|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.108.142.131
In Reply to: "Science is all about openness and honesty." Hmm... Where does that leave audio? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on March 20, 2007 at 11:24:39:
in some ways it is a sensory enjoyment like good food. In that sense, people can enjoy whatever they enjoy without justifying it.On the other hand, scientific methods are a powerful way to find things out, and it would be nice if they were used- there would be far less argument and far more real data.
Even wine journals outline their test procedures and results. This isn't science per se, but it is a step toward scientific methodology.
Follow Ups:
...of improved sound boxes? Better pressing materials? Superior cartridges?Can you name *even one* aspect of progress in phonography's first, oh, eighty years that resulted from "real data", as opposed to people more-or-less messing around to get better sound?
And even if you do come up with one, does not the preponderance of improvement today, as it always has, result from experimentation, rather than data?
when designing the light bulb. These were controlled and systematic, and I would not characterize this work as "more-or-less messing around."
His experiments yielded plenty of real data.I doubt that he was "messing around" when he developed the phonograph, but I'm admittedly speculating on this point.
As far as your last point, it escapes me. Experimentation is used to gather data, so I don't see your distinction.
...or from the literature, where he might discover a gap to expand into. His procedures were strictly experimental, just as they are in properly-understood audio today.
NT
x
talk about playing with words. What you wrote is just gibberish.
n
...next to Geoff Kait that is.
s
You are the Coke Zero of the AA!
> On the other hand, scientific methods are a powerful way to find
> things out,Indeed it is for things that lie in the scientific domain like the performance of audio equipment.
> and it would be nice if they were used- there would be far
> less argument and far more real data.But there would be no audiophile sector.
What would happen if the audiophile publications started performing controlled subjective listening tests for components like amplifiers, CD players (never mind cables) and revealed their reviewers could not distinguish many of the products in order to subjectively judge them? And when one looks at why they could distinguish the products they could... (which would be a hard question to avoid).
The publications need the industry and the industry needs the publications. The move from valid reviews to 'subjective' reviews without controls may have an element of a lottery at times for individual components but it was and is essentially a requirement if a reasonable level of enthusiasm and interest is to be generated about the products in the sector.
Bottom line, this is a hobby. Yes, scientific methods would be welcome, but in reality, these are time consuming and labor intensive.If you believe, as I do, that amplifier differences only really show up under extended weeks of listening, then you cannot depend on a simple A/B test. It would be entirely possible to set up a long term amplifier comparison blind test, but again it's a big effort.
Now I replaced one tube amp with another and the results were immediately audible. The 2nd amp has twice as much rated power. Is this the whole difference? Could be. But the point is, with big things like amps, you rarely get identical specs in any case. I also have an old Hafler with the same rated power as my current tube amp, but it sounds rather poor into the same load.
> I don't completely agree with youYou would appear to not agree with me at all.
> Bottom line, this is a hobby.
Of course.
> Yes, scientific methods would be welcome,
I have suggested why it would be about as welcome as a hole in the head. This may be a point of contention.
> but in reality, these are time consuming and labor intensive.
Performing reviews in a valid manner would not be substantially more time consuming or labour intensive if the publications wanted to gear up to perform them regularly. But they would be a bit more.
> If you believe, as I do, that amplifier differences only really show
> up under extended weeks of listening,Errr no. Unlike you it would seem, I have some familiarity with audibility experiments are results.
> It would be entirely possible to set up a long term amplifier
> comparison blind test, but again it's a big effort.What would such an experiment be measuring?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: