GRollins said:
Yet another rant from you that passes the lofty standards to which this place is moderated.
You have no real idea where I am now, and you clearly have not gotten over yourself.
I do not have a blind faith in authority and neither do those in this thread that you continually rave against with these inane generalisations that you indulge in.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, you are not the only one who has ever listened – Shock! Horror! The reality may be the some people out there may actually hold rather informed opinions and actually have tastes that run contrary to yours, thus making it doubtful that you alone possess the key to absolute truth!
Rant? No. Fundamental misunderstanding? Yes.
GR, the whole point of science and peer review is that nothing has to be taken on faith. You have to give actual evidence. And it must be replicable and falsifiable. The important thing to note is that scientists NEVER consider knowledge to be final and closed, EVERYTHING is subject to revision, refinement, and change as more data and evidence is brought into the picture. The idea of science as static and faith-based is completely the opposite of reality.
That's not to say that, provisionally, some sources should be regarded as more reliable than others. If Feynman says "X" and Velikovsky says "Y," it's far more likely that X is correct. But even Feynman would have to give evidence of X before it is accepted in the scientific community, and X might end up being discarded some years later.
GR, the whole point of science and peer review is that nothing has to be taken on faith. You have to give actual evidence. And it must be replicable and falsifiable. The important thing to note is that scientists NEVER consider knowledge to be final and closed, EVERYTHING is subject to revision, refinement, and change as more data and evidence is brought into the picture. The idea of science as static and faith-based is completely the opposite of reality.
That's not to say that, provisionally, some sources should be regarded as more reliable than others. If Feynman says "X" and Velikovsky says "Y," it's far more likely that X is correct. But even Feynman would have to give evidence of X before it is accepted in the scientific community, and X might end up being discarded some years later.
SY,
Your post is one hundred percent correct, in so far as it goes.
I have a book in my collection (at least I think I still have it) in which the author "proves" Einstein wrong on relativity. At least he makes a determined run at it.
We all know who won that round.
The thing that you left out of your post is the fact that people are, in fact, human. Much is being made of the fact that I am human, hence fallible, ergo, I must be the one who is wrong. Well, perhaps, but there's another possibility that people have overlooked in their rush to pound on "that ignorant so-and-so," which is that scientists are human also. A moment's reflection will call to mind a dozen names of respected scientists who dismissed an idea out of hand, only to be proved wrong in the long run. The book I mentioned above (can't remember the author offhand, but don't think he was anyone "big" in physics) is only one example where scientists, being human, have failed.
Note that both of my degrees are in sciences. In geology, the concept of plate tectonics was actually proposed around a century ago. Ignored. Then proven right after the original fellow died. Bummer. It would have been nice if he'd gotten credit. In psychology, people love to tilt at Freud, but it's amazing how many other proposed theories of human mental/emotional development follow his same framework, only with different labels applied to the stages that Freud called oral, anal, and sexual.
Anyone who thinks I'm anti-science has utterly, completely missed the point. Not that I'm surprised, given the number of times that outrage and mockery have been substituted for actual thought. My point is that Douglas Self (as a particularly clear cut example) had, at his fingertips, the means to replicate the "Can people hear absolute phase?" experiment, but failed to do so because he was apparently convinced that it was BS, hence beneath him.
It's only replicable if you actually make the effort to do so. The results are not going to just jump up and bite you on the rump.
Being skeptical is one thing. Having the preconceived mindset that anything that you can't imagine to be true is obviously false is another. It is not science. Doug Self failed to replicate a simple experiment that any sixth-grader could have done in less than a minute: Swap + for - on both speakers and see if you can hear a difference. It's trivial. Anyone can do it. But in his arrogance, he failed. My respect for him comes from the fact that he admitted his error in print in a subsequent edition. That took guts.
Your post represents idealized science. You and I both agree that that is the way science should be done. However, in the real world, it doesn't always work that way. Any number of members here at DIY have given ample evidence that they have already made up their minds and, like Self, do not intend to try even the simplest experiments. That is not science, no matter how loudly people shout to the contrary.
Grey
P.S.: I suppose that we should also allow for the possibility that Self did try, but was unable to hear the difference himself, for whatever reason. In which case, his only intellectually honest response would have been to say, "I tried it. I heard no difference." He did not do so and had to eat crow because of it.
Your post is one hundred percent correct, in so far as it goes.
I have a book in my collection (at least I think I still have it) in which the author "proves" Einstein wrong on relativity. At least he makes a determined run at it.
We all know who won that round.
The thing that you left out of your post is the fact that people are, in fact, human. Much is being made of the fact that I am human, hence fallible, ergo, I must be the one who is wrong. Well, perhaps, but there's another possibility that people have overlooked in their rush to pound on "that ignorant so-and-so," which is that scientists are human also. A moment's reflection will call to mind a dozen names of respected scientists who dismissed an idea out of hand, only to be proved wrong in the long run. The book I mentioned above (can't remember the author offhand, but don't think he was anyone "big" in physics) is only one example where scientists, being human, have failed.
Note that both of my degrees are in sciences. In geology, the concept of plate tectonics was actually proposed around a century ago. Ignored. Then proven right after the original fellow died. Bummer. It would have been nice if he'd gotten credit. In psychology, people love to tilt at Freud, but it's amazing how many other proposed theories of human mental/emotional development follow his same framework, only with different labels applied to the stages that Freud called oral, anal, and sexual.
Anyone who thinks I'm anti-science has utterly, completely missed the point. Not that I'm surprised, given the number of times that outrage and mockery have been substituted for actual thought. My point is that Douglas Self (as a particularly clear cut example) had, at his fingertips, the means to replicate the "Can people hear absolute phase?" experiment, but failed to do so because he was apparently convinced that it was BS, hence beneath him.
It's only replicable if you actually make the effort to do so. The results are not going to just jump up and bite you on the rump.
Being skeptical is one thing. Having the preconceived mindset that anything that you can't imagine to be true is obviously false is another. It is not science. Doug Self failed to replicate a simple experiment that any sixth-grader could have done in less than a minute: Swap + for - on both speakers and see if you can hear a difference. It's trivial. Anyone can do it. But in his arrogance, he failed. My respect for him comes from the fact that he admitted his error in print in a subsequent edition. That took guts.
Your post represents idealized science. You and I both agree that that is the way science should be done. However, in the real world, it doesn't always work that way. Any number of members here at DIY have given ample evidence that they have already made up their minds and, like Self, do not intend to try even the simplest experiments. That is not science, no matter how loudly people shout to the contrary.
Grey
P.S.: I suppose that we should also allow for the possibility that Self did try, but was unable to hear the difference himself, for whatever reason. In which case, his only intellectually honest response would have been to say, "I tried it. I heard no difference." He did not do so and had to eat crow because of it.
SY,
I find your attitude particularly curious because, the last I heard, you use tubes. Can you point to peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific papers where it has been proved that tubes are superior to solid state? No? Then why are you lambasting me for suggesting that people use their ears? Where I come from, that's called hypocrisy.
Most people who use tubes, use them because they sound better than solid state. In other words, they listen to them. Attempts to compare distortion levels, spectral content of distortion, and noise have lead nowhere in answering why tubes sound the way they do. In fact, the deck is stacked against tubes from the git-go: Fragile, expensive, short life span, hard to get, hot, etc. etc. etc. So why do people still use tubes? Because they listen to them instead of waiting for someone to determine why they sound so good.
Listening is how you replicate the things that matter in audio. Audio's sole raison d'etre is so that people can listen to it. It wasn't invented as a bizarre hobby for people who happened to own distortion meters.
Your statement that 'Distributed intelligence means that the truth will inevitably out' is exactly, precisely what I outlined above, complete with a couple of case histories. Did you think that somehow the audibility of absolute phase was the last thing that will ever be demonstrated? Audio now represents a closed book, folks. No further research need be done. Hmmm...shades of days past when it was declared that everything that could be known of physics was known. And we all know how that one turned out, too--the declaration was made practically on the eve of quantum mechanics, relativity, et. al. You admit that, in the abstract, science is a moving thing, then deny it in the concrete terms of here and now. I thought better of your intelligence than that.
If you'll excuse me, I've got to go feed the boys.
Grey
I find your attitude particularly curious because, the last I heard, you use tubes. Can you point to peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific papers where it has been proved that tubes are superior to solid state? No? Then why are you lambasting me for suggesting that people use their ears? Where I come from, that's called hypocrisy.
Most people who use tubes, use them because they sound better than solid state. In other words, they listen to them. Attempts to compare distortion levels, spectral content of distortion, and noise have lead nowhere in answering why tubes sound the way they do. In fact, the deck is stacked against tubes from the git-go: Fragile, expensive, short life span, hard to get, hot, etc. etc. etc. So why do people still use tubes? Because they listen to them instead of waiting for someone to determine why they sound so good.
Listening is how you replicate the things that matter in audio. Audio's sole raison d'etre is so that people can listen to it. It wasn't invented as a bizarre hobby for people who happened to own distortion meters.
Your statement that 'Distributed intelligence means that the truth will inevitably out' is exactly, precisely what I outlined above, complete with a couple of case histories. Did you think that somehow the audibility of absolute phase was the last thing that will ever be demonstrated? Audio now represents a closed book, folks. No further research need be done. Hmmm...shades of days past when it was declared that everything that could be known of physics was known. And we all know how that one turned out, too--the declaration was made practically on the eve of quantum mechanics, relativity, et. al. You admit that, in the abstract, science is a moving thing, then deny it in the concrete terms of here and now. I thought better of your intelligence than that.
If you'll excuse me, I've got to go feed the boys.
Grey
john curl said:
Yes. Floyd is a great guy, definitely. He knows his stuff, most definitely. In the same breath, "all things in their place" is a note that needs be played as well.
Both Paradigm and PSB were both run through the wringer when Floyd was up here in Canada, at the NRC. I know the 'second last' designer of gear from Paradigm, he's a great guy. I'm not sure much of his stuff ever went through the NRC, though. By that time Paradigm had considerable cash to throw at test set-ups. I've neve met Paul Barton. Point? Neither are great designs, or posess the kind of clarity that is capable of clearly illustrating the differences that most folks hear in audio equipment. Phasing sucks on most passive designs, but if I was stuck on a desert island, I'd instantly choose PSB over the work of my friend (ex of Paradigm). Speakers that passed through the NRC certainly had their sound. Great 'lifestyle' speakers. Not really for mind numbing emotional involvement.
Floyd may do a great pocket protector, but I'm not sure he should be dictating design to folks who've had the helm in their own areas for 40+ years before he came along.
I'll call you "golden ear(s)" guys, when you can hear the type of passive crossover design and such (low vs high slope-ported vs. sealed) from out side of a given room at a show, before you enter the room. You should also be able to tell if they are using solid state gear, or tubes. (Or even the repeat use of a given popular amplifier) If you can tell that, from outside, before you enter, with a decent amount of accuracy, then you might be the real thing.
I expect the majority of folks here (like me) coming down on the side of decent 'trained' hearing tied to audio design and such...can pass this particular test. I suspect the folks who think that ABX, etc, are extremely vaild, etc, likely cannot commit to this trick. Like riding a bike, it is simply a matter of training of the brain.
This is not an attack, or an effort to egotistically 'put people in their place', that would be a falsity to believe that was, or is my intent. The intent is merely to illustrate that such work and training can take place in people..and has, on many an occasion.
mr-mac said:
In the coatings business, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that all tests be conducted in the exact and real presence, within the same eye scan, of the reference or 'standard'. All other tests are invaild. Switcheroos or swapping, etc, can cost one a considerable amount of money and time. No blind tests. That would be absolute ruin. This is 100% serious.
Now..what in the human mind of self created logic, would make it so that what is the most valid and accurate way of checking the quality of one..against the other..what would make the given person think that switcheroos are the only valid test?
Why would a guy with his reasoning faculties think that the one sense (hearing or coatings testing) required a given test set or designed test to be exclusive in that given are of 'human sensing?' Hmmm???
Well, in the case of coatings testing, it has been shown that the eye does not track as validly as we would like it to. Not even if the two paint samples are even 6 inches apart, on the same table, does the test count. They must be phsyically coated on the same test card stock, with no space between them. Period. Otherwise, considerable amounts of the accuracy available in eye judgement is lost.What does that potentially say about blind testing, switcheroos, or ABX?
One point I said on the AVS forum concerning a recent 'cable challenge' went something like this:
"I have accepted that I am not the most beautiful. I have accepted that I will not ever be the most sublimely muscled man in existence. I have accepted that I will not be the richest, or jet around eating caviar for the rest of my days. I have accpeted that I am not the most intelligent. Maybe the hardliner objectivists should simply accept that they can't hear worth a damn."
~~~~~~~
Maybe the folks who tend to fall in the the hardline camp of pure objectivism, should accept that there is a point they are missing..and accept that they just can't connect the ear/brain combo the way the rest are..and that they currently, at the least, and possibly for the rest of their life (well, I'll just say it).....cannot hear worth a damn. There is a critical point they are missing. And that is that they clearly, are not hearing the difference. The truth is they cannot hear as well as or their ear/brain combo is not as well trained.
At that point it is like fighting with a one armed man who insists, to his dying day, that he can fight as well as any two armed man, even though he was born with only the one arm. No experience in that area, and he insists he is right. All one can do is simply walk away from such an argument.
There is a blindness there, to that mental position, that must be overcome by the one armed man, not the person who attempts to illustrate the lack of sensibility of the position the one armed man is estranged within. (I do mean estranged)
It is a reflection of and within the one armed man, nothing more.
It is identical to the problem here, within the context of mental enlightenment, or specifically, the learned capacity to hear these differences.
What I see (for what it's worth)
What i see in this interesting discussion is that audio reproduction is a very personal experience. As much as some would wish, there is no right or wrong. I think it's because no two people hear exactly alike. Like I said earlier, I was the only one in the group that could hear a difference in that A/B/X test (yes, it was APT-X). But is that really such a bad thing? Maybe ignorance IS bliss!
In some ways, what I say validates A/B/X. In other ways it validates subjectivity. I think that there IS no right or wrong. Maybe Grey is hypersensitive to a certain type of distortion, so class D amps drive him batty. I know that the bass that most tube amps have leaves me cold (though I LOVE their midrange and high end).
Others might believe that their hearing is like John Atkinson's. If it is, then what he loves you will too! That's a good thing for you, as you don't have to decide for yourself.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is there seems to BE no right or wrong, only different. It's almost as if the only ones of us who are wrong are the ones who want to force others to their way of thinking and/or berate them for not agreeing with us. Like I said, this is a very personal experience. What I will be doing is agreeing with some of you, and agreeing to disagree with others here.
Especially in my case, money also happens to enter into the equation. Right now, I'm 53 and unemployed with two small children (3 and 20 months). I was working for a women's national radio network that closed last August. My wife works and I stay home with the children. Anyone who has kids will tell you that most of your money goes to them, not to hobbies. This forces me to make choices, and one of them is to set a strict budget on everything, including audio purchases. I actually make a kind of game of it, building the best system I can for the lowest cost. Right now I'm building speakers. I have a pair of KLH cabinets that were given to me. The drivers were blown but the cabinets are fine. I'm reinforcing them (and BOY do they need reinforcing!) and then putting some 1960's 12 inch Quam loudspeakers in them. Their mids sound okay and I'm looking for a deal on tweeters to match with them. What I'll wind up will probably sound pretty good, and cost under 100 dollars (the Quams cost me $20.00 on ebay and are in perfect shape). Speakers are a 1000% markup item. In this way, the markup goes into my pocket as supposed to someone else's.
This is how I enjoy my hobby. Believe me, what I have now is HARDLY mid fi...but I believe I can make it better. All my 'good' stuff is back in storage in New England and will not likely make it here for some time. BUT..I'm finding that doing audio this way is FUN again!
Paradoxical, isn't it?
What i see in this interesting discussion is that audio reproduction is a very personal experience. As much as some would wish, there is no right or wrong. I think it's because no two people hear exactly alike. Like I said earlier, I was the only one in the group that could hear a difference in that A/B/X test (yes, it was APT-X). But is that really such a bad thing? Maybe ignorance IS bliss!
In some ways, what I say validates A/B/X. In other ways it validates subjectivity. I think that there IS no right or wrong. Maybe Grey is hypersensitive to a certain type of distortion, so class D amps drive him batty. I know that the bass that most tube amps have leaves me cold (though I LOVE their midrange and high end).
Others might believe that their hearing is like John Atkinson's. If it is, then what he loves you will too! That's a good thing for you, as you don't have to decide for yourself.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is there seems to BE no right or wrong, only different. It's almost as if the only ones of us who are wrong are the ones who want to force others to their way of thinking and/or berate them for not agreeing with us. Like I said, this is a very personal experience. What I will be doing is agreeing with some of you, and agreeing to disagree with others here.
Especially in my case, money also happens to enter into the equation. Right now, I'm 53 and unemployed with two small children (3 and 20 months). I was working for a women's national radio network that closed last August. My wife works and I stay home with the children. Anyone who has kids will tell you that most of your money goes to them, not to hobbies. This forces me to make choices, and one of them is to set a strict budget on everything, including audio purchases. I actually make a kind of game of it, building the best system I can for the lowest cost. Right now I'm building speakers. I have a pair of KLH cabinets that were given to me. The drivers were blown but the cabinets are fine. I'm reinforcing them (and BOY do they need reinforcing!) and then putting some 1960's 12 inch Quam loudspeakers in them. Their mids sound okay and I'm looking for a deal on tweeters to match with them. What I'll wind up will probably sound pretty good, and cost under 100 dollars (the Quams cost me $20.00 on ebay and are in perfect shape). Speakers are a 1000% markup item. In this way, the markup goes into my pocket as supposed to someone else's.
This is how I enjoy my hobby. Believe me, what I have now is HARDLY mid fi...but I believe I can make it better. All my 'good' stuff is back in storage in New England and will not likely make it here for some time. BUT..I'm finding that doing audio this way is FUN again!
Paradoxical, isn't it?
I don't have any peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrating the superiority of Tony Rice to Mark Farnham, either. It's irrelevant to what I choose to build and listen to, and without evidence, I won't assert sonic superiority. I just enjoy them more, so that's what I choose to design, build, and listen to. Those who have heard my stuff think it sounds pretty good, and most importantly, it satisfies me.
I really do fail to understand the connection between two unrelated issues.
GRollins said:
Grey,
I gather that you feel that the name or reputation of whoever did the test determines how the test should be or is interpreted.
That's an excellent proof that there is much more than just the factual contents that determines how it is perceived. Just as with listening to equipment there's much more than just the factual air vibrations that determine how it is perceived.
You confirmed to me that you are just as human as the rest of us. Congratulations, you had me worried there for a moment.
Jan Didden
analog_sa said:
Amusingly i have asked SY the same question. At the time, if i'm not mistaken, he anwered that his preference for vacuum has nothing to do with sound but rather with coolness and nostalgia. I believe he also drives a car with a steam engine for the same reasons
Aye, and I was amused to learn of his rather convenient lack of understanding a few posts down from yours, whereas you seem to have understood me perfectly. Life is that way, sometimes.
I trust that most of the readers of this thread can see that I adore the sound of tubes but have given up on them due to cost and availability problems. Like a beautiful wife who also happens to be high maintenance, I admire the beauty, but I can no longer stand to live under the same roof. At least the divorce was a fairly amicable one.
One of the points I have been attempting to make through these last few pages is that many people seem to feel that science is all cool and good as long as it supports their particular view, but suddenly, mysteriously, the self-same person develops a blind spot when science turns up that contradicts their chosen position. (Gawd forbid that the 'science' turn out to be of poor quality or tarnished by profit motive...) This tends to undercut the crystalline purity of their "Science is the one and only way to truth" stance, whether they choose to admit it publicly or not.
Grey
My "chosen position" is not to make unverifiable fact-claims about the sound of things I design, but to be content that they please me, and that they are competently engineered so that others can build and enjoy them. I don't do auditory research for publication, I just find the results from the talented practitioners to be very useful in my own work.
Why is that hard to understand?
Why is that hard to understand?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.