Quote:
Science is a language of nature and we have taken what we've learned and made life much better for ourselves. That's human creativity and ambition. Science has explained very convincingly the complex characteristics of audio. So why do we still have so much misunderstanding and no formulas answering something so simple as audio reproduction? If the simplistic view is if it makes music, there's nothing more to it, then all else is biased in other areas than the sound. But it's not that simple and the outcomes are proof that there's still ignorance because experience says there is more to it. I live in the world of science and make a living with it. That's reality as that defines the world around us. But I shake my head that in a mere 40 years, often what was taught as fact in school was in fact wrong. We learn from our mistakes and make better educated stabs at our proofs but the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't understand. If all pertinent things relating to the science of audio reproduction were compartmentized and locked away as absolute, there'd be no opportunity for us ignorant explorers to be fooled. We could rely on our science to tell us the rights and wrongs and all things would be peachy. Instead, we have our selves to learn by experience and we try to find research through science for understanding. By the constant stalemates in the discussions on who's right and who's not, it's obvious there's some truth from both sides and still no absolute understanding. So science is a great analytical tool but only part of the explanation. Human perception still has it's needs and not every formula has a correct answer.
I can't say I disagree with most of that, except for the polarization. I think what's being said is really pointed, not at science itself, but at some of the strong and seemingly polarized positions taken on the forums. This part of the thread was, I think, triggered by the cable discussion.
Rather than polarize the issue, how about realizing that if something like a cable makes a significant difference, hopefully an improvement, in the final result, should that difference not be audible if taken away? And if that's true, then shouldn't the difference be detectable even if the listener didn't know what or if something was changed? See, that's not taking any shots at what's happening in the cable, or attempting to explain the cause of the difference, it's just trying to make certain that the difference is there. There are no formulae involved. All we are doing is eliminating expectation bias and seeing if the difference is real.
We have plenty of formulas explaining audio reproduction, which is not simple, by the way. And, more formulas are being developed all the time. In the case of audio, what's been taught in school for 40 years isn't wrong, it's incomplete. There's a big difference there. It's not like we were teaching the world is flat, then discovered otherwise. Nothing about the science of audio reproduction is compartmentalized and locked away as absolute. The study of human perception is also a science, and one currently developing quickly. For example, within the past year two studies have been published regarding human preference for a type of sound presentation. Contrary to the idea that people pick speakers they like the sound of, and it's all individual taste, the studies show that people prefer uncolored and neutral sound. It took a long time to establish that didn't it? But doesn't it explain a few things? Does that mean our early "scientific" concept was wrong? Or does it show our earlier concept wasn't very scientific?
When an idea, like a special cable making an improvement, is presented as fact without test support, then it's being supported only by biased opinion, and mostly that of the company marketing the product, or those selling it. If the improvement is real, we don't have a problem. But what if it's not real? How would anyone know? Then, the support science that is presented is flawed, and indicates not that the difference is real, but that we have a lot of expectation bias at work. And now a little logic. If the cable difference were real, and detectable without expectation bias, wouldn't that be the best possible way to sell the product? Wouldn't a study of a hundred listeners, all identifying the difference with even 60% accuracy be one of the best marketing tools anyone could ever have? So why don't they publish it? It's not the cost of the study, that's nothing compared to a run of print ads. It's not that it can't be physically done.
By extension, if such a study was done and proved 60% reliability in a statistically significant number of trials and listeners, then science could begin the task of explaining why and what's going on. And once it was figured out, we could develop even better cables, even less expensive, etc. As it is, without evidence, there's more scientific theory and principle to explain why there is little detectable difference than a lot.
It's a shame you place the scientific and science-minded community squarely in the black of your black and white analysis. No real scientist is in the black, ever. Everything is under question and scrutiny. We don't simply point a finger at something and apply 100 year old physics and say "that can't be true". There's always the question of application, and if there's some gap in knowledge, or a blind spot to clear up. There are some concepts in audio, though, that remain to this day in a position of "claim only", without bias-less proof. In something as simple as a cable, the lack of claim support is alarming. It should be there, and it's not. One well-done test would silence all of "us" once and for all. But it's not done. Why not? Is it that the fault of narrow-minded scientists? You tell me...and us.
