Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Peer groups, self selection, the breadth of the audiophile community
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Peer groups, self selection, the breadth of the audiophile community - Page 9  

post #121 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post

That's a red herring. The scientific method is inductive, not deductive in the absolute sense. To deride sound science for using inductive reasoning is to miss the point entirely.

1) It wasn't a red herring. A couple of people specifically referred to deductive reasoning and I thought it was worth pointing out that inductive reasoning is also important and useful.

2) I didn't suggest there is anything wrong with inductive reasoning, nor did I deride science (sound or otherwise) on that basis. I can only assume a misunderstanding so I apologise for any ambiguity.
post #122 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post


1) It wasn't a red herring. A couple of people specifically referred to deductive reasoning and I thought it was worth pointing out that inductive reasoning is also important and useful.

2) I didn't suggest there is anything wrong with inductive reasoning, nor did I deride science (sound or otherwise) on that basis. I can only assume a misunderstanding so I apologise for any ambiguity.


Sorry, I didn't appreciate the context. Any time I hear arguments about deduction vs. induction vs. reduction vs. subduction vs. abduction my eyes begin to glaze over.

post #123 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post
That's a red herring. The scientific method is inductive, not deductive in the absolute sense. To deride sound science for using inductive reasoning is to miss the point entirely.

 

It's both really. It's inductive when you're putting forth a theory or hypothesis (bottom up reasoning). It's deductive when you're putting those theories and hypotheses to the test (top down reasoning). And of course putting forth a theory or hypothesis is pretty much just navel gazing unless you're prepared to put it to the test.

 

se

post #124 of 170
I ascribe to plain old horse sense... I know I'm old fashioned...

I've just met too many lawyers who didn't know the law and experts who didn't know their area of expertise from a hole in the ground. I don't judge by diplomas any more.
Edited by bigshot - 6/13/13 at 6:45pm
post #125 of 170

That's why you need to look at experience as well.

post #126 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

That's why you need to look at experience as well.

I prefer to look at the argument.

se
post #127 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

That's why you need to look at experience as well.

 

I think you mean merit. Uri Geller has great experience in remote viewing, even if his merits are rather poor.

 

But even merits can be bought and sold. A sound argument however is priceless.

post #128 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

That's why you need to look at experience as well.

 

I've learned from some very experienced people, and I have almost 40 years of experience in home audio myself. I value experience. Experience makes it so you don't have to depend on credentials. Your knowledge makes your supporting arguments sound.


Edited by bigshot - 6/14/13 at 8:16pm
post #129 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

 

I've learned from some very experienced people, and I have almost 40 years of experience in home audio myself. I value experience. Experience makes it so you don't have to depend on credentials. Your knowledge makes your supporting arguments sound.

 

The argument is either sound or it is not, claims of knowledge or experience be damned.

 

se

post #130 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post

1) It wasn't a red herring. A couple of people specifically referred to deductive reasoning and I thought it was worth pointing out that inductive reasoning is also important and useful.

2) I didn't suggest there is anything wrong with inductive reasoning, nor did I deride science (sound or otherwise) on that basis. I can only assume a misunderstanding so I apologise for any ambiguity.

In the social sciences, induction is used more frequently than the physical sciences (though not exclusively, and many argue that pure induction is impossible).

It is vitally important to be explicit about which type is in use, of course.

I suppose I would say that the understanding of science within communities like audiophiles is of great interest to those in the social studies of science.
post #131 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

 

I've learned from some very experienced people, and I have almost 40 years of experience in home audio myself. I value experience. Experience makes it so you don't have to depend on credentials. Your knowledge makes your supporting arguments sound.

 

I don't mean to argue, but I don't understand what do you mean by saying - I have almost 40 years of experience in home audio...

 

if I'm not mistaken you've never owned a stand alone DAC... and/or you believe that the DAC inside a $200 bucks CD player is as good as it gets. right?

 

if I was looking for DAC, would it be fair for you to make a suggestion?

 

please explain.

post #132 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenni View Post

if I was looking for DAC, would it be fair for you to make a suggestion?

I'd make a great suggestion... I'd suggest that you identify the problem that is limiting your system's sound quality and attack that directly instead of buying equipment that flat out doesn't matter.

Hearing is believing. Come to LA and hear my system. I'll prove to you that a standalone DAC isn't what makes a great sounding system. $400 receiver, $600 media server computer. $120 bluray player, and I'll demo the system using AAC files at the same bitrate as from the iTunes store.

The stuff audiophiles worry about are the parts that make little or no difference. The stuff they ignore or refuse to do is what separates OK sound from fantastic sound.
Edited by bigshot - 6/15/13 at 1:36pm
post #133 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I'd make a great suggestion... I'd suggest that you identify the problem that is limiting your system's sound quality and attack that directly instead of buying equipment that flat out doesn't matter.

Hearing is believing. Come to LA and hear my system. I'll prove to you that a standalone DAC isn't what makes a great sounding system. $400 receiver, $600 media server computer. $120 bluray player, and I'll demo the system using AAC files at the same bitrate as from the iTunes store.

The stuff audiophiles worry about are the parts that make little or no difference. The stuff they ignore or refuse to do is what separates OK sound from fantastic sound.

Why'd you feel that a standalone dac doesn't make for a good system? Would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

I primarily listen to my music on a computer that is connected to an Odac and o2. While I'm happy with my setup at the moment, I'm open to improvements in the future.
post #134 of 170
Just about all currently manufactured DACs that are performing to spec sound exactly the same- 20-20 stone flat, no audible distortion, inaudibly low noise floor. Even the DACs in $60 CD players have specs that exceed our ability to hear. Older computers used to come with shoddy on board audio, but that isn't so much the case any more. Apple has raised the bar and other manufacturers are following. In most cases, external DACs don't improve sound quality for normal music listening. Specs on amps are pretty much the same. The principle difference between amps is power. Electronics are the easy part. It's all designed to have better specs than your ears can hear. If it doesn't, it's either seriously substandard or broken... most likely broken.
Edited by bigshot - 6/15/13 at 2:38pm
post #135 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Responding to the original post...

It seems to me there are three types of people who come to forums like this...

1) Audiophiles who enjoy shopping for equipment and churn through a lot of upgrades. The only way to convince themselves to upgrade is to decide there is room for improvement. As we know, a lot of equipment sounds pretty much the same. So if they want to keep shopping and upgrading, they need to use vague, subjective excuses to replace one DAC with a more expensive one that sounds the same.

2) We sound science types who want to know the nuts and bolts of how digital audio works so we can tweak the last ounce out of our systems. It isn't good enough for us to just want to upgrade, we want to know exactly why it's necessary.

3) People who are in the market for some particular piece of equipment and find the forum from google searching. They aren't looking for flowery descriptions or dense technical explanations, they just want plain language common sense tips from people who know their stuff. Which one should I buy? Why is this one better than the other? Once they get the answers, they go to Amazon and buy it and never think about it again. They do what everyone should be doing- listen to music.

Number 1s are in their own dream world of flowery reviews and compulsive buying. Nothing anyone says can affect them. No point trying. Number 2 people may be interested in theory, but the issues get raised and discussed and then what? Everyone just sits around and waits for a audiophool to come along so it can all be discussed again. Circular. There are a LOT more number 3s than either of the others. They're the ones that appreciate the help. We should be addressing them.

 

 

I'm not as convinced that the first category of people are motivated by finding improvements.  My impression is that they might be chasing the high they got from the first time they used a high-end headphone/earphone, which would typically be their first high-end audio purchase and the only one that would produce a legitimate subjective effect.  In that respect, I think there's a legitimate foundation for the idea that they're searching to replicate that experience. 

 

The problem arises when you start to compare the buying behavior of head-fiers to other kinds products where there are communities of like-minded individuals and there isn't that expectation of improvement, but there exists a lot of similarity of behavior.  I think that a more core motivation is fashionable consumption.  The self-esteem one gets from being an acknowledged expert and from owning the most expensive product in that category. 

 

My hypothesis is that many of the people in the first category would upgrade equipment without the expectation that it was necessarily better, but just that it was different.  They would be governed more buy their own cycle of needing a purchasing-fix, and that the rationalization is secondary and less relevant to the process.  

 

I think there are deeper cultural issues having to do with created wants and consumer programming responsible for a lot of what we see than anything that can explained in terms of rational expectations of a consumer.  I know that's no different than what you suggested, but it's the rationalization process that I question. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Peer groups, self selection, the breadth of the audiophile community