I think I have found my soul mate: Jim Austin's of Stereophile

[amirm]

Thanks John!

OK you all, tell me how you really feel now.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I just read it, searching for a soul mate. That's it? A page and a half of "you can't prove a negative" followed by a note that he'd still like to see something to help differentiate between good engineering and snake oil?

That a position so benign, so basic and obvious, stirred any controversy at all says more about the bizarre anti-science of the industry/hobby than anything in his article. That someone out there found an opportunity to take it personally just speaks to a need for better pharmacology.

Tim

 

[amirm]

I just read it, searching for a soul mate. That's it? A page and a half of "you can't prove a negative" followed by a note that he'd still like to see something to help differentiate between good engineering and snake oil?

You and I must have read a different argument. How is this part about " you can't prove a negative?"

"Yet science—and scientific testing—has much to offer audio. Audiophiles ought to embrace scientific methods with the same healthy skepticism with which they embrace sighted, subjective equipment evaluations: as a tool that, though subject to misuse, is invaluable in the hands of honest people with the right set of skills.

One form of testing that's especially important—and especially controversial—is the use of rigorous methods to validate apparent perceptions: Did you really hear what you thought you heard? Is the sound really different with that new amplifier/cable/CD player from what it was with the old one? Does putting that photo in the freezer really change the way the system sounds?"

That a position so benign, so basic and obvious, stirred any controversy at all says more about the bizarre anti-science of the industry/hobby than anything in his article. That someone out there found an opportunity to take it personally just speaks to a need for better pharmacology.

Tim

An editorial like this in a magazine which routinely reviews high-end product is controversial. It attempts to elevate the importance of science and identifies how writers have enough freedom to take any position they like without being "wrong." It is being self-critical of its own industry.

BTW, the article many be short but it the writing style is beautiful in my opinion. Certainly a lot better than mine .

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I read the article and liked it.

I particularly liked these parts. (emphasis is mine):

Subjectivists, meanwhile, sometimes seem to intentionally hold themselves up for ridicule. A few audio writers, especially for the online 'zines, seem eager to prostitute themselves for the latest preposterous product

I , also, found the piece too short. Would have been much satisfying to develop the subject more. High End Audio needs such shot in the arm

 

[amirm]

It seems that some industry experts aren't thrilled with your new soul mate:

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=critics&m=54189

Yes, we noted that earlier in the thread . He seems to be fighting a different fight....

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You and I must have read a different argument.

I think we did. I read this one:

And here's a crucial point that's often overlooked by people on the objectivist side: While a positive result establishes the reality of a perception to a certain level of confidence, a null result—a failure to reliably detect a difference—does not indicate the nonexistence of that difference.

And felt it suck the life out of everything productive, and controversial, that was said around it. An overreaction, perhaps, but only because it gives the stalest old argument it's road-weary exit:

"I hear it, therefore it is."

Yes, I suppose it is a bit controversial in an audiophile publication, even one that once had the guts to publish listening tests indicating the inability to differentiate between a Pioneer receiver and an esoteric high-end amp. But it hedged. It could have spoken of the statistical discipline that can virtually remove doubt from such studies through controls and adequate sampling, referenced that and other examples, then followed-through with something like:

"Do you still hear what you hear with your eyes open? Of course you do. Now let's examine the odds that there's actually something there that audiophiles hear, even though it fails to be identified in carefully-constructed, statistically-valid studies, vs. the likelihood of expectation bias."

That would have been courageous. Suggesting that a scientific endeavor might benefit from not denying science quite so much? That was careful.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Man, you guys sure take editorials seriously.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Man, you guys sure take editorials seriously.

Point well-taken.

Tim

 

[amirm]

I think we did. I read this one:

Well, I said he was my soul mate, not yours . Indeed, for anyone believing in extreme right or left, his writing would not ring true. But for someone like me who believes there is merit in both, I think he nicely outlined the justification and reasoning for both, without trying to be politically correct.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well, I said he was my soul mate, not yours . Indeed, for anyone believing in extreme right or left, his writing would not ring true. But for someone like me who believes there is merit in both, I think he nicely outlined the justification and reasoning for both, without trying to be politically correct.

I believe there is merit in both as well, Amir. And I think being politically correct is precisely the problem with the editorial. To me it seemed that he stopped well short of making a case that was easily there for him, and seriously needs to be made. Why? I suspect it is because he is heavily invested in the very industry that doesn't want to hear it, but I can't read the man's mind.

Tim