|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: The Scientific Method posted by Phil Tower on November 17, 2002 at 05:02:04:
I've kept out of the main thread here because I'm trying to put something together myself, but I can't resist the opportunity to comment on the application of "scientific method" to the problem of getting the sound you want.After years of not bothering about my system, I got interested again a few years ago (components breaking down with age forcing a shopping expedition) and over the past 4 years I've totally replaced my system component by component. As I went through that, I also got into tweaking heavily and found myself playing around with different tweaking ideas on a weekly basis at times. I got into learning how to listen to detail and change again and went down some interesting byways because of that - not all productive apart from the fact that learning what is unproductive is always productive. I also started listening to live music and voices in the same way and getting a better feel for what they do sound like rather than what I thought they sounded like. Finally, after moving house and getting everything into a new room and refining the setup to fine tune it for the room, I seem to be running out of the urge to tweak and further system changes are out of the budget for some years now so I find myself settling back into the music again and it is nice - both the music and the settling back.
I know what you mean about the trial and error, and the "dogmatic objectivist" view that we just get tired, but I thoroughly agree with what I think is your own unspoken conclusion there that the time and effort involved do yield a significant benefit in the sound. You can't pin that down in bits and pieces to "this came from that component and that from another". Yes, some of the changes in sound are slight but, like you, I don't think they're placebo effects and synergy definitely has it's place too. In the end, the whole definitely seems more than the sum of the parts.
That whole trial and error process really does relate to a scientific, as in rational, approach. It's a process of trying something and asking does it make a difference. If it does, do I like it in which case it stays, if I don't it goes, and if I don't know whether I like it or not then I sit with it until I know. If it doesn't make a difference to the sound, it may still stay if it makes the room or using the gear easier, or even if I just like how it looks since good aesthetics are relaxing and relaxing helps me enjoy the music more anyway. At the same time, there's the another process of learning what things sound like going on which also helps you to learn what you like in sound and that yields not a few surprises too.
I think one of the fascinating things about the process is that you can start out with the idea of improving the sound of your system and not know what it's going to sound like at the end of the process, and even though you don't know where you're going you do know when you get there. You've got a system that plays music and does the things that are important to your enjoyment of music very well. Other people may find other aspects of the music more important and prefer a different sound but that's OK too. Your system is right for you and it really does fit comfortably.
In a sense there is a similar process going on in science. You start with an itch, in this case a question to which you don't know the answer, and go through a trial and error process finding out all sorts of other things along the way as you refine your understanding until you come to a conclusion and you know that's the answer so you stop looking further and go on to something else.
So I definitely don't find your process misguided or doubt your conclusion that at least some of the things you think you heard along the way are real differences. It's pretty impossible not to be convinced of the reality of some of the perceived differences when they end up being totally different to what you expected them to be, even the opposite of what you expected on occasion. And there are also the times when you expected to hear something and didn't. The people who pass everything off by saying that "You only heard what you expected to hear - you're convincing yourself when there is no difference" really don't seem to have tried the experiment themselves and played with their system. In some ways that unwillingness to play is the greatest enemy of science.
Yes, we can individually make mistakes along the way but that comes naturally with human fallibility. That's definitely not a problem for science and the history of science is riddled with people making mistakes. It's the willingness to dig at the issue, to play around, to make mistakes here and there and keep going, that is one major part of the scientific method. The other is the systematic and rational techniques that are used. You need both and you don't get anywhere without both so I think we can quite comfortably say that people who aren't willing to play around with trial and error and to make mistakes here and there aren't being scientific in their approach. In fact, I think we can probably go as far as saying "refusal to play is irrational".
David Aiken
Follow Ups:
David:Thanks for your very well articulated comments. It sounds as if your experience and the conclusions you drew from that experience have been similar to mine. You just described it much better than I could.
"The people who pass everything off by saying that "You only heard what you expected to hear - you're convincing yourself when there is no difference" really don't seem to have tried the experiment themselves and played with their system. In some ways that unwillingness to play is the greatest enemy of science."That is exactly the point that some fail to realise and it is good that you brought that up.For naysayers are always passing the buck for those who perceive differences to prove it.Like what is their to prove,I proved it to the one that counts most.ME!Not trying to be selfish ,but thats what it comes down to.
You cannot put another persons set of ears on and cannot do the groundwork for them either.If they are lazy they will never know if they can improve anything and only trust what they have read from others who share their lazy mental outlook.
Quote: "The people who pass everything off by saying that "You only heard what you expected to hear - you're convincing yourself when there is no difference" really don't seem to have tried the experiment themselves and played with their system. In some ways that unwillingness to play is the greatest enemy of science."Just who on the asylum says things like that?
I'll grant you a FEW seem to have opinions something like that, but even Mike above seems to not get that far.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
And I did say "…the people who pass everything off…" by which I meant those who really have only that one answer, even if you've said that what you heard wasn't what you expected or that you were surprised.Sorry I missed this sub-thread.
I'm not saying you can't make a mistake about what you hear - we both agree that is possible. I am saying that you can't explain everything away with one explanation, especially when it doesn't fit with the circumstances some of the time. The situation is more complex than that.
And I do think people who seize on one possible explanation and apply it as an object of faith, who aren't willing to entertain alternatives and play with options, are the worst enemies of science because that really is closed mind thinking.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/473.html
Interesting.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
Yes,MM I know is not that way.I have read his post and he can be objective and fair.He can disagree which is fine by me,but there are those at other BB's that will not try to see for themsekves and keep peoples minds closed to change or else convince other's that their way is the best way in a real narrow minded sense.As an example if a person wants advice on a cable issue they will give them RS,HD or Walmart to get cables at without other alternatives and all besides those choices are bad or a waste of hard earned money.I tend to disagree with this sort of advice.
I do not want to get into that on this BB and I hope to pickup tidbits from what the pro's look at.Some I understand some is way over my head.
The thing that baffles me about the extreme objectivist viewpoint is when it is applied on the hobbiest level (as opposed to the scientific lab level) to the point that some of them seem to be saying that even if they substituted a high end cable for their Rat Shack cables and perceived a significant improvement, and continued to perceive that improvement on a consistent basis, they still wouldn't consider using that high end cable unless and until it had been scientifically demonstrated that the improvement they are hearing is not due to placebo. At that point, it seems to me that they become as closed minded at the hobbiest level as subjectivists who reject DBTs out of hand are at the scientific level.Of course, if a hobbiest wants to utilize blind testing at home, I have no problem with that. But I have never heard anyone who claims to have employed blind testing at home say if the differences they thought they were hearing in sighted auditions before the blind test disappeared in sighted auditions following the blind the test. If in fact a person continued under sighted conditions to hear significant differences between a Rat Shack cable and a high end cable after failing to have distinguished them under blind conditions, would they reject the high end cable simply because they had been unable to distinguish it in a blind test? Would they reject it even if under post test auditioning experienced it as making a significant improvement to their enjoyment of their system, simply because they had failed to distinguish it under blind conditions? As I understand the extreme objectivist position, the answer to the last two questions would be an emphatic YES.
To the extent that is truly the position of the extreme objectivists, then I find it very difficult to understand where the "rationality" is in that position.
If you hear something on a sighted test and you can't distinguish it reliably on a blind test, you're in a very interesting position. How do you explain it to yourself? Even if you thought you heard a large difference on the sighted test, you may very well be inclined to think that the difference wasn't so large and that in fact you were mistaken and it actually was small enough that you couldn't reliably distinguish it on the blind test. Would you want to shell out a lot of cash for the expensive cable in those circumstances? I think I would have reservations and I wouldn't criticise anyone who had doubts after such an experience. They are experimentting and listening and we each hear what we hear and make our own decisions on that. Even when we're basing our decision on what we consider are significant differences heard in a sighted test, we sometimes baulk at the cost differential between items. If you can have doubts there and decide on a cost benefit analysis to go with the item that costs less, why would you want to criticise the person in your example for not going with the expensive item?I admit that's added in another factor - price - to your scenario but I don't think it's an unreasonable factor to introduce since it's often a factor to be considered anyway and one can understand it carrying more weight for someone who had failed to distinguish the item on blind testing.
If you hear something on a sighted test and you can't distinguish it reliably on a blind test, you're in a very interesting position. How do you explain it to yourself?I think the thing most people do is dismiss one of the test results. And, I could be guessing, but human nature would lead us to dismiss the test result that we didn't like.
Your first sentence:
If you hear something on a sighted test and you can't distinguish it reliably on a blind test, you're in a very interesting position. How do you explain it to yourself?Why do you have to explain it? Explaining it is when one gets into trouble.
If you like it, it's all about satisfaction. Be satisfied. Life is too short.
When you have to do science it's different, but most of us don't do science for our home listening satisfaction, I think.
I think it would be rather disconceting to find that you couldn't reliably pick something in a test which you thought was extremely audible under what you regarded as "normal" conditions. That would definitely give me an itch I'd want to scratch, at least for a while.You're right about satisfaction and the brevity of life, however. I'm sure I could find satisfaction with something :-)
HowdyDoesn't it depend on the test?
My tendency is to suspect the test, I've seen extremely few well set up tests and very many flawed ones with unsupportable extrapolations.
Assuming that the testee is confused, disingenuous or self deluded and assuming the test is flawed or misinterpreted are both similar real possibilities until we get concrete about a specific test... Otherwise we are just discussing how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
it could shake up my confidence in my own infallibility. I usually recover from that by pointing out to anyone who has observed it that I really am God and infallible, and that I only make mistakes deliberately so that people won't catch on. Lately however, the scepticism with which this explanation is usually greeted has been eroding my confidence and I think my wife is slipping some sort of medication into my morning coffee as well. I also think I overhear her and our son talking about asylums occasionally. I haven't the heart to tell her I frequent one regularly or to discuss what goes on here with her. :-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: