[nick_charles]

As this is the one subforum where at least some informed and rational debate sometimes takes place it might be useful to have a central repository of pointers to good quality resources related to the science of sound. I propose a Bibliography keeping within the bounds of copyright law.
 
Likely resources could include
 

1. Descriptive verifiable models of sound and sound perception (Fletcher-Munson, Masking etc)
2. Theoretical perspectives, testable or potentially testable theories
3. Principles and methods underlying the recording and reproduction of sound
4. Rigorous emprirical evidence (measurements, controlled listening tests)
5. Psychophysics (Human perception - limits and characteristics, thresholds, detection , JND, Psychoacoustics)
6. Psychology - scholarly articles only - no wittering

 
comments warmly welcomed
 
One key underlying principle being that if an article takes an explicit initial position that it must back this up with some strong empirical evidence, anecdotes involving my wife in the kitchen hearing the difference need not apply.
 
Industry puff pieces devoid of strong empirical support need not apply
 
It should also be noted that even a peer reviewed article is not an inviolable piece of holy writ but a source of data and thus open to debate
 
comments warmly welcomed
 

 

[nick_charles]

No interest or no comments ?

 

[Gu Sensei]

I think you have a great idea and it could be an extremely valuable resource.
 
Some random thoughts on the topic...
 
It sounds like a lot of work but I suppose once some initial framework is in place, people could slowly contribute articles and resources that they find.
 
One step further would to have a sort of full literature review summarizing topics from the bibliography.
 
We need to find some psych, physics, engineering, etc. undergrads who need to write a senior thesis or course papers to tackle topics from their respective fields. Maybe post a Head Fi Call for Papers? Try to get undergrads to identify themselves, their fields of study and papers that they may have to write that they have some leeway to choose topics for. Give them advice about possible topics and then have them post their papers. They will fulfill a course requirement, participate in their hobby, and contribute to the community.
 
We could even start an online journal and they can get a publication for their resumes. Get some folks with science backgrounds to serve on an editorial board.
 
Having spent some time in the cable debate threads and found myself simply repeating what I just posted the week before, I have definitely thought it would be good to have a decent summary/lit review of the physics of wire conductors and the psychological processes that can explain how it is possible to perceive subtle changes in audio when none actually have occurred. Having such things in the Wiki section forum would be great.
 
Maybe call a moratorium on the cable debate threads. Instead burning time and energy to repeat the same arguments again and again, call active cable-skeptics and believers to devote attention to gathering information and organizing some well-written, objective Wiki/lit reviews on the topic. A possible rough outline:
 
1. Physics of Wire Conductors
    a. How it works
    b. Mechanisms that could explain perceived changes
    c. Likelihood of such mechanisms actually operating
    d. Capabilities of measuring instruments vs. human ear
2. Psychological Processes of Audio Perception
    a. How it works
    b. How people might not hear differences that do exist
    b. How it is possible to hear differences that do not exist
3. Testing Methods
    a. Sighted comparisons
         -typical methods employed
         -strengths and weaknesses
    b. Blind testing
         -typical methods employed
         -strengths and weaknesses
 4. Evidence Review
    a. Supporting influence of cables
    b. Supporting lack of influence of cables
 
Again, that is all a lot of work but considering time people spend posting here, it does not impossible to make a reality.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I regularly go surfing for blind tests, positive and negative to add to the audiophile Myths and Positive Tests threads. Would you propose we find stuff, link to it, have a discussion as to its merits and then you add it to your first post so all links are together?

 

[Chef]

It's a nice idea that the Sound Science section of head-fi should actually utilize scientific method, but I think you'll find it a lost cause. Go to hydrogenaudio.org, where moderators will actually warn users for making unverifiable claims.

 

[xnor]

I think it would be a step in the right direction.