Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 126

post #1876 of 1990
2/8/13 at 3:14pm

I'm soooo disillusioned.  I thought it was "Eggs, Rugs and Rock and Roll".  Now I have to throw out my entire collection of eggs.  And rugs. 

Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #1877 of 1990
2/8/13 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfac73 View Post

why is that? Have you tried to burn cds both ways?


didn't think so

Reply
post #1878 of 1990
2/8/13 at 3:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfac73 View Post

why is that? Have you tried to burn cds both ways?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfac73 View Post

didn't think so

You don't have to try everything yourself.

 

But I've burned countless CDs using my laptop connected to mains power and all were perfect, i.e. bit for bit the same as the source.

If that's not the case for you, something in the laptop is clearly broken.

Reply
post #1879 of 1990
2/8/13 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfac73 View Post

I still think burning cds on a laptop on battery power sounds better than doing the same thing on mains power. Am I foolish on this?

 

Reply
post #1880 of 1990
2/9/13 at 1:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

I understand what you are saying, we just should be clear about the difference between experiencing a difference (subjective), and their actually being one (objective). If there is no objective data to support an audible difference, and a mountain of evidence suggesting that, in fact, there shouldn't be one - then one's experience not withstanding, we shouldn't be making recommendations based solely on that experience. Especially given the very good evidence we have regarding how the brain processes data, and what factors can bias it (often tremendously). 

That is to say, personal experiences, while valuable, do not trump objective evidence - especially overwhelming evidence. They may, however, inform the search for actual evidence that later might. In the meantime, it is what it is, one person's subjective opinion, and nothing more. An experienced placebo does not mean it is anything more than placebo - and it's predictive/modeling value for others is virtually nil (e.g. since we don't know the specific biasing factors, and there is no objective data to suggest a difference - there is no reason to think any two people would experience that placebo the same way, unless they are influenced by review/expectation/marketing similarly - quite murky waters). 

IMo the ability of science to account for the experience of life is very limited, I don't mean that it is useless or incorrect, but just limited in what it can predict. For me my direct experience comes first and foremost above a priorised mentally constructed determination of what my experience will be. Science enters to help make sense of what I directly perceive.

For example I just bought an HD800, and seller says look at the FR chart there is no 6Khz peak, and sure the FR plot provided shows no peak. But my ears tell me otherwise, so I look into it further and the FR plots made by Sennheiser are absolute rubbish. If I were to assume the evidence provided to me was absolute and reliable, and that my own observations are feeble and worthless I would still have sore ears. On the other hand objective measurements help to determine what might be causing what I was observing. Still other people might listen to e exact same headphone and be perfectly happy with them, even with all things being equal.
Reply
post #1881 of 1990
2/9/13 at 1:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post


IMo the ability of science to account for the experience of life is very limited, I don't mean that it is useless or incorrect, but just limited in what it can predict. For me my direct experience comes first and foremost above a priorised mentally constructed determination of what my experience will be. Science enters to help make sense of what I directly perceive.

 

This statement misrepresents, or fundamentally misunderstands the hypothetico-deductive method. Additionally, it is generalized to the point of absurdity. Whether you choose to utilize the scientific method in your audio-related decision making or not, you cannot simply disregard the scientific method when it is incongruent with whatever point you are making. Scientific inquiry is the basis of all (learned) knowledge (imprinted and instinctual knowledge excluded), and the scientific process, in and of itself should be beyond reproach.

Reply
post #1882 of 1990
2/9/13 at 1:29am

You can question the assumptions, conclusions, process, or procedure of any individual or experiment. But, disregarding the scientific method as a whole is ridiculous. Doing so undermines every single aspect of human knowledge and learning.

Reply
post #1883 of 1990
2/9/13 at 3:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by scootsit View Post

This statement misrepresents, or fundamentally misunderstands the hypothetico-deductive method. Additionally, it is generalized to the point of absurdity. Whether you choose to utilize the scientific method in your audio-related decision making or not, you cannot simply disregard the scientific method when it is incongruent with whatever point you are making. Scientific inquiry is the basis of all (learned) knowledge (imprinted and instinctual knowledge excluded), and the scientific process, in and of itself should be beyond reproach.

I think you touched upon my point, scientific method is fine for scientific research, But it does not override what I directly observe, except in extreme cases. Fact is though that the science being brought to bear against "audiophile claims" is generally piecemeal and of limited scope and sample size. The vast majority would not pass for academic research. I do not consider it comprehensive.
Reply
post #1884 of 1990
2/9/13 at 3:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

I think you touched upon my point, scientific method is fine for scientific research, But it does not override what I directly observe, except in extreme cases.

 

The problem is that what you directly observe can be unreliable and biased, unless the right measures (double-blind testing, etc.) are taken to eliminate all sources of bias. This is something that has been known to science and proven for a long time, but is apparently very hard for audiophiles to accept (even banned here at the other sub-forums).

Reply
post #1885 of 1990
2/9/13 at 3:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

The problem is that what you directly observe can be unreliable and biased, unless the right measures (double-blind testing, etc.) are taken to eliminate all sources of bias. This is something that has been known to science and proven for a long time, but is apparently very hard for audiophiles to accept (even banned here at the other sub-forums).

This is true, but unfortunately double blind testing and objective measurements are not practical for the vast majority of the decisions we make. If you can organise such testing for specific decisions this is great, and certainly generous in terms of providing a more reliable data point for other people.
Reply
post #1886 of 1990
2/9/13 at 3:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by scootsit View Post

This statement misrepresents, or fundamentally misunderstands the hypothetico-deductive method. Additionally, it is generalized to the point of absurdity. Whether you choose to utilize the scientific method in your audio-related decision making or not, you cannot simply disregard the scientific method when it is incongruent with whatever point you are making. Scientific inquiry is the basis of all (learned) knowledge (imprinted and instinctual knowledge excluded), and the scientific process, in and of itself should be beyond reproach.

I think you touched upon my point, scientific method is fine for scientific research, But it does not override what I directly observe, except in extreme cases. Fact is though that the science being brought to bear against "audiophile claims" is generally piecemeal and of limited scope and sample size. The vast majority would not pass for academic research. I do not consider it comprehensive.

 You are right, anti-audiophile nonsense is frequently undersampled, while audiophile nonsense has little basis in reality and is unsampled. That is neither here nor there, because I frankly don't care. Admittedly, contrary examples likely exist for both.

 

I am responding exclusively to your absolute disregard for the scientific method. The scientific method is contingent upon repeatable observation. To assert that your observation of the world supersedes well established and rigorously tested theory is ridiculous. Science is based on repeated and repeatable observation. I think you should review the hypothetico-deductive method, then reconsider your statements. You have not presently passed judgement on the application of the underreplicated pseudo-science of these boards, but rather, you have cast aspersion on science as a practice, the scientific method, and the philosophy of science.

 

In short, just because it looks like the sun revolves around the earth doesn't make it so.

For your edification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Reply
post #1887 of 1990
2/9/13 at 3:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by scootsit View Post

 You are right, anti-audiophile nonsense is frequently undersampled, while audiophile nonsense has little basis in reality and is unsampled. That is neither here nor there, because I frankly don't care. Admittedly, contrary examples likely exist for both.

I am responding exclusively to your absolute disregard for the scientific method. The scientific method is contingent upon repeatable observation. To assert that your observation of the world supersedes well established and rigorously tested theory is ridiculous. Science is based on repeated and repeatable observation. I think you should review the hypothetico-deductive method, then reconsider your statements. You have not presently passed judgement on the application of the underreplicated pseudo-science of these boards, but rather, you have cast aspersion on science as a practice, the scientific method, and the philosophy of science.

In short, just because it looks like the sun revolves around the earth doesn't make it so.
For your edification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Yeah I should have limited the scope of my statement : (. Point I was trying to make is that in everyday life while we accept certain things as impossible due to our understanding of the world as supported by science religion etc for most decisions uncontrolled observations have to make do. Personally where my own observations are in conflict with established knowledge, while it does trigger a crisis, for the most part I side with my observations especially for my own personal decisions.
Edited by drez - 2/9/13 at 3:41am
Reply
post #1888 of 1990
2/9/13 at 4:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

This is true, but unfortunately double blind testing and objective measurements are not practical for the vast majority of the decisions we make. If you can organise such testing for specific decisions this is great, and certainly generous in terms of providing a more reliable data point for other people.

 

If the observation is not made under properly controlled conditions, then there is no evidence that it is true, and it could very well be false, even if it is the same for the majority. If you look at this picture,

do you trust your observation that B is a lighter shade of grey than A (especially after it is backed up by 10 out of 10 other people looking at it and also saying that B is lighter), or the measurement tool of the image editor that says that they are exactly the same ? What do you observe now, with the source of bias removed:

Reply
post #1889 of 1990
2/9/13 at 4:18am
^^Good point again. Another a example with audiophile cables is not level matching when one cable has less resistance due to different thickness, silver metal etc. There are definitely dangers in uncontrolled comparisons of analog cables. Agh so many edits...
Edited by drez - 2/9/13 at 4:29am
Reply
post #1890 of 1990
2/9/13 at 5:27am
http://m.phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths