Yes, you could be wrong & so could I but if you are going to invoke science & the scientific method then you need to demonstrate that it truly is the Scientific method & not just science(y) as many pseudo measurements & pseudo tests are
Comparative Listening Tests
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
- Status
Yes, you could be wrong & so could I but if you are going to invoke science & the scientific method then you need to demonstrate that it truly is the Scientific method & not just science(y) as many pseudo measurements & pseudo tests are
I could be wrong but well said, jkenny.
Funny. A friend told me 30 years ago to always be careful when somebody started off their sentence with "I could be wrong but..." because they were usually right. But then again, my friend could have been wrong.
These words are intrinsic to most audiophile statements and opinions. Audiophiles are not expected to write it every time they write an enthusiastic comment or an opinion.
Curiously audio scientists already told us what they think about stereo sound reproduction and its limitations, and why the outcome of stereo is so unpredictable. Why should we expect to use the methods of rigorous science in the high-end field, where science is currently of little help - and besides, in all fairness, shows almost no interest?
Good explanation. As far as IC's I think this phenomena can be heard in the break in process. My experience has been as the sound changes between being more direct and diffused. I think it very possible that gain levels increase as resolution increases past a certain point.
No one with intellectual honesty stated it did not apply. It is indeed axiomatic with the scientific community, at least those with an understanding of the scientific method and intellectual honesty. Why should what I stated not apply at least equally to an audiophile? I would suggest an audiophile is not exempt from the possibility of error or misjudgment. For some, the hardest two words to utter are "I'm sorry", but for audiophiles it is "I could be wrong".Ron, I could be wrong but IMO, everything you said should apply equally to the scientific community and perhaps even more so.
Sure, people *believe* all kinds of things. The scientific method isn't concerned with that.
*If" I am supposed to read each and every post here as just an opinion, sure.
Micro, I enjoy reading your posts but in this one instance, well... I'll just leave it alone.
To my mind - audio forums are mostly about sharing opinions about music, playback equipment - except when people start to invoke the science(y) stuff as if it's incontrovertible
So, Ron, how do you know when true science is being applied & the scientific method adhered to & when do you know if it's just pseudo science?
Do you believe that someone who never admits they are wrong is following the scientific method or just pretending?
Agreed that it should go without saying. But just as in every other industry, the sciene community includes many hacks, bush-leaguers, and also-rans and that is never mentioned, except by me and perhaps a few others. In high-end audio (and perhaps every other industry), we have so many science types who IMO cause much damage for the industry's lack of performance and potential growth, including much psuedo science, such that IMO it should never go without saying.
Case-in-point. I can tell you where, when, and by whom Global Warming originated and for what intended purpose. Moreover, I can tell you why and when the phrase Global Warming ceased being used almost overnight and instead use the phrase "Climate Change". I can also tell you which "scientists" willingly parpticipated in this matter. And science had nothing to do with anything except help perpetuate matters.
Thanks for helping me make a point.
I understand to a large extent the degree of junk science which exists since I deal with it on a daily basis in my livelihood. As I think you readily acknowledge, however, none of that invalidates the scientific method, to state nothing of the overwhelming abundance of, shall we say, *non-junk* science.
But why the focus on junk science? In the exercise of, shall I repeat it again, intellectual honesty we're, or at least I am, not here to validate what is, as you called it, pseudo science. So let me repeat, particularly given the context of this thread and the profound OP by Ron Resnick:
Maybe I missed it - it surely wouldn't be the first time - but has anyone in this thread actually acknowledged that maybe, just maybe, Peter did not really hear a difference? I'm not stating he did, nor am I stating he did not. I applaud Peter for his humility and open-mindedness.
As to the rest of your post, I won't go there.
Why the focus on as you say junk science? Because many of us here who are not well-trained nor well-educated in the sciences seem all too willing to just trust the science type when they say something "scientific". Whereas perhaps somebody like youself is better equipped to more easily and instinctively discern the wheat from the chaff.
If you skimmed many of the threads here or perhaps in many high-end audio websites, you should notice that the vast majority of threads engaging in potentially otherwise meaningful or constructive dialogue suddenly nosedive when the "science types" intervene as they appear wont to do.
Moreover, it doesn't take much for many of us to latch onto and join with the "science type", regardless of their real intelect or expertise. Perhaps because none of us want to look the fool by believing something so nonsensical as bumble bees flying when in time past science dictated it impossible.
Lastly, I get the impression that many-to-most of the science types (maybe all the hacks, bush-leaguers, and also-rans) seem to behave as though everything to be invented or discovered has already been invented and discovered. Hence, if it's not in a science textbook, it must be invalid and discarded. And there ain't nothing scientific about that sort of attitude.
For me personally, I often times consider the science types to be of the most closed-minded of all.
Ahhhhh. Proof the scientific method does work.
You're clearly ignoring my question and answering one(s) I never asked. I won't ask you the question again. I wish you the best of luck and success in your endeavors.
Why the focus on as you say junk science? Because many of us here who are not well-trained nor well-educated in the sciences seem all too willing to just trust the science type when they say something "scientific". Whereas perhaps somebody like youself is better equipped to more easily and instinctively discern the wheat from the chaff.
If you skimmed many of the threads here or perhaps in many high-end audio websites, you should notice that the vast majority of threads engaging in potentially otherwise meaningful or constructive dialogue suddenly nosedive when the "science types" intervene as they appear wont to do.
Moreover, it doesn't take much for many of us to latch onto and join with the "science type", regardless of their real intelect or expertise. Perhaps because none of us want to look the fool by believing something so nonsensical as bumble bees flying when in time past science dictated it impossible.
Lastly, I get the impression that many-to-most of the science types (maybe all the hacks, bush-league, and also-rans) seem to behave as though everything to be invented or discovered has already been invented and discovered. Hence, if it's not in a science textbook, it must be invalid and discarded. And there ain't nothing scientific about that sort of attitude.
Ahhhhh. Proof the scientific method does work.
Yes as we see this nosedive often when Amir intervenes
What we also see this "junk information" from him in the (I paraphrase) 'oversampling done in FFTs & the low noise floor' " Summed up by Opus in this post
Some actually thanked him for this junk information & rather than admit he was wrong he continued to try to defend this - scientific method, be damned! Intellectual honesty, be damned!
Disappeared for two weeks & has now resumed posting - no doubt hoping people will have forgotten about his antics
It's not the first time - he served up similar misinformed "junk info" with his claim that asynchronous USB protocol has a resend function & rather than admit he was wrong, attempted to claim it was John Swenson who told him this.
Is this the sort of scientific method Ron believe in?
Ummm, I'm pretty sure you asked why the focus on junk science, did you not? And did I not answer that question hopefully sufficiently - based on this post and your previous posts?
And if I chose to ignore your other questions, assuming they were directed at me, and I did not answer, perhaps those other questions were more irrelevant to me or to the point I thought should be made. Or maybe I just forgot.
No worries. I suppose this is the time for me to wish you the best as well.
jkenny, I can't speak to any of your specifics here, but in general - absolutely. In addition to my considering some-to-many science types being of the most closed-minded, I also happen to think they are among the most arrogant and tin-eared. For example. How dare you question science? or I know this "scientific fact" and you don't and if you question me, you question science.
Most importantly, it matters not one iota how something may actually sound in reality, so long as they get to play paper tiger on the internet. Such attitudes in these threads seem to be a good way to draw attention to themselves and usually at the cost of potential performance considerations to many. This is why I find these types so destructive to the industry's potential growth from a performance perspective.
IMO, anyway.
Interesting... that's pretty close to my theory on the subject. My ICs and SCs have been reported to result in increased SPL many times. I was kinda hoping Klaus had an answer as I don't feel like an actual increase in SPL is possible, yet is was heard by someone who doesn't think cables make a difference with no explanation given for such an "impossible' phenomenon.
I have one cable that does increase in SPL during the burn-in period and it's super obvious when actually listening. Measurements agree but I'm not claiming anything definitive, it was a very simple test just to see if gross differences could be captured... My other cables are more subtle and while they definitely burn-in, it's not to the extent of the litz wire speaker cables which have massive surface area in contact with the dielectric vs conventional wire.
- Status
Similar threads
