The best
Telecommunications & Sensors books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Telecommunications & Sensors books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Telecommunications & Sensors books:
Many of them are Baby Boomers or Gen Xers who were exposed to plenty of education and critical thinking as they were growing up. However, there's the idea that in the information age, we are bombarded with so much information and stimulation that it is hard to begin to filter out the junk. It becomes much easier to simply pick a single source of information and label that as "trusted", than to be constantly scrutinizing all the information you get from everywhere.
This phenomenon was predicted as far back as the 80s, with the rise of cable TV and mass media advertising. There's an interesting part of a book called Amusing Ourselves to Death (https://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X) where the author proposes that modern governments don't need to limit the amount of information their citizens have access to in order to control them. All they have to do is overload them with nonsense, making them unable to effectively process the quality information they do receive.
I am hopeful for the future, because our current generation was raised in the Information Age, and we've been exposed to this environment since our early years. We are more adept at navigating the internet, and therefore investigating the reliability of our sources of information. Our relative youth makes us less stubborn than people in their 50s or 60s.
There's a book on the topic that I've been meaning to read: https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Their-Own-Invented-Hollywood/dp/0385265573/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=empire+of+their+own&qid=1568575461&s=gateway&sr=8-1
The short answer is that the entertainment industry has historically been open to people who are marginalized from other career paths. So disproportionate representation of minorities in the performing arts is something that you often see across cultures and throughout history.
Yep. It also contributes to the vicious cycle of partisan politics. The Internet has made it so easy to find people with similar views, it leads to folks becoming even more emotionally invested in those beliefs, to the point where it gets increasingly difficult to consider other points of view. That's why you and Grandma will laugh at each other WAY more than you'll consider each other's points. On top of the fact that we're all using memes to make fun of each other, you're already conditioned to support other folks who agree with you.
By the way, it's not just social media and human nature causing the problem. Google is making it worse too. Consider reading up on the concept of a filter bubble, and if it strikes your fancy, I just started reading a book I'm recommending to a lot of people called The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. Basically, when Google, Amazon, and other sites try to tailor search results and ads to what they already know you like and agree with, you become even less likely to be introduced to viewpoints outside of our own.
We can talk all day long about how partisan and segregated we are in today's global society, but in reality, it's the things that connect us that are feeding the problem.
​
Years ago I got my 2 year degree in electronics. Afterwards I ran across this book and it filled in ALOT of blanks with more layman explanations.
Yep. I've been recommending Postman's book for years:
>What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
https://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X
> But as we all know you can't really "quantify" or review speakers objectively.
Actually, you can. Researcher Floyd Toole is probably the best authority on this, and you should check out his research over the decades.
>In [1965], while preparing for sound localization experiments, Toole was surprised to discover that well-regarded speakers of the time did not measure well in the anechoic chamber—they were flawed in different ways. However he discovered that listeners in unbiased blind testing agreed on what sounded good and the loudspeakers that sounded best exhibited the best measurements. This led to progressive improvements in the anechoic descriptions of loudspeaker performance and to better methods of eliciting trustworthy opinions from listeners. There were, in effect, two parallel measurements: one technical and one subjective. The NRCC provided facilities for both, something not available to most designers and audio product reviewers.
>Toole published these findings in Canadian audio publications, through which he made contact with Canadian loudspeaker makers who began to rent the NRCC facilities for product development. Later some U.S. companies joined. The science-based process evolved and good sounding loudspeakers became more common. (Emphasis added).
If you're at all interested in the subject, I highly recommend you get his book. It will be one of the best investments you've ever made in audio as a hobby (or profession), and it could save you quite a bit of money if it keeps you from overpaying in certain areas.
The book Tubes has a very good history of this. It's been awhile since I read it, but as I recall a group of telecom executives, over lunch at Tortilla Factory, hammered out plans to interconnect their networks, creating a large switch in northern VA. For awhile the hardware was in a parking garage (I think in Tyson's Corner), but as the internet grew, a lot of infrastructure ended up in Ashburn because land was much cheaper. Being near a switch like this is good for data centers because it is cheaper to connect to the network and reduces latency
Specific to electromagnetic waves, a simple sine wave carrier is actually a spiral in 3-space. So it's complex. Looking at a 2d projection/slice is sort of ... wrong. The physical reality of radio waves is that they're inherently complex.
You can look at the cover or Rick Lyons' "Understanding Digital Signal Processing" for a picture of this.
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Digital-Signal-Processing-3rd/dp/0137027419
https://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X
The title in the comment was a joke.
For anyone interested in the technical history of how we got here, The Idea Factory (Amazon Smile link) is a really fascinating read. It details the major players within Bell Labs (the research division, not business or development) from the 30s up until the 90s/today. While I'm sure the antitrust suit was beneficial for the average person, by the end of the book I was really rooting for Bell Labs to keep the guaranteed funding ensured by the monopoly.
The people who worked in this lab were responsible for the vacuum tube, transistor, solar panel, laser, satellites, cellular phones... the research for all of those breakthroughs was done in a single lab, funded by the monopoly. A huge part of why the modern world as we know it today exists is because of the monopoly that was dismantled in the 80s.
Sort of. You're combining at least three separate concepts.
1) Speaker Boundary Interference (SBIR) - above a frequency proportional to the distance to the rear wall, the reflection will interfere with the direct sound. Shorter distances affect higher frequencies that tend to be more directional and not seen by the wall anyways.
2) Boundary gain - below a frequency, the rear wall reinforces (~+6dB) the bass response of the speaker. This can be shelved down in DSP to mitigate. The owner of the system pictured does so.
3) Port vent - the tuned port extends the response of the system but a wall won't affect it that much. The rule of thumb is a distance of 1-2x the port diameter from the wall to not change the port performance.
The reason why ports and wall placement often come up together is because boundary gain can be offset by plugging the port.
Also, this system belongs to Dr. Floyd Toole who was the VP of research for Harman. They literally wrote the book on sound reproduction.
Is the placement ideal? Not really. Does Reddit know better? Not really.
In their book, they describe a few of the steps that they took to mitigate some of the problems that I listed above. Maintaining livable space was more important than the small hifi improvements.
Okay, well I guess this entire book about Jews creating Hollywood is just bullshit, and all the scholarly articles about immigrant Jews creating and maintaining (aka running) Hollywood through the early years through the Golden age are nonsensical, in part because Walt Disney was also there, being not Jewish
I highly recommend the following book to educate yourself on acoustics and sound reproduction. This is great reading material and gives much needed answers and ideas of how to improve sounds in various settings.
You’ll enjoy it. It’s about the way media has been deliberately dumbed down to the point where actors and idiots are now treated as serious sources of information, and how that process has poisoned modern life and politics.
Just look at the reviews on Amazon!
I think Neil Postman should be required reading.
https://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X
So out of all of the "circumstances" you've considered, the only outcome you can conclude is that Kanye must 100% be bipolar. Good detective work Sherlock, I think you've cracked it. 🤦
Now, seeing as Kanye West is certainly not the only person in the public spotlight to claim that Jews run Hollywood. In your opinion, are all the others who made this claim bipolar too?
Maybe the author of this book from '89 was bipolar too... What do you think? 🤷
https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Their-Own-Invented-Hollywood/dp/0385265573#
Why are you even here in this sub if you don't believe in conspiracy theories? What is your motive?
Maybe because Anti-Semites from a hero hurts.
But anyway read An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood if you actually care how Hollywood started.
[Understanding DSP (third edition)](https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Digital-Signal-Processing-United/dp/0137027419) by Rick Lyons is very good and very accessible.
Well, measurements like directivity and estimated room response are very good indicators of the sound of a speaker. For example Audioholics has made quite a few articles trying to explain that to people. Of course the Dr. Floyd Toole’s book and all other research he has been part of are perhaps the most known research of that.
"Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. Check it out. It's going down in real time and we're all eating it up. Times have changed slightly since then, as Postman was mostly exploring the negative impacts of television media. But modern changes have only exacerbated the problem, looking at the onset of meme propaganda and social media.
https://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X
> My own interpretation of the data probably won't be very good at this point, but if his stuff is consistent, it'll hopefully be a useful source to learn from.
For really learning about speakers, I'd refer you to this book as it's based on research by Floyd Toole. For those that value objective measurements his research is effectively the gospel as he basically built the standard at NRC and Harman.
Other than that there's a lot of independent research one can do. Reading back into Sean Olive's blog (picked up Floyd's torch), and videos/presentations by them and Andrew Jones (leans engineering oriented).
Those are going to be some of the loudest voices when it comes to measurements, their usefulness, shortcomings if applicable, etc.
This just helps put America's obsession with "celebrities" on full display. We rarely care enough to get the names of those not famous unless it was somehow entertaining, and this could be for better, or worse.
I'm really sorry she was shoved to the ground. I'm really sorry that America continues to show why it is a country with deep-rooted problems that no one wants to really delve into because we're too busy amusing ourselves to death.
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms
Harman has done a lot of speaker preference testing. The testers performed worse with multi channel and "discontinuous and narrow band signals". Note that these are double blind critical listening tests. Testers are completely focused on the sound. Add a picture and story to the mix, and I think the differences will be even less.
Thank you kindly!
Sometimes I wonder if I'd still be in science if I had done something a bit more practical, like engineering. I have a huge interest in electrical engineering and took a bunch of classes -- I even remember the book we used -- Horowitz and Hell. Man, that book was obnoxiously difficult, but so much fun!
But I can't regret it. For 7 years I studied my passion, met awesome crazy-smart people, and made my own little piece of contribution to humankind's knowledge. And now I have a career on Wall Street, which has been kind to me.
I guess I'm now on that long, long coast to retirement. I have small kids, stable job, and I'll be doing this for the next few decades. Maybe I'll return to research when I retire!
That makes sense. Control rooms tend to actually be treated.
If a control room has 10dB of room gain, I'd say it really needs acoustic treatment. Years ago when LEDE was very popular, getting rid of everything that isn't the direct sound was the goal. It's not unreasonable to end up with a nearly dead room in that case.
The paper is dense but it's practically become the Bible for residential listening rooms. Certainly worth the read, in my opinion. It's a compliment to his book Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms which expands on it quite a bit.
Man I forgot about this website. Helped to bounce Oppenheim off this website to just condense it down into something practical
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0137027419
This was also a very practical book. You can probably find the international edition on eBay for cheaper
> We have a lot to thank AT+T Bell Labs for.
I read a great book about this a couple years ago. The good thing that came out of that monopoly was a steady stream of income from subscribers. It allowed AT&T/Bell to super-over-engineer its network and invest in pure research. Imagine if Google or Amazon used even a chunk of their monopoly money on stuff like this. Companies just don't have "labs" anymore where they pay genius scientists to work on hard problems that don't have a six-month ROI.
Although -- I don't miss having to pay 50 cents a minute to make long distance phone calls anymore. Not sure where that tipping point lies these days...I'm in the minority that would happily pay Google for a non-spyware verstion of its services.