|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Not certain what you mean posted by David Aiken on November 14, 2002 at 17:06:44:
In principle, all observations - ie perceptions derived from our physical senses - should be verifiable.I think that statement is a fundamental underpinning of the scientific method and if we can’t all mutually agree on the truth of that statement at this forum, then I think it is going to be extremely difficult to make much progress.
Now a designer like Bob Crump may have sufficient confidence that differences he hears are due to actual audible sonic differences and he can attempt to correlate what he perceives with measured differences in order to enable him to improve the design and performance of his products.
Moreover, if I choose to select my cables and components using sighted auditions because I'm happy with the results then that’s my own personable business (or problem, depending on your perspective).
But if what we are fundamentally addressing here at the outset is wheather two different cables of similar gauge and length can produce audible sonic differences (probably the most heated debate in audio for the past 20 years), then the only way we can answer that question is to verify that our perceptions of actual audible sonic differences are in fact due to audible sonic stimuli, as jj would say.
From my observation, this discussion often gets clouded specifically for the reason Rod stated in this post:
All too often, the debate centers on DBT's validity when in reality it should focus on the specific DBT and it's methodology.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/331.html
Personally, I'm of the opinion that any discussion of DBTs that doesn't focus primarily on specific DBTs and methodology is pretty much a waste of time. And I'll go even further and say that, again solely in my opinion, the discussion should focus primarily on professionally run DBTs, because most of us probably won't run them in our homes, and even if we do, we in all liklihood won't run them in a manner that will produce meaningful results.
Follow Ups:
> > > In principle, all observations - ie perceptions derived from our physical senses - should be verifiable. < < <> > I think that statement is a fundamental underpinning of the scientific method and if we can’t all mutually agree on the truth of that statement at this forum, then I think it is going to be extremely difficult to make much progress. < <
Rather than indirectly dismissing anyone who might disagree with this statement, why don't you explain what the statement means to you and why its truth is self evident?
The way I see it nature is under no obligation to make itself verifiable.
"The way I see it nature is under no obligation to make itself verifiable."\What verifiability requires in science is simply repeatability. There's an underlying assumption that nature acts according to laws and not randomly or capriciously so the same set of circumstances or causes should always lead to the same result. If it didn't, we could never work out what was going on or build something that would work reliably over time.
Scientific proof relies on the fact that observations and test results are repeatable. If observations aren't repeatable, you're not observing quite the same thing and if results aren't repeatable, the prediction on which the test was designed isn't reliable. You can't build on that. On the other hand, if the observations and test results are repeatable, what you've verified -apart from the observations or results - is that nature is acting consistently and it's that which underlies the whole of science.
> > There's an underlying assumption that nature acts according to laws and not randomly or capriciously so the same set of circumstances or causes should always lead to the same result. < <If we do not understand the laws we cannot construct the tests very well. A lot happens in our brains when we process a sound. I'm not sure we could say that we understand all of it.
The act of deciding which speaker cable (or whatever) I prefer in a sighted, home listening situation is certainly a different mental process than doing the same in a blind test. Do we know well enough how the brain processes sound to say that the blind test removes biases related to sight and has no other effects on the test? I don't believe we do.
The way I see it nature is under no obligation to make itself verifiable.Of course it's not, but we're talking about our perceptions of nature, not nature itself, and the point is our perceptions of nature should be verifiable. Given sufficient knowledge and research, it seems to me, we should be able to isolate the source of any perception.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that any discussion of DBTs that doesn't focus primarily on specific DBTs and methodology is pretty much a waste of time. And I'll go even further and say that, again solely in my opinion, the discussion should focus primarily on professionally run DBTs, because most of us probably won't run them in our homes, and even if we do, we in all liklihood won't run them in a manner that will produce meaningful results.
These meaningul results might appear in some publication (perhaps the audiophile equivalent of Consumer Reports) discussing the metodology used in testing and the benefits of the product to the user?
The way I see it nature is under no obligation to make itself verifiable.
Of course it's not, but we're talking about our perceptions of nature, not nature itself, and the point is our perceptions of nature should be verifiable. Given sufficient knowledge and research, it seems to me, we should be able to isolate the source of any perception.
And by isolating the source of any perception, could one assume that the results might offer either X or Y as valid? (Assuming X and Y have different properties.)
(I'm not trying to be either flippant or argumentative by asking these two questions.)
First of all, I don’t see your question as flippant in any respect. I’m far more concerned that I’ll proceed down the road with a faulty belief or opinion, based on lack of information, faulty information or flawed reasoning, than I am with having my comments challenged or questioned. I’m a lay person with respect to all of this and I’m here to learn, not to teach.These meaningul results might appear in some publication (perhaps the audiophile equivalent of Consumer Reports) discussing the metodology used in testing and the benefits of the product to the user?
I’m not sure it’s that readily available, but I’m sure that people such as jj certainly have the experience and background necessary to conduct the best possible tests within whatever, if any, limitations currently exist in the state of the art of DBTs.
And by isolating the source of any perception, could one assume that the results might offer either X or Y as valid? (Assuming X and Y have different properties.)
Theoretically, that would seem to me to be the case. However, I would have to leave it to experts, such as jj, to tell me if in fact the particular test was reliable enough to reach that conclusion.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: