John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[Wavebourn]

hey, back to the circuits!


mlloyd1

Yes. And now John can speak free, without any fear that some stubborn religious believer in own scientifically - proven scepticism put his words in doubt.

 

[bcarso]

"Circuits!? Circuits! We don' need no stinkin' circuits!!"

 

[hitsware]

Multiplied by the 100th monkey effect !

 

[john curl]

I don't know if further discussions of amplifier circuits would be useful, at this time. The details of any specific circuit evades the point of 'what is important' in making a successful circuit design.

 

[Wavebourn]

John;

if hypotethically you had unlimited budget what would you want to design?
Like, some very rich guy called you and said, "Hi John, here is my money. Your call".

 

[ThorstenL]

Hi Sy,

Cargo Cult Science

Very good notes. Especially the bit about what is missing in "Cargo Cult Science" (such as we find much in Audio, be it ABX testing or the continued instance on measuring qualities that have been shown meaningless many times over):

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some
wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling
them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one
feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.
That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards.

This is the very integrity missing when valid criticism is ignored and the same discredited methods are retained over decades...

Ciao T

 

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

I enjoy a rather large set of scientists, physicists, and engineers with whom I have the pleasure of working with around the world, most of them among the best in the world.. And absolutely NONE of them have attributes consistent with your assumption. NONE...

I am not talking about individuals, but fundamental trends in science. For example, in many areas "empiricism" is severely frowned upon, instead you formulate a theory, formulate experiments that will support it, find statical devices to disregard conflicting data (if you do not fake the data outright, as is more common that you would care to admit), proclaim your Theory as proven and make derogatory remarks about "rank empiricists" with their 'silly little experiments" that produce conflicting data...

There are exceptions, but as a whole much of what presents itself as "scientific" in this day and age has more in common with the South Sea islanders and their fake planes, than with a true enquiry into the world of the real.

Ciao T

 

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

As one of science, the first question scientific reasoning requires is: ""Prove your assertions under conditions which remove expectation bias"".

Audiophiles seem incapable of providing such under controlled testing regimens.

Outside the narrow confines of the ABX Mafia there exists a large body of blind testing that supports many audiophile assertions of difference, though they are not specifically aimed that way nor specifically or widely published.

Meanwhile the ABX Mafia's experimental and statistical method has been heavily criticised for decades, with at least some of the criticism showing that the experimental is very heavily biased towards null results. Meanwhile such criticism has neither been adequately answered, nor has it led to a change in the experimental method, which unsurprisingly continues to return null results (the planes don't land).

In fact, their attitude is most reminiscent of Captain Tobias Slater from Dr. Terrible's House of Horrible:

Captain Tobias Slater: Do you have evidence of this evil?

Charlotte: Oh, Mr Norden, you know me, you know I'm no witch.

Norden: There's a test.

Captain Tobias Slater: We've got this ducking stool.

Norden: Aye. See, if yer float...

Captain Tobias Slater: No-no-no-no-no-no-no. If you drown... No, hang on. If you float, you're a witch.

Norden: And then we burn yer.

Captain Tobias Slater: But if you drown, you're not a witch.

Charlotte: But if I drown, I'll die.

Captain Tobias Slater: It's a small price to pay.

Norden: And we've got this ducking stool.

Charlotte: But I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't. That doesn't make any sense.

Captain Tobias Slater: Yes... But we've got this ducking stool.

Ciao T

 

[john curl]

Well said T.

 

[abraxalito]

Meanwhile the ABX Mafia's experimental and statistical method has been heavily criticised for decades, with at least some of the criticism showing that the experimental is very heavily biased towards null results. Meanwhile such criticism has neither been adequately answered, nor has it led to a change in the experimental method, which unsurprisingly continues to return null results (the planes don't land).

Expectation bias I expect.

 

[jan.didden]

Hi,

I am not talking about individuals, but fundamental trends in science. For example, in many areas "empiricism" is severely frowned upon, instead you formulate a theory, formulate experiments that will support it, find statical devices to disregard conflicting data (if you do not fake the data outright, as is more common that you would care to admit), proclaim your Theory as proven and make derogatory remarks about "rank empiricists" with their 'silly little experiments" that produce conflicting data...

There are exceptions, but as a whole much of what presents itself as "scientific" in this day and age has more in common with the South Sea islanders and their fake planes, than with a true enquiry into the world of the real.

Ciao T

We are essentially living in a post-fact society. You see it in politics, you see it here: the line between opinion and fact is totally gone. People have opinions which are totally devoid of any factual backing yet they get the same attention and the same importance attached.
That's one reason why, despite the availability of unprecedented information and knowledge through the 'net, average joe has no more clue of how the world works than his great-great-great-great grandfather a few centuries ago.

BTW Your continued use of the term 'ABX Mafia' is tiring. I thought we slowly got away from name calling. I would also protest (as you would I believe) calling some people here 'audiophools'.

jan

 

[Ryelands]

People have opinions [which] are totally devoid of any factual backing . . .

You and TL could well be right - both of you have at least nicely illustrated the point.

Dave

 

[gk7]

...
Millions of audiophiles know what they hear. they are not connected to the idea of scientific methodology...
...

So back to the times when millions "knew" the earth is flat ...

 

[imminentdomain]

Human brains are too advanced to process sound solely on the basis of one sound being minutely different from another. Human brains can detect minute differences, but largely only differences that are meaningful to humans. That's not all, humans are also capable of selective attention, meaning we can focus on parts of sound. Think about that, what does the mind's perceived response look like? First of all, it's not flat, second, it's constantly changing. If you listen to a string of notes being played your focus follows the notes through the frequency range. So you're not only focusing on one aspect of the sound, you're following it throughout the frequency range and pushing down the frequencies around it as you do so. Finally, there's emotion, chemical responses to music/sound that are going to literally alter my hearing sensitivity, or cause me to zone into one facet of the sound with microscope like focus. Imagine yourself alone in the forest and you thought you heard a bear, vs. alone in your apartment and you thought you heard the fridge compressor humming. Situational focus is HUGE for human perception. It all adds up to a complex experience that is probably impossible to measure, changes from listen to listen, from listener to listener, and is probably best described as intangible, though very, very real.

 

[vacuphile]

Just the opposite- we're skeptics (see the Cargo Cult article). Come to us with wild theories and good evidence and we're all ears, so to speak.

Kuhn?

 

[vacuphile]

Hi,



I am not talking about individuals, but fundamental trends in science. For example, in many areas "empiricism" is severely frowned upon, instead you formulate a theory, formulate experiments that will support it, find statical devices to disregard conflicting data (if you do not fake the data outright, as is more common that you would care to admit), proclaim your Theory as proven and make derogatory remarks about "rank empiricists" with their 'silly little experiments" that produce conflicting data...

There are exceptions, but as a whole much of what presents itself as "scientific" in this day and age has more in common with the South Sea islanders and their fake planes, than with a true enquiry into the world of the real.

Ciao T

Popper?

 

[jan.didden]

[snip]Millions of audiophiles know what they hear. they are not connected to the idea of scientific methodology and all surrounding it, they are connected to what they hear. they speak honestly and truly about what they hear and can successfully relate and test for those results.[snip].

Indeed, and that's why they are a little bit easier manipulated, and why they give conflicting reports and cannot agree what sounds best, SE, balanced, PP, no feedback, high feedback, you name it.
All so predictable and so much known since decades.
But that's OK - enjoy your hobby, enjoy life, and to each his/hers own.

jan

 

[jan.didden]

Nothing got me mad, Stuart. It got me arguments that scientists are biased people, stubborn believers.

Yes, scientists, being members of a subset of the genus 'people' are just as biased and prejudiced as the next guy.
The difference I believe is that serious, honest scientists realise that this is the situation, and have developed a process that attemps to delete those biases and prejudices from their work.
Is it perfect? No.
Do we have something better? Not by a long shot.

BTW Science, or more accurately 'the scientific method' is recognised by many as very unnatural. It doesn't come natural to people.
People much easier accept a great story, accept things that are told them by a friend or someone they trust otherwise and reject stuff from somebody they don't know. Marketing often just focusses on brand recognition - if you 'know'' a brand you're much more likely to buy it than an unknown brand, with no relation to the actual product quality.

Scientists are just as likely to be influenced by advertising when buying their socks as you or me, but in their work they try to use a different decision method: 'the scientific method'.

jan

 

[john curl]

You are right T. You are responding to the continual attacks on our opinion and experience as am I. I have been hearing about 'objective tests' for decades. They don't work for me, yet I seem to be successful in designing and building world class products.
You and I know why this is so T. We know that these tests do NOT remove the 'bias' to not hear any difference at all, the so called MEMOREX EFFECT, or 'Is it live or is it Memorex? Ella Fitzgerald couldn't tell the difference! I stated this IN PRINT over 30 years ago. I stand by it, today.

 

[SY]

Kuhn?

Yes. Paradigm shifts in understanding are driven by evidence. Fashion and religion are driven by story-telling.