If you mean that it is a belief system that is based on evidence and reason rather than on unsupported statements and believe in unproven entities, than you are correct .
It still does not make science a religion.
A religion relies on the unquestionable and unproveable statements by the founders of the religion, does not admit doubt into its tenets.
I wonder where your understanding of science comes from. Your statement sounds very much like those purported by creationists.
I think one must believe that there is room for improvement to become devoted to exploring what are causing the limitations and what can be done to improve it. Like any new discovery, it might begin with just a gut feeling. There is nothing wrong with that. The difficult part is comming up with a consistent way of predicting what will result. Sometimes there is not a simple math relation, but if the trend of improvement audibly is consistent, then it is only a matter of time to derive a way to quantify predictable results.audio-kraut said:
I think one people hear about the methods and solution of others, some will shout for proof, some will quietly try to understand whether they can technically find a reasonable and consistent way to explain the phenomena for self understanding, others may just blindly follow. It really depends on what we as individuals choose to do.
For example, how many people know what bad things can occur from using a shorting ring in a motor design? What difference can be seen in the response and what will they sound like? How will it effect how you use the driver if you had to use it?
rdf said:
What relevans should a statement
of some 'rdf' at our public board
have to the spirit of diy audio.
not much
Lineup
- always open to scientific research, to reasonable doubts of unsupported pseudo knowledge statements.
Using Spice Simulations of different parameters along with listening to My music.
As well as I am 100% Pro the much hated ABX Blind Listening Methodical Tests to investigate sound impressions.
ABX hated because it may crush some established illusions of a few
& give us more knowledge about correlation between measurments & and musical Audio output,
as perceived by humans.
Thereby reducing the area of snake oilers to use for their own purposes.
Lineup Audio Lab - sound analysis & human perception investigation researches
Registration at Lineup Audio Lab
.
some times the emperor is plain stupidly start naked
and no facts whatever to cover him self up with
.
audio-kraut said:
Agreed. But science and the scientific method relies on certain things that are taken on faith; number theory, causality, logic, reason, accuracy of basic observations, etc. An understanding of science that does not or cannot accept this can be little more than a religion, by your own definition. Admittedly, concepts like causality seem vastly more rational (to me) than saying "God just is", but both are essentially the same thing to different people, and unproven.
That's why the subjectivist vs objectivist thing is (in my opinion) a true religious debate, based on belief and faith on both sides. It'll never get anywhere on its own. I could pick either side if I wanted and go for it, safe in the knowledge I will never be shown up, and probably make a tidy profit along the way.
While this happens the apparent lack of agreement between perception and measurement goes unchallenged. It's very easy to say "placebo effect" - but that's just guessing - because it "looks like" the provable placebo effect. What's really going on? Why do so many people report hearing things that collapse into nothing when measured? Why does it not matter whether the subjects are believers or skeptics? Why do people independently report hearing the same thing and use the same words to describe it, if it can't be measured in a controlled subjective trial? If double-blind testing is the evil that many in the audiophile industry assume it is, then how can I consistently get 10/10 in a string of A/B/X tests based on only a feeling, when I can't hear any difference between A and B no matter how hard I try? And so on.
That's the kind of thing I was hoping would get questioned in this thread, because that paper basically proves that CD audio is "perfect" when it comes to stereo playback.
adx said:
..... I'm an audio manufacturer with a vested interest in perpetuating myths
which might result in audiophiles parting with their cash
Disgusting!
Another snake oiler
and not ashamed of it
.. my god!!!
good post, adx
with one smile, for sure
Because what else can we do with those audio con artists
with their small part time businesses
out to get our hard earned money,
... than smile or laugh at them so greedy sellers
Have to disagree. Except for the logic and reason part, which by definition are not religion or faith. Accuracy in observation is not always the case, but that's the purpose of peer review and requirements for replicability. Causality fell apart in the 1920s, and science learned to deal with it.
The more important criterion (IMO) is falsifiability, in the Popper sense. If there is no possible way a hypothesis can be refuted, it's faith, not science. I would ask the woo-woo crowd, what possible experiment could be contrived that would convince you that your perception of the miracles of five-9s silver frammistats is just your imagination? The contra is easy: for some product that most engineers and scientists would consider snake oil, whether or not we understand the mechanism, a controlled listening test with significant results would establish the product's audibility, even for JAES.
Do a 16/44.1 A/D then D/A and score (or have test subjects score) 9/10 in a multiple trial blind test, as an example, then you have something you can publish and claim as "real."
I know that paper. There's probably some things wrong with it, but so far nobody has given any coherent or half-way intelligent argument WHAT exactly is wrong with it.
And if the best that a poster can come up with is repeating 'idiots, idiots, idiots' three times, it tells me more about that poster than about the paper.
Jan Didden
And if the best that a poster can come up with is repeating 'idiots, idiots, idiots' three times, it tells me more about that poster than about the paper.
Jan Didden
adx said:
Subconciously hearing the sound of the A/B/X box? In retrospect very few listening tests examine all possibilities that could skew the result. I have never attended any listening comparison where there was an attempt to equalize +-.1dB broadband on both sources. This would disqualify all of them in the eyes of some.
janneman said:I know that paper. There's probably some things wrong with it, but so far nobody has given any coherent or half-way intelligent argument WHAT exactly is wrong with it.
And if the best that a poster can come up with is repeating 'idiots, idiots, idiots' three times, it tells me more about that poster than about the paper.
I guess, if poor quality material was recorded by pair of good means nobody can tell the difference. When I compared myself I come to this conclusion, because I believe that SACD may sound better.
No but it does shed some light on the various systems used for evaluation. All are solid state poweramps no doubt all using copious amounts of global loop feedback. Global loop feedbank in an amp tends to make everything that passes through it homogenized glob of the same. It's like putting whatever ....a steak....or offal in a meat centrifuge. What comes out in both instances is virtually the same.
Bas Horneman said:
Why is the idea of SACD and CD sounding the same so annoying that it's worth pulling, as an argument, "NFB bad" out of the dust bin?
If the Meyer and Moran study is not good enough, what would be an acceptable, beyond any reasonable doubt, proof that CD and SACD sound the same? Or, alternatively, what would be an acceptable, beyond any reasonable doubt, proof that CD and SACD sound different?
I don't know. I don't have SACD. So I have no vested interest so to speak. I guess it was semi-trolling. Part of me believes it. The sensible part of me says...really! SACD sounds the same as CD...??!!!???
So I guess I just spewed something out.
PS.
There have also been tests (non ABX) that say MP3 at 192kHz sampling rates sound the same as CD.
I have a hard time believing that. Maybe I should just do the test for myself.
If I heard it for myself on a certain person's sound system.
PMA said:
Have you repeated Meyer and Moran experiment with a better SACD unit and concluded differently? I am sure AES would be happy to send your work for peer reviewing and eventually publishing.
I do have what I think it's a good SACD unit (Sony SCD-XA9000ES) and I regret every penny I payed for, since day one. In fact for quite some time I don't buy SACDs anymore. I can't wait for Linn to expand the range of digital recordings they master.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.