[Ableza]

  While all of us are interested in what you have to say (which is why we are reading this thread!), it's worth noting that amongst 7 billion people, there is always going to be someone who is opposed to whatever we think.
 
From several decades on the Internet, I have found that it is like pouring oil into a baking pan - after a time, the oil will occupy every position in the pan.   Similarly, one can find someone who has any type of ridiculous viewpoint that you can imagine - and some that you cannot imagine.

And, after over 4 decades as a scientist and engineer, I can pretty much immediately spot those viewpoints which deserve no attention. 

 

[wink]

  And, after over 4 decades as a scientist and engineer, I can pretty much immediately spot those viewpoints which deserve no attention. 

All of them, except my posts which state "Get the YGGY"  

 

[Baldr]

In all fairness, there are really two subsets of scientists; research scientists (My sister in law is a cancer researcher) and applied scientists, such as the eggheads who will figure out how to add banana flavors to milkshakes, and more significantly, those who teach the sciences at all levels and engage in “expert witness” court testimony, and so on. Research scientists have much more in common with engineers than applied scientists. Research scientists and engineers attract a certain kind of mind; loophole searching, out of the box, rebellious, unafraid of failure, and stubborn. Applied science attracts very different minds; authoritarian, hierarchical, disciplined, conformist, unimaginative and non-independently thinking. On head-fi the sound science forums tend to follow the applied science mold; worse is that most of them also are stricken with an arrogance based on the lie that all is known about audio science. It is no surprise that most of the disputes there are quite pugnacious. Much of the rest of the site is more sympathetic with the research science philosophy. Hence the rise of a certain sort of politics.
 
It is amazing how lame applied audio science types are about audio itself; and not just in trivial ways, like the specs of a given set of cans, etc – no, their understanding fails them in fundamental ways that prohibit their appreciation of audio itself. The practice of the audio hobby is completely different; the appeal is visceral, emotional, hormonal, --EXCITING. The sound science threads are endless defenses of the single philosophy that since all is scientifically known about audio, all amps and DACs must sound the same, since they cannot be differentiated with purely analytical ABX tests. It follows that anyone who manufacturers amps or DACs are hucksters and evil corporate raiders of innocent and naive audiophiles' money. These debates drone on in a “yes you said”, “no I didn't” pie throwing manner. This is punctuated by opinion leaders who solemnly intone for hundreds (sometimes thousands) of words of derivations of the above creed. (Really - read 'em)
 
Now, that is alright and everyone has the right of self-expression; we can cordially agree to disagree. My rub is with the prevalent and sanctimonious attitudes that since all amps/DACs must be of equivalent worth because they sound the same, it is not just WRONG but foolish for anyone to express any sonic preference for any gear, period. Further, these types generally build nothing (There are a very few exceptions). The majority are dweebs who create no audio value at all, but do their best to discourage the creation of same. What is audio wealth? In a hardware sense, it is any audio product which increases an audiophile's enjoyment. The better the enjoyment, the more will sell. Audiophiles are generally not stupid, unlike many sound scientists.
 
Allow me to re-emphasize that research scientists are a separate breed-- those who discover polio vaccine, send rockets to mars, etc., etc. Those who expand boundaries and create value.
 
The least sophisticated, seat of their pants, engineers, and amateur research scientists - punkin' chunkers and anvil shooters (check 'em out on You Tube) who have the balls to build what they envision - make this planet a better place. They shamelessly and properly ignore the advice from those who would discourage their freedom to create and enjoy adventure. (“You'll shoot your eye out, kid.” - A Christmas story)
 
Building audio equipment to re-create the excitement of reproduced music has been my lifelong avocation, expression of creation, and adventure. I am so happy today that I ignored those in my youth who knew what was better for me than I did. Phuc sound science.  It ain't for me!

 

[Torq]

  <snip>
 
What is audio wealth? In a hardware sense, it is any audio product which increases an audiophile's enjoyment. The better the enjoyment, the more will sell. Audiophiles are generally not stupid, unlike many sound scientists.
 
</snip>

 
Not to devalue anything else you said, but these statements in particular make me smile.
 
Even outside the realms of things claiming improved sound quality, they ring true.  The pretty headphone stands, the over-built rack for equipment that doesn't necessarily need it, the beautifully finished cables that may, or may not, have any bearing on what you hear.
 
It's a hobby.
 
The end result, and ultimate goal, is enjoyment ... ideally (for me) an emotive musical experience ... if the gear involved happens to include glowing glass tubes that look nicer than the ones that came "stock" or even a spherical ice cube in a glass of 50 year old Scotch ... as long as people are happy with their choices and experiences, it's all in the pursuit, and hopefully realization, of greater pleasure.
 
Besides ... the funky expensive cables I have were bought for aesthetics over any potential sound quality increase ... which is no different to the mechanically inclined car-rebuilder choosing an expensive tool chest over some cheap peg-board for their tools.

 

[johnjen]

[COLOR=000000]In all fairness, there are really two subsets of scientists; research scientists (My sister in law is a cancer researcher) and applied scientists, such as the eggheads who will figure out how to add banana flavors to milkshakes, and more significantly, those who teach the sciences at all levels and engage in “expert witness” court testimony, and so on. snip

This post 'prompted' me to post my "The Audio Subjectivist vs the Objectivist ‘duality’" post.

I call it a sign, or 'confirmation from the environment'… :atsmile:

JJ

 

[Baldr]

Quote:

This post 'prompted' me to post my "The Audio Subjectivist vs the Objectivist ‘duality’" post.


JJ

 
Link to post??

 

[judmarc]

...The sound science threads are endless defenses of the single philosophy that since all is scientifically known about audio, all amps and DACs must sound the same, since they cannot be differentiated with purely analytical ABX tests.

 
Interesting that the same scientific treatment does not extend to the effectiveness of ABX tests in this (human auditory) context.  There are, surprisingly enough, acres and acres of scientific research papers relevant to this subject if people bother to look, and what the science says is both well established and *very* interesting.  I plan to write an article for another forum (CA) on this, and if and when it happens I'll provide a link somewhere here for anyone interested.

 

[artur9]

   
Interesting that the same scientific treatment does not extend to the effectiveness of ABX tests in this (human auditory) context.  

After watching an episode of Brain Game (on Netflix) I have the sense that, given the way the brain works, one can make the brain fool itself any number of ways.   The way ABX is typically done, AFAICT, is just another way to fool the brain, with the notable exception of how Harman does their A/B testing.

 

[DougD]

  In all fairness, there are really two subsets of scientists; research scientists <snip snip>

 
You are such a treat. (As is Jason.) Thanks for spending quality time here with the enlightened, the not-yet-enlightened, the riff-raff, and what/whomever.

 

[landroni]

  Quote:

This post 'prompted' me to post my "The Audio Subjectivist vs the Objectivist ‘duality’" post.


JJ

 
Link to post??

http://www.head-fi.org/t/781268/the-diyrs-cookbook/315#post_12407403
 
However the whole series by JJ makes for a fascinating read...

 

[Ableza]

   
Interesting that the same scientific treatment does not extend to the effectiveness of ABX tests in this (human auditory) context.  There are, surprisingly enough, acres and acres of scientific research papers relevant to this subject if people bother to look, and what the science says is both well established and *very* interesting.  I plan to write an article for another forum (CA) on this, and if and when it happens I'll provide a link somewhere here for anyone interested.

But, as I've argued many times, things like ABX tests are perfectly valid methods to conduct research or to explore possible causes for observed effects, but they are entirely inappropriate ways to choose or evaluate audio equipment.  We experience audio with all of our senses.  The user experience is all-encompassing, nit purely auditory.

 

[Jones Bob]

But, as I've argued many times, things like ABX tests are perfectly valid methods to conduct research or to explore possible causes for observed effects, but they are entirely inappropriate ways to choose or evaluate audio equipment.  We experience audio with all of our senses.  The user experience is all-encompassing, nit purely auditory.

Wise words.

 

[kstuart]

Originally Posted by Baldr /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
 The practice of the audio hobby is completely different; the appeal is visceral, emotional, hormonal, --EXCITING. 

As depicted in Mick Jagger's TV series about 1973 music - "Vinyl".
 
( PS  About which I can also say - it is weird to see people you've met, played by actors... )
 
Actually after re-reading this, I can say that the same is true for Amazon's TV Series about classical music "Mozart in the Jungle" - it's oddly similar to "Vinyl".

 

[wink]

Quote:Baldr

 In all fairness, there are really two subsets of scientists; research scientists (My sister in law is a cancer researcher) and applied scientists, such as the eggheads who will figure out how to add banana flavors to milkshakes, and more significantly, those who teach the sciences at all levels and engage in “expert witness” court testimony, and so on. Research scientists have much more in common with engineers than applied scientists. Research scientists and engineers attract a certain kind of mind; loophole searching, out of the box, rebellious, unafraid of failure, and stubborn. Applied science attracts very different minds; authoritarian, hierarchical, disciplined, conformist, unimaginative and non-independently thinking. On head-fi the sound science forums tend to follow the applied science mold; worse is that most of them also are stricken with an arrogance based on the lie that all is known about audio science. It is no surprise that most of the disputes there are quite pugnacious. Much of the rest of the site is more sympathetic with the research science philosophy. Hence the rise of a certain sort of politics.

 
In my experience there are two types of scientist.
a. Those who can do and can teach, and,
b. Those who can only teach.
 
The first represent the academic at his best.
The second represents the academic at his worst.

 

[castleofargh]

  In all fairness, there are really two subsets of scientists; research scientists (My sister in law is a cancer researcher) and applied scientists, such as the eggheads who will figure out how to add banana flavors to milkshakes, and more significantly, those who teach the sciences at all levels and engage in “expert witness” court testimony, and so on. Research scientists have much more in common with engineers than applied scientists. Research scientists and engineers attract a certain kind of mind; loophole searching, out of the box, rebellious, unafraid of failure, and stubborn. Applied science attracts very different minds; authoritarian, hierarchical, disciplined, conformist, unimaginative and non-independently thinking. On head-fi the sound science forums tend to follow the applied science mold; worse is that most of them also are stricken with an arrogance based on the lie that all is known about audio science. It is no surprise that most of the disputes there are quite pugnacious. Much of the rest of the site is more sympathetic with the research science philosophy. Hence the rise of a certain sort of politics.
 
It is amazing how lame applied audio science types are about audio itself; and not just in trivial ways, like the specs of a given set of cans, etc – no, their understanding fails them in fundamental ways that prohibit their appreciation of audio itself. The practice of the audio hobby is completely different; the appeal is visceral, emotional, hormonal, --EXCITING. The sound science threads are endless defenses of the single philosophy that since all is scientifically known about audio, all amps and DACs must sound the same, since they cannot be differentiated with purely analytical ABX tests. It follows that anyone who manufacturers amps or DACs are hucksters and evil corporate raiders of innocent and naive audiophiles' money. These debates drone on in a “yes you said”, “no I didn't” pie throwing manner. This is punctuated by opinion leaders who solemnly intone for hundreds (sometimes thousands) of words of derivations of the above creed. (Really - read 'em)
 
Now, that is alright and everyone has the right of self-expression; we can cordially agree to disagree. My rub is with the prevalent and sanctimonious attitudes that since all amps/DACs must be of equivalent worth because they sound the same, it is not just WRONG but foolish for anyone to express any sonic preference for any gear, period. Further, these types generally build nothing (There are a very few exceptions). The majority are dweebs who create no audio value at all, but do their best to discourage the creation of same. What is audio wealth? In a hardware sense, it is any audio product which increases an audiophile's enjoyment. The better the enjoyment, the more will sell. Audiophiles are generally not stupid, unlike many sound scientists.
 
Allow me to re-emphasize that research scientists are a separate breed-- those who discover polio vaccine, send rockets to mars, etc., etc. Those who expand boundaries and create value.
 
The least sophisticated, seat of their pants, engineers, and amateur research scientists - punkin' chunkers and anvil shooters (check 'em out on You Tube) who have the balls to build what they envision - make this planet a better place. They shamelessly and properly ignore the advice from those who would discourage their freedom to create and enjoy adventure. (“You'll shoot your eye out, kid.” - A Christmas story)
 
Building audio equipment to re-create the excitement of reproduced music has been my lifelong avocation, expression of creation, and adventure. I am so happy today that I ignored those in my youth who knew what was better for me than I did. Phuc sound science.  It ain't for me!

yeah, 4 people not in agreement with you are all that sound science is, and all people reading and writing in sound science must be some kind of scientists

oh and obviously, people warning others about the obvious occurrence of biases, don't like music and don't want anybody to just enjoy music.... it has to be the explanation...
thank you for bringing a little bit more hatred toward the sound science section as a whole. we certainly didn't get enough yet. and making those straw man caricatures that are really no different than racism must be the wise way to talk about the problems and solve them... very helpful and responsible post indeed.
 
I'm wasting my time trying to discuss things out in sound science(and no I'm not a scientist and my English sucks so I'm super clumsy in my attempts, but I try). I try to turn that sub section into something a little more fitting of its title, but I'm just one clumsy guy, we need a lot more people to turn sound science into what it should be.  TBH the rest of the forum where it's by law forbidden to talk about blind test and bias while discussing subjective values all day long, that's what I can't ever understand, but apparently you're very fine with that as I didn't see you make any hate comment on the matter.  of course it's a rule that greatly reduces confrontations, because that way fooled people can say whatever they like and meet relatively little opposition. it's a happier place, not a more knowledgeable one.
most people reading sound science, somehow hope to learn something and get a little bit closer to the truth. that's at least what you'd expect from the title right? it's up to us, the people, to go and express ourselves when we feel like the answers don't reflect reality. and it's our role as a community to try and bring evidences of our claims so that the debates don't end up in a charisma war like "hey I'm Baldr, I invented DACs so I don't need to justify myself"( caricatures suck, right?)

 
you don't like something that is said, you can express yourself and explain how someone is wrong in your opinion. and then you can if you have it, bring evidence(not weird anecdotes of the wife in the kitchen) that might convince the audience. that's how the section works and moderation is really only limited to removing insults TBH. and even then, I didn't delete any of your posts in sound science so you can imagine my tolerance is pretty high. 
if all the posts in sound science are of one mind and are wrong, it's a serious problem and can only mean one thing: people with the knowledge and evidences didn't post. but then who's to blame? the guys who are wrong and don't know it, or the guys with the intel who didn't even make the effort to share their knowledge?

it's easy to spit on a group of people and abandon them. it's a lot more work to try and do something productive. we're a community, so of course we'll have a few guys who just want to show off. and of course we have those who are so ignorant that they don't even know that they don't know. we also have the new born objectivists, who tend to be radicalised for a few years. and then we have a bunch of people like myself, who know just a little bit here and there because of years of curiosity, but who aren't engineers or anything. in the end the number of actual scientists, or people who have both the knowledge and the will to help others, just like in real life, that's a really really small number of people, and I can think of a handful who are banned from headfi so that doesn't help.
 
all thi to say that nobody forces you to go read sound science, but if you're going to actually use your fame, you could do it for something useful, instead of making a hate post.
 
thanks for all those who try to get somewhere.