 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
213.101.222.243
In Reply to: Re: Hi Alex, thanks for the very level-headed response posted by Dave Kingsland on August 21, 2004 at 09:46:55:
Dave,I think you vastly overestimate the critical process involved in scientific and technical papers (I won't even mention journalists). Some fantastic misunterpretations have been published over the centuries, without anyone daring to verify or even question the results. I remember seing one book about this, but I can't find the title at the moment, but examples of scientific mistakes abound*.
The discussion that followed Alex's publication on this board is a very healthy one in my opinion, including your careful reading and subsequent discussions. Since he has the ability to correct, amend, or complement his article, the process is actually productive, including for readers who are not specialists, like me.
And, again, I think a lot of the problems raised could be prevented by some common methodology and procedures. This would also allow comparisons between different people and publications.
Cheers
Eric
* I do have one example in mind, though. One of the leading sociology books, Durkheim's Suicide, contained a major misunterpretation of some statistical data. That book was reviewed, published, and studied by thousands (if not tens of thousands) of students, teachers, researchers, and no one had noticed this mistake for about a century, until one guy actually double checked the tables in the book.
BTW, the book is still printed with the same mistake, and there's not even a mention of the article where this was discovered :)
Follow Ups:
Eric,I don't expect perfection, but there have to be some minimum standards in every field otherwise nobody can learn anything from the body of published works. The level of rigor varies by field. It's been quite high in the fields I have had the opportunity to publish or present work in. But rigor seems utterly missing in audio and garbage science has almost become the norm. A lot of the technical articles published in this field could use a disclaimer: "For entertainment purposes only", because that's all you're going to get out of them.
But even in the absence of standards, I still expect people to take responsibility for the accuracy and correctness of what they publish. I don't think Alex is willing to do that. I even question his motives for replying here and I have my doubts about his sincerity in wanting to resolve the issues raised by Dan, Frank, and myself. I think Alex is only interested in damage control and further, I expect that we will be able to revisit this article in 6 months and it will still be there without any resolution to these issues.
I admire your attempts to find some sort of common ground in this discussion. I really do. But I don't think there is any to be found and therefore I see no point in continuing it any further.
Dave
You are completely wrong, Dave. The article is in the process of correction:
It was corrected already the information concerning Chris Johnson, as it is a different person that the guru of SFI. - request to correct by Chris Johnson
On the next week two points will be corrected:
1. "HD-DVD promoted by Microsoft (WMV9 Pro supporting multi-channel audio 24bit 96 kHz WMA9 Pro)" is going to be replaced by:
"and WMA9 pro, supporting 24 bit 96kHz multi-channel Audio,
promoted by Microsoft." due to the fact, that only video part of MS technology had been approved for HD-DVD standard - this correction was requested by one of the members of hydrogenaudio forum
2. "The first SACD were developed in ProTools," will be corrected with "Some SACD were developed in ProTools" - request of Michael Bishop, Chief Recording Engineer Telarc International Corp.
We are working on correction.
I am going to make the measurements ASAP and find out the source of ultrasonics in different, then THX Music modes, though at the moment I still believe, that they are presented on the disks.
The article will be corrected or a follow-up will be posted.
I also "see no point in continuing it any further", because it looks that you don't look for any co-operation. Thank you.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]