Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?

I have no idols, computers or calves. 

I didn't avoid anything. Your 100 trained people would fare no better than the trained people in 10 years of ABX testing. Are you a politician that avoids the obvious? 

Human ears don't interpret and perceive sound the brain does. 

No problem I don't listen to Bach. 

I prefer Puccini.

Test tones are a good indication if your component is capable of delivering the musical signal in its entirety so you can decide how it sounds. 

The Anthem AVM 60 Preamp Processor is a good case in point.

If you understood the measurements you would see why it got a headless panther. You would also see where Anthem thought the unit might have been faulty so they sent another unit to be tested. You would also know Anthem is having numerous complaints and problems with the newer AVM 70 which they sent for testing to the white coat guys. Looks like it tests poorly and performs poorly. Get a Denon.

Science records, stores, reproduces and delivers music to your ears. How it sounds is user defined. 

Why is science incapable of providing even the slightest indication why equipment is judged by knowledgeable people as superior?

Science is capable of providing the slightest indication that you might start wondering just how knowledgeable these "people" are?

I take it you only listen to live unamplified music in an open field? 

To what end? If I am going to need to listen to the audio equipment to decide how it sounds, what possible value does the results obtained from test tones give me?

Test tones can show distortion and noise better than music. Test tones are well chosen to stress the device under test. How much value you get from it is up to you. 

The article on scientism is nonsense. I've read it,  it's so full of holes to be useless. Simple example. 

True science means accepting that human knowledge is limited, and present theories are provisional and incomplete. True science means being willing to examine evidence on its own terms, outside the prism of the belief system of materialism. In other words, it means having the courage to look through the telescope.

While this is true it omits pertinent information to suit the authors opinion. I'll fix it for him.

True science means accepting that human knowledge is limited, and present theories are provisional and incomplete. True science means being willing to examine evidence on its own terms, outside the prism of the belief system of 《materialism, spiritualism, religion, psi 》 other words, it means having the courage to look through the telescope.

In other words if you're going to be "impartial " don't simply exorcise the belief system you disagree with but those you agree with as well. 

What he fails to mention is science took these things seriously for years. It was only after many years of testing which showed no evidence any of it existed that it's been pretty much dismissed. If anyone cares to present any new evidence science would be more than happy to look through the telescope.

Measurements and technology is science, not all science is theoretical it's also practical.  Scientists use measurements and technology all the time to test theories and in audio to test what they hear. For instance Lars Risbo when developing a new driver found inconsistent measurements so along with his colleagues they decided they weren't measuring the right things. Did they throw their hands up and say well we can't measure everything we hear? No, they went about designing tests to find out why and came up with new tests that explained and showed where the problem was in order to go about resolving it. Science, it's why we can communicate over long distances and listen to recorded music in the first place. 

I didn't simply claim it was nonsense I showed the flaw in the author's thinking. My posts are nothing more than proof some aren't lost in a subjectivist maze. I don't meet the requirements for "scientism" if anything I would be considered a reductionist. 

I don't reject all claims without scientific proof, only ridiculous claims where not even a bare minimum of effort was extended to see if it made sense.  Measurements and testing are vital to building good audio gear but so is listening they go hand in hand. 

Observation does not need proof, nor is there any obligation on the observer to expend effort to provide you with an explanation, sensible or otherwise.

That's true noone owes me anything. 

Testing is useful to prevent smoke and fire, as well as to do things like match components and checking whether they are within spec.

Among other things.

Because you cannot ascertain by looking at a spreadsheet which of two amplifiers you will prefer. The only way to know what anything sounds like is to listen to it....”

I can get close enough with measurements that if I take 2 amps with specs pretty close I could never differentiate which is which listening....blind..with my ears and not my eyes.

It's because the amps measurements are close enough that any differences the human ear can't differentiate over the distortion of speakers. Correct I am unable to tell them apart because of the limits of human hearing. Dolphins or bats possibly could.

I'm sure they all listen to their products where did I say otherwise? I know John Siau at Benchmark does. 

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/listening-vs-measurements

Pass purposely creates a sound with his amps,  take an amp that measures the same, I doubt in blind testing it would be identifiable.

Speakers aren't amplifiers we were discussing amplifiers. I agree trained listeners would have a better chance identifying speakers.

AES E-LIBRARY
Ten years of A/B/X Testing

Experience from many years of double-blind listening tests of audio equipment is summarized. The results are generally consistent with threshold estimates from psychoacoustic literature, that is, listeners often fail to prove they can hear a difference after non-controlled listening suggested that there was one. However, the fantasy of audible differences continues despite the fact of audibility thresholds.

Testing has been done and the results using double blind tests, amplifiers have never been repeatedly identifiable on music if the usual matching and overload precautions were observed.

Humans have audibility thresholds no amount of training can overcome basic human anatomy.


You could say science has a starting and end point.

It's because listening blind I've controlled for my bias. Amps that measure fairly close it's almost impossible to tell them apart. One could even be a tube amp as long as it's measurements are close to the SS amp. One reason is speaker distortion swamps amps unless they are garbage amps. You'll hear the speaker and room not the amps.

Test tones also shows how equipment performs at listening levels but don't let reality get in your way.

Look at Prof's post above then read the book mentioned. Nobody's hearing is reliable enough. 

Where have you gotten this notion audio equipment can’t be analyzed at levels audible to humans and actually even bats but I doubt it does them much good. We can test equipment to tell us how much noise and distortion is present in certain frequency ranges. From this we can determine what types of systems most people like. Do they like neutral systems that produce flat frequency response and low distortion or exaggerated highs in the listening window, rolled off high frequency and bumped low bass, etc.. Assemble a system you enjoy and science can analyze it to conclude you prefer accurate uncolored sound reproduction or distortion generators. There’s no right or wrong but this idiotic idea science is useless in analyzing electronics and transducers  in the human audible range is nonsense.

Science is the starting point and it is the end point in audio reproduction. Science is what gave us the medium and tools to enjoy music from the wax cylinder to digital storage and on to processes unknown. It won't be brain dead audiophiles arguing over $200 fuses and $10,000 cables and the shilers that promote them but the theoretician and engineer that fails and succeeds that moves us forward. Scientists who "argue" over the esoteric boundaries of QM have no interest in the mundane workings of basic sound reproduction. Any new findings from research in areas of nanotechnology, nanoparticles,  quantum interactions etc.. that may trickle down to the audiophile bubble will be the result of dedicated engineering not the smear this goop on your wires crackpots. 

You're unable to comprehend what was written or being intentionally obtuse. Noone is debating digital storage, lasers , laptops, smart phones. PET, MRI etc.. those are not the "esoteric" boundaries of QM those are the practical results of years of research. Those who research these areas have very little to no interest in the practical results that's the province of applied science. And once again it will be the engineers and technicians who apply this knowledge not the ignorant who think sound reproduction is some mysterious goop slopped on a wire or cable lifters isolating EM fields from carpets. 

To repeat this is the starting point and END point of nothing but science. Sound reproduction is science, not mysticism. 

Quantum mechanics doesn't explain what you hear applying various  goopy substances to cables or rainbow colored fuses,  psychology does. 

Quantum mechanics did not kill materialism if you think it did then try a simple experiment. Try walking through a brick wall. Quantum mechanics is not fully understood and to continue to fall back on, " well what about QM " is lazy thinking to say the least. 

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/9/1533

What you hear in your room from your stereo and all the adjustments and tweaks has more to do with psychology than Quantum mechanics. Constantly posting vague references to QM without identifying what exactly it has to do with your perception of sound is really just useless. I'll leave you to wallow in your psychobabble, I find it tiresome.

Another example of something noone said.

All we hear is placebo if not blind tested

The claim is what you hear COULD be expectation bias and to rule it out  blind testing is usually used.  

No answer is needed....I will not post any article about wall and Q.M. save if you ask for it and i will even explain it to you because it is a complex matter ....

You don't need to explain it to me,  my point was keep walking into the brick wall until all of your atoms and the walls atoms line up just right so you will pass through it,  though I doubt you'd have enough lifetime for it to happen.  The wall still exists, it is a material object, QM doesn't negate classical physics. People on  this forum use QM like people  used witchcraft and mercurial Gods centuries ago.