Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: The Scientific Method

Posted by David Aiken (A) on November 17, 2002 at 13:10:12

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

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Amplified Parts

---

[ 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 ]

---