Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Return to Critic's Corner

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Pseudoscience in Audio - Geoff Kait

72.219.92.97
Posted on April 9, 2023 at 19:02:54
13th Duke of Wymbourne
Audiophile

Posts: 2799
Location: Orange Co., Ca
Joined: September 19, 2001
 I like Archimago's rational view and he uses a lot of links to cross-reference material and site sources. I recently came across his musings about one of Geoff's posts and thought it apposite to mention here after my previous post about his blog.

ps. no offense Geoff!

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
as said - PRICELESS !! /NT, posted on April 9, 2023 at 19:20:10
Story
Audiophile

Posts: 10453
Location: NJ
Joined: December 11, 2000



 

It's a tricky problem, posted on April 9, 2023 at 22:10:00
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 The problem is an entire body of scientific research, psychoacoustics is utterly ignored or held in disdain by a major portion of the audiophiles in the hobby and that research holds information about how we hear, process and remember sound that has major implications on the hobby itself.

It begins with the simple fact that how we hear, process and remember sound is counter intuitive.

And it kind of ends with the fact that the body of research that *relates* to audio is not directly about audiophilia and is largely difficult, uninteresting reading that is not easily accessed. So most audiophiles don't know about the research, can't easily access it and can't easily connect it with the audiophile experience.

And so it goes, we have a flat earth mind set in a large subset of the audiophile hobby and with it the capacity to create markets for magic rocks and $40K power cords.

And while "flat earth" analogy may seem demeaning it really isn't. The difference is we grow up being taught the earth is round and rotates on it's axis and orbits the sun etc etc so we have an easy time understanding it. The counter intuitiveness of it doesn't override our early education on the subject. From a sensory perspective the earth DOES seem flat and the sun does seem to travel through our sky while the earth seems to be stationary. If we relied just on our senses and didn't learn basics of astrophysics as kids the idea of the flat earth would be every bit as convincing as the idea that cables make a big difference in sound quality and all the other audiophile beliefs that run contrary to scientific research.

 

Too many Poppers, posted on April 10, 2023 at 05:55:02
geoffkait
 Reminiscent of watching some Boy Scouts paging through their first Playboy magazine.

 

Remembrances are a Proust like behavior especially for old guys like you , posted on April 10, 2023 at 06:32:22
Story
Audiophile

Posts: 10453
Location: NJ
Joined: December 11, 2000
 dream on fantasy man



 

I actually don't think Mr. K is all that old (!? -- nt), posted on April 10, 2023 at 06:49:28
mhardy6647
Audiophile

Posts: 16016
Location: New England
Joined: October 12, 1999
Contributor
  Since: October 23, 2016
 enn tee
all the best,
mrh

 

RE: I actually don't think Mr. K is all that old (!? -- nt), posted on April 10, 2023 at 06:56:47
Story
Audiophile

Posts: 10453
Location: NJ
Joined: December 11, 2000
 I did a bit of research on MD, he's old



 

I was fairly confident you'd identify as Boy/Girl Scout. Nt, posted on April 10, 2023 at 07:48:30
geoffkait
 Nt

 

Mixed logical fallacies. Nt, posted on April 10, 2023 at 07:51:47
geoffkait
 Nt

 

you are prone to wandering fantasies, posted on April 10, 2023 at 07:58:26
Story
Audiophile

Posts: 10453
Location: NJ
Joined: December 11, 2000



 

but, but, but... wouldn't Sean Olive's "Preference Score" fall into this category?, posted on April 10, 2023 at 08:20:50
mhardy6647
Audiophile

Posts: 16016
Location: New England
Joined: October 12, 1999
Contributor
  Since: October 23, 2016
 I am, in fact, a bit amused by the hyper-objectivist crowd embracing loudspeaker "preference score" as quantitative science.* I mean, it's observational, social science. Statistically powered, I guess, but still -- I would say -- debatable. A little different than, say, the structure of glucose or phenylalanine, or the bases that form at least the foundation of the genetic code. ;)

But, at any rate, I would suggest that the "preference score" is an attempt to study a psychoacoustic phenomenon and try to give it some predictive chops.

____
* Don't get me started on the secular religion of "science"!!! Science is not a thing, it's a philosophy -- an approach to building a base of objective and at least internally consistent knowledge. As a scientist, I feel rather strongly about this! ;)



all the best,
mrh

 

Not only do I agree with you but I will take the criticism further, posted on April 10, 2023 at 13:25:21
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 their tests were very limited and handicapped by a methodology that was IMO focused on commercial interests rather than pure scientific investigation.

None of their tests were sufficient in their sampling. I get it. The tests were inherently expensive. But that goes back to the commercial interest.

The tests were very focused on speakers used in common home spaces. Not on dedicated listening rooms. Again this is based on commercial interests

Lastly the tests were all done in mono. Very problematic given audiophiles listen in stereo. The reason given for strict testing in mono was that the results were more definitive. The problem with that is the assumption that the results should be more definitive. Again this points back to commercial interests.

And now the tests are just plain dated. New technologies negate a lot of the findings from those tests.

I will give them credit though for attempting to deal with the huge issue of aural memory. Still not quite a perfect solution but what they came up with was much better than nothing at all.

 

*like* :) , posted on April 10, 2023 at 15:27:05
mhardy6647
Audiophile

Posts: 16016
Location: New England
Joined: October 12, 1999
Contributor
  Since: October 23, 2016
 Good points, all.

I, too, am quite skeptical.
My hope is to correlate measureable stuff with my own preferences.
Why? These days, it's easier to buy than to try :( Trying to improve the signal to noise ratio, so to speak, for a 'blind' (so to speak!) loudspeaker purchase.

:)

all the best,
mrh

 

stalking. Nt, posted on April 10, 2023 at 18:26:48
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 nt

 

Here's the kicker in the blogger's article on pseudoscience, posted on April 11, 2023 at 04:06:17
geoffkait
 After all the huffing and puffing about Morphic fields and bar codes the blogger didn't try a simple experiment, there are actually at least two or three simple experiments he might have done. He even pointed out how easy it would be to perform one. "Controlled experiments" and "logical examination" indeed. He says I did not explain how bad codes interfere with the perception of sound yet I did explain it. The blogger's article is a series of logical fallacies. There is nothing wrong with testimonies, there's nothing wrong with observations. They are part of the scientific method. What would the blogger do if his experiment was a success, turn in his pseudo-skeptic badge? As is oft the case pseudo-skeptics like to talk about controlled tests, they don't like to do them. As if controlled tests would prove their case so why even bother?

Excerpt of blogger's article on Pseudoscience,

II. Pseudoscience in Audio (with an example)
In contrast, let's for a moment think about pseudoscience in audio. There are many devices out there that are claimed to sonically enhance the sound system, have fancy theories, cute websites, plastered with testimonies, but provide absolutely no objective evidence that they "work" as far as I can tell. Let's take a look at this fascinating forum post off Stereophile as a contemporary example. The basic hypothesis is that "information fields interfere with the brain". Now this first claim / hypothesis could be falsifiable and therefore empirically testable to an extent. Since the poster specified barcodes as representative of the "information field", perhaps we can create a bunch of barcodes and stick them all over the place in the soundroom, test some listeners and then remove them and repeat the hearing test to show that it possibly made no difference (hence falsifying the claim). Alternatively, if in a controlled experiment doing this resulted in test subjects significantly experiencing removal of bar codes improved the sound, then we can hold on to the hypothesis until the next experiment. It would of course be nice to explain how bar codes or "information fields" work to create the change in perceptual experience but for the moment we can at least assume that the author has subjected his hypothesis to some form of logical examination and at least the claim of linkage (information field --> interfere with brain) seems testable and falsifiable.

 

Ho ho. First The Who, now Geoff hits back! ~:), posted on April 11, 2023 at 06:27:22
regmac
Audiophile

Posts: 7360
Joined: April 7, 2002
 nt

 

Too dogmatic or satanic? Nt, posted on April 11, 2023 at 08:37:08
geoffkait
 Nt

 

RE: Here's the kicker in the blogger's article on pseudoscience, posted on April 11, 2023 at 09:47:04
apesma
Audiophile

Posts: 102
Joined: April 26, 2005
 So where did your buddy wellfed disappear to?

 

RE: Here's the kicker in the blogger's article on pseudoscience, posted on April 11, 2023 at 10:36:13
13th Duke of Wymbourne
Audiophile

Posts: 2799
Location: Orange Co., Ca
Joined: September 19, 2001
 He did say your theory was falsifiable so, if not disproved, it becomes something valid. As to who does the proof/disproof then if you aren't going to prove it who else will?

 

RE: Here's the kicker in the blogger's article on pseudoscience, posted on April 11, 2023 at 12:30:49
geoffkait
 He packed it in, signed up for The Amazing Randi Educational Foundation.

 

RE: Here's the kicker in the blogger's article on pseudoscience, posted on April 11, 2023 at 12:34:31
geoffkait
 You're kidding, right? Shouldn't proof or at least evidence be provided by an independent person or group? The manufacturer is never on the hook to explain anything or prove anything. Those are old wives tales.

 

RE: Pseudoscience in Audio - Geoff Kait, posted on April 11, 2023 at 13:07:25
Coner
Audiophile

Posts: 3703
Location: S.W. Washington state, USA
Joined: November 17, 2001
 Well....there's outer space, they still don't know what the "empty" space is, can't measure it, totally stumped, but do agree that it's not "empty", something is there. May or may not apply to cables, have no idea.

 

Hire this man! Nt, posted on April 11, 2023 at 14:44:00
geoffkait
 Nt

 

Maybe we need taller cable lifters, much taller (nt), posted on April 11, 2023 at 18:31:42
13th Duke of Wymbourne
Audiophile

Posts: 2799
Location: Orange Co., Ca
Joined: September 19, 2001
 nt

 

It's not the height that matters. It simply has to be the golden ratio (nt), posted on April 12, 2023 at 14:20:43
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 nt

 

Clearly cables have emergent properties, posted on April 12, 2023 at 14:52:00
DAP
Audiophile

Posts: 668
Location: Toronto
Joined: January 1, 2010
 They emerge when a reviewer spends too much time listening to a new cable, and can't think of anything to say about them, nothing at all. Emergent properties help audio reviewers better adapt to the realities of the publishing business and increase their chances of getting more stuff to review.

Daniel

 

Which way? Portrait, or Landscape? nt, posted on April 12, 2023 at 17:24:16
John Marks
Manufacturer

Posts: 7805
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of R.I.
Joined: April 23, 2000
 nt

 

Depends on whether you want more palpability or better PRAT nt, posted on April 12, 2023 at 20:45:46
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 nt

 

I asked him once about the Shuffler..., posted on April 13, 2023 at 10:45:14
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 here.

Science is fine when it really employs scientific principles and uses proper controls.

Most DBTs bandied about - especially for cabling - are an absolute joke. Roger Sander's IC test is one of those bogus tests that is utterly laughable in its faults.

 

DBTs are inherently unscientific. , posted on April 13, 2023 at 11:34:13
geoffkait
 All DBTs are a joke. And there are perfectly valid reasons I say that. They are usually employed by someone, even in speech, who's trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

 

Disagree on that point, but..., posted on April 13, 2023 at 12:35:35
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 those used in medicine are conducted very differently as explained here.

 

RE: Disagree on that point, but..., posted on April 13, 2023 at 12:46:37
geoffkait
 Yes, I know, and medicine doesn't have the complexities or subjectivity of audio testing to deal with. That's why my comment was referring to audio tests.

Can you think of reasons for negative or inconclusive results of controlled blind tests in audio not having to do with items under test? Because if you can that means the results are probably not valid. And if you can't think of any I will be happy to give some to you. People often get very attached to DBTs because everyone says they are so very scientific.

 

Only to the extent that , posted on April 13, 2023 at 12:56:21
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 null results (the most common type) denote a lack of demonstrated result. Which is different than a negative result.

I played the game years ago when Mr. Voodoo dropped the gauntlet with his "audiophile repellent" test and I easily bettered his results using inexpensive Shure IEMs and a generic HP laptop.

 

No, I'm referring to the test system and the test subject, posted on April 13, 2023 at 13:49:30
geoffkait
 What could possibly go wrong with the test in regards to the test system and/or the test subject?

 

RE: I asked him once about the Shuffler..., posted on April 15, 2023 at 22:10:52
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 How is Roger Sander's IC test bogus?

 

RE: Disagree on that point, but..., posted on April 15, 2023 at 22:12:42
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Of course they are conducted differently. What about the tests done in the field of psychoacoustics? Do you have a problem with how that scientific field of study conducts DBTs?

 

RE: Only to the extent that , posted on April 15, 2023 at 22:20:12
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 "null results (the most common type) denote a lack of demonstrated result. Which is different than a negative result."

Now THAT is a laughable statement.

I have one question for you. IF something makes no audible difference in a sound system what would it take for you to accept whatever it is does not make an audible difference as a fact? And please don't try to change the premise of the question.

 

Not to mention the mellifluity (n/t), posted on April 16, 2023 at 04:49:45
DAP
Audiophile

Posts: 668
Location: Toronto
Joined: January 1, 2010

 

Negative or inconclusive results of a controlled blind test, posted on April 16, 2023 at 05:53:39
geoffkait
 Inconclusive or negative results do not (rpt not) necessarily mean the item(s) under test failed. It's because they're are many reasons why the test system and/or test subject had problems. Now, if you run the test on different systems with different test subjects then you might be able to draw some conclusions. The preponderance of the evidence.

Scott is using a common logical fallacy by saying a negative or inconclusive test result means something. It doesn't mean anything.

But a single test has almost no meaning if the results are negative or inconclusive. If the results of a single test are positive those results have some meaning since all the problems or potential problems were overcome. Having said that better confidence in those results can be obtained by multiple tests with multiple systems and test subjects.

Allow me to give you some examples of potential test system problems that affect the test results. You don't have to agree with me on all of these, gentle readers, but you probably agree with some of them.

The system is out of absolute polarity.
The source material is out of absolute polarity.
The item under test (e.g., cables, electronics, speakers) were not broken in properly or thoroughly.
The test system was not thoroughly broken in.
The test system was not thorough warmed up.
The room acoustics were very bad.
The test system was not of sufficient quality or resolution to be able to hear any differences.
Cables and or fuses were in the wrong direction.

Furthermore, there are potential problems for the test subject. His hearing might not be as good as he thinks it is. He may have a cold or have just gotten over a virus. He might not be experienced in differentiating different sounds, especially when the differences are subtle. He might be convinced a priori that he won't hear any differences. He might not be familiar with the sound of the test system. He might feel pressure to perform.

Of course any controlled blind test can be constructed so that it's practically impossible to get positive results, for example construct a test for which the test subject just guess cirrestkynten times in a row. This is precisely how The Amazing Randi constructed tests for his Million Dollar Challenge.

 

More information required, posted on April 16, 2023 at 06:27:17
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 IF something makes no audible difference in a sound system

By whom?

Using what content?

In what system?

Reminds me of the farcical Meyer Moran *study* from 2007 that concluded that SACD offered no audible difference vs Redbook. Some of the SACD content chosen wasn't even natively SACD! It was merely upsampled from Redbook. The primary system was anything but reference and chose a player that John Atkinson observed had no better dynamic range than CD players!


 

Obviously, controls were missing!, posted on April 16, 2023 at 06:35:16
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I exposed the folly here.

Like Frank Van Alstine did years ago testing amplifiers.

 

Conceptually, no problem, posted on April 16, 2023 at 06:38:53
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 The challenge always lies with execution as applied to audio gear.

 

There is an industry standard as applied to audio gear , posted on April 16, 2023 at 06:58:24
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 The ITU-R BS.1116 standard. Do you accept that as a legitimate standard for executions of DBTs in audio?

 

Kindly reference an example used -nt , posted on April 16, 2023 at 06:59:25
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002

 

RE: Kindly reference an example used -nt , posted on April 16, 2023 at 13:35:09
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 You mean an actual peer reviewed published study? If so, does this mean you are unfamiliar with it his standard or any tests done using it?

 

RE: More information required, posted on April 16, 2023 at 13:46:39
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 By whom? Anyone making a disputed claim of audible differences

Using what content? Whatever content they used when they allegedly heard these differences

In what system? Whatever system they used when they heard the alleged differences

 

Take your pick, posted on April 16, 2023 at 13:53:07
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Choose any used for or reported about high end audio evaluations where those controls are known.

 

That's the Catch 22 ;), posted on April 16, 2023 at 13:59:25
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Most folks couldn't care less.

For those who do, however, tests reported here fail to adhere to standards and/or controls.

 

RE: Take your pick, posted on April 16, 2023 at 18:18:21
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Do you believe biological evolution is scientifically valid?

 

Not surprised, posted on April 16, 2023 at 18:52:31
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 you're unable to cite even a single case.

 

RE: Not surprised, posted on April 16, 2023 at 19:09:04
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Want to bet?

Why didn't you answer the question?

I think you are afraid to engage in an honest discussion here. Which doesn't surprise me. You want to appear to believe in science but you don't want to actually believe it when it conflicts with your beliefs about audio.

Do you believe life evolved on earth? Simple question. Shouldn't be that hard to answer. I am confident you won't. If you won't answer that question your claim to believe in science looks quite dubious.

 

Not at all, posted on April 16, 2023 at 19:13:20
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 The question was "I have one question for you. IF something makes no audible difference in a sound system what would it take for you to accept whatever it is does not make an audible difference as a fact? And please don't try to change the premise of the question."

You tried to obfuscate instead of answering the question. And I am quite certain you will find some other dodge. You won't answer this question. I am sure of it. Not answering it allows you to move the goal posts to serve your agenda.

 

If..., posted on April 17, 2023 at 05:28:57
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 IF something makes no audible difference in a sound system...

a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump his a$$.

Cite an actual example. Still waiting.

 

RE: If..., posted on April 17, 2023 at 10:12:09
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 If I cite an actual example will you answer the question? I don't believe you will.

 

Cite a real world test, posted on April 17, 2023 at 10:25:04
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 and I'll be happy to comment. :)

 

RE: Cite a real world test, posted on April 17, 2023 at 10:57:39
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 comments from a person with no set standards is meaningless. A basic tenant of science is falsifiability. You refuse to acknowledge any rules of falsifiability. If you can not tell us how a claim of an audible difference can be falsified to your satisfaction before applying it to any examples you are being anti-scientific while trying to keep the appearance of being scientific.

 

RE: Cite a real world test, posted on April 17, 2023 at 11:04:37
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Another question you certainly won't answer.

Do you believe Bigfoot is a real and unique creature roaming the forests of the Americas?

And I am going to ask this one again

Do you believe life evolved on earth?

These questions do relate to the issue at hand. But you won't answer them.

Please demonstrate that you accept the basic tenants of science. Creationists claim to believe in science too. But they don't accept the basic tenants of science. At least they are transparent enough to admit it.

 

Your posts continue to illustrate, posted on April 17, 2023 at 11:06:33
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37641
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 emptiness and the absurd.

We'll leave it there. ;)

 

RE: Your posts continue to illustrate, posted on April 17, 2023 at 11:38:44
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Says the guy who claims to be scientific and won't answer the simplest of questions about his understanding and beliefs on science

 

Page processed in 0.043 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]