The map of reality is not reality. Even the best maps are imperfect.
Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?
Measurements are useful to verify specifications and identify any underlying issues that might be a concern. 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.
Why is it so?
Why is it so?
238 responses Add your response
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. |
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 |
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. |
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... |
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..., |
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. |
@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? |
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. |
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. 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. |
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. |
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. |
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 🤓 |
| 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 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. |
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. |
" 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. |
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. |
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.... |
| Post removed |
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.... |
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.... |
| Post removed |
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... |
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. |
The most significant factor contributing to the sound of the speaker is it’s frequency response in your room. Next would be it’s dispersion/radiation pattern. IMHO every audiophile should have a calibrated microphone and the appropriate computer program to run some basic tests.What you say is half truth... We can also study with our EARS the more large bandwith response of the room to the non-electronically modified speakers... Then instead of tuning the speakers response for a very limited range in millimeter FOR some location out of which all measures means no more anything, we can tune all the room at once FOR the speakers by using a grid of Helmholtz pipes and tubes which are by itself permanently a room tuning at NO COST.... I control all aspect of sound acoustic at will, like a piano tuner tune a piano...A room is not only a set of passive walls waiting for the frequency response waves to bounce on them and on the microphone , it is an organized set of pressure zones affecting the ears which we can modify at will ....I can use for each ear the wavefront of each speaker and buoy the room with each pipes and tubes for EACH ear differently making easier the creation of imaging, soundstage,listener envelopment, source width and improve timbre perception....I can use the tresholds timing of early and late reflections ratio increasing the perception of 3-d localization of the music... Science is truth not half truth....Science is NOT technology or one tool only like an electronical equalizer....Science is not only one answer, sometimes many answers are possible...It is Helmholtz the father of modern room acoustic and his equalizer was a mechanical one.... Read WIKI at least, not only your electronical equalizer manual....Try a handbook of acoustic... Any electronical equaliser had negatives, like limit of the tested frequencies, too narrow locations for the measures to be right, the Helmholtz grid dont have these negatives at all... It is less esthetical perhaps....Thats all...All made by recycled trash....I can listen music in nearfied position or regular position with 2 different extraordinary sonic experience .... This is science... Buying an electronic equalizer is consumers expanse for something which is less efficient than a mechanical equalizer... Learning how to tune a room with the ears, fine tuning the ratio diameter/lenght/volumes of each pipes, orienting the neck in the right spot, etc is PRATICAL course in acoustic in a way which reading the owner manual and gliding the cursors of the pre-arranged program of a piece of electronic is not.... An electronic equalizer is a complementary tool AFTER the room is tuned mechanically and with acoustic materials at best.... Not the main tool at all, no electronic equalizer could replace material passive treatment and no more replace the mechanical activation of the room.... |
. Science, it's why we can communicate over long distances and listen to recorded music in the first place.This common sense fact is invoked suggesting "strawman argument" against someone.... Sorry... Nobody is against science, it is the "zealots" non scientific attitude of suspending judgement that is a religious belief not science itself.. Anyway there is field of science studying life of consciousness after death for example... Science is not materialism, like suppose zealots here... Psychoacoustic study the irreducible meaning of human perception to acoustic law...And establishes new correlations between sound measurements and consciousness each day.... But the goal of psychoacoustic even with A.I. when reproducing human perception is not attributing meaning experience to robots and reducing consciousness to A.I. save for cultist zealots of transhumanism... Transhumanism is a RELIGION not science....And one of the most dangerous and powerful cult on the planet, way more than scientology by the way, who look like children play compared to it... |
Pedro, science has not failed at all. The most significant factor contributing to the sound of the speaker is it's frequency response in your room. Next would be it's dispersion/radiation pattern. IMHO every audiophile should have a calibrated microphone and the appropriate computer program to run some basic tests. This is the one I use https://www.parts-express.com/Dayton-Audio-OmniMic-V2-Acoustic-Measurement-System-390-792 I am extremely happy with it. It is simple to use, very accurate and the program has some very useful added features like an oscilloscope. In 30 seconds you can see exactly what your speakers/room are doing. You can manage problems by moving speakers, with various acoustic treatments and finally with digital EQ. It is always useful to start with a flat system which means +- 5 dB, yup 5 dB. Your system is lucky to be +- 10 dB! +- 1 dB would be amazing but you will never get there without digital EQ/room control. Once you have flat then you can adjust things to your liking. Next you can impulse test the system to make sure all speakers and drivers are aligned. Not only can you make your system way better but you can learn a lot about acoustics. This is an amazing value at $300.00 There is not other "tweak" that is as powerful. It is so powerful it is not a tweak. It is essential. |
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. |
An interesting article pertaining to the "know-all’s" on the forum. Scientism | Psychology TodayVery interesting thanks.... I read it now.... And i must say at the end that all he say is truthful... |
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. |
Properly derived science contains only provable conclusions that are bedrock. All the rest is conjecture - interesting but not the basis for anything solid. The problem is bad science. This is in the ascendency. One reads the most obviously idiotic nonsense every day, often obtained by extrapolation. Extrapolation is always bad science. The one I like best was around 15 years ago. 'All the snow and ice on the Himalayas will be gone in 30 years. Palpable stupidity at the time; we're about halfway there and there's plenty left. I said at the time that if the entire Chinese nation went up there with blowlamps working 24/7 it wouldn't happen. |