[Shaffer]

My equipment is in my signature. I haven't filled out my profile because I'm lazy and don't care. 

You've been here for years and have managed to upload almost 1000 posts. I'm not trying to sound argumentative. It's just that we're on a scientific forum and things should follow a logical pattern. Nothing personal.

 

[manbear]

You've been here for years and have managed to upload almost 1000 posts. I'm not trying to sound argumentative. It's just that we're on a scientific forum and things should follow a logical pattern. Nothing personal.

My equipment is in my signature and I try to explain myself logically in my actual posts, using examples and evidence when appropriate. Why does the profile page itself matter so much? I don't understand. 



The first rule of science is... fill out your profile page?



EDIT: To be clear, I take no offense. Nothing personal. I just don't get it. Is there some condition that can't be satisfied by the content of posts and only by the content of the profile page?

 

[bigshot]

  I just want to learn how stuff work, I guess I'm a little more curious than your average Joe so I tend to look into things with my not so high level of scientific education, and even lower memory of it as I learned it almost 20years ago. that's how I ended up in the sound science catacombs.

 
Join the club! I'm with you.

 

[Shaffer]

My equipment is in my signature and I try to explain myself logically in my actual posts, using examples and evidence when appropriate. Why does the profile page itself matter so much? I don't understand. 

We're all actual human beings behind the usernames. Helps to know who one is talking to, aside from the rest....

The first rule of science is... fill out your profile page?

No, it's observation, as mentioned on the previous page.

I mentioned logic in discourse as an implied given on a science forum. Rephrasing the idea won't change the concept.

 

[bigshot]

If I may ask, why don't many of the objectivist forum members have their systems listed in their respective profiles?

 
I can't answer for everyone else, but I'll answer for myself.
 
I don't list equipment because my equipment isn't what makes my system sound so good. It's the way I've applied it and adjusted it that makes all the difference. If you're interested, in any aspect of my rig, feel free to ask and I'll let you know what I use and explain my thinking process. That's more useful than lists of brand names and model numbers.
 
My background is in the entertainment business as a producer. I've also served as a recording and post production supervisor and sound editor for TV and CD release. (i.e. I've supervised recording sessions and sound mixes and worked with recording engineers.)
 
My interest is less in pure science than it is applying scientific principles to make my home stereo system sound better.

 

[manbear]

@shaffer

I still don't understand why listing my gear in my signature is less informative than listing it on my profile page. Or explicitly referencing it in posts when appropriate. For example, "I used to own the Q701 and the DT-990 pro, and the Q701 needed around 2 o'clock on the volume knob of my JDS CMOY whereas the DT-990 needed around 11 o'clock to reach the same SPL." Are you saying I should have this information in my profile as well as an actual post to make myself more credible?

I also think you are conflating personal experience with observation in the scientific sense. One can use data without being the person who measured it.

 

[Shaffer]

@shaffer

I still don't understand why listing my gear in my signature is less informative than listing it on my profile page. Or explicitly referencing it in posts when appropriate. For example, "I used to own the Q701 and the DT-990 pro, and the Q701 needed around 2 o'clock on the volume knob of my JDS CMOY whereas the DT-990 needed around 11 o'clock to reach the same SPL." Are you saying I should have this information in my profile as well as an actual post to make myself more credible?

Please read what I already wrote.

I also think you are conflating personal experience with observation in the scientific sense. One can use data without being the person who measured it.

Data (ie. testing) comes after a hypothesis is formed. The hypothesis, in turn, is derived from observation. Seems kinda obvious... on a scientific forum. Yet, here we are. lol

Edit: clarification

 

[manbear]

Yes, shaffer, I read what you wrote. It doesn't answer my question. Perhaps you should elaborate. "Read what I already wrote" is a cop out. You may know what you were thinking when you re-read your words. Nobody else does.

Data is still data in the absence of a hypothesis. Otherwise, the definition of data is dependent on a person's mental state. I don't know where you are going with these semantics. Or what observation has to do with profile pages.

 

[Shaffer]

Yes, shaffer, I read what you wrote. It doesn't answer my question. Perhaps you should elaborate. "Read what I already wrote" is a cop out. You may know what you were thinking when you re-read your words. Nobody else does.

I have no desire to argue with you.

Data is still data in the absence of a hypothesis. Otherwise, the definition of data is dependent on a person's mental state. I don't know where you are going with these semantics. Or what observation has to do with profile pages.

That's actually funny. Science, remember?

Clearly, this is going nowhere. I'm out.

 

[manbear]

 

[nick_charles]

Forgive me, isn't the first step in the Scientific Method called observation? Science is funny like that.

Why are you interested in my ownership of X or Y, it does not look like a relevant variable here as I have tried to explain. Can you please explain why it is relevant. Why does observation of my kit make a material difference ?

 

How do you resolve a lack of relevant listener training?

If listener training is relevant then you train listeners. Of course you may instead be interested in the capabilities of the greater population of untrained listeners. Generally most decent peer reviewed research here at least describes the subject population. I'll agree that often this is in vague terms such as "experienced listeners", trained musicians, engineers, music students , tonnmeister students blah drone etc. Some carefully describe what they mean by training if they invoke the term but Sean Olive visits here from time to time and is much a better person to ask.

Please refer to Jim Johnston's research regarding this topic.

As you may know James Johnston has an extensive published output, sadly I let my AES membership lapse so many of his papers are no longer available to me,  can you be more specific ? None of his papers (from his website) include listener or training in the title. I've read some of his presentations and seen a few canned videos where he talks about audio illusions as simply the way our cognitive system works but cannot remember anything where he explicitly talks about listener training ?

Edit: text

 

[L0SLobos]

 

The fact that he has cables from "overpriced audiophile cable companies" listed in his profile kind of invalidates his opinion in this forum. I can understand spending $1000's on headphones/dacs/amp/preamp, but buying into the cable scam just shows ignorance. You realize that you're paying a premium for some decorated wire that has no effect on the audio chain right? 

 

[manbear]

I appreciate the moral support, but let's try not to get this thread locked as well...

 

[ab initio]

Dear headfi,
 
There seems to be some serious misunderstanding here at headfi of what "science" is and "how science works." 
 
Science is the systematic testing of falsifiable hypotheses. The systematic testing procedure is known as the scientific method.

1. For those who are unfamiliar with the concept of falsifiability, wikipedia provides a good discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
2. For those who are unfamiliar with the scientific method, here it is as taught in grade school: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml#overviewofthescientificmethod

 
 
Lastly, to the many, many defeatists here on headfi who dismiss all scientific principles simply because "we don't know everything about everything,": Please read the wiki article Wronger than wrong.
  
Cheers 

 

[Lostinspace]

The time I spend in Head-Fi viewing seems to be focusing more and more on this 'Sound Science' section.

While i understand virtually none of it, at the same time it is fascinating trying to wrap my head around the physics of sound. It gives me a deeper appreciation and respect for the art form and it acts as a sort of lighthouse beam in the thick fog of my ignorance. It has grounding and a noble imperative behind it.

In the past, when I was younger, more foolish and had more disposable income, I never even looked at this part of the site, and instead used to really enjoy reading the equipment forums.

But increasingly, after being burned a number of times and spent a regrettable chunk of my hard-earned money on stuff that wasn't worth it, I have settled on a very cheap pair of earphones and a smartphone for my mobile listening, and a vintage second head pair of speakers and a cheap separates deal for my home. It all sounds really good to my ears and I have no desire to spend more, since funds are finite and I have this business of living life to do.

I have come to the conclusion that these equipment review parts of head-fi - the most popular ones, natch - are actually just an endless stream of confusing personal viewpoints with no real validity beyond an extremely marginal context of subjective experience, surrounded by the bewildering, blinging lights of advertising bait. I mean, for every IEM or headphone that person X proclaims as the new sliced bread, there's someone crying into their wallet about how poor it is. For every post about such and such double flange tip bringing out the highs, or this new DAP having a great UI, there are three others sniggering behind their hands. So it goes.

Essentially, there are so many combinations and so many endless product choices, all aimed at serving infinitely variable and fallible human ears, its impossible to bring any real value to the table. So instead of offering clarity, the forums just come across as a bunch of hobbyists screaming into the void, desparately trying and failing to find a connection with each other. It was easier before the internet. No offence to the blokes who do those threads comparing hundreds of different earphones, but how does that give you any more insight into good sounding gear than anyone else? In fact, doesn't this endless quest for reviewing and commenting on newer and newer things indicate something's gone a bit wrong in your head? That you've lost the woods for the trees? As far as I can tell, you're not being paid for this, so why do it? Why don't you just choose something you are happy with and go off and listen ot shedloads of lovely music through it?

I suppose part of the allure of this Sound Science section for me is a desire to see all this madness shot down in flames. I can't deny there is a certain frisson of pleasure in reading a well written and argued denunciation of the latest rip off snake oil to hit the market. It makes me angry to think how much cash is wasted on these things by people who really should know better. Unfortunately, it is the nature of capitalist free markets that immoral manipulation and dishonesty can take precedence over integrity and truth, Head-fi should be about championing the latter over the former, I feel, so I thank all invoived who keep the sound Science Section going. You're doing the right thing.

What does any of this have to do with subjectivity vs objectivity? Well, I think it boils down to this: science is about standing back from the roar of the ego and establishing as level a platform of understanding as possible, upon which we can all stand and expand our horizons. While nobody disputes that the discovery of an ultimate truth may be impossible, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater and put all our eggs in the "Well, my ears are the only things I trust." basket (hows that for a mixed metaphor). It is better to keep banging at the door than to give up.

I wonder why the division is made here and there's separate section devoted to audio science? By implication, science has no place elsewhere. Pretty damning really, when you stop to think about it.