Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?
If anyone cares to present any new evidence science would be more than happy to look through the telescope.put a big chunk of shungite on your amplifier... Put a quartz cristal on the same spot... Listen and report your result comparing the two experiments... This is science... All ridicule are from zelots... By the way no need of blindtest for this simple expêriment for now... Invoking a blindtest BEFORE taking the experiment is stupidity... |
| Post removed |
That isnt science. In order for your experiments to be considered science certain protocols need to be followed.Our gear in our room is not a laboratory... If i claim something about shungite and quartz you MUST TRY IT YOURSELF... Claiming that no room is a laboratory is a common sense affirmation that could not justify a refusal to experiment BY YOURSELF... Using scientific attitude could be possible out of a laboratory... We dont search for new scientific law here.... We discuss child experiment in audio.... |
That isnt science. In order for your experiments to be considered science certain protocols need to be followed.Insulting is not my way... Take your shit where it belong and speak to the wall... You just proved for all to see who you are.... |
| Post removed |
Proposing a simple experiment is not "claiming" something... Insulting people is claiming our own stupidity..... And my simple experiment was proposed in the context of this Galileo anecdote for illustrating it in a simple way... Belief versus experiment.... Guess was the result save your insult? An illustration of the way the zealot brain work.... I dont believe in "science" like yourself, i do my own listening experiments,i try to think with science then, i dont buy "tweaks" and i create all my device homemade or at almost no cost.... And by the way without being credulous i take the word of other with good faith and even trust here...Simple manner and simple openness of the mind.... If you report an experiment of yours i will listen, it is an audio thread about impressions and experiments... if you parrot "scientism" mantra to discredit experiments or someone i will go my way.... |
You guys ever read Feynman? Great books. Great stories. One of em, whole bunch of top physicists sitting around a table at Los Alamos trying to figure out what is going on. First one nails it. Absolutely nails it. Brilliant. Makes total sense. Feynman is impressed. Then they go around the table, each one talking about what else it could be. Feynman is puzzled. Can they not see we have the answer? Why are they going on like this? Surely we are not going to pick one of these wrong answers???! Until when each one is done they all say well it is settled then, the first answer is right. And that is that. As Feynman said, these were great men. They had the answer, but seriously explored all other possibilities, yet never losing track of the fact they had the answer. So that when they were done everyone was on the same page. Great men indeed. Terrific story. Don’t know why I thought of it just now. Okay well actually I do. |
" Test tones can show distortion and noise better than music. : It doesn't. Many amplifiers with very low THD numbers sound terrible. Many amps with bad THD numbers sound very good. Test tones are well chosen to stress the device under test. That would have been very important if I wanted an amplifier to draw nice sinus curves on my oscilloscope. I don't. How much value you get from it is up to you. Indeed. I can convince myself a bad sounding amp sounds good because it has a low THD. Or I can trust my ears and choose great sounding equipment on the basis of what it sounds to me. |
The article on scientism is nonsense. I’ve read it, it’s so full of holes to be useless. Of course you’d claim it’s nonsense. It exposes people like you. The irony is that you don’t seem to have the presence of mind to realize that your posts are proof positive to everyone else on the forum that scientism is real. |
I don’t meet the requirements for "scientism" if anything I would be considered a reductionist.When it is a methodological stance reductionism is "genuine" experimental hypothesis that simplify and make possible many experiments ... When it is an ontological belief like you claim it is, this is basic scientism at work... Especially in an audio thread among hobbyists, where reductionism, being only scientism in disguise, is used to reject any claim which are without "scientific proofs", which is a ridiculous demand not prorportionate with the activity of hobbyist partaking their simple experiments...Especially when the experiment to be perform are simple and at no cost....Rejecting the experiment is "faith" in some alleged idolatry of " science" and then not science.... Further more human perception is a "WHOLE" not reducible to parts, which psychoacoustic science for example study and correlate to measurements but never reduce to them....It is a methodological reductionism here.... Stubborness is not intelligence...Defiance is not rationality....Distrust being compatible with idolatry of technology and rejection of any trust in human perception in the name of some alleged measurements presented to be the ONLY "science" is borderline ridiculous. |
| Post removed |
Discounting science is a popular hobby with people these days it seems. It helps make some feel special I guess to discount things they do not understand and just say they know better and there is always a captive audience for that. Just like for the crap fast food people eat and the junk shows on TV they eat up as well. Whereas the reality is that mastering any field of science or any other actual field of value (not merely unbridled ideology) is what actually makes people special. How about those Mars landings? How’d they do that? It takes an education and a lot of thought. It’s the only way to get things done. Wherever you might get it from. |
| Post removed |
I made hard work.... I created the Helmholtz mechanical equalizer and this made me understand the way the audio field is in many ways oriented often by market and profit...Not much by education and listening experiments.... Room acoustic active mechanical control MAY be so powerful, NO PIECE of gear upgrade compare...It is a scientific fact by the way.... It cost nothing... It is Pure proved science only, first by Helmholtz.... BUT i created also other devices that work AT NO COST, and mocked by idiot who think science has an "opinion" and they make this alleged opinion their own in an act of belief that will refuse even a simple experiment... And these idiot buy upgrade at hight cost and called that a scientific educated act compared to my no cost experiment... I am "special" indeed like all of those who are not programmed and conditioned by "scientism" and other market myths.... I am not a fad of crowd, especially crowd of self proclaimed scientists in audio thread hobbyist denigrating anyone to be gullible or in placebo state and refusing blindtest.......I dont need blindtest....I am not a marketing company or a pharmacological industry .... Blackbox experience is enough for my hobby... Audiophile experience may cost peanuts....With only discarded junk and brain work with simple common sense facts....listening experiments .... And Helmholtz.... Those who claim otherwise are rich, and able to buy the best engineering....I am not in this case and anyway i dont need neither money nor upgrade now.... My brain worked well and it is enough.... Be special, trust your ears and trust your creativity....Dont listen to those who downgrade any personal effort in the name of their favorite idol : "science" or the market, and their own costly toys....... At the end you will not listen to the best audio system in the world for sure, but it is enough for me if it is one of the best in the ratio S.Q. /price.... That was my goal.... «At the end those who discount science are not those who ignore it, but those who revere it like an idol»-Anonymus Smith «Dont be rational to the point your reason could die of loneliness on his island»-Groucho Marx 🤓 |
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.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. Measurements and testing are vital to building good audio gear but so is listening they go hand in handIf you are trying to allude that tests like THD is useful, the 1970’s called and they want their approach to building amps back. Testing is useful to prevent smoke and fire, as well as to do things like match components and checking whether they are within spec. Nothing more. |
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. With your ears. Measurements exist to determine what may work within a system, and what may not. Think power characteristics for an amplifier and the power demands for a set of speakers. If you own speakers that require a lot of power, that require a high dampening factor, a low powered amplifier, with a low dampening factor, will likely not drive your speakers to their full potential. But once you find two amplifiers that will drive your speakers according to the numbers, you still need to listen to those two amplifiers, in your system driving your speakers, if you want to know which amplifier sounds best, to you. Measurements are a tool, they are not an end. Ted Denney Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc. |
Until I hear something, I don't know what it sounds like. No one knows what anything sounds like until they have heard it. I still maintain there are things going on with audio signals that we can not measure. This is not the same as grabbing a 12v battery, grabbing some "whatever" wire to run the DC through where the only thing you care about is the resistance of the wire so you can figure out how bright the light that is 200' away will be. There is a lot more going on in a system than simply lighting a bulb, and yet soooooo many here keep harping on these very basic functions of electricity to be the complete answer for anything electrical. Capacitance and inductance have a dynamic effect on frequencies as we all know. The audio signal as it's passing through a wire to the component is not a simple 60hz wave. It's a complicated cacophony of frequencies happing all around and on top of each other. There will be phase shifts - think crossover - isolation of frequencies - again, think crossover. Thats just as the signal is on its way to the component. Then, it gets "processed" by each component over and over again until it arrives at our ears. Beyond the specifications of any given component (Which have been derived at by measurements, I know...), until I hear it, I don't know if I like it or not. Too many variables in the "unknown" to be able to make that kind of determination. Broad strokes as to how something "might" sound? Sure. Specifics and if it will be liked? Not a chance in hell. |
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. |
@djones Is that because of the gear being the same, or your inability to differentiate between the two? Can we get a test of your hearing done so we can know what you are hearing? And if we could have a scan of the electrical impulses in your brain while you are listening so we can all know exactly what you are experiencing while listening? |
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. |
Take 100 people, who have hearing that "measures well" (Really good hearing) Spend a year teaching those 100 people how to listen and what to listen for. Teach them to understand critical listening. In the same way a sommelier would be educated. Sit them down and have them do blind listening tests with the differing amps that have the same posted specifications. And watch how they can differentiate between those amps..., |
Take 100 people, who have hearing that "measures well" (Really good hearing)Very right ... I will add that first music is a listening experience where there is no object (sound) which could be separated from the room//Ears/ in that order, and evaluated MAINLY with an electronic tool instead of the ears... Basic psychoacoustic science which is a science connected to physical acoustic but different with DIFFERENT goals must not be confused with it... Some badly misinformed people reduce even physical acoustic to electronic, not knowing then what is psychoacoustic anyway... To hide their ignorance they promoted blindtest to debunk any audiophile experience beeing a "bias" without knowing what is a bias and WHEN do we must erase it from an experiment .... Because they really think that the taste of the soup is explained mainly by the different materials constituting the saucepan and the temperature to be set...This claim is even not untrue....But proposing always ONLY to consider the materials adavantage of different saucepan and temperature for an explanation of the "particular" taste of a soup is very limited to say the least...The ingredients(acoustical conditions and other parameters) play a more significant role sometimes in the experience... |
AES E-LIBRARY 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. |
Science is the starting point of spiritual evolution, and a railing against extremism, science is not an endpoint of the road... Only scientism claim to be this endpoint....But science is not scientism... The departure point and the railing is NOT the road... Here a video analysing a stupid scientist experiment working now : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFm2lRRJNi0 |
Which is why I added Nelson Pass. You don't think he listens to his amps for the final tuning? From Stereophile in 2017: https://www.stereophile.com/content/nelson-pass-circuit-topology-and-end-science Pass: Measurements and listening go hand in hand. There is a correlation between objective and subjective, but they're not strictly causal relationships. Clearly, there are some amplifiers that measure great with "standard" measurements but don't sound so good, and there are examples of good-sounding/bad-measuring as well. The discrepancies are interesting because they point to either things that have not been measured—more likely, misinterpreted—or aspects of perception and taste that don't correlate to measured flaws. Or both. In the end, the subjective experience is what our customer is looking for. Our taste in sound may not appeal to everyone, but it's what we have to work with, and we only need a small segment of the market to be successful. I don't neglect the measurements; I put them to work. |
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 |
audio 101 for children: -measurements are essentials to know what we are speaking about and establishing recognized scientific standards designing electronic piece of gear.... - Listenings experiments is the ONLY way to tune and fine tune the quality we ask for and which qualities are IMPOSSIBLE to deduce only from any set of measurements nevermind how big it is and how precise... Why ? Because many dimensions are at play which no limited measuring tools in their range of application can take into account simultaneously when what is designed is designed FOR ANOTHER HUMAN EARS.... Then audiophiles and engineers trusting only measurements must be rare birds indeed .... We are not all zealots of our own tool for sure....And most importantly deaf audiophiles and deaf engineers are very rare species.... |
@perkri. “Which is why I added Nelson Pass. You don't think he listens to his amps for the final tuning? From Stereophile in 2017: https://www.stereophile.com/content/nelson-pass-circuit-topology-and-end-science... “ Exactly. I have heard this from many high end audio designers and have personally experienced it in auditioning equipment continuously over the last fifty year. I learned within a couple years. It is obvious to experienced high end audio users, designers and sales folks. |
| Post removed |
Test tones are used to show how equipment performs below audible levels but how music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard science fails miserably.Actually it doesn't. But science is rarely applied when doing measurements. If you want the measurements to show what you need to know in order to know how the equipment will sound, don't hold your breath because spec sheets are generally created as a sales tool. Now it is a simple fact that we can measure and correlate what we measure to what we hear and that is entirely due to studies of how the ear works, mostly done in the last 50 years. If you want to know what to look for, take a look at a post I made on another thread (sorry, its long): Distortion is in all forms of amplification. Of course we want it to be as low as possible but the ear poses some real challenges. So the bottom line is the distortion signature is more important than how much distortion is actually present. That is what the spec sheets aren't showing and why there's often a disconnect between what you hear and what is measured. Its not that we *can't* measure it, its simple because most of the time we simple *don't* measure it. |
Thank you Atmasphere. Listening is important only as it applies to the individual. I know what I like to hear but that might not be what you want to hear. An amplifier that measures beautifully in the lab might sound very different in different installations due to interaction with the speaker's impedance curve. These interactions result in frequency response changes that are easily measured. My ESLs will change dramatically with different amplifiers and all of them measure well. The ESLs will go from 30 Ohms down low to 1 ohm if you are lucky at 20 kHz. There is no surprise here at all. You have to get an amp that matches your speakers. Some speaker will sound the same with practically any amp, a high impedance speaker with a steady impedance curve. Subtle changes are just as likely to be imagined as real. It takes careful AB comparison to be sure. You have to know the limitation of human hearing and proceed with caution. You can not just declare that one amp sounds better than another when the changes are subtle. When an audiophile makes a bombastic , declarative statement they are more likely wrong than right. Intelligent listeners do not make statements like this. Any obvious difference has a reason that can be measured and usually occurs in the realm of frequency response. There is always a reason a piece of equipment sounds better. If your ears can hear it than it can be measured. Measuring devices are quantitatively far more accurate than your ears. I did not say measuring equipment is more sensitive than your ears. I suspect it is but I do not know for sure. Can anybody please tell me what Magister is talking about? He lost me several posts ago. Must be my dyslexia. |
Can anybody please tell me what Magister is talking about? He lost me several posts ago. Must be my dyslexia.Dont make of a possible useful tool a UNIQUE solution for all acoustic problem and for all people.... Helmholtz mechanical equalization work differently than electronical equalization without the SAME limitations ... Instead of a tone frequency response for static walls and for a microphone feedback.... Imagine a large bandwith response (an instrument timbre) crossing different dynamic pressure zones of the room FOR YOUR EARS feedback Now instead of the buttons and dials of your E.E. imagine the tuning by mechanical modification of the ratio volume/neck lenght-diameter of each Helmoltz resonators.... Instead of listening to the electronically modified frequency response of the speakers imagine you listen to the tweeters and bass driver of each speakers marked out by many resonators mechanically modified so and localized so to help each ear to compute the direction of the sound and the way each eraly and late reflections will constitute each firt wavefront for each ear.... Then instead of creating a sweet spot which have an accuracy in millimeter with total chaos and no more usefullness out of this narrow spot which become no more sweet at all, Think about a modification of ALL the room resonances with the introduction in many well choosen spots of a set of different pressure engines (helmholtz resonators). The results: acoustic controls at will of imaging,soundstage,listener envelopment and source width and more importantly a control of the timbre experience which is music itself and no more only "sounds".... BUT nothing is perfect.... It may be not practical for a living room BUT it is acoustically superior to control the room for the speakers instead of changing the speakers in relation to the room... We can use the two for sure, but advising people about electronical equalization ONLY AND MAINLY without speaking about his limitations is not the way.... And human ears dont listen TONE, they listen TIMBRE.....In music for eaxample a "tone" is a pitch perceived by the ears listening to a singer voicing it with his unique timbre.... Electronic is not acoustic and cannot replace it and acoustic is not music experience and cannot replace it ....They can be only relatively translated in one another... Also mechanical equalization is more natural and less costly.... Then instead of making fun of me instead of arguments try to think out of your user manual booklet.... |
- Listenings experiments is the ONLY way to tune and fine tune the quality we ask for and which qualities are IMPOSSIBLE to deduce only from any set of measurements nevermind how big it is and how precise...All humans use the same hearing perceptual rules. For example, to sense sound pressure all human’s ear use the higher ordered harmonics. All human’s ears have a masking principle and so on. Because there are a good number of measurements that never make it onto a spec sheet, IMO/IME the above quoted statement is false. If you understand the human hearing perceptual rules and design for them rather than a spec sheet you can easily design a circuit that will sound good the human ear. |
All humans use the same hearing perceptual rules. For example, to sense sound pressure all human’s ear use the higher ordered harmonics. All human’s ears have a masking principle and so on.You are absolutely right.... And it is IMPOSSIBLE to contradict that... But the way human ears INTERPRET and PERCEIVE the sound experience in a specific room with specific gear is different for each of us... It is the reason why in the publicity of the marketing of electronical equalizer company recommend it to make any consumers free to use it for different kind of music, different room, different TASTES.... Then affirming that there is a precise CORRELATION between electronical design and human perceiving experience is one thing and very true, but true also that no ears/brain will interpret exactly in the same qualitative terms all the conditions of a sound and musical experience... This is why there is so good choices between so many different types of gear... In my post then i was speaking about ALL factors and parameters in an audio experience not about the correlation between gear measurements and sound experience ONLY which is a fact of engineering like you had explained it very well in another post about amplifiers.... Perception of a color is the same for all human by law of physical optic, but many other parameters are at play that make the experience transcending optical physical law.... Psychological and neurophysiological laws and personal histories add also their weight... It is Goethe who created neurophysiology of perception arguing against some limititations of Newton approach...The 2 goals of these 2 geniuses were DIFFERENT more than contradictory.... This is the same here....We have physical acoustic and psychoacoustic and the listener personal history....My post was about all that and were not a negation of the correlation bewtween measures and perception which is the basis of all audio technology... On the other end reducing human perception to electronic design is NOT possible for the time being....Correlating is not reducing....In a word all factors pertaining to the audio experience and interpretation cannot be put in the design... |
Bob Carver accepted the amplifier challenge from Stereophile, many years ago, and won. He showed that he could duplicate the sound of an expensive amplifier chosen by Stereophile with one of his amplifiers appropriately modified to sound the same. The staff of Stereophile could not identify any difference by extended listening tests over a couple of days. Bob didn't use a trial-and-error method and judge by listening to achieve his win. He used what he knew from experience and from scientific principles. Bob used his extensive knowledge and experience in amplifier design to duplicate the transfer function of the expensive amp in his amplifier, to a sufficiently high degree to win the challenge. The "transfer function" is well-known to scientists and engineers. He also knew that if a difference between the two amplifiers is made sufficiently low to be inaudible by human ears, then the listeners could not identify any difference between the two amps. He used science and knowledge of human hearing, thresholds of hearing. @Millercarbon said it first in this thread, that science is a method. Bob used the scientific method, and technology by measurements of the amplifier to make both amplifiers sound indistinguishable from each other by listeners, without having to listen to either amplifier. The ears can be fooled. Scientists, composers, and musicians know this. That's why in a controlled scientific study, the interfering variables are either eliminated or controlled in a test. Sighted auditions of equipment without the proper controls are invalid to make scientific conclusions. Of course, one could make judgements and opinions of the sound - that's a starting point, not an end point. |
