similar bogus "scientific" arguments
against the use of AC current for power distribution, supported by
public demonstrations of the electrocution of cats and farm animals
by AC current. Edison apparently went so far as to attempt to
introduce the terms "westinghouse" in to the common lexison as
a synonym for "electrocution."

It was, in precisely the same way, the same bogus debate: using
"scientific" arguments to defend economic interests.

It's interesting to note that a century or so after the fact,
both AC and DC power distribution (long-distance transmission
is done by DC to eliminate inductive losses while local distribution
is almost entirely AC, to facilitate transformer-based power
step-up and step-down conversion).

In the same way, AM and FM are no longer competing transmission
methods: both have their strengths in one domain and weaknesses
in others. How many long-distance, clear-channel FM transmissions
are you aware of, for example? (the counter argument of the superior
fidelity of FM is largely moot, given how badly all radio transmission
is done anyway. And "high-fidelity talk radio" on FM? Really?)

It took FM some 30 years to dominate radio (mostly due to gov't regulatory
meddling).


Which, itself, is mostly dominated by commercial interests.

How long did it take digital to surpass analog in audio recordings?
Some would say digital hasn't surpassed analog.


And their "scientific" arguments include such things as "missing
stuff between the samples" and "stair steps" and the like.

My point was that Nyquist's theory is just that,


You keep saying the "Nyquist theory". There is no "Nyquist theory."

There is Nuquist's Theorem A "theory" and a "theorem" are very
different. Nyquist's theorem is a theorom as the Pythagorean
theorem is NOT a theory.

It is accepted until proven wrong. It may
never be proven wrong, but there are people who are trying.


Name any credible attempts to "prove" that Nyquist's theorem is
wrong. While you're at it, sow us similar proofs that Pythagorus's
theorem is wrong as well.

It may be absolutely correct or not, but it is not the gospel
some folks believe it to be.


No, a gospel is something someone believes because they
have faith in it. A "theorem" is not a gospel, rather it
is something that it supported by a very sound set of
mathematical concepts.

You or anyone else can choose to "believe" or not in any
theorem: denying its validity is something your get to
do at your won peril: the physical world around cares not
one wit of your's or anyone else's "belief".
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Electrical Engineering and Audio

On 3/17/15 9:33 PM, wrote:
Yep. The one thing that is required of a scientific theory is that it
must be possible to prove it is false. It is considered valid until
that point.


The term is "falsifiable."


True but not really important. Falsifiable is an adjective derived from
the verb falsify which by one definition means to prove a statement or
theory to be false.

Really? Care to cite these specific mathematical proofs?


Can't do it. I was quoting somebody else and I don't have access to his
notes.

"Proven" by whom? Where are these proofs?


See above. ScottW said the proof was of something other than what
Armstrong did, which may be true.

My only point, which may have been poorly stated, was that many people
accept theories as truth when they aren't. They may, in fact, be true,
but only until they aren't.

Name any credible attempts to "prove" that Nyquist's theorem is
wrong. While you're at it, sow us similar proofs that Pythagorus's
theorem is wrong as well.


I don't think Nyquist's theory is a theorem because theorems are proven
by reasoning from something already accepted. I think of geometric
proofs in this regard. Theories usually require experimental evidence,
even if they begin as mathematical conjecture. I don't know that to be
the case with Nyquist, but I am assuming it is. I could be wrong.

I know of no proofs that either are wrong. My only point is one cannot
accept Nyquist's theory as true. It may be, but the neat thing about
science is that somewhere down the line you may find that it isn't.

No, a gospel is something someone believes because they
have faith in it.


I agree. I used gospel as a synonym for true. It is a colloquialism
that may not be commonly used in your area.

A "theorem" is not a gospel, rather it
is something that it supported by a very sound set of
mathematical concepts.


I think that is true [gospel] as well.


You or anyone else can choose to "believe" or not in any
theorem: denying its validity is something your get to
do at your won peril: the physical world around cares not
one wit of your's or anyone else's "belief".


Or theory! I don't think I said I believed in any of this. I said, if
it is a sound scientific theory, it has to be capable of being proved
false, usually because it turns out not to conform to the physical world.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected][_2_] dpierce@cartchunk.org[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Electrical Engineering and Audio

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:04:21 PM UTC-6, Robert Peirce wrote:
On 3/17/15 9:33 PM, Dick Pierce wrote:
Yep. The one thing that is required of a scientific theory is that it
must be possible to prove it is false. It is considered valid until
that point.


The term is "falsifiable."


True but not really important. Falsifiable is an adjective derived from
the verb falsify which by one definition means to prove a statement or
theory to be false.


My suggestion is that rather than hold forth on a topic which you
seem to not be familiar with, you bring yourself up to speed on the
concept. The term "falsifiable" is specifically used in the conept
of formulating scientific theories, in that context, it is not some
random;ly selected term. See, for example, Popper, et al.

My only point, which may have been poorly stated, was that many people
accept theories as truth when they aren't. They may, in fact, be true,
but only until they aren't.


But "theory" was not what was advanced in the public debate
regarding AM vs FM, it was commercially motivated propaganda,
as it was in the case of the AC vs DC debate before it.

I don't think Nyquist's theory is a theorem


Do you even know what the Nyquist theorem is?

because theorems are proven
by reasoning from something already accepted.


And that is precisely the case with the Nyquist Theorem.

Theories usually require experimental evidence,
even if they begin as mathematical conjecture. I don't know that to be
the case with Nyquist, but I am assuming it is. I could be wrong.


Uhm, yes.

I know of no proofs that either are wrong. My only point is one cannot
accept Nyquist's theory as true.


Again, YOU insist on using the terms "theory" instead of theorem,
contrary to what the Nyquist theorem actually is and its origins.

Again, I might ask: do you know what it is?

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Electrical Engineering and Audio

On 3/17/15 2:27 PM, ScottW wrote:
Sorry, this makes no sense to me. How is it "possible" to prove something
false which is inherently true?


That's the point. You can't. That doesn't mean it can't be proven
false if it is not true. The problem with many unscientific theories is
they can't be proven false even if they are. There is a theory that a
supreme being created the universe. The theory can neither be proven
true nor false and could be either.

Not exactly correct. Carson presented mathematical proof that FM distorts when
the max modulation frequency is narrower than the audio bandwidth. That was and
remains true.


I was quoting somebody else. However, the outcome remains the same.
Something is true only until somebody proves it isn't.

I think it takes more, much more, than lack of proof wrong to gain acceptance as
a theory.


Why? A theory just says this is what I think happens and this is why I
think it happens. It should be accepted until it is proven false. That
might take a minute or it might never happen.

Interesting that Nyquist is the digital domain equivalent of the analog FM
Carson Bandwidth Rule. Neither has been proven wrong and both are widely and
successfully applied.


Absolutely. Neither has been proven wrong yet and may never be.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Questions on Audio Engineering [email protected] Pro Audio 14 January 11th 08 06:09 PM
Auto electrical question not audio Shawn B. Car Audio 14 July 23rd 06 06:40 AM
audio engineering question Mike Pro Audio 13 May 21st 05 05:16 PM
FA : AUDIO ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES 520 @ $ 9.99 ! Ctwctw Marketplace 0 January 23rd 04 09:58 PM
Audio Pops due to Electrical Issues? karatebabies Pro Audio 4 July 18th 03 03:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"