EEVblog + The Signal Path Discussion

[EEVblog]

Dave talks with Shahriar Shahramian from The Signal Path.
This is an introduction and we talk about being Youtubers etc.
This is PART 1
NOTE: Yes I know the video sucks, wasn't much light in there and camera did what it wanted to do.
Yes I know the audio isn't perfect either, Shahriar is a softer talker than me, so I had to run it through The Levellator to even it out.



This part is about the importance of science, debunking, and pseudo science, and education


This part is about the millimeter wave electronics and 5th generation RF

[rx8pilot]

I am going to buy Dave a cat for his birthday 

[Monkeh]

Thumbs up for flat cats.

(I'm a cat owner, I love cats)

[Bud]

Good engineering discussion in part 3, enjoyed it 

[mtdoc]

Excellent discussion Dave 

Shahriar is articulate and thoughtful. A thinker.  And a true teacher and scientist.

I've watched a few of his videos but never subscribed. I need to fix that.

[Razor512]

Once Dave experiences the intense cuteness of an extremely cute cat, he will completely change his opinions of cats.

Scientifically speaking, once the cuteness level of an animal reaches a high enough level, it becomes impossible to not like it.

Animals like cats, foxes (including fennec foxes and marble foxes), raccoons, river otters, red pandas, cheetahs, and Netherland Dwarf rabbits, are able to achieve cuteness levels that are high enough to to distort the flow of time as the universe struggles to handle such a large amount of cuteness from a single small source.
Think about it, have you ever seen a single person on earth who says that they do not like those animals and truly mean it?


--------------------

Anyway, awesome video, and I hope to see more long format videos from the signal path. It is hard to find really good long format content, and really, the signal path and EEVblog, and mikeselectricstuff are some of the only channels where you can find that kind of content that is truly informative, interesting, and enjoyable to watch for the entire duration.

[Brumby]

Of all the subjects covered in these 3 clips, THIS one gets the most air??

 


On all the other things mentioned - Good job.  I would love to see more with Dave and Shahriar.

[rx8pilot]

I liked Dave's question about an FPGA equivalent for prototyping RF - especially the state of the art stuff. From my very limited knowledge - it seems that in that world, every blink of the eye costs enormous amounts of money. Not just the ASIC fab, but the design and validation efforts that surround it. The test gear is out of this world expensive and the people to take advantage of it are out of this world too.

As the frequencies increase and more data is crammed into a limited space - the cost to develop requires massive sales just to break even. What are the practical financial limits and is it even possible for new players to enter a market with such enormous financial and talent barriers. Do specialty RF devices have to use a derivative of consumer products to amortize the costs?

In digital electronics - FPGA's started life as a prototyping tool but ended up being a transformative technology that has enabled really amazing things. Designers have been able to dabble in hardware design without the insane expense of ASIC development. Small, niche market devices are easy with amazing compute capability. RF seems like it will remain an ultra-exclusive area for development.

[JPortici]

first video, 10 minutes in. Lovin it

[WN1X]

My two favorite electronics bloggers in one video. Thanks guys! 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Perhaps there's not a 97% consensus among engineers (not even those in Oregon) WRT AGW, let's find out, shall we?

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/agw-let's-find-out-if-there's-97-agreement-among-engineers/

 

[EEVblog]

Looks like a bunch of people un-subscribed because of these videos 

[CalMachine]

I thoroughly enjoyed the videos! 

And correlation != causation

[EEVblog]

And correlation != causation

When I've gotten daily negative subs less than a handful of times in 8 years, I'm petty sure it's these videos.

[TheSteve]

Time to teach yourself to love cats.

[BU508A]

Looks like a bunch of people un-subscribed because of these videos 

But ... why?      

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

[Cliff Matthews]

Wow.. two giant's  It makes me think of this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNOohFst9Lc&feature=youtu.be&t=141

[Bud]

Part 1: eBay for repair equipment  prices rising after Shahriar's videos- may very well be the case, i myself went and bought a non-working Agilent signal gen after watching one of his repair videos, and repaired it. If it were not his repair video i would most likely not ever do that. But the video gave me confidence and a fairly good idea on a possible troubleshooting approach for that quite complex piece of test equipment.

[EEVblog]

Looks like a bunch of people un-subscribed because of these videos 

But ... why?      

Several likely reasons:
1) They didn't like the "mini-flood" of three videos in a row. If they simply don't like "interviews" then no way it would have gotten this many unsubs.
2) They didn't like the fact that I hate cats
3) They didn't like my opinions on science, debunking
4) They didn't like my support of the AGW theory

Or a combination of those.
In all cases my care factor is zero 

[Electro Detective]

Zero is a bit too generous isn't it?

[benst]

I've only watched the first episode but I have to comment on the engineers and deadlines reference. That is so me. I can procrastinate until the cows come home, Bob's my uncle or being trapped as a young player, and then finish a sprint to the deadline and sort of get the product out. Have been doing that since attending university in 1980 really.

Is this really an engineer's syndrome/affliction? Anybody else?

Ben

[EEVblog]

I've only watched the first episode but I have to comment on the engineers and deadlines reference. That is so me. I can procrastinate until the cows come home, Bob's my uncle or being trapped as a young player, and then finish a sprint to the deadline and sort of get the product out. Have been doing that since attending university in 1980 really.
Is this really an engineer's syndrome/affliction? Anybody else?

I've found it almost universal in the field. Seems to work at both the individual and group levels.
Would love to see a real study on it.

[benst]

I've only watched the first episode but I have to comment on the engineers and deadlines reference. That is so me. I can procrastinate until the cows come home, Bob's my uncle or being trapped as a young player, and then finish a sprint to the deadline and sort of get the product out. Have been doing that since attending university in 1980 really.
Is this really an engineer's syndrome/affliction? Anybody else?

I've found it almost universal in the field. Seems to work at both the individual and group levels.
Would love to see a real study on it.

Yeah, a study, that would be awesome!

I've also noticed (as I'm a bit higher up nowadays) that a lot of engineers look at a problem and try to find a solution that makes them comfortable, instead of thinking about the user. Like, just throw a button up there and they'll understand. I have to remind them (and often also myself) about the user actually using the product. Does it make sense from the user perspective? But often this doesn't fit well with the procrastination syndrome I mentioned above.

Ben

[Brumby]

I've also noticed (as I'm a bit higher up nowadays) that a lot of engineers look at a problem and try to find a solution that makes them comfortable, instead of thinking about the user. Like, just throw a button up there and they'll understand. I have to remind them (and often also myself) about the user actually using the product. Does it make sense from the user perspective?

I admit my perspective is more from the software side - but my approach has been quite the opposite.  I will sit down with users and get to understand what they do and how they want some new facility to fit in.  I question until I have a high degree of confidence that I am on the same page - and then start asking about specific actions, edge cases, alternatives and so on.  I sometimes opened with my philosophy: "My job is to help you do your job."  This served me well.

[neotesla]

2) They didn't like the fact that I hate cats
 

Well, you are wrong about cats. 

http://www.johnnytimes.com/nikola-tesla-inventions-cat-macak/

[EEVblog]

2) They didn't like the fact that I hate cats

Well, you are wrong about cats. 

No, I can say with 100% confidence and certainty that I hate cats.

[Fungus]

2) They didn't like the fact that I hate cats

Well, you are wrong about cats. 

No, I can say with 100% confidence and certainty that I hate cats.

You just didn't meet the right cat yet.

[SeanB]

You forget as well Dave does not drink either, but nobody complains about that, or that he does not smoke either.

Each to their own, and I am enjoying the series, it is very interesting to watch these two, with the commonalities and differences between them. Only thing better would be having D2 there as well in one, making a comparison about his career as well, and things to look out for and enjoy.

[RGB255_0_0]

You forget as well Dave does not drink either, but nobody complains about that

I think you want to check the video where Dave pours beer down the sink.

[SeanB]

Only once, and I also agree beer does taste like junk, and I literally grew up in a brewery. The only good thing about it is that you can cook really nicely with it, and it makes a great marinade for meat on the BBQ, and that brewers yeast does taste really nice, especially fresh from the yeast plant drier as nice crispy flakes.

Anyhow, back to regular scheduled programming, I think Dave could learn a lot from Shariar, smart, articulate and a great explainer of how that RF construction works, and always worth a nice watch in the video.  We do need a few video collaborations from these two, they do complement each other nicely, and the interaction between them seems to fit in nicely.

[SilverSolder]

Great "chat" between two industry luminaries!   Shahriar is so intelligent and works at such a high level that it can be hard work for the amateur to keep up, but he does a great job making the subject accessible.

I liked the part about Moore's law continuing in a different dimension, as it were.   Perhaps hardware is no longer as big a limitation as software...   but software / programming may be susceptible to AI, eventually.

[Cliff Matthews]

..I think Dave could learn a lot from Shariar, smart, articulate and a great explainer of how that RF construction works..

Yeah but when Dave goes to Bell Labs, do you think he'll be allowed to video and help us learn too? I don't this so.. I worked for Infotron in NJ (25-years ago) and when we had to service stuff at Lucent, it was high security all the way.

[SeanB]

..I think Dave could learn a lot from Shariar, smart, articulate and a great explainer of how that RF construction works..

Yeah but when Dave goes to Bell Labs, do you think he'll be allowed to video and help us learn too? I don't this so.. I worked for Infotron in NJ (25-years ago) and when we had to service stuff at Lucent, it was high security all the way.

Could always go to the lab, and see for himself how it is put together, and do something that is permitted by the lab, or not part of it at all.

then we can also see if he is allergic to butch fur, or is going to be unconcerned at the somewhat mobile statue sunning itself on the top of a hot rack.

[rfeecs]

Sometimes Shariar sounds like an aging grad student.  He is familiar with his thesis topic and his corner of the lab (and loves to talk about it), but missing some basic real world stuff.

Like his comment that III-V semiconductors need hermetic packages.  Totally wrong.  Millions of GaAs and GaN parts are sold every month in non-hermetic packages.  Billions of parts have been in the field for decades.  So let's set the record straight.

You would think a microwave engineer would know this stuff.

Clearly he's a smart guy.  It's a casual discussion and he misspoke on that one,  as he does occasionally in his other videos.  No big deal I guess. 

[JPortici]

2) They didn't like the fact that I hate cats

Well, you are wrong about cats. 

No, I can say with 100% confidence and certainty that I hate cats.

despite being both into electronics and synthesizers... i have profound dislike for cats too 

[AF6LJ]

Good Stuff Guys, I enjoyed watching those videos.

[Cliff Matthews]

Good Stuff Guys, I enjoyed watching those videos.

Well with that avitar, all this puddy-tat bashing's gonna make it spicy..

[German_EE]

Ummmm, OK

Not everyone is a cat person

Not everyone thinks that Manchester United are the best football team in the world

Not everyone likes chocolate (or marmite)

Not everyone is a Star Trek fan

It's variety like this that makes the world (and the EEV Blog) a fun place to be

As for those videos, well worth listening to a couple of times, maybe with headphones on because of the sound levels.



P.S. Why are these three videos not numbered 992, 993 and 994?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I'd love to hear Shariar's opinion on patents.

[HighVoltage]

I watched all three videos and liked them a lot.
It's hard to believe that you got un-subscribers because of these videos.

[nctnico]

2) They didn't like the fact that I hate cats

Well, you are wrong about cats. 

No, I can say with 100% confidence and certainty that I hate cats.

Nobody is perfect!  But you've got to do something about hating cats though! It just ain't healthy... 

I liked to listen to (most of) the conversations between you and Shariar though.

[Razor512]

despite being both into electronics and synthesizers... i have profound dislike for cats too 

What happens if you meet someone in the cat family that has an impossibly high cuteness level?
When someone thinks they don't like cats, they just never experienced the cuteness first hand. If they are able to meet an extremely cute cat  they will experience an overwhelmingly high level of cuteness that they will perceive as becoming exponentially more intense with each passing nanosecond they spend with the cat.

From a distance they might think they don't like cats, but once they see one up close, that opinion is 100% guaranteed to change. A basic function of the universe makes it so that it is impossible to not like an animal that has a high cuteness level. It would be easier to systematically break every single law of physics within one day than it would be to not like an extremely cute cat.

[Brumby]

What happens if you meet someone in the cat family that has an impossibly high cuteness level?
When someone thinks they don't like cats, they just never experienced the cuteness first hand. If they are able to meet an extremely cute cat  they will experience an overwhelmingly high level of cuteness that they will perceive as becoming exponentially more intense with each passing nanosecond they spend with the cat.

Then the cat will do something that will destroy every fibre of that feeling.

But there are the odd exceptions....

I once worked with a guy who had a passionate dislike for cats, but his wife had a cat she just loved to bits.  The cat knew to stay away from him - and he was very happy with that arrangement.

For cat-lovers with sensitive natures - do not read this next paragraph.
However, one day he went to start the lawnmower and discovered - the hard way - that the cat had curled up underneath.  What followed does not bear describing - but the cat was in a very bad way.  Rushed to the vet, the cat was saved at great expense and after a lengthy recovery, returned home to lead a remarkably normal life.

The episode, however, made a deep impression on my workmate ... and he had developed a life long affection for the cat.

[Cliff Matthews]

Whew!! With Brumby's red text, I started to think he might cover-up by restringing his tennis racket.. So glad all ended OK for our 4-footed friend.    Lawnmowers - nasty things they are.

[JPortici]

What happens if you meet someone in the cat family that has an impossibly high cuteness level?

as cute as they may be they tend to have a morbid affection for all my soft bags, my equipment and my cables. Note that the owner of the cate (may be my sister, my father, whatever) will not take responsibilities for cleaning the piss out of the bags/equipment and replace broken cables.

Dogs just want to play and go running, cats don't give two sheeeeeeee

this pretty much sums it up how i feel about the cat-vs-dog 

[BU508A]

Then the cat will do something that will destroy every fibre of that feeling.

Very true. I do like cats, but I can really understand, why people dislike cats. And I respect their opinion.

Btw, this is a picture of my cat, Max his name.

[Brumby]

"Dogs have masters.  Cats have slaves."

Can't remember where I first saw that - but it can never be forgotten.

[coppice]

"Dogs have masters.  Cats have slaves."

Can't remember where I first saw that - but it can never be forgotten.

I think a better version of that idea is: A dog looks at its owner, providing everything it needs, and thinks "he must be God". A cat looks at its owner, providing everything it needs, and thinks "I must be God".

[BU508A]

"In ancient times cats were worshiped as gods; they have not forgotten this."   - Terry Pratchett

Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cats

[SeanB]

I rent felix Tequila, as this kitten still believes he can fly, and has come visiting a few times from upstairs. Keshasha however, has learnt to not come down by accident, but still is getting used to no longer being the only cat. Slowly starting to be a little vocal, up till now the only time she made a noise was on the return from the cattery, which she did not enjoy at all.

[nctnico]

For cat-lovers with sensitive natures - do not read this next paragraph.
However, one day he went to start the lawnmower and discovered - the hard way - that the cat had curled up underneath.  What followed does not bear describing - but the cat was in a very bad way.  Rushed to the vet, the cat was saved at great expense and after a lengthy recovery, returned home to lead a remarkably normal life.

This reminds me of an incident which will please Dave because it involves a flattened cat: During car driving lessons I ran over a cat which jumped right in front of the wheel. More precisely my driving instructor and I drove over a cat because the car had the (mandatory) dual controls and we where both unable to step on the brakes. I guess it's Darwin's cat now. Fortunately the owner wasn't too shaken up about it because they had too many cats already despite the fact this wasn't the first cat of theirs which had met the same fate.

[yym]

Long time fan/hater of both channels.
Interesting video, maybe in the future you could do more talks like this with the other electronics youtube guys like Allen and Mike.

Here are my thoughts on the video, unfiltered with unnecessary rudeness.

Shahriar, like your videos, they are very educational, presented in a professional yet pleasant manner, keep on doing this, I would only like to see more videos from you.
Dave, can you be more like Shahriar, you know … more science less nonsense.

I don’t like or understand why you have to discuss topics like religion, this is electronics channel, so please keep to electronics, you will offend people regardless of your beliefs.
I knew Dave is an atheist and is sort of asshole about it, but you know … that’s just Dave, everyone who believes something else than him is an uneducated idiot, and it is his personal duty to educate them.
From the discussion it seems like you Shahriar are atheist as well, that is fine, you can believe whatever you want, but just keep that for yourself, in the end I’ve lost a little bit of respect for you.

I don’t want to touch religion too much, but only consider this, Dave, you are a reasonably intelligent man (not a very good engineer though, from my subjective opinion), smarter than most men, but you can accept that there are many who are smarter than you, and some of them are engineers and doctors and biologists who understand in much more detail how nature, how evolution, how humans work, and yet they are religious. And then, there is you yapping around calling them uneducated idiots. In the end science cannot prove or disprove God. Everyone is free to believe what they want.

It was interesting to see the contrast between you two, you could not be more different.
Shahriar – full level professionalism, sure of himself, confident
Dave – you seem very unsecure trying not to say something stupid, acting silly, if you watch the videos again you will see, you’ve interrupted Shahriar several time with nonsense, drinking, coughing and generally being agitated like a child on sugars. Also I’ve never noticed this before, you have very feminine mannerisms, you acted like a woman talk show host, who is not very familiar with the topic, trying to laugh at everything … just watch the videos again, you will not be able to unsee it, once you realize it.

Overall it was ok I guess, I warned that I will be rude, make more videos like this in the future.
Dave, you get extra asshole points for hating cats.

[Hugoneus]

Long time fan/hater of both channels.
Interesting video, maybe in the future you could do more talks like this with the other electronics youtube guys like Allen and Mike.
Here are my thoughts on the video, unfiltered with unnecessary rudeness.

What do you call a person who is unnecessary rude?

Shahriar, like your videos, they are very educational, presented in a professional yet pleasant manner, keep on doing this, I would only like to see more videos from you. Dave, can you be more like Shahriar, you know … more science less nonsense.

As far as I know Dave's videos are scientific. When he expresses an opinion or preference he says so as well.

I don’t like or understand why you have to discuss topics like religion, this is electronics channel, so please keep to electronics, you will offend people regardless of your beliefs.

When did we discuss religion specifically? Can you point to it?

I knew Dave is an atheist and is sort of asshole about it, but you know … that’s just Dave, everyone who believes something else than him is an uneducated idiot, and it is his personal duty to educate them.

Dave does not think anyone who thinks differently than him is an idiot. He is opinionated and animated. You are mistaking style with intent. It sounds more like you are projecting.

From the discussion it seems like you Shahriar are atheist as well, that is fine, you can believe whatever you want, but just keep that for yourself, in the end I’ve lost a little bit of respect for you.

How did you conclude that? When did I use the work atheist or even religion? Again, point to it please. Not that I care either way, but I am curious if I was hallucinating and don't remember.

I don’t want to touch religion too much, but only consider this, Dave, you are a reasonably intelligent man (not a very good engineer though, from my subjective opinion), smarter than most men, but you can accept that there are many who are smarter than you, and some of them are engineers and doctors and biologists who understand in much more detail how nature, how evolution, how humans work, and yet they are religious. And then, there is you yapping around calling them uneducated idiots. In the end science cannot prove or disprove God.

Again, when did we say any of this?!

Everyone is free to believe what they want.

Yes, as long as it does not step on the rights of others, or limit the freedom of others.

It was interesting to see the contrast between you two, you could not be more different.
Shahriar – full level professionalism, sure of himself, confident
Dave – you seem very unsecure trying not to say something stupid, acting silly, if you watch the videos again you will see, you’ve interrupted Shahriar several time with nonsense, drinking, coughing and generally being agitated like a child on sugars. Also I’ve never noticed this before, you have very feminine mannerisms, you acted like a woman talk show host, who is not very familiar with the topic, trying to laugh at everything … just watch the videos again, you will not be able to unsee it, once you realize it.

Dave had a cough the whole time. It was bothering him and he was trying his best to not interrupt the video. He kept on apologizing to me. Pretty much everything that we talked about we had talked about earlier during the day. Dave was making sure he touched upon everything that we wanted to mention and that we would not miss anything. Not once did I get the impression that Dave was anything other than a joy to spend time with. He guided the discussion in an entirely unscripted video.

Again is sounds like you are just projecting.

Overall it was ok I guess, I warned that I will be rude, make more videos like this in the future.
Dave, you get extra asshole points for hating cats.

Warning that you will be rude only makes it worse.

[Hugoneus]

Sometimes Shariar sounds like an aging grad student.  He is familiar with his thesis topic and his corner of the lab (and loves to talk about it), but missing some basic real world stuff.

Funny that my thesis topic never even came up since I have not worked on that specific topic for 7 years now. But you know, internet is full of experts and mind readers.

Like his comment that III-V semiconductors need hermetic packages.  Totally wrong.  Millions of GaAs and GaN parts are sold every month in non-hermetic packages.  Billions of parts have been in the field for decades.  So let's set the record straight.
You would think a microwave engineer would know this stuff.

Every III-V device I have ever used and seen has been hermetically sealed. We don't make any modules without hermetically sealing them.  Perhaps there are non-sealed devices. Maybe you can point to a reference for the millions of them being shipped each month?

Clearly he's a smart guy.  It's a casual discussion and he misspoke on that one,  as he does occasionally in his other videos.  No big deal I guess. 

Obviously important enough to insult.

[nfmax]

I've only just found time to watch these videos, and I'd like to say how much I enjoyed them. One topic that you almost touched on I would have loved to hear you discuss - why are there so few women in electronics, and to a lesser extent, in technology generally?

[coppice]

Every III-V device I have ever used and seen has been hermetically sealed. We don't make any modules without hermetically sealing them.  Perhaps there are non-sealed devices. Maybe you can point to a reference for the millions of them being shipped each month?

I think you may be looking at this a little too narrowly. How many LEDs have you seen in hermetically sealed packages?

[lem_ix]

Watched all three and loved seeing you together. You've both been a great inspiration over the past few years. Hopefully there will be more stuff like this in the future
 
As for people unsubscribing ... please leave faster    it's as if they've watched some different video from me

[Fungus]

I liked the second one best.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I'd love to hear Shahriar's opinion on patents.

[yym]

Hello Shahriar, nice to see you here

Since you asked some questions allow me to try to answer some of them, I will try to be less rude this time.

To your first question: I don’t know, why don’t you tell me?

I would make a distinction between two cases at least. When someone is rude on purpose, with the goal to disrupt, hurt or humiliate, embarrass people etc (you get the idea) and when you come off as rude because you are being blunt, you speak your mind, you don’t consider people’s feelings, just raw, unprocessed but genuine opinion that has the sideffect of being rude.

If I would have more time for this, then it would be a constructive criticism, you know.. the same thing in essence, but nicely wrapped, sugar coated. This process of sugar coating things takes time and effort, and I don’t like doing it, just as Dave doesn’t like doing demos, too much effort.

By the way is there such a thing as necessary rudeness? I should look that up, maybe there is TED talk or something about that.


To your second question: Religion was discussed in part 2, towards the end, initially only circling around the subject, actively trying to avoid it, then at some point Dave explicitly mentions religion, the discussion had the overall setup as truth vs false truth, and science and scientific method being in the first category, and religion in the second category together with pseudoscience and bullshit. Dave uses some really nice adjectives for people that have something to do with the second category like nutcases, idiots, uneducated idiots, idiots who believe in something.

I believe ‘uneducated idiots’ is Dave’s terms for religious people (trademark pending?), he used it several times through the years, I noticed all the time, it always bothered me. Just watch the video and count how many time Dave uses ‘idiots’ . Dave tries not to laugh at these poor idiots, he tries to educate them.

Regarding my assumption/conclusion of you, no, you were not hallucinating, I will point to it, somewhere towards the middle, the theory of evolution comes up (yup, this was the theory that this discussion needed (also notice Dave’s double face palm)), you are defending it, you say you agree with most of what Sam Harris says, should I go on? Anyway this
is my opinion of you, this is how you come off, it is not necessarily correct or accurate, you don’t need to defend or explain yourself.

I could go on for ages but I will stop now.

I get it that you are upset and defensive, that is appropriate response, but keep in mind that my being rude is a side effect of being blunt, not sugar coating things, my intention is not to hurt someone.

This is just my opinion, you can sugar coat it, water it down, do whatever, but maybe you get more feedback like this, maybe there is some small truth to it.

Cheers,
yym

[rfeecs]

Every III-V device I have ever used and seen has been hermetically sealed. We don't make any modules without hermetically sealing them.  Perhaps there are non-sealed devices. Maybe you can point to a reference for the millions of them being shipped each month?

First, realize that plastic encapsulated devices are generally not considered hermetically sealed.
This page has a good discussion of the industry definition of hermeticity:
https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/hermeticity

Coppice gave a great example of LEDs.  That blows the numbers I quoted out of the water.

Another example is cell phones.  Virtually all cell phones have GaAs HBT front end power amplifiers.  These front end modules are not hermetically sealed.

Satellite receivers for home TV use non-hermetic plastic packaged super low noise GaAs pHEMTs, lots of them.

EPC uses non hermetic chip scale packaging for their GaN parts.

All the plastic packaged GaAs and GaN parts from Qorvo, Skyworks, Analog Devices and others.

Obviously important enough to insult.

No insult intended.  Sorry if you took it that way. 

[rx8pilot]

Long time fan/hater of both channels.

W.T.F was that? (don't answer, I don't want to encourage this one)

I personally like the contrast between these two - Dave and Shahriar. With Dave, we get unfiltered and conversational opinions and off-the-cuff discussion of a wide variety of EE topics and issues. With the Signal Path we get a sharp focus on very high-level topics that are ridiculously well planned and executed. These are FREE to the public with an option to financially contribute. Neither one of these guys owes any of this to any of us. The discussions and community of the EEVblog and the Signal Path have been absolutely critical to my climb of the engineering ladder - including going back to school at 42 years old. I could not thank these two enough for the contribution to the engineering community. From hard facts to inspiration to building an enormous group of people learning, experimenting, and sharing knowledge. It is an F'ing amazing gift to a LOT of people - for FREE.

When I am learning something new, I generally get some books that cover the topic. This gives me an overview and mostly a very cold presentation of some challenging material. Dave and Shahriar offer the human component and a solid dose of practical reality. I think one thing neither of them really show people is the magnitude of effort it takes to do what they do. They may mention it is a pain in the ass periodically, but it seems the majority of the entitled consumer audience has silly expectations of free content produced by 1-2 people on a regular basis. I have been trying to start my own channel that focuses on manufacturing for a long time and simply cannot find the time to pull it off. It is very, very difficult (assuming I sleep every once in a while). Shahriar flew in specifically to do this sit-down discussion. He spent considerable time and money just to chat and share. That is a HUGE thumbs up! 

Thanks Dave and Shahriar.

[AF6LJ]

I love the long videos on The Signal Path, they are very well done and informative.

[SeanB]

Longevity and life, look at the intended market and the design lifetime. LED, pretty much cheap and any package costs more than the device in most cases, and you do not expect it to last decades in service. Same for mobile phone, designed to last 5 years at best, and with some moisture indicators to tell you it has been compromised, along with a dollop of moisture resistant coating on it so the active area is not going to corrode too fast and fail before warranty ends and the phone gets put into a drawer or sent as eWaste.

Shariar is talking about power devices, where the actual die cost more than the package, and where the design lifetime is more than a decade, and it must absolutely work for that, irrespective of any outside influence. Not Military, but telecoms and satellite use, along with test and measurement, where you do not have the "meter of the week", that you toss away and replace every 6 months, but will use for a good number of years to develop and service multiple generations of products. Those products might be classed as disposable, but the design equipment is not.

[Hugoneus]

...
yym

I went back and checked, religion was not discussed in any meaningfull way. Not that it matters.

Anyone who rejects a scientific theory without understanding it deserves a face palm. If after understanding it there is evidence to show that it must be adjusted or scrapped the evidence should be presented, published. That is how science works (and it does work most of the time).

Lucky for us science moves on and pockets of ignorance continue to be filled with understanding. There is a trend towards reasonoblness, with ocasional setbacks. That is all I care about.

[josecamoessilva]

Lucky for us science moves on and pockets of ignorance continue to be filled with understanding. There is a trend towards reasonoblness, with ocasional setbacks.

Would that it were so. Alas, there's no guarantee that knowledge defeats ignorance; or as the Demotivators poster says, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. 

(I liked the vids, even though don't necessarily agree with Dave & Shariar on everything; if people unsub because of these videos, then good riddance to them.)

[Brumby]

I watched all three videos within 2 hours.  I'm not normally able to spend that sort of time in what was pretty much a single stretch - but I had the chance and found it easy to do.

I haven't watched much of Shahriar's material to date - but this experience has warmed me to making a bit more of an effort to do so.


As far as anyone's "critique" is concerned - there are more than enough armchair warriors out there to realise you should always expect pot shots from them.  It's irritating when it happens - like a pebble in your shoe ... or stepping into a pile of you-know-what.  It's also necessary to known when to step away from the idea of engaging them in debate.  From what I have observed, they will never publicly recant any point or even listen to sound argument.  The best response is that they no longer make reference to subjects they have lost.


I'm happy to encourage Dave to follow through on any other such opportunities in the future.

The format is a bit of a departure from the norm - but so what.  Variety is the spice of life!

[Brumby]

Anyone who rejects a scientific theory without understanding it deserves a face palm.

To me, that would seem to be a somewhat fundamental principle (the understanding, not the facepalm).  How can you possibly say "No" to something when you don't understand what you are saying "No" to?

If after understanding it there is evidence to show that it must be adjusted or scrapped the evidence should be presented, published. That is how science works (and it does work most of the time).

You would think ... but for some, the idea of actually considering evidence is too much - let alone gathering and presenting it.  Something along the lines of "Don't let the facts get in the way".

[BU508A]

To me, that would seem to be a somewhat fundamental principle (the understanding, not the facepalm).  How can you possibly say "No" to something when you don't understand what you are saying "No" to?

Because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Brumby]

I realise this - but it is still an ignorant rejection.

That the person does not believe their position to be uninformed only adds to the stupidity of their attitude - especially when they refuse to listen to any argument which will would show their existing knowledge is lacking.

[mtdoc]

That the person does not believe their position to be uninformed only adds to the stupidity of their attitude - especially when they refuse to listen to any argument which will would show their existing knowledge is lacking.

That would require require coming down from the peak where they are enjoying the view and descending into the valley below..

[Brumby]

That looks right.

I know one or two who like the view from Mt. Stupid, but getting them off that peak is sometimes impossible - especially via internet communications.

[josecamoessilva]

I know one or two who like the view from Mt. Stupid, but getting them off that peak is sometimes impossible - especially via internet communications.

The problem with D-K is that each side thinks the other suffers from it.

Really. And given how the side of knowledge has changed tactics since the 80s, from "let's persuade and educate the ignorant" to "let's monetize our echo chamber by mocking the ignorant," it's really no surprise.

It doesn't help that those on the side of knowledge sometimes (often, massively, overwhelmingly, choose your adverb) are lacking in that same knowledge. Like people who "love science," but can't answer 7th-grade science questions; or "debunkers" who make crass, freshman-year engineering mistakes; or best-selling authors of anti-religion books who keep using their hopelessly outdated 1970s-vintage model of evolution and sidestepping its socially inconvenient implications.

Carl Sagan's most misunderstood sentence was "extreme claims require extreme evidence," by which he meant that to persuade someone that their strongest-held beliefs are false, you need to make an overwhelming case to that person. Mental midgets following in Sagan's footsteps took that sentence to  mean that "anyone whom I disagree with must prove to me that they're right," which is the opposite of how persuasion works.

As I said, opportunists monetizing their echo chamber, riding on real scientists' work.

It makes no practical difference to the average person's life whether God exists, evolution is true, and climate change is happening; but when the people who answer (no, yes, yes) follow that with political statements, their credibility is lost and politics will drive the response of the average person.

Me, I just ask people who "love science" random questions like "the ISS orbits at an altitude of 400km, orbit takes hour and a half, Earth radius is 6370km, roughly how fast is the ISS moving?" and watch their eyes glaze over. (5th-grade science content.)

I don't argue religion; my position on God is "how would you tell the difference between God and a really powerful alien?"

[yym]

..

Wow, so much topic to cover, so little time.
Can you please expand on your post a little, I really want to understand you, but you are very brief.

I went back and checked, religion was not discussed in any meaningfull way. Not that it matters.

So you agree it was discussed in a way. Matters to whom? To you? Obviously mattered to some.

Anyone who rejects a scientific theory without understanding it deserves a face palm.

Now this is where things get tricky, what is the level of understating and level of rejection required to deserve a face palm? Usually things are not black and white…
Let’s take the theory of evolution for example. Have you or anyone here actually read the “On the Origin of Species”. Do you fully understand it in all its detail? I mean, do you also have a degree in biology?
So, let’s say you understand it at a general education level, you are a layman, but you have a rough understating of what it says.
In this case let’s say you reject only a tiny portion of it, that doesn’t change it in any meaningful way. You sort of understand it and you kind of reject it.. in this case do you deserve a facepalm? Where is the threshold? I’m curious…
This topic generated countless scientific and religious discussions, since it was published. But now we have the atheists (basically a bunch of ‘experts’ in just about everything) for help, they can settle this once and for all.

Lucky for us science moves on..

Who are you referring to by “us” and as opposed to whom?
And does science “move on” by itself, somehow? Or is it moved by people, many of whom (Dare I say, most of them?) being religious?

There is a trend towards reasonableness, with occasional setbacks.

Would you call Dave’s attitude towards religion  reasonableness, or setback?

...never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. 

Yup, I fully agree, I mean, for sure you don’t mean than only stupid people can be religious, there could be a group of atheists that happened to be stupid, and their power grows as their stupidity grows, right? ‘stupid people’ such a nice term.

..armchair warriors..

– that supposed to be an insult? As opposed to what, regular warriors? I don't know… like Conan the barbarian or Xena the warrior princess? I agree, it is irritating. In your opinion why did Dave mention religion, what was the point of that?

..especially when they refuse to listen..

If this is not closed mindedness, I don't know what is. Because not you, but always the other has to lissen, never you, right? Your task is to set them straight.Becase there is no way that you can ever be even slightly wrong.

..

Very interresting article
Look at the second video, stop it at around 26:11 here Dave talks about.. and I quote  “..I don’t laugh at them, I try to educate them first..” (First? Why first? What follows next?) 
Now look at Dave's expression ,doesn’t  he looks like he’s feeling superior? Does he fails to reckognize his own lack of skill? Does he not recognize the extent of his inadequacy? Does he not accurately gauges skills in ‘idiots’? Now go back and read the article you’ve linked.

Dave this is part of your legacy, of which you are so proud of. Yup, this is normal educator behavior, most educators have really hard time trying not to laugh at ‘idiots’ who they are trying to educate (first?).

[josecamoessilva]

...never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. 

Yup, I fully agree, I mean, for sure you don’t mean than only stupid people can be religious, there could be a group of atheists that happened to be stupid, and their power grows as their stupidity grows, right? ‘stupid people’ such a nice term.

The origin of this saying is lost in time (circa the 1990s), but the story goes someone asked a well-known business consultant why management consulting had so many fads, so many of them so obviously stupid (after the fact); his response was "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."

[josecamoessilva]

Let’s take the theory of evolution for example. Have you or anyone here actually read the “On the Origin of Species”. Do you fully understand it in all its detail? I mean, do you also have a degree in biology?

I've read it, but mostly for historical reasons. What is this, literary critique of original texts as if that means anything? What you mean to ask is: who here has read Molecular Biology of the Cell (I did) and Molecular Biology of the Gene (I did)?

No need for a degree in Biology, just $400 for the textbooks (US textbook prices are ridiculous), a lot of time to read and think, and an interest in deeply understanding the subject. (Also, knowing chemistry, biochemistry, physics, math, and how to take notes and learn new material. Nerd, who, me?)

[retrolefty]

...never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. 

Yup, I fully agree, I mean, for sure you don’t mean than only stupid people can be religious, there could be a group of atheists that happened to be stupid, and their power grows as their stupidity grows, right? ‘stupid people’ such a nice term.

The origin of this saying is lost in time (circa the 1990s), but the story goes someone asked a well-known business consultant why management consulting had so many fads, so many of them so obviously stupid (after the fact); his response was "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."

 A lesson well learned by politicians around the world. They know the power that this group can give them, it just requires so little pandering to their ignorance.

[mtdoc]

I know one or two who like the view from Mt. Stupid, but getting them off that peak is sometimes impossible - especially via internet communications.

The problem with D-K is that each side thinks the other suffers from it.

Yes, very true.

And let's be honest, all of us have climbed Mt. Stupid at times. I know that I have several times.  But after you've had the experience of descending into the valley of despair and the climbing the slope of enlightenment a few times - looking back and seeing where you've been - it becomes easier to recognize and avoid climbing that mountain over and over. 

There are paths around.  One is listening and giving respect to those who have years of experience in a given field. In general, with age comes wisdom and the hopefully the ability to recognize when one is standing on that false summit or better, how to avoid it all together. The main exception that I've seen is when religion or politics are involved in which case  Mt Stupid becomes a permanent home for some, whatever their age or view.

And given how the side of knowledge has changed tactics since the 80s, from "let's persuade and educate the ignorant" to "let's monetize our echo chamber by mocking the ignorant," it's really no surprise.

It doesn't help that those on the side of knowledge sometimes (often, massively, overwhelmingly, choose your adverb) are lacking in that same knowledge. Like people who "love science," but can't answer 7th-grade science questions; or "debunkers" who make crass, freshman-year engineering mistakes; or best-selling authors of anti-religion books who keep using their hopelessly outdated 1970s-vintage model of evolution and sidestepping its socially inconvenient implications.

Carl Sagan's most misunderstood sentence was "extreme claims require extreme evidence," by which he meant that to persuade someone that their strongest-held beliefs are false, you need to make an overwhelming case to that person. Mental midgets following in Sagan's footsteps took that sentence to  mean that "anyone whom I disagree with must prove to me that they're right," which is the opposite of how persuasion works.

As I said, opportunists monetizing their echo chamber, riding on real scientists' work.

Yes, all excellent observations.

[mtdoc]

Let’s take the theory of evolution for example. Have you or anyone here actually read the “On the Origin of Species”. Do you fully understand it in all its detail? I mean, do you also have a degree in biology?

Well I have a couple of degrees in biology but that in itself does not mean much.  Sure, an undergraduate degree in biology hopefully means you have better than a laymen's understanding of evolution but I've met some with that degree who do not.

Personally, I don't think I fully understood evolution until I was a graduate student and had to read and discuss Dawkin's The Selfish Gene - which should be required reading for every high school student IMO. (And no, I am not a fan of Dawkin's athiest zealotry - it's not much better than religious zealotry IMO).

The more important point is that everyone, including those with degrees in a scientific field, should respect and value the opinion of working scientists with years of experience in any field.  That doesn't mean blindly accept everything they say,  but it does mean not assuming you know more because you have some knowledge of the topic or because someone on the internet posted an impressive sounding critique.  Unless that person is an expert in that field, with similar level of experience, they should not be assumed to be accurate -even if what they say seems right to you.  And has been pointed out here (and by Shahriar in the video) - any credible critique of published science will itself be submitted for peer review and publication. If it is not, then that in itself makes it suspect.  It's a false claim to say one is "pro science" while not demanding that critique of published research meet the same standard.

[Hugoneus]

Let’s take the theory of evolution for example. Have you or anyone here actually read the “On the Origin of Species”. Do you fully understand it in all its detail? I mean, do you also have a degree in biology?

I have read:
The blind watchmaker
Selfish gene
The greatest show on earth
On the origin of species

As well as many other studies which have been references in these books. After a few years it all makes sense.

[Fungus]

"how would you tell the difference between God and a really powerful alien?"

A really powerful alien wouldn't write a book as stupid and inconsistent as The Bible.

[Fungus]

Carl Sagan's most misunderstood sentence was "extreme claims require extreme evidence," by which he meant that to persuade someone that their strongest-held beliefs are false, you need to make an overwhelming case to that person. Mental midgets following in Sagan's footsteps took that sentence to  mean that "anyone whom I disagree with must prove to me that they're right," which is the opposite of how persuasion works.

a) It wasn't Sagan's claim, although he used it a lot.
b) The rest of the world disagrees with you, it's the believers who need to provide proof.

Think: the people who are arguing against religion (or whatever) aren't actually making any claims at all!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi

You're right that arguing against believers isn't easy though. Their beliefs aren't based on evidence so they don't see evidence as proof of anything. Getting them to admit they were wrong about ONE thing can be classed as a victory. Changing their belief? Only if they were half way over the fence anyway.

If you want to see real experts arguing with believers you can watch channels like .

As you can see, it's entertaining to watch but they're not converting many people.

(and it's quite depressing to think that the people phoning in represent about 50% of the population).

Edit: changed video to a calm-discussion one. You can find the real nutcase callers by yourselves.

[TheAmmoniacal]

Any natural explanation, however absurd, has to be more probable than magic. Any rational person has to take this position.

I can help clarify your misconceptions and misunderstandings about evolution here if you want.


Very much enjoy your content Shahriar (and Dave), thanks.

[mc172]

Dave – you seem very unsecure trying not to say something stupid, acting silly, if you watch the videos again you will see, you’ve interrupted Shahriar several time with nonsense, drinking, coughing and generally being agitated like a child on sugars. Also I’ve never noticed this before, you have very feminine mannerisms, you acted like a woman talk show host, who is not very familiar with the topic, trying to laugh at everything … just watch the videos again, you will not be able to unsee it, once you realize it.

I completely agree. I really do enjoy 99% of the videos on the EEVblog channel but this interview really is cringey.

[Fungus]

Dave – you seem very unsecure trying not to say something stupid, acting silly, if you watch the videos again you will see, you’ve interrupted Shahriar several time with nonsense, drinking, coughing and generally being agitated like a child on sugars. Also I’ve never noticed this before, you have very feminine mannerisms, you acted like a woman talk show host, who is not very familiar with the topic, trying to laugh at everything … just watch the videos again, you will not be able to unsee it, once you realize it.

I completely agree. I really do enjoy 99% of the videos on the EEVblog channel but this interview really is cringey.

Yeah, Dave's a nervous interviewer. It was the same thing when he interviewed the boss of Siglent.

(I can forgive it though).

[RGB255_0_0]

Some people aren't natural interviewers. Dave does his best. Maybe he tries too hard. You can read the body language and expressions of some of the interviewees when he interrupts them.

Not trying to be harsh but Dave needs to relax a little and bite his tongue and let the other person finish their sentence.

Norm is the same on Tested.

I'd like to see David do an interview as he seems very laid back. Sometime.

[Brumby]

So much crap - so little time.

I wasn't going to get involved in this absurd little rant, but seeing you have put in such an effort....

..armchair warriors..

– that supposed to be an insult? As opposed to what, regular warriors? I don't know… like Conan the barbarian or Xena the warrior princess? I agree, it is irritating.

It would only be an insult to people who are afraid of being called out on it.  It wasn't directed AT you at all - but if the shoe fits....

In your opinion why did Dave mention religion, what was the point of that?

I have no opinion about why religion was mentioned.  I don't particularly care, since it had no real bearing on the discussion. So, in relation to these videos, is why it "doesn't matter".  The videos were unscripted, Dave rambles, get over it.

..especially when they refuse to listen..

If this is not closed mindedness, I don't know what is. Because not you, but always the other has to lissen, never you, right? Your task is to set them straight.Becase there is no way that you can ever be even slightly wrong.

Ah ... here is your greatest fail.  The (I need to get the upper hand) character assassination.

Not that you deserve it - but I'll clear this up for you... Yes, I have an opinion and I will air it on occasions.  But here is a little fact that you have not bothered researching ... if I have been wrong about something - whether by being shown or having discovered myself - I have freely admitted it AND apologised.  You can even find examples here on the EEVblog forum.


I would like to suggest that you save yourself further embarrassment - but I would be rather surprised if you did.

[BU508A]

That the person does not believe their position to be uninformed only adds to the stupidity of their attitude - especially when they refuse to listen to any argument which will would show their existing knowledge is lacking.

Exactly. And this is one of the major reasons, why the The Vatican in Rome put lightning arresters on the St. Peter's Basilica (and other churches as well, of course)   

They do not know, what they are believing into.

Franz Buggle: Denn sie wissen nicht, was sie glauben (sorry, seems to  be available only in German)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Buggle (only in German, sorry)
http://www.ibka.org/artikel/miz92/buggle.html

[ggchab]

Why would there not be a place for both science and religion? Scientists observe the world and then try to imagine more or less complex mathematical formulas to describe a specific behavior of the nature. They repeat experiments until the formula seems to be always verified and it becomes a law. A law can then be manipulated to predict undiscovered behaviors. If they can be verified again by new experiments, this enforces the law and the mathematical techniques used to manipulate it. This is impressive because those laws can be used to produce wonderful things, to discover a bit more our world,… But these laws and mathematics are “only” models, not the fundamental explanations! And what would be a fundamental explanation? Why does the nature seem to follow mathematical formulas? I could never read a good answer to that question.

If scientists found a relationship between mass and energy, what are mass and energy? We only know forms of energy. At the university, a physics teacher told us “We’ve never seen a force. We only see its effects and we guess there is a force …”.

Science is made of facts described (not explained) by models, mathematics,… and this does not prevent people to believe there are some unknown reasons for all this and those reasons will remain unknown forever (by us, as human beings). Some great scientists believed in the existence of a god (like Albert Einstein) and others did not (like Christian de Duve). I am sure they were both clever and well educated people …

[BU508A]

Why would there not be a place for both science and religion? Scientists observe the world and then try to imagine more or less complex mathematical formulas to describe a specific behavior of the nature. They repeat experiments until the formula seems to be always verified and it becomes a law. A law can then be manipulated to predict undiscovered behaviors. If they can be verified again by new experiments, this enforces the law and the mathematical techniques used to manipulate it. This is impressive because those laws can be used to produce wonderful things, to discover a bit more our world,… But these laws and mathematics are “only” models, not the fundamental explanations! And what would be a fundamental explanation? Why does the nature seem to follow mathematical formulas? I could never read a good answer to that question.

Probably you'll find this a good answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
I recommend also to read the part about Karl Popper.

If scientists found a relationship between mass and energy, what are mass and energy? We only know forms of energy. At the university, a physics teacher told us “We’ve never seen a force. We only see its effects and we guess there is a force …”.

Science is made of facts described (not explained) by models, mathematics,… and this does not prevent people to believe there are some unknown reasons for all this and those reasons will remain unknown forever (by us, as human beings). Some great scientists believed in the existence of a god (like Albert Einstein) and others did not (like Christian de Duve). I am sure they were both clever and well educated people …

Nope. This thing about Albert Einstein is an urban legend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

[mtdoc]

Nope. This thing about Albert Einstein is an urban legend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Check your reference. Einstein did in fact believe in God, just not the anthropomorphic god promoted by many religions.

It's a fundamental error to conflate science with the existence or non existence of God.

Many excellent scientists believe in God and many do not. They are not mutually exclusuve. The existence or non-existence of God is not a testable hypothesis and therefore not in the realm of science.

[ggchab]

Thanks for the proposed references.

There is Hubert Reeves who seems to believe there is "something else" that cannot be proven.
(in French, sorry)
And probably François Englert. He does not believe in a god protecting him but thinks also there is "something else". I can't remember his exact words, but that's what I understood from what he said in a television program after he received the Nobel Prize.

I forgot to say that I found this "The Signal Path Discussion" video very interesting.

[BU508A]

Check your reference. Einstein did in fact believe in God, just not the anthropomorphic god promoted by many religions.

Nope. "He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[6]"
And "believe in God" =! Agnostic, Agnostic means ins this respect: I can / will not decide, if there is a god, many gods or no one.

It's a fundamental error to conflate science with the existence or non existence of God.

Nope. Everybody who is stating, that there is something like a god has to bring proof.
This can be done. [Edit] In the sense: "For epistemic reasions. Falsifiability, Karl Popper wrote about that." [/Edit]
The claim "God is not existing." cannot be proofed for epistemic reasons.

Many excellent scientists believe in God and many do not. They are not mutually exclusuve. The existence or non-existence of God is not a testable hypothesis and therefore not in the realm of science.

Wrong. If god is existing: bring here some proof.
If you can't, then see, what Occam's Razor is saying in this respect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

And the fact, that a lot of scientists believe in something like "existance of god" is their choice. Nothing more and it is not a proof for the existing of god.

[ggchab]

Of course, the existence of god or « something else » will never be proven. This would not be god or “something else” anymore  Beliefs are personal things that may be discussed but never imposed. And they are simply good if they help you to live a better life. If not, then just ignore them. Nothing to do with sciences and I totally agree that one of the best things we can offer to people is education, based on facts. This would solve so many problems in the world …

[GK]

Carl Sagan's most misunderstood sentence was "extreme claims require extreme evidence," by which he meant that to persuade someone that their strongest-held beliefs are false, you need to make an overwhelming case to that person. Mental midgets following in Sagan's footsteps took that sentence to  mean that "anyone whom I disagree with must prove to me that they're right," which is the opposite of how persuasion works.

As I said, opportunists monetizing their echo chamber, riding on real scientists' work.

So much for the mental midgetry of anyone else; Google at your finger tips and you still can't even get the quotation verbatim. "Extraordinary", not "extreme". I'll refrain from comment one way or the other about the philosophical correctness of the proposition, principally out of a lack of interest, but for an original Sagan context of usage:

Cosmos
Encyclopedia Galactica [Episode 12]

In the vastness of the Cosmos there must be other civilizations far older and more advanced than ours.
0 min 45 sec

What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
1 min 10 sec

For all I know we may be visited by a different extraterrestrial civilization every second Tuesday, but there's no support for this appealing idea. The extraordinary claims are not supported by extraordinary evidence.
7 min 25 sec
Back reference to UFO abduction claims

In the above, with his quotable line, he is clearly emphasizing the burden of proof that he places upon those who make "extraordinary claims" of phenomenon that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny, not about dissuading the non-scientifically minded from their kooky ideas (such as extraterrestrial visitation) - essentially, it is up to them to prove to him that they are right by coughing up some "extraordinary evidence".

Some might consider equally ridiculous as claims of alien-human interaction claims commonly made for a particular deity. For example a deity that would send Sagan to hell for promoting the theory of evolution, or a deity prone to sending plague to punish the sins of a population, or a deity that doesn't like white people mixing with black people and/or condemns homosexuals to hellfire. Or maybe even just a personal deity that has a special concern for a believers welfare. Sagan himself certainly would have, and must have said so and written as much dozens of times.
     

[Fungus]

Nope. This thing about Albert Einstein is an urban legend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Check your reference. Einstein did in fact believe in God, just not the anthropomorphic god promoted by many religions.

I did. It says he didn't believe in god. Perhaps you could provide evidence that he did.

Whenever Einstein said 'god' he really meant 'nature'. If he used the word 'god' he was just being politically smart.

"Nature does not play dice" was what he would have said if the world wasn't full of religious people.

It's a fundamental error to conflate science with the existence or non existence of God.

No it isn't. Science works well to disprove the specific claims made by the god-believers. Applying science to Earth's religions is a very worthwhile thing to do.

The existence or non-existence of God is not a testable hypothesis and therefore not in the realm of science.

You're correct that it's not testable but science can come up with numbers for the probability and/or necessity of a god for the existence of the universe. Stephen Hawking spends a lot of time doing exactly that in his books (he uses the word 'god' a lot as well).

So far the probability/necessity numbers are only going downwards. We've found nothing in the universe that cannot be explained by nature alone.

[Fungus]

In your opinion why did Dave mention religion, what was the point of that?

I have no opinion about why religion was mentioned.

They were discussing "debunking".

Religion is bound to come up whenever you discuss that.

[ggchab]

Why is there a universe 
As long as religion (or anything else) is a personal belief that makes you happy and does not (negatively) influence your interaction with other people, is there any reason to debunk it?

[TheAmmoniacal]

Why is there a universe 
As long as religion (or anything else) is a personal belief that makes you happy and does not (negatively) influence your interaction with other people, is there any reason to debunk it?

Why should there not be a universe? Universes seems to be the default state.

[ggchab]

May be a stupid question but what is a default state if there is no possible comparison ?

[mtdoc]

Check your reference. Einstein did in fact believe in God, just not the anthropomorphic god promoted by many religions.

Nope.

Unfortunately you've chosen the dishonest path of selectively quoting your own chosen reference which, if read in it's entirety does a decent job of abtracting Einstein's views which, while complex, show that:

1) He believed in the idea of god such as defined by Spinoza and other philosophers. Though at times he expressesd a dislike for the term pantheism, if you read one of his biographies you'll see that he was in fact a pantheist. You are mistaken if you think that belief in God = belief in a personal god of the type expoused by many religions. That is only one form of belief in God.

2) He despised strident atheism..

3) Because he was asked this question so often he sometimes resorted to using the term "agnostic" just to avoid having to explain to the many shallow thinkers the subtleties of his beliefs which seem to elude those who are unable to grasp that one can believe in God without believing in an anthropomorphic god. He did not really like the term agnostic either since many, like you chose to define it narrowly. It simply served a purpose.

It's a fundamental error to conflate science with the existence or non existence of God.

Nope. Everybody who is stating, that there is something like a god has to bring proof.

Says who? One could just as easily say "Everybody who is stating that there is no god has to bring proof". Both are childish statements since existence or non-existence are both non-testable. Science only deals with testable hypotheses.

Many excellent scientists believe in God and many do not. They are not mutually exclusuve. The existence or non-existence of God is not a testable hypothesis and therefore not in the realm of science.

Wrong.

Which part? Both are factually correct statements.

I'm not choosing sides here in the God versus no god debate. That debate is futile and I find both religious zealotry and atheist zealotry offensive.  But it's poor form to misrepresent Einstein's (admittedly complex) views on the topic or the non-role for science in the debate in an attempt to further your side of the argument.

[TheAmmoniacal]

May be a stupid question but what is a default state if there is no possible comparison ?

Empty space is unstable and will inevitably spawn a universe. That's what it looks like.

[ggchab]

I believed space was related to dimensions and dimensions were related to universe.
So, there was something before the universe ? Where does it really start ?
Sorry to insist, but these questions have always puzzled me ...

[Fungus]

As long as religion (or anything else) is a personal belief that makes you happy and does not (negatively) influence your interaction with other people, is there any reason to debunk it?

Sure, but it isn't like that.

ALL mass religions create power structures that have an effect on governments and therefore on the non-participants. They must therefore be debunked. Vigorously.

And that's without going into the specific evils of: Islamic terrorists, Catholic pedophiles, machete-wielding witch hunters in Africa, Sharia stoning of women for being raped, Baptists trying to 'cure' Gay man with electric shocks, abortion clinic bombers, Nuns obstructing WHO vaccination programs, Aum Shinrikyo filling Japanese subways with poison gas, The Ku Klux Klan, Christians killing each other Northern Ireland, institutionalized misogyny, genital mutilation ...

It bears repeating: “Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion.”

[Fungus]

3) Because he was asked this question so often he sometimes resorted to using the term "agnostic" just to avoid having to explain to the many shallow thinkers the subtleties of his beliefs which seem to elude those who are unable to grasp that one can believe in God without believing in an anthropomorphic god.

This is getting closer to the truth. Many people thought he was trying to disprove god. He wanted to avoid that argument and focus on the science instead. He chose "agnostic" as a neutral label.

He did not really like the term agnostic either since many, like you chose to define it narrowly. It simply served a purpose.

Yep. We don't know exactly what he believed but we know that he wasn't religious and that "agnostic" was only a carefully chosen label.

[Fungus]

I believed space was related to dimensions and dimensions were related to universe.
So, there was something before the universe ? Where does it really start ?
Sorry to insist, but these questions have always puzzled me ...

Time is also a dimension. As we go backwards the dimensions of space collapse to a singularity and so does time. Asking what was "before" the universe is like asking what's to the north of the North Pole. It makes no sense and that's where your puzzlement comes from - asking the wrong question.

If we accept that time is a dimension that collapses to a singularity at the big bang we can change the question from "what was before the universe" to "what's outside the universe".

The answer is, "we don't know", but at least you're looking in the right direction now - outwards instead of backwards.

(ie. you can't go 'north' of the North Pole but you can travel upwards towards Polaris.  )

[ggchab]

ALL mass religions create power structures that have an effect on governments and therefore on the non-participants. They must therefore be debunked. Vigorously.

This is a sad human behavior and I fully agree we must fight against it.

If we accept that time is a dimension that collapses to a singularity at the big bang we can change the question from "what was before the universe" to "what's outside the universe".
The answer is, "we don't know"

So, that's the right question. Thank you for the explanations.

[mtdoc]

ALL mass religions create power structures that have an effect on governments and therefore on the non-participants. They must therefore be debunked. Vigorously.

I agree with the premise though I don't think "debunking vigorously" is really the best approach. While it's historically accurate that toture, death and destruction has been waged in the name of religion throughout history, strident anti-religion crusades run the same risk. Beliefs (or non-beliefs) tend to be very personal things which can illicit strong emotions and lead to the worst aspects of human tribalism.

I would say that vigorously opposing the destructive actions intead of attacking a persons beliefs is a better approach.

[yym]

I have read:
The blind watchmaker
Selfish gene
The greatest show on earth
On the origin of species

As well as many other studies which have been references in these books. After a few years it all makes sense.

Thanks for the books, I never heard of them, I will try to read some of them, I think I can agree with some of the things it says, like church and politics/government should be kept separate, church/organized religion can do bad things...

So I went to check out these books and I’ve found that all of them except the last one, are from the same author, who is a known atheist, some say that he is the atheist counterpart of the religious fundamentalists he criticizes.

The fact that all the books you mentioned have the same author surprised me a little bit. Would you call these book science? How this compares with the idea of science should not be authority based? How I see it, this is all one persons opinion on things. Isn't this a little bit one sided? Is it possible that a little bit of confirmation bias is at play here? In any case I would say that my impression of you was pretty spot on.

Here is some of the things Dawkins says:
“…Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information… On the bank of the Oxford canal...is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air...It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth…”
Huh? Whatta?

[TheAmmoniacal]

Richard Dawkins is a professor of animal behaviour (ethologist) that spent the latter half of his life popularizing and promoting the theory of evolution while combating religion. His books are all great and well-written.

Dawkins has a very gene-centric view of evolution, which I believe is essentially true, but he rarely discuss the more complicated nuances - which is my only criticism.

The Selfish Gene is the book that got me into science.

“…Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information… On the bank of the Oxford canal...is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air...It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth…”

Do you have a problem with the reductionism? He's talking about DNA as digital information (A-T, C-G), which when expressed in an organism executes like a series of instructions; a program. It's metaphor.

[yym]

“…Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information… On the bank of the Oxford canal...is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air...It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth…”

Do you have a problem with the reductionism? He's talking about DNA as digital information (A-T, C-G), which when expressed in an organism executes like a series of instructions; a program. It's metaphor.

No, not necessarily, but it is a little bit unexpected, and he explicitly says that it is not a metaphor, so 

[yym]

So much crap - so little time.

I wasn't going to get involved in this absurd little rant, but seeing you have put in such an effort....

Thank you for getting involved and don’t worry I’m not offended.

I’m sorry I was in the hurry and misquoted you, not that it changes the meaning too much. In any case, this was not meant as an insult to you. I used ‘you’ as a general ‘you’ like ‘one’, not personally to refer to you.
Anyway what I wanted to quote was “…they will never publicly recant any point or even listen to sound argument”. It is impossible for you to know that…that is not a statement, that is more of an attitude towards something (in this case religion), and my response was a ridicule of attitudes like that.

Ah ... here is your greatest fail.  The (I need to get the upper hand) character assassination.

Not that you deserve it - but I'll clear this up for you... Yes, I have an opinion and I will air it on occasions.  But here is a little fact that you have not bothered researching ... if I have been wrong about something - whether by being shown or having discovered myself - I have freely admitted it AND apologised.  You can even find examples here on the EEVblog forum.


I would like to suggest that you save yourself further embarrassment - but I would be rather surprised if you did.

The fact that you admit when you are wrong, is admirable, I was not trying to imply that you don’t do that. Kudos to you for doing that.

Could you please point out where I’ve embarrassed myself. I am really curios.
We all make small mistakes that we don’t even realize, but one doesn’t need to feel embarrassed about it.

Let me give you an example.  You say “..a little fact that you have not bothered researching..”, you see that was not the best choice of words, it sounds like you think that you and facts about you are a topic of research, it gives the impression that you are feeling all self important, superior, you see what I mean?
But you don’t need to be embarrassed about it, I’m sure it was just a poor choice of words, I’ll assume English is not your first language (as I would assume for many of us is not)

So, I’m not offended, I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, feel free to contribute to the discussion if you have more to say besides ‘much crap’.

[joeqsmith]

Watched all three.  I thought they both did a decent job putting it together.  Thank you for taking the time and making it available to the public.   

[Brumby]

We all make small mistakes that we don’t even realize, but one doesn’t need to feel embarrassed about it.

Let me give you an example.  You say “..a little fact that you have not bothered researching..”, you see that was not the best choice of words, it sounds like you think that you and facts about you are a topic of research, it gives the impression that you are feeling all self important, superior, you see what I mean?
But you don’t need to be embarrassed about it, I’m sure it was just a poor choice of words, I’ll assume English is not your first language (as I would assume for many of us is not)

So, I’m not offended, I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, feel free to contribute to the discussion if you have more to say besides ‘much crap’.

Could you please point out where I’ve embarrassed myself. I am really curios.

Q.E.D.

[yym]

Q.E.D.

I don't see your point, care to elaborate?
It doesn't look like anything to me..

[Brumby]

I don't see your point

That is the point.


Time to move on.  You've been fed more than enough.

[yym]

I don't see your point

That is the point.


Time to move on.  You've been fed more than enough.

If anything, this only serves to prove my point, here I am ... listening... and you have nothing to say.

[nctnico]

From the tone of your postings it is very clear you are not listening at all. Your mind is already set and you're just trying the read what you like. You can lead a horse to water but it has to drink by itself.

[daqq]

I don’t like or understand why you have to discuss topics like religion, this is electronics channel, so please keep to electronics, you will offend people regardless of your beliefs.

Why not discuss it? It's an interesting topic. Is there a list of not safe topics that people should not mention?

In the end science cannot prove or disprove God. Everyone is free to believe what they want.

Yes. Please try to explain this to religious organizations/individuals pushing pamphlets, public financing of little fantasy clubs, laws and nutjobs bearing explosives down non-believers throats.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Oh my God!

[Brumby]

Time to move on.  You've been fed more than enough.

If anything, this only serves to prove my point, here I am ... listening... and you have nothing to say.

Oh, I have plenty to say - but I will save it for those worth the effort.

You can claim my silence as a victory - something you have already done (which, by the way was as predictable as the sunset) - but that exists only in your mind.

I have little doubt you will try and save face - but that is going to be a hollow effort.  You have outed yourself by the nature of your posts ... and I'm not the only one who has noticed.

[rx8pilot]

So disappointed to see such a dysfunctional conversation.

[nctnico]

Debating with religious people is like debating with audiophools as Dave so neatly explained in one of the videos at the top of this thread.  It will go nowhere.

[Bud]

Do not bother arguing with user yym. If you go and check this individual's forum profile, the user technical contribution to this forum is zero. All the user does is bashing the forum owner. Interestingly enough, that started from Batteriser. Move on and do not feed the troll.

[Brumby]

I'm a bit disappointed with myself in having engaged with them as much as I did.

The pity of it is that they .....


You know, it's just not worth even finishing that sentence.

[Hugoneus]

Do not bother arguing with user yym. If you go and check this individual's forum profile, the user technical contribution to this forum is zero. All the user does is bashing the forum owner. Interestingly enough, that started from Batteriser. Move on and do not feed the troll.

That is why I stopped.

[josecamoessilva]

Debating with religious people is like debating with audiophools as Dave so neatly explained in one of the videos at the top of this thread.  It will go nowhere.

Yes, I saw that part too... not a high point in the video, IMNSHO.

I don't want to wade into another swamp like the debunkmania, still it's important to separate between reasonable audiophiles (vast majority), unreasonable audiophools (much fewer), and annoying audiosnobs (quite a few).

And in the interest of fairness, I should point out that a lot of people mocking audiophiles do so from a position of ignorance (not here, but at places like Head-Fi and other audiophile forums); including some who say überstupid things like "with digital, all that matters are the headphones."

[Fungus]

some who say überstupid things like "with digital, all that matters are the headphones."

It's not all that matters, but I can buy a very good headphone DAC for about $10, so... 

Datasheet: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm2704c.pdf


(there's also a version with audiophile capacitors in it for $14, but where's the fun in that?)

Edit: There's also one with audiophile capacitors AND an external audiophile op-amp for $16. Really go to town!

[josecamoessilva]

There's also one with audiophile capacitors AND an external audiophile op-amp for $16. Really go to town!

The car equivalent is: "I can buy a Fiat 500 for $15,000 so don't understand how anyone -- call them carphools -- would buy a Bugatti Veyron for $2,500,000. Basically they're the same."*

This was written for the Head-Fi forum, but it illuminates some of the traps between a digital file and power delivered to headphones:

http://sitacuisses.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-problem-with-wireless-earbuds-for.html

Most relevant for that DAC/Amp IC would be problem classes 3 and 4.

I'm a big fan of OpAmps, having used 1000s of 741s to make assorted sound machines in my teen years (analog synthesizer modules, think homemade-Moog Modular --- and if you get that reference without Google, well, hello fellow traveller), but as sound quality goes, I find them lacking in comparison to big power transistors fed by over-dimensioned PSUs, as in PSUs with minimal internal resistance. Yes, even for headphones it makes a difference.

Also, while I understand that this is no longer the 80s, so no dance parties at home, in my respectable years I do occasionally throw dinner parties, so the amplifiers have to drive speakers, it's kind of a social thing.

- - -
* Ironically, not being a car guy, I would get the same use from the Fiat 500 and the Veyron, but not everyone is like me; understanding that last clause is a major part of growing up.

[Brumby]

some who say überstupid things like "with digital, all that matters are the headphones."

I don't believe it is excessively stupid at all.

The weakest link in any sound system is the electro-acoustic transducer - a.k.a. the speakers (whatever the size).  Back in the day, it was a given.  The priority was you spend as much as you can on getting quality speakers, then work the rest of your system.

With digital, fidelity is pretty much ensured until you get into the linear signal processing - the amplifiers - and you can get good fidelity these days for quite reasonable cost.  This still leaves the speakers (or headphones) that need to be selected.  While this technology has advanced over the years, it is still the weakest link, especially when price is factored in.

So I see this statement - as literally stated - being founded on reasonable grounds, but it would be unwise for me to suggest that it's usage in the indicated circles actually follows this logic.

[Brumby]

Ironically, not being a car guy, I would get the same use from the Fiat 500 and the Veyron, but not everyone is like me; understanding that last clause is a major part of growing up.

For me, the fuel bill alone would dictate a very different usage pattern.

[nctnico]

some who say überstupid things like "with digital, all that matters are the headphones."

I don't believe it is excessively stupid at all.

The weakest link in any sound system is the electro-acoustic transducer - a.k.a. the speakers (whatever the size).  Back in the day, it was a given.  The priority was you spend as much as you can on getting quality speakers, then work the rest of your system.

True. At one point in my carreer I have designed pro-audio and PA equipment. For many of these installations getting the speakers right was the most complicated part. For the amplifying & switching part of the electronics what matters most is keeping the noise, clicks & plops and distortion low.

[josecamoessilva]

Well, since you insist here's why you need to care about more than the headphones (note that I didn't say headphones are unimportant, I said that people who think only headphones are important "because digital" are überidiots).

Even if you ignored the phase distortion that some DAC timing circuits introduce (noticeable if you listen to solo instruments like harpsichord and cello both live and in recording), the power needed for the amplification stage is crucial to sound quality. Computers, iPods, phones don't have enough power to deliver accurate dynamic range, even the 96db of a CD track. What happens is this:



You can actually see this on an oscilloscope, with a simple experimental rig; I did it in class circa the late 70s, but the image above is a simulation (from the post I linked before). My own amplifiers are 150W/ch, with a 1000W power supply in a separate enclosure. But then again, I can tell the difference between the house red and Screaming Eagle 1997; musically speaking, that is.

If you don't understand why the power supply matters, consider the Rint in the picture below. That's 1/3 of what matters, but it's the most obvious problem. Louder sound raises i, which leads to a drop in voltage Vin which leads to amplitude compression (not clipping like output stage saturation). Very noticeable in iPods if you know how to tell the difference, but you can always find a test pattern MP3 and an oscilloscope.



(Yes, it's just one side of the balanced power supply; because simple examples make the point clearer.)

Most audiophiles are reasonable and know that any real difference will be visible in an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer. Most people criticizing them just can't bear that others know what they like and are willing to pay for it.

As I said too, there are some audiosnobs (B&O, Beats, anyone?) and some audiophools (audiophile-grade cat-5 cable for $1000), but the vast majority of audiophiles are neither.

[Brumby]

Well, since you insist here's why you need to care about more than the headphones (note that I didn't say headphones are unimportant, I said that people who think only headphones are important "because digital" are überidiots).

It depends on how literally you are going to take the statement.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

With digital, fidelity is pretty much ensured until you get into the linear signal processing

Well not really, here you can see what compression can do to the poor audio signal:



I remember an electronics magazine of the 70s: ETI (Electronics Today International) IIRC those guys used to publish hifi amp designs almost monthly, improving here and there this and that month after month. Back then the power mosfets were something new. I'd bet they would have had a heart attack if they had known that in the future we were going to be doing that to our audios.

[DJohn]

I've only watched the first episode but I have to comment on the engineers and deadlines reference. That is so me. I can procrastinate until the cows come home, Bob's my uncle or being trapped as a young player, and then finish a sprint to the deadline and sort of get the product out. Have been doing that since attending university in 1980 really.

Anecdote time, with a dash of Myers-Briggs, so take it with whatever quantity of salt you like.

Once, when the management at a previous job made the apparently delusional decision that I might make a good team lead, I attended some 'leadership training'.  I ended up escaping the lead position, but the training was very interesting and I'm glad I had the chance to do it.

At the start, they gave us all the Myers-Briggs test, and split us into the appropriate groups for a series of exercises intended to show the differences in each axis.  One of them in particular stuck in my mind.  We were given a collection of kindergarten-level construction materials (paper, foil, glitter, pipe-cleaners, and so on) and told that the instructor wanted us to make a star.  We had five minutes.  Group A set to work making a plan, assigning each person a role, and made steady progress towards their star.  Group B (mine) started playing with the materials.

After a while the instructor announced that we had one minute left, and she had changed her mind.  Now she wanted a boat.  Group A nearly threw things at her.  They were NOT happy.  But group B... the sudden challenge felt good.  Someone's playing had resulted in something that looked a bit like a sail, and within seconds we had a boat.

When you know where you are, where you want to go, and how to get there, group A are brilliant.  They'll get the job done quickly and efficiently.  When things are uncertain and changing rapidly, group B will pull a miracle seemingly out of nowhere.

After reflecting on the way that I work, I am led to believe group B's 'playing' is an exploration of the problem domain.  Instead of steady progress to a known goal, we get familiar with the area around it, until we reach the point where we can quickly put together the things we've learned in a solution to any related problem.

That's useful in an emergency, but we can be a little sloppy with the details at times.  In the real world, you need both skills.

(Group A's boat was judged to be the best)

And anyone who doesn't like cats is wrong.  That's scientific fact.

[Fungus]

With digital, fidelity is pretty much ensured until you get into the linear signal processing

Well not really, here you can see what compression can do to the poor audio signal:

a) 128Kbits mp3 - 'nuff said.
b) How much of that is actually audible?

[Brumby]

With digital, fidelity is pretty much ensured until you get into the linear signal processing

Well not really, here you can see what compression can do to the poor audio signal:

Can't argue that ... but what I meant was: Once the signal is encoded (ie before it leaves the studio) fidelity is pretty much ensured until you get into the linear signal processing.

b) How much of that is actually audible?

That's a key part of the digitising process.

[Cliff Matthews]

@DJohn - Postmodern levels of clarity and the inability to distinguish "doesn't like" and "hate" is scientifically disturbing as well (a hallmark of the lost art of reading and video enchantment?).

[Fungus]

http://sitacuisses.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-problem-with-wireless-earbuds-for.html

Most relevant for that DAC/Amp IC would be problem classes 3 and 4.

The page doesn't exactly start off well...



Somebody needs to watch this a few times: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

The bit at 6:00 will be especially interesting.

Most relevant for that DAC/Amp IC would be problem classes 3 and 4.

Problem 1: Irrelevant

Problem 2: The chip in that DAC is responsible for outputting the individual samples at a stable rate, it doesn't depend at all on the timing of how it arrived there. It has an internal PLL running at 12MHz and something called "SpAct" for timing.

Problem 3: Red herring. Dynamic range simply doesn't work that way. A quiet sound doesn't have the same dynamic range as a loud sound.

Problem 4: I don't know much about that but I assume the engineers who make the chips do know how much current is needed for a pair of headphones and they make their chips accordingly. The datasheet says the output is in the two-digit milliwatt range. That's not a lot of current, a decoupling capacitor might be needed because of inductance but I don't see it as much of a challenge for a chip designer to output that much power.

FWIW: I own two of those, one with the extra op-amp and one without. ON paper the extra op-amp can supply three times as much current as the bare chip but I can't hear any difference between them on my fancy Audio Technicas. Maybe it's only needed for more 'difficult' headphones.

Speakers? I'll simply note here that nobody has yet taken up James Randi on the challenge to tell the difference between monster cables and Walmart lamp wire. Surely one has more resistance than the other! You could win a million bucks!

(Has anybody here actually measured instantaneous current going into a pair of speakers? Do we really need huge amounts of amps like those big amplifiers claim they can supply?)

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

b) How much of that is actually audible?

Every bit, more so when it's an mp3@128k hahaha.

[josecamoessilva]

Somebody needs to watch this a few times: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Whoa! I'll make sure to watch that to explain how sampling, quantization, and signal compression work... No.



Here, read this intro textbook, do the exercises. That's how you learn engineering (doing the exercises), especially when it gets technical.

Edit: Actually, given the context of your comment, you might want to read this one first (and do the exercises, that's how one learns engineering; that and building machines after doing the exercises):

[coppice]

http://sitacuisses.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-problem-with-wireless-earbuds-for.html

Most relevant for that DAC/Amp IC would be problem classes 3 and 4.

The page doesn't exactly start off well...

At least a ZOH view of signals is a step up from join the dots.

[Fungus]

On a side note: That page does make an interesting point about wireless earbuds in that left+right won't be exactly in phase, there will always be a slight difference between them (unless Apple is very clever and can reset their clocks wirelessly).

It's probably no worse than sitting a few millimeters from the exact center of your speakers though.

[nctnico]

If you don't understand why the power supply matters, consider the Rint in the picture below. That's 1/3 of what matters, but it's the most obvious problem. Louder sound raises i, which leads to a drop in voltage Vin which leads to amplitude compression

Buzz.... wrong! You are forgetting that the amplifier's control loop takes care of this. Google for PSRR. Since most current is supplied at the really low frequencies the PSRR doesn't even have to be really good to deal with this. Ofcourse this assumes the amplifier has been designed with enough headroom in the power supply (think 100Hz or 120Hz ripple on the capacitors!) not to clip the signal but that goes without saying. This also debunks your whole theory about iPhones. Sure they can supply 96dB but don't ramp the volume up so far they clip. IMHO you should read more real theory!

[Hugoneus]

If you don't understand why the power supply matters, consider the Rint in the picture below. That's 1/3 of what matters, but it's the most obvious problem. Louder sound raises i, which leads to a drop in voltage Vin which leads to amplitude compression

Buzz.... wrong! You are forgetting that the amplifier's control loop takes care of this. Google for PSRR. Since most current is supplied at the really low frequencies the PSRR doesn't even have to be really good to deal with this. Ofcourse this assumes the amplifier has been designed with enough headroom in the power supply (think 100Hz or 120Hz ripple on the capacitors!) not to clip the signal but that goes without saying. This also debunks your whole theory about iPhones. Sure they can supply 96dB but don't ramp the volume up so far they clip. IMHO you should read more real theory!

What is the nature of disagreement here? Sorry, it looks like I am missing something.

[nctnico]

If you don't understand why the power supply matters, consider the Rint in the picture below. That's 1/3 of what matters, but it's the most obvious problem. Louder sound raises i, which leads to a drop in voltage Vin which leads to amplitude compression

Buzz.... wrong! You are forgetting that the amplifier's control loop takes care of this. Google for PSRR. Since most current is supplied at the really low frequencies the PSRR doesn't even have to be really good to deal with this. Ofcourse this assumes the amplifier has been designed with enough headroom in the power supply (think 100Hz or 120Hz ripple on the capacitors!) not to clip the signal but that goes without saying. This also debunks your whole theory about iPhones. Sure they can supply 96dB but don't ramp the volume up so far they clip. IMHO you should read more real theory!

What is the nature of disagreement here? Sorry, it looks like I am missing something.

josecamoessilva seems to think that a drop in the power supply leads to a drop in the output amplitude of an audio amplifier. That just doesn't happen unless the power supply voltage drops below the design limits of the amplifier.

[Hugoneus]

If you don't understand why the power supply matters, consider the Rint in the picture below. That's 1/3 of what matters, but it's the most obvious problem. Louder sound raises i, which leads to a drop in voltage Vin which leads to amplitude compression

Buzz.... wrong! You are forgetting that the amplifier's control loop takes care of this. Google for PSRR. Since most current is supplied at the really low frequencies the PSRR doesn't even have to be really good to deal with this. Ofcourse this assumes the amplifier has been designed with enough headroom in the power supply (think 100Hz or 120Hz ripple on the capacitors!) not to clip the signal but that goes without saying. This also debunks your whole theory about iPhones. Sure they can supply 96dB but don't ramp the volume up so far they clip. IMHO you should read more real theory!

What is the nature of disagreement here? Sorry, it looks like I am missing something.

josecamoessilva seems to think that a drop in the power supply leads to a drop in the output amplitude of an audio amplifier. That just doesn't happen unless the power supply voltage drops below the design limits of the amplifier.

I see. Well in some circumstances when you design the amplifier and have a limitation on how high your supply can be, this could be a big program. For a lot of applications you just make sure that the supply is well decoupled and everything has sufficient PSRR. But of course as long as you have sufficient headroom you should be OK.

In car audio those crazy people who put 100's of Watts into their cars have to use huge multi-Farad capacitors to quiet down the power supply and avoid drops/distortion. I detest loud car stereos, why some people think everyone in a half-mile radius wants to listen to their terrible music is beyond me.

[rx8pilot]

TOPIC CHANGE:

Shariar - In your day to day work, how much of your time is spent on practical experiments? One of my high school friends is also a PhD EE that works for a prominent computer manufacturer. From the way he has described his job - he has lab technicians that do most of the setup and execution of various experiments that he designed. He has to make a specific effort to stay on top of the tools and techniques to make sure he is taking advantage of all available resources. Is that true in your world as well? The way you setup, conduct, and interpret your video experiments shows that you have pushed the button yourself enough to be nearly second nature. My gut feeling is that you have the personality that would go nuts if you never pushed the buttons and did the experiments yourself.

The Bell Labs lore is that folks in your position kind of design their job to best fit they way they work best - curious if that is based in reality.

[xrunner]

Shariar,

Hello! Watched most of your videos. As a cat owner staff myself I know how they are. Mine currently likes to take over my computer chair and sit by while I do bench work. I have seen your gray cat in several videos. Does yours like to take naps on warm test equipment?

Thanks for reading my question and for your informative videos. 

[Hugoneus]

TOPIC CHANGE:

Shariar - In your day to day work, how much of your time is spent on practical experiments? One of my high school friends is also a PhD EE that works for a prominent computer manufacturer. From the way he has described his job - he has lab technicians that do most of the setup and execution of various experiments that he designed. He has to make a specific effort to stay on top of the tools and techniques to make sure he is taking advantage of all available resources. Is that true in your world as well? The way you setup, conduct, and interpret your video experiments shows that you have pushed the button yourself enough to be nearly second nature. My gut feeling is that you have the personality that would go nuts if you never pushed the buttons and did the experiments yourself.

The Bell Labs lore is that folks in your position kind of design their job to best fit they way they work best - curious if that is based in reality.

Well, I am a researcher so I perform most of my own experiments. Especially because as an ASIC designer you really have to test your own ASICs, specially at mm-wave frequencies as the testing procedure is a skill in itself. I do get some help as I have trained one of my staff to help me out when I am really busy.

Plus who doesn't love to push buttons! 

[Hugoneus]

Shariar,

Hello! Watched most of your videos. As a cat owner staff myself I know how they are. Mine currently likes to take over my computer chair and sit by while I do bench work. I have seen your gray cat in several videos. Does yours like to take naps on warm test equipment?

Thanks for reading my question and for your informative videos. 

Pooch is very curios and likes to sit on top of the tallest instrument and observe what is going on. He also steals any Q-tip that is on the table, so I have to hide them. Same with shrink tubes, elastic bands and little shiny things.

[nctnico]

In car audio those crazy people who put 100's of Watts into their cars have to use huge multi-Farad capacitors to quiet down the power supply and avoid drops/distortion.

The only person who benefits from those capacitors is the one who marks them up 1000% and sells them. The internal resistance of a car battery is probably lower than the ESR of those capacitors. If you need to take a huge amount of power from a car battery you need the appropriate wiring though.


Edit: in a high power car amplifier there has to be a boost circuit which has to be controlled to a certain level. This will level out any power supply irregularities because in a car you can expect the voltage to vary between 10V and 17V (not taking load dump spikes into account).

[EEVblog]

Nope. This thing about Albert Einstein is an urban legend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Check your reference. Einstein did in fact believe in God, just not the anthropomorphic god promoted by many religions.

Why does this rubbish persist?

In his own handwriting:
http://www.livescience.com/23758-einstein-god-letter-auction.html
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition.

and

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

End of argument.

[EEVblog]

As long as religion (or anything else) is a personal belief that makes you happy and does not (negatively) influence your interaction with other people, is there any reason to debunk it?

Sure, but it isn't like that.
ALL mass religions create power structures that have an effect on governments and therefore on the non-participants. They must therefore be debunked. Vigorously.

Indeed.
And ridiculed instead of having their belief "respected", because, you know, it's religion, and religion is special 

It reminded of the classic Sam Harris line (because, on topic, Shahriar mentioned Sam Harris in our talk)

[EEVblog]

Carl Sagan's most misunderstood sentence was "extreme claims require extreme evidence," by which he meant that to persuade someone that their strongest-held beliefs are false, you need to make an overwhelming case to that person.

Please cite proof for that.
AFAIK that was not what he meant, nor has he ever suggested such in relation to that quote.
It comes from Cosmos when talking about UFO's:

[EEVblog]

I've only just found time to watch these videos, and I'd like to say how much I enjoyed them. One topic that you almost touched on I would have loved to hear you discuss - why are there so few women in electronics, and to a lesser extent, in technology generally?

Part social upbringing etc, part evolution and brain physiology and development etc that we most surely don't understand enough (borderline anything?) about.
The same can be said about countless different fields, for both a lack of men and women.

[EEVblog]

P.S. Why are these three videos not numbered 992, 993 and 994?

Because there is pressure to do something for #1000 but we don't really have much of a clue 

[EEVblog]

2) They didn't like the fact that I hate cats

Well, you are wrong about cats. 

No, I can say with 100% confidence and certainty that I hate cats.

Nobody is perfect!  But you've got to do something about hating cats though! It just ain't healthy... 

Knowing that expressing such a position pisses off a good percentage of the population keeps one very happy and healthy I can assure you

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Knowing that expressing such a position pisses off a good percentage of the population keeps one very happy and healthy I can assure you

That's something almost... religious.

[xrunner]

2) They didn't like the fact that I hate cats

Well, you are wrong about cats. 

No, I can say with 100% confidence and certainty that I hate cats.

Nobody is perfect!  But you've got to do something about hating cats though! It just ain't healthy... 

Knowing that expressing such a position pisses off a good percentage of the population keeps one very happy and healthy I can assure you

I'm so ready to post a pic of a cute adorable kitten I can hardly stand it ...

But I will resist that urge. 

[Fungus]

josecamoessilva seems to think that a drop in the power supply leads to a drop in the output amplitude of an audio amplifier. That just doesn't happen unless the power supply voltage drops below the design limits of the amplifier.

No, I think he's saying that as you increase the current to the speakers the voltage drop in the cables increases (Ohm's law). This somehow 'clips' the sound.

Any half-decent speaker cable will have resistance measured in milliohms so I can't imagine it will have an audible effect, but, hey... I haven't read many books and I think digital sound doesn't have stairsteps so what do I know? 


Math: A 200W amplifier produces 40V peaks. That gives about 5 amps into 8 Ohms.

A 3 meter cable with 3mm² of copper (quite skinny by speaker cable standards) has 12 milliohms of resistance there and back again. It loses 0.06 Volts in the cable. That's only 0.15% loss at a 200W peak into a skinny cable.

Conclusion: This diagram is massively exaggerated, methinks.



(Yes, I know it's not that simple because speakers are inductive and have to physically move the cone, etc., but those numbers will approach truth as the speaker cone reaches the end of its travel. )

Saying the speaker cone won't quite get there because of voltage loss in the cables doesn't pass the sniff test. Many other problems will be orders of magnitude bigger, eg.:
* Mechanical resistance to movement in the speaker cone (they're hard to push in/out).
* The inertia of the speaker cone making it go past the desired position when it gets there.
* Inductance in the wires/coils.

Note: Some manufacturers are now adding DSPs and mathematical speaker models to their amplifiers to correct for things like speaker cone inertia. Welcome to a brave new digital world, analog fanboys. 

[nctnico]

josecamoessilva seems to think that a drop in the power supply leads to a drop in the output amplitude of an audio amplifier. That just doesn't happen unless the power supply voltage drops below the design limits of the amplifier.

No, I think he's saying that as you increase the current to the speakers the voltage drop in the cables increases (Ohm's law). This somehow 'clips' the sound.

His picture says 'PSU' and 'Amplifier' not speaker cable. At low frequencies and high currents a thin speaker cable could cause a lot of losses but is has to be really bad before you notice it.

Math: A 200W amplifier produces 40V peaks. That gives about 5 amps into 8 Ohms.

No it doesn't. A speaker is an inductor so the impedance increases when the frequency gets higher. 8 Ohms is an impedance at a specific frequency.

[Fungus]

His picture says 'PSU' and 'Amplifier' not speaker cable.

The picture is this:


And he says:

Code: [Select]

Louder sound raises i, which leads to a drop in voltage Vin which leads to amplitude compression
(not clipping like output stage saturation). Very noticeable in iPods if you know how to tell the difference
OK, he's probably referring to power supply. In that case I guess the concept he's missing is "bypass capacitors".

(and even so, the same math applies: It simply won't be an issue unless you're using really crap cable)

Math: A 200W amplifier produces 40V peaks. That gives about 5 amps into 8 Ohms.

No it doesn't. A speaker is an inductor so the impedance increases when the frequency gets higher. 8 Ohms is an impedance at a specific frequency.

Yeah, I mentioned that.

I'm just trying to get a very finger in the air idea of the numbers. See if it passes the sniff test.

[mtdoc]

Nope. This thing about Albert Einstein is an urban legend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Check your reference. Einstein did in fact believe in God, just not the anthropomorphic god promoted by many religions.

Why does this rubbish persist?

In his own handwriting:
http://www.livescience.com/23758-einstein-god-letter-auction.html
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition.

and

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

End of argument.

Dave, you're making the classic mistake of arguing that the personal god put forward by many (but not all) of the worlds religions defines the concept of god in it's entirety.

As your quotes accurately demonstrate, Einstein did not believe it that type of personal god and felt it was a childish concept (I agree, FWIW) .  BUT - he did in fact believe in "God" in the non-personal sense - and as defined by Pantheism and elucidated by Spinoza.  This is not a minor point - though I realize it may appear that way to those who identify the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view of god to be all encompassing.

In his own words:

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals..'' My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend of the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

and

I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and doings of mankind.

So any blanket argument that Einstein had no believe in god in any form, is demonstrably false, regardless of any proclamations about "end of argument"

It  also seems clear that Einstein would be dismayed to see his lack of belief in a personal God being misused by strident atheists. Again, in is own words:

"[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres. "

And while he did not believe in a personal god, he specifically declined to try to persuade those who do. Again in his own words:

"such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."

BTW- as the links above indicate - those quotes come from:  Jammer, Max (2002). Einstein and Religion: physics and theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Highly recommended.

[josecamoessilva]

josecamoessilva seems to think that a drop in the power supply leads to a drop in the output amplitude of an audio amplifier. That just doesn't happen unless the power supply voltage drops below the design limits of the amplifier.

No, I think he's saying that as you increase the current to the speakers the voltage drop in the cables increases (Ohm's law). This somehow 'clips' the sound.

Conclusion: This diagram is massively exaggerated, methinks.

Sigh. Maybe "he" was talking about the power limitations of the apple wireless earbuds, and nonlinear response, not clipping, as per "his" actual post,

http://sitacuisses.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-problem-with-wireless-earbuds-for.html

as opposed to distorted representations of that post in the replies that aren't "his"; and making the sole point in this thread that

People who say that the only thing that matters in digital are the headphones, as a criticism of audiophiles, don't understand how a digital file becomes the analog signal driving the speaker.

(Which is a paraphrase of one of "his" replies above. Sourcing, it matters.)

The problems with the earbuds are larger versions of the problems with a cheap sound chip on a computer or discount phone. As per the previous analogy, most people who call all audiophiles audiophools are like non-car people saying that a Fiat 500 and a Bugatti Veyron are the same because they're both usable in a drive to the store.

Most audiophiles are reasonable, and painting them all as audiophools (there are some) or audiosnobs (there's a few) isn't an accurate representation of the crowd.

Note: Some manufacturers are now adding DSPs and mathematical speaker models to their amplifiers to correct for things like speaker cone inertia. Welcome to a brave new digital world, analog fanboys. 

Actually, people had been doing that for a long time with feedback control. It was a novelty in the late 70s, but still made it as a problem in tests when I was in college.

One of my classmates published a paper in the 80s about using the variations of the counter-inductive force in a speaker to determine (and compensate for) the frequency response of the speaker enclosure, without having to build a model a-priori. That's how old this idea is. (Unfortunately his name is Paulo Monteiro, which is second only to Jose Silva as the most common name in Portuguese.)

[josecamoessilva]

Carl Sagan's most misunderstood sentence was "extreme claims require extreme evidence," by which he meant that to persuade someone that their strongest-held beliefs are false, you need to make an overwhelming case to that person.

Please cite proof for that.
AFAIK that was not what he meant, nor has he ever suggested such in relation to that quote.
It comes from Cosmos when talking about UFO's:

Well, maybe my memory of Sagan was giving him too much credit then. But since this isn't literary criticism, where interpreting "The Source" is what matters, I'm happy to take credit for the idea in this paragraph:

To persuade someone that their strongest-held beliefs are false, you need to make an overwhelming case to that person. Mental midgets take that sentence to mean that "anyone whom I disagree with must prove to me that they're right," which is the opposite of how persuasion works.

And to point out that when the mode is discourse from atheists to religious is mockery, that only persuades the religious of one thing: that atheists are the adversary. That's all fine and dandy to monetize the atheists' echo chamber, but not out in the real world, where atheists are a small minority.  (I'm an agnostic, BTW, which is what most "atheists" are.)

[Fungus]

Sigh. Maybe "he" was talking about the power limitations of the apple wireless earbuds, and nonlinear response, not clipping, as per "his" actual post,

You posted that pink image as well:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-the-signal-path-discussion/msg1208808/#msg1208808

Clearly both things were open to discussion.

[Fungus]

And to point out that when the mode is discourse from atheists to religious is mockery, that only persuades the religious of one thing: that atheists are the adversary. That's all fine and dandy to monetize the atheists' echo chamber, but not out in the real world, where atheists are a small minority.

Nope. Mockery, if done well, is a powerful tool. See the "Elvis" video a few messages back for a good example.

The religious also use mockery, eg. "Evolution's only a theory", so why should they be spared?

If we all sit back and respect each other's beliefs then nothing will ever change.

[josecamoessilva]

Sigh. Maybe "he" was talking about the power limitations of the apple wireless earbuds, and nonlinear response, not clipping, as per "his" actual post,

You posted that pink image as well:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-the-signal-path-discussion/msg1208808/#msg1208808

Clearly both things were open to discussion.

That "pink picture" is true for every amplifier, the only difference is the Rint, which is very high for the earbuds. But I just realized you don't know even this little bit of high-school electronics, so I won't be elaborating on this anymore.

[Fungus]

That "pink picture" is true for every amplifier, the only difference is the Rint, which is very high for the earbuds. But I just realized you don't know even this little bit of high-school electronics.

You're right, I wasn't ever taught that!

Please enlighten me: How high is the Rint of Apple earbuds, exactly? (in Ohms).

[nctnico]

josecamoessilva seems to think that a drop in the power supply leads to a drop in the output amplitude of an audio amplifier. That just doesn't happen unless the power supply voltage drops below the design limits of the amplifier.

No, I think he's saying that as you increase the current to the speakers the voltage drop in the cables increases (Ohm's law). This somehow 'clips' the sound.

Conclusion: This diagram is massively exaggerated, methinks.

Sigh. Maybe "he" was talking about the power limitations of the apple wireless earbuds, and nonlinear response, not clipping, as per "his" actual post,

http://sitacuisses.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-problem-with-wireless-earbuds-for.html

Well this page is littered with nonsense and false assumptions so it is -to say the least- very far from accurate.

People who say that the only thing that matters in digital are the headphones, as a criticism of audiophiles, don't understand how a digital file becomes the analog signal driving the speaker.

And by this you are saying people who design audio electronics know jack sh*t about their jobs  Well thanks for that!

[EEVblog]

Dave, you're making the classic mistake of arguing that the personal god put forward by many (but not all) of the worlds religions defines the concept of god in it's entirety.
As your quotes accurately demonstrate, Einstein did not believe it that type of personal god and felt it was a childish concept (I agree, FWIW) .  BUT - he did in fact believe in "God" in the non-personal sense - and as defined by Pantheism and elucidated by Spinoza.  This is not a minor point - though I realize it may appear that way to those who identify the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view of god to be all encompassing.

No one cares about semantics like that, it adds zero value to any practical mode of discourse on issues with religion in the world.
You know that a personal god is all that matters to practically all of the religious population that's worth dealing with.
I will not debate this further.

[mtdoc]

Dave, you're making the classic mistake of arguing that the personal god put forward by many (but not all) of the worlds religions defines the concept of god in it's entirety.
As your quotes accurately demonstrate, Einstein did not believe it that type of personal god and felt it was a childish concept (I agree, FWIW) .  BUT - he did in fact believe in "God" in the non-personal sense - and as defined by Pantheism and elucidated by Spinoza.  This is not a minor point - though I realize it may appear that way to those who identify the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view of god to be all encompassing.

No one cares about semantics like that, it adds zero value to any practical discussion on religion.
You know that a personal god is all that matters to practically all of the religious population that's worth dealing with.
I will not debate this further.

It has nothing to do with semantics and it has everything to do with a discussion of religion.  Belief in god != religion.    And there are philosophies/religions with tens of millions of followers whose concept of god is almost identical to Spinoza's and Einstein's.  Those are just the facts, not semantics.  And many millions of people do care about that distinction.

Most people raised in a Judeo-Christian culture equate God with what those religions teach. Like them you seem to have a blindspot here. Don't kill the messenger. Embrace new knowledge.

FWIW - I find the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God just as childish as Einstein.  I just take issue with misrepresentation of Einstein's views since I've read quite a bit about them and find them fascinating.

[mtdoc]

There may be a creature somewhere in the universe with abilities and technology which would appear godlike to us (as we would appear to a peasant in the 5th century). But that is nothing like a god who supposedly cares about what your thoughts, what you eat, who you sleep with and whether you "believe" in him. To draw false equivalency in this manner is dishonest at best.

And I have done no such thing. Please read Einstein's words and what I posted. I was only clarifying his views by posting his words.  He would agree with what you wrote and so do I.

[nctnico]

One thing people should not forget is that today's common religions have been designed to be crowd control tools.

[mtdoc]

Can you point to a reference of these tens of millions? Regardless, lets assume 30 Million.

World population ~ 7.5 Billion
Atheists ~ 300 - 400 Million
The people you are talking about ~ 30 Million.

That would make ~ 0.5% of religious population of the world to fall in your category. Whoever these people are they don't "govern" any country neither. For all practical purposes we should focus on the remaining 95.5% for sociological discussions.

Its not that I think what you are saying is wrong, it just is not the concern of most people.

Good question. And now that I've looked it up, I vastly underestimated the numbers. There is some variation depending on the source but this Pew research report comes from a reputable, neutral source. Its numbers:

Buddhists - 488 million
Taoists - More than 8 million.

Those are the only "religions" (really more philosophies) whose precepts I am familiar enough with to state with certainty that they reject the personal God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam.  Their precepts are almost identical to the panthiest god concept that Spinoza elucidated to Western minds.

But in addition I believe there are other, admittedly smaller religions with a similar non-personal god foundation. In addition, one could argue that Hinduism - a religion with a very large following (1 Billion!)- does not adhere to a personal god.

Also, you must realize that there are many millions world wide who do not identify with any particular religion - who may call themselves at times "agnostic", who find the precepts of Judaism/Christianity/Islam ridiculous, yet who profess to have non-religious but "spiritual" beliefs in something beyond the physical universe.  The exact numbers of these are for obvious reasons impossible to quantify.

This whole topic can (an should IMO) be discussed in a intellectually sound, non- ideological manner, as it is in many philosophy and academic venues.  Einstein himself did this regularly - as his numerous writings on the topic demonstrate.   Unfortunately highly emotional religious and athiest zealotry seems to rear it's head whenever the topic is brought up or when Einstein's name is used to advance one's cause.

[hamster_nz]

Also, you must realize that there are many millions world wide who do not identify with any particular religion - who may call themselves at times "agnostic", who find the precepts of Judaism/Christianity/Islam ridiculous, yet who profess to have non-religious but "spiritual" beliefs in something beyond the physical universe.  The exact numbers of these are for obvious reasons impossible to quantify.

This whole topic can (an should IMO) be discussed in a intellectually sound, non- ideological manner, as it is in many philosophy and academic venues.  Einstein himself did this regularly - as his numerous writings on the topic demonstrate.   Unfortunately highly emotional religious and athiest zealotry seems to rear it's head whenever the topic is brought up or when Einstein's name is used to advance one's cause.

Discussing the quotes of a dead man is just about as good as quoting bits of any religious text - you can always cherry pick and/or recast the writings to support own world views, and the original author doesn't have a chance to correct any possible misinterpretation.

How about this Einstein quote:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

That clearly looks like him saying he is not religious. It sounds like he used "God" as a metaphor.

Being completely non-religious myself, I am constantly amazed at these sorts of discussions about the existence/non-existence of a God, and if so which one is correct one. They seem to all say that they are "the one true religion", and all the others are wrong. So my odds are on that they are all wrong.

What I find more interesting is if other peoples believe that their consciousness/spirit carries on after their death (to an afterlife, heaven/hell, reincarnation), which is really what it is really all about in the end. Discussing "What has a spirit and why? Do dogs have spirits and not ants?" is far more interesting than "which flavor of God exists".

I feel it would be rude to comment and not state where I stand. My own view is that what was created can be destroyed, and death is final. Most people find this view bleak and unpalatable, but it is most likely the true one.

[EEVblog]

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

That clearly looks like him saying he is not religious. It sounds like he used "God" as a metaphor.

That is precisely how he used it.
Unfortunately religious and or "spiritual" people like to claim Einstein as supporting them in some way, in a pathetic and desperate appeal to authority. As if what Einstein thought mattered a rats arse.
Atheists like to shoot down that connection very quickly, and rightly so. And you'd be very hard pressed to find a genuine atheist who uses Einstein as some appeal to authority like the religious people are so desperate to do.
The religious people do it all the time, claiming Einstein and any other scientist they can get their hands on, like Francis Collins. It's laughably embarrassing.

[mtdoc]

It's laughably uninformed to say that Einstein only used the word god only as metaphor.  The continued tactic of conflating religion with god is a sign of a lost argument.

Once again, Einstein in his own words:

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals..'' My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend of the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

and

I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and doings of mankind.

There are many, many more direct quotes where he uses the term "God" not as metaphor but as reference to something transcendental.

Again, he specifically said that while he did not believe in a personal god and found the teachings of Judaism/Christianity/Islam "childlike" he specifically favored that view over the athiest view saying:

"such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."

It's unfortunate that some chose, either due to lack of education regarding the broad meaning of the word "God" or due to their own agenda, conflate god with religion and presuming that all religions and non-religious people conceptualize god in the same way the followers of  Judaism/Christianity/Islam do.

And you'd be very hard pressed to find a genuine atheist who uses Einstein as some appeal to authority like the religious people are so desperate to do.

I would think not since Einstein specifically opposed the athiest ideology!  If religious people do, that's not justified either since he specifically was opposed to the religions he was familiar with (Judaism/Christianity/Islam).

Personally, my interest is not in any specific ideology and trying to argue that one is the "right" one is foolish. I am interested in the topic of religious and non-religious thinking as it pertains to both the physical and the transcendental. I find Einstein's views in this area incredibly interesting and hate to see them misrepresented.

He wrote extensively on this topic and if someone is truly interested I highly recommend Einstein and Religion: physics and theology.  which is published by Princeton University press where he worked and where his papers are archived.

If you have an argument with Einstein's views just say so. Insisting that when he says "I believe in Spinoza's God" he was using the term as metaphor is not factually correct.

[hamster_nz]

It's laughably uninformed to say that Einstein only used the word god as metaphor.  The continued tactic of conflating religion with god is a sign of a lost argument.

So, just to have look at Spinoza's God I read a few bits on it (interesting fact - this was around the same time that the first element was discovered):

In propositions one through fifteen of Part One, Spinoza presents the basic elements of his picture of God. God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

....

Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived

Looks like a philosopher thinking so hard he found an internally consistent delusion to follow. I will file it away beside with Unicorns, Leprechauns and Capricorns in my "folklore and mythology" section.

I don't think I was actually discussing if Einstein believed in God a (either a Theistic God, Henotheistic God, Deistic God, Abstract God, or Humanistic God, whatever) , just that an appeal to authority for the existance of God using quotes of (very great) somebody who has been dead for 60 years is of little value.

But granted, his writings do seem consistent with having a belief in an Abstract God - belief that the underlying order of the universe is 'devine', but not belief in a God with a will, emotion and morality.

[Fungus]

To me Einstein used the word "God" as a tool, he really meant "nature".

"God does not play dice" == "Nature does not play dice".

etc.

"Nature" was the thing he admired and was in awe of (as are most atheists).

PS: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/god_for_weasels.html

[mtdoc]

an appeal to authority for the existance of God using quotes of (very great) somebody who has been dead for 60 years is of little value..

I absolutely agree.  Any attempt to "prove" the existence or non-existence of God is folly and appealing to authority to do it is double folly!

Personally I consider myself a Dudeist and if you disagree with the tenets of Dudeism I say:

[hamster_nz]

PS: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/god_for_weasels.html

+1  Yes - exactly that!

[EEVblog]

But granted, his writings do seem consistent with having a belief in an Abstract God - belief that the underlying order of the universe is 'devine', but not belief in a God with a will, emotion and morality.

In today's practical word that's effectively lumped in with "spirituality", and for all practical purposes becomes "I don't believe in god" to Joe Average. You might as well say you believe in the flying spaghetti monster as the creator of the universe.

Let's not kid ourselves, the countless problems in the world related to "religion", and the reason why it's even worth debating, is almost 100% due to belief in a personal god, and a holy book which is the word of/inspired by (depending upon how wishy-washy you are) god (and almost exclusively the Abrahamic gods) . Nothing else is worth debating in terms of "religion".

If you want to debate the creation of the universe, the origin of life etc that does not involve any of the existing organised religions, then that is a different argument entirely, and to intermix the two is a mistake and entirely unproductive for a discussion on the role and effect of religion in society (which is at the heart of our discussion in this video in general). To debate the meaning of the word religion in this context is folly, and this is why I will not engage mtdoc on it.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Let's not kid ourselves, the countless problems in the world related to "religion", and the reason why it's even worth debating, is almost 100% due to belief in a personal god, and a holy book which is the word of/inspired by (depending upon how wishy-washy you are) god (and almost exclusively the Abrahamic gods) . Nothing else is worth debating in terms of "religion".

I can only speak for the Catholic Church in Spain and Germany which is what I have seen and know. This here has nothing to do with the preachers and Billy Grahams of the USA or the ayatollahs, that's cringeworthy and embarrasing. It's something both serious and lightweight, like a background task to remind us of simple silly little things in which we trust such as "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Thou shalt not steal" etc. Nowadays only (mostly) elders still go to the churches on Sundays, and they do so because of custom and tradition and mainly to see and perhaps chat with one another.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and you simply sound like an strident fool pretending that there is. And if you think they take the words of the Bible literally, even more fool yet.

So WRT to this religion, nowadays, and here, you're making much noise about nothing, I would say.

[TheAmmoniacal]

Ah yes, we all know how innocent the Catholic Church is.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

"Do as I say, not as I do "

[Fungus]

I can only speak for the Catholic Church in Spain and Germany which is what I have seen and know. This here has nothing to do with the preachers and Billy Grahams of the USA or the ayatollahs, that's cringeworthy and embarrasing. It's something both serious and lightweight

Apart from the 0.7% of tax revenue that gets passed to the church, all the public money that gets spent when the pope visits, the pedophile thing.

to remind us of simple silly little things in which we trust such as "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Thou shalt not steal" etc.

Do you need reminding of that? Isn't it common sense in a society?

Nowadays only (mostly) elders still go to the churches on Sundays, and they do so because of custom and tradition and mainly to see and perhaps chat with one another. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that

You can do that in a bar over un par de cervezas y unas bravas.

(and there's no need to listen to a sermon or pass around a collection plate).

So WRT to this religion, nowadays, and here, you're making so much noise about nothing, I would say.

Wouldn't you prefer to promote critical thought among the people and evidence-based government instead of the current situation in Spain?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Isn't it common sense in a society?

Not the "Thou shalt not steal" it seems. Seguro que sabes xq lo digo...

[xrunner]

Isn't it common sense in a society?

Not the "Thou shalt not steal" it seems. Seguro que sabes xq lo digo...

Right, but we don't need religion to agree that stealing will not be tolerated in societies. We just need to agree to live under common sense laws, which most societies do. To then attribute these common sense ideas to invisible deities is an extra unnecessary step.

[Fungus]

Isn't it common sense in a society?

Not the "Thou shalt not steal" it seems. Seguro que sabes xq lo digo...

Right, but we don't need religion to agree that stealing will not be tolerated in societies. We just need to agree to live under common sense laws, which most societies do. To then attribute these common sense ideas to invisible deities is an extra unnecessary step.

That rule isn't one of the Ten Commandments anyway, it's one of The Mosaic laws.

The Ten Commandments are here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:10-28

No mention of killing or stealing, just some stuff on blood sacrifices and cookery.

[mtdoc]

Let's not kid ourselves, the countless problems in the world related to "religion", and the reason why it's even worth debating, is almost 100% due to belief in a personal god, and a holy book which is the word of/inspired by (depending upon how wishy-washy you are) god (and almost exclusively the Abrahamic gods)

I absolutely agree. As I stated earlier in this thread, the amount of mayhem, torture and death in human history that is attributable to religious beliefs is staggering and it continues.  But as you say it is the Abrahamic religions Judaism/Christianity/Islam which have been responsible for this.  That excludes the religious beliefs of about 2 billion people.

If you want to debate the creation of the universe, the origin of life etc that does not involve any of the existing organised religions, then that is a different argument entirely, and to intermix the two is a mistake and entirely unproductive for a discussion on the role and effect of religion in society (which is at the heart of our discussion in this video in general).

I agree, but it's important to realize that despite what some may think, the majority of Christians, esp Catholics, do believe in evolution. (note I am not defending those religions, only pointing out facts). Here are the numbers for the US:



I find it depressing that a full third of the US population are creationists

To debate the meaning of the word religion in this context is folly, and this is why I will not engage mtdoc on it.

In my view, that was never up for debate. FWIW I fully accept the standard dictionary definitions of the word religion. My earlier comments were meant only to point out the fact that it is not synonymous with the word "god".

And - as always I appreciate the forum you provide to engage in such free spirited discussions. 

[Brumby]

Isn't it common sense in a society?

Not the "Thou shalt not steal" it seems. Seguro que sabes xq lo digo...

Right, but we don't need religion to agree that stealing will not be tolerated in societies. We just need to agree to live under common sense laws, which most societies do. To then attribute these common sense ideas to invisible deities is an extra unnecessary step.

That rule isn't one of the Ten Commandments anyway, it's one of The Mosaic laws.

The Ten Commandments are here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:10-28

No mention of killing or stealing, just some stuff on blood sacrifices and cookery.

?

My Google-fu puts the ten commandments at Exodus chapter 20.

[Fungus]

The Ten Commandments are here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:10-28

?
My Google-fu puts the ten commandments at Exodus chapter 20.

That's what they want you to believe, sure... 

The place it actually says "Ten Commandments" is Exodus 34:28.

[xrunner]

https://youtu.be/I48hr8HhDv0

[EEVblog]

Let's not kid ourselves, the countless problems in the world related to "religion", and the reason why it's even worth debating, is almost 100% due to belief in a personal god, and a holy book which is the word of/inspired by (depending upon how wishy-washy you are) god (and almost exclusively the Abrahamic gods) . Nothing else is worth debating in terms of "religion".

I can only speak for the Catholic Church in Spain and Germany which is what I have seen and know. This here has nothing to do with the preachers and Billy Grahams of the USA or the ayatollahs, that's cringeworthy and embarrasing. It's something both serious and lightweight, like a background task to remind us of simple silly little things in which we trust such as "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Thou shalt not steal" etc. Nowadays only (mostly) elders still go to the churches on Sundays, and they do so because of custom and tradition and mainly to see and perhaps chat with one another.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and you simply sound like an strident fool pretending that there is.

Wow, the ultimate straw man, well done 
People go to church to be social, therefore organised religion causes no major problems in society! 

And if you think they take the words of the Bible literally, even more fool yet.

Latest figure is still 24% of US citizens:
http://www.americanow.com/story/religion/2017/05/15/americans-who-believe-bible-literal-word-god-record-low
A small drop from 28% a few years ago:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx