WBF: How Much Science Talk Do You Want to See?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us and importantly voting. So that I am clear, you would be in favor of discussion of science even if it goes completely against your understanding of audio, and said science casts your favorite audio product in bad light? I ask because that is what discussion of audio science is liable to do at times if your decisions have not been based on it. When you say you like the discussion of audio science, want to make sure you really do.
Amir, is there room to question or disagree with certain audio testing methodologies, or must we accept them as audio science fact? Can we also not decide for ourselves how much we allow audio science to factor into our decision making?
Ack reads and understands the patents for some of his components. In these cases, he is basing his decisions, at least in part, on the audio science, or electrical science, that was used in creating these products. It seems in the case of the Harmon testing of the ML speakers, Ack does not place the same value on that data because it does not seem to correspond with his many years of experience listening to those speakers.
It seems to be a very reasonable and open minded approach.
Ack has for years criticized the use of Transparent Audio cables in my system. I will not go into the details as to why, except to say that he does not respect their science, as he has written in this forum many times. I take no small pleasure in reminding him that they sound great in my system, and he seems to agree.
Even though I'm between the yellow & mauve options, I had to pick one option & when push came to shove I came down on the side of the yellow option. I did so as I think that audio science is crucial but not yet sophisticated enough to be critical.
What first attracted me to this forum was the quality of technical information delivered in a way that wasn't arrogant. In other words I liked the fact that audio science was up for discussion almost as much as subjective viewpoints were. There may have been some waxing & waning in this approach over the lifetime of this forum but it still retains this lack of arrogance about science which is still somewhat unusual on audio forums.
So, let's retain a true scientific inquisitiveness & not fall into the stock arrogant attitude that permeates many forums where science & audio intermingle.
What first attracted me to this forum was the quality of technical information delivered in a way that wasn't arrogant. In other words I liked the fact that audio science was up for discussion almost as much as subjective viewpoints were. There may have been some waxing & waning in this approach over the lifetime of this forum but it still retains this lack of arrogance about science which is still somewhat unusual on audio forums.
So, let's retain a true scientific inquisitiveness & not fall into the stock arrogant attitude that permeates many forums where science & audio intermingle.
The forum should be a place where we can have thoughts of the hard core science people as well as the subjective people. No one forces people to read what they aren't interested in.
As far as the food discussions which "politely" hijacked a few threads, they seem more like a mockery of the original theme of the thread than anything else. So be it.
I'm interested in all aspects and thoughts in the hobby whether or not I agree necessarily with them.
As far as the food discussions which "politely" hijacked a few threads, they seem more like a mockery of the original theme of the thread than anything else. So be it.
I'm interested in all aspects and thoughts in the hobby whether or not I agree necessarily with them.
I took a good laugh at that! All of it is true; plus: what I am also telling you is that, you might not know to what levels you might bring your system with cables whose patents and science make tremendous sense... No need to answer that one in this thread.
Amir and Steve,
I am wondering if you could create an icon or some other indicator that represents "technical". When a certain thread is started this icon could be used to indicate that this thread has been created to primarily discuss a technical issue. The thread may contain scientific references, charts, graphs and other objectively derived data and evidence in the discussion. Then the pure subjectivists should know to avoid it if they wish. But they should NOT interject a purely subjective opinion and expect that to be treated the same as the people in the thread that are submitting technical arguments.
Then, perhaps all the other threads should be treated as open to any and every opinion. In these threads, which will probably be the majority, the objectivists should refrain from treating it as a "technical" thread and place NO demands on a contributor to quote "prove" his point of view.
I am wondering if you could create an icon or some other indicator that represents "technical". When a certain thread is started this icon could be used to indicate that this thread has been created to primarily discuss a technical issue. The thread may contain scientific references, charts, graphs and other objectively derived data and evidence in the discussion. Then the pure subjectivists should know to avoid it if they wish. But they should NOT interject a purely subjective opinion and expect that to be treated the same as the people in the thread that are submitting technical arguments.
Then, perhaps all the other threads should be treated as open to any and every opinion. In these threads, which will probably be the majority, the objectivists should refrain from treating it as a "technical" thread and place NO demands on a contributor to quote "prove" his point of view.
I don't think so. I don't think they all expose themselves to the same live music events, and if they do, do they hear the same things? Do they sit in the same place and experience the same acoustics? So no, I don't think so; unless I am misinterpreting your definition of "ideal". Audio has always been an extremely subjective field, in my view, and the interesting thing is, you can only advance audio engineering with science _and_ listening - thus, impossible to separate the two, so what is [common] "ideal" when subjective opinion is part of it?
Perhaps a little? When I say ideal, I mean what would the perfect transducer be, if material science (and physics) were not an issue?
In my mind, an "ideal" loudspeaker would simply present the full signal applied to it without any distortion, be it linear, non-linear, phase, etc. I would like to think that most, if not all, loudspeaker designers would agree that this is an ideal. (I do leave some room for argument over things like off-axis response, etc.)
I use loudspeakers as my example, simply because the distortion to the original signal caused by a loudspeaker is at least an order of magnitude greater than what we can reasonably expect from any other piece of the audio playback chain.
I finally voted...after considerate and critical evaluation. ...Ouf, I finally feel relieved now...totally stress-free and comfortably numb. :b
I'm listening to this right now ::
* It's a click-on ^ ? thing.
I'm listening to this right now ::
* It's a click-on ^ ? thing.
Last edited:
There has never been a question of what members must accept. Members are free and continue to be free to disagree with any and all science presented, or even questioning whether what is presented is science.
Of course. As I said, you are even welcome to question the science. We are not putting that to vote. The vote is whether members can tolerate discussion of audio science. We all know that established audio science, and I define that by our two industry organizations, Audio Engineering Society (AES) and Acoustic Society of America (ASA) are at odds with fair amount of subjectivists beliefs. So by definition, discussion of research published by them, is going to be at odds with some members' beliefs here. That conflict as of this moment, has been more than some members are willing to tolerate. There is a call to reduce such discussions and for someone like me to walk on eggshells. For the time being, I have gone past that and stopped all discussion of audio science (sans a few comments in John's thread).
The majority needs to speak as to whether they want a dial back of audio science as has occurred.
It doesn't matter if he values or does not value that research. It is not my goal to convince him or not. It is my goal to disclose the science for everyone else to read and consider as they do their next system upgrade. What matters is whether ack is this in your next sentence:
That is not my read of the situation. Indeed, ack's last post in MEP's debate thread caused me to stop dead in my tracks as I value his membership and I could sense his immense frustration with the discussion that impacted the products he loves. I am being direct here to make forward progress. If you are going to get upset, threaten to leave the forum, express dissatisfaction with the forum, etc. over discussion of audio science, then you do not "like" to see such discussions. Because there is no way we can have these discussion if they need to be free of stepping on the combined audio beliefs of every subjectivist in the forum. That would leave zero areas of science we can discuss.
I created this poll to gather more opinions than the few that have resulted in me halting my discussion of audio science. If you think everyone is being reasonable for asking for less discussion of audio science, then let's say that. Let's not say you are in favor of audio science but then immediately say "it better not be this and that."
Amir,
I've deliberately avoided the threads in question; believing I didn't have anything intelligent to contribute. Perhaps you and others will still believe that nothing intelligent has been added by this post..
Something seemed amiss in these discussions but upon reviewing the title of this thread and your most recent post, it occurs to me that I understand what caused my unease...
I am not anti-science. Indeed, as engineer and physician, you could say with respect to science, I'm "all-in". I agree with the majority on this board that some data is useful (and probably required) for product development and internal QC. Furthermore, routinely published data can help us making buying decisions, i.e. you are not going to try and match an 85db/W speaker with a 2A3 tube amp. I understand that each of us brings our unique set of biases to choosing which audio compromises we wish to live with and that understanding those biases can only make us better informed and hopefully happier listeners. Yes, ack performs measurements on his room and has a level of technical understanding that I can only aspire to...but you as you noted Ack also "loves" his speakers and love is an often irrational feeling and difficult to quantify.
Furthermore, I admire companies who try and correlate measurements with real world preferences. But other WBF contributors have noted significant flaws in testing methodologies; rendering any data generated suspect. Numbers may give the imprimatur of precision but if doesn't provide actionable information for a real-world consumer, they are not valuable to me. I will remain skeptical until I see repeatable data set(s) that will result in real audio consumers spending their actual hard earned money. Indeed, am waiting for the first post from a WBF member who bought a piece of gear based only on published data (other than price of course). I would note that if 'objectivists' actually agreed what data really matters, then their arguments would be bolstered. (Of course this would manifest as all of them having the same gear at a given price point.)
Lastly I would add that tone is conversation is always important. I am reminded of the quip that "People who claim to be open to all sides of an argument, express surprise that there is another side to the argument." If understanding the technical parts of our hobby and performing measurements and reading technical charts gets your audio rocks off, more power to you. I'm going go spin the new Robert Glasper LP and finish reading Camus' "The Plague".
Add: I was feeling pretty good about myself about reading Camus until my wife remarked that she had read it in college...in French.
I've deliberately avoided the threads in question; believing I didn't have anything intelligent to contribute. Perhaps you and others will still believe that nothing intelligent has been added by this post.
. Something seemed amiss in these discussions but upon reviewing the title of this thread and your most recent post, it occurs to me that I understand what caused my unease...
I am not anti-science. Indeed, as engineer and physician, you could say with respect to science, I'm "all-in". I agree with the majority on this board that some data is useful (and probably required) for product development and internal QC. Furthermore, routinely published data can help us making buying decisions, i.e. you are not going to try and match an 85db/W speaker with a 2A3 tube amp. I understand that each of us brings our unique set of biases to choosing which audio compromises we wish to live with and that understanding those biases can only make us better informed and hopefully happier listeners. Yes, ack performs measurements on his room and has a level of technical understanding that I can only aspire to...but you as you noted Ack also "loves" his speakers and love is an often irrational feeling and difficult to quantify.
Furthermore, I admire companies who try and correlate measurements with real world preferences. But other WBF contributors have noted significant flaws in testing methodologies; rendering any data generated suspect. Numbers may give the imprimatur of precision but if doesn't provide actionable information for a real-world consumer, they are not valuable to me. I will remain skeptical until I see repeatable data set(s) that will result in real audio consumers spending their actual hard earned money. Indeed, am waiting for the first post from a WBF member who bought a piece of gear based only on published data (other than price of course). I would note that if 'objectivists' actually agreed what data really matters, then their arguments would be bolstered. (Of course this would manifest as all of them having the same gear at a given price point.)
Lastly I would add that tone is conversation is always important. I am reminded of the quip that "People who claim to be open to all sides of an argument, express surprise that there is another side to the argument." If understanding the technical parts of our hobby and performing measurements and reading technical charts gets your audio rocks off, more power to you. I'm going go spin the new Robert Glasper LP and finish reading Camus' "The Plague"
. Add: I was feeling pretty good about myself about reading Camus until my wife remarked that she had read it in college...in French.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Perhaps I'm wrong but I also thought ack was taking exception to Amir's representation of ML speakers because ack and others have years of ML experience under their belts and felt some of Amir's comments were incorrect
This poll is extremely clear so far; science is part of our audiophilia/music reproduction hobby. ...And a very large part @ that.
...The first two selections (1 and 2) ...not much science importance ... against the next three (3, 4 and 5) ... audio/sound science playing a large role in our entire love affair with this hobby.
* I like to listen to all parties; scientists and question their science, and experienced audio reviewers and audiophiles/intense music listeners with years of hearing expertise.
It's the blend of both that I am in search of, on the quest towards total nirvana bliss. ...Internal apothéose of the holy grail.
And yes, real science is always questionable...it never stops to be questionable...that's how science improves and that we can advance with it together. If we are stuck in the science we are stuck in the intellectuel épanouissement de la vie.
From my perspective, both are essential to man's proper evolution; balance of constant science questioning and enjoyment in the real time from the best sounding pieces of audio equipment from a transcendental sense of the auditory....pure music listening from all the gear connected together and in sync with our two ears and emotional chords (state of mind and heart) in a specific time and space of reality.
Technical data and measurements are only good as the tools recording/taking them, and by man's own interpretations and correlations with real music playing @ a live concert hall or small live jazz avenue.
...Or a simili music recording reproduction of it from various music mediums; analog vinyl and tape, digital CD/SACD and download audio files. ...That ocean is as vast as all the galaxy's own oceans.
...A balance between the two extremes and beyond. ...My opinion.
...The first two selections (1 and 2) ...not much science importance ... against the next three (3, 4 and 5) ... audio/sound science playing a large role in our entire love affair with this hobby.
* I like to listen to all parties; scientists and question their science, and experienced audio reviewers and audiophiles/intense music listeners with years of hearing expertise.
It's the blend of both that I am in search of, on the quest towards total nirvana bliss. ...Internal apothéose of the holy grail.
And yes, real science is always questionable...it never stops to be questionable...that's how science improves and that we can advance with it together. If we are stuck in the science we are stuck in the intellectuel épanouissement de la vie.
From my perspective, both are essential to man's proper evolution; balance of constant science questioning and enjoyment in the real time from the best sounding pieces of audio equipment from a transcendental sense of the auditory....pure music listening from all the gear connected together and in sync with our two ears and emotional chords (state of mind and heart) in a specific time and space of reality.
Technical data and measurements are only good as the tools recording/taking them, and by man's own interpretations and correlations with real music playing @ a live concert hall or small live jazz avenue.
...Or a simili music recording reproduction of it from various music mediums; analog vinyl and tape, digital CD/SACD and download audio files. ...That ocean is as vast as all the galaxy's own oceans.
...A balance between the two extremes and beyond. ...My opinion.
Last edited:
While I understand that the rating from the tests was not flattering to the ML, I certainly didn't hear Amir in anyway denigrating the ML. It appeared to me that he was simply presenting the results and his personal participation in the tests. As many people pointed out, the ML could very well do better in a different test under different circumstances. But that doesn't change the results of the Harmon test.
There is always something to be gleaned from good tests. This test appeared to indicate that a wide variety of people prefer smooth frequency response and wide dispersion. But that is not an indicator of real world performance for all speakers in all environments. There are too many other significant speaker performance parameters that are important to make that case.
i don't interpret the poll that way at all. I see two opposing, extreme views that very few people subscribe to. The vast majority of people are somewhere in the middle. The wording of poll questions can slant the interpreted results without other information. Fortunately many people have given their rationale for what they chose.
And I am in no way implying that the poll was created with an purposeful agenda. There is almost no way to phrase questions without some undesired drift.
Hi Doc. Thanks for sharing your opinion. It is much appreciated. I want to comment on this sentence. No request of any member is made to accept any data or methodology. Indeed, they are encouraged to question it as it is through that questioning, that the motivation gets generated to share more of the data. In that sense, disagreement is what I wish to see! And seemingly no problem getting it, whether I am arguing with one camp or the otherAmir,
I've deliberately avoided the threads in question; believing I didn't have anything intelligent to contribute. Perhaps you and others will still believe that nothing intelligent has been added by this post.
Something seemed amiss in these discussions but upon reviewing the title of this thread and your most recent post, it occurs to me that I understand what caused my unease...
I am not anti-science. Indeed, as engineer and physician, you could say with respect to science, I'm "all-in". I agree with the majority on this board that some data is useful (and probably required) for product development and internal QC. Furthermore, routinely published data can help us making buying decisions, i.e. you are not going to try and match an 85db/W speaker with a 2A3 tube amp. I understand that each of us brings our unique set of biases to choosing which audio compromises we wish to live with and that understanding those biases can only make us better informed and hopefully happier listeners. Yes, ack performs measurements on his room and has a level of technical understanding that I can only aspire to...but you as you noted Ack also "loves" his speakers and love is an often irrational feeling and difficult to quantify.
Furthermore, I admire companies who try and correlate measurements with real world preferences. But other WBF contributors have noted significant flaws in testing methodologies; rendering any data generated suspect.
.None of this is about that. I live my life dealing with people who disagree with me on forums. As I said, it is a motivator for me and a test: if I can't explain my position well enough, then perhaps I don't understand it well enough. Many times questions lead to me searching for more data/research and as a result, learning something new. So yes, challenge the information. Stay in disbelief. That is OK. And a good thing!
So if it is not a problem for me, it must be a problem for the other party. I am asking why that is. So much so that they want to see less of these discussions.
Caelin, I added some more in my above post.
The way the poll is constructed you cannot escape science. ...I took all my time until today to finally vote after analyzing my own angles. ...And even then, my vote is not 100% true. ...But for this poll it is the closest to that truth.
The way the poll is constructed you cannot escape science. ...I took all my time until today to finally vote after analyzing my own angles. ...And even then, my vote is not 100% true. ...But for this poll it is the closest to that truth.
Yeah I hear you. True enough for most of us.
I would like like to say that data can be misused and polls should not be used as a tool for limiting the ability of those at the edges of the bell curve to express their views. I like to see a big tent where we can learn from each other even if we don't necessarily agree all the time. And there should be room for strong but respectful disagreement. We wouldn't want this to turn into Candyland.
This is a science and engineering based endeavor. I'lll take as much as I can get, Amir. Just promise to speak real sloooooly...
Tim
Tim
