SY,
Just noticed the quote at the bottom of your posts, you've seen 'The Power of Nightmares"? - fascinating doco, pity it seems to have had only limited exposure in the 'land of the free' though.
Unfortunately it's probably too politcal to discuss here, even though it is about myths...
Cheers,
Pete McK
Just noticed the quote at the bottom of your posts, you've seen 'The Power of Nightmares"? - fascinating doco, pity it seems to have had only limited exposure in the 'land of the free' though.
Unfortunately it's probably too politcal to discuss here, even though it is about myths...
Cheers,
Pete McK
pjpoes, may use broad strokes (the size of the strokes is always debatable), but he does make some valid points.
The engineer type is likely to say things like, "With the DVD-A, digital sound reproduction has finally surpassed vinyl."
Does that mean that with the DVD-A digital audio finally surpassed vinyl's pathetic channel separation of -30db (probably lower)? The statement is a lie, no ands, ifs or buts.
The biggest audio myth I know is the delusion that we know anything.
The engineer type is likely to say things like, "With the DVD-A, digital sound reproduction has finally surpassed vinyl."
Does that mean that with the DVD-A digital audio finally surpassed vinyl's pathetic channel separation of -30db (probably lower)? The statement is a lie, no ands, ifs or buts.
The biggest audio myth I know is the delusion that we know anything.
I appreciate all the feedback. I'm sorry if some were in any way offended, I think that, in trying to open up a more integrated conversation, I actually created more divide. When I said that I thought an engineer had no right telling a psychologist how to measure hearing, for instance, I realize now that didn't come out as I intended. Rather, I meant to say that instead of arguing over who has the best method, we should work together in developing methods. Work with cognitive psychologists, brain researchers, electrical engineers, audiologists, methodologists, and statisticians. It’s a more effective means, IMO, to achieve reliable results.
I know I'm going to get stuck needing to site this now, and it will take me some time to find the article again, but a few of the better university based DBT audio tests specific to music, which was my earlier point really, had the major problem of using test tones during short bursts, and asking listeners to reliably tell the difference between a test tone recorded at say 16 bit and then 24 bit, or on Sony headphones and then I think the others were Beyer dynamic. I've also read ones using test tones to find out perceivable differences in distortion levels, again, short bursts. Now mind you, this is speculation, its a potential intervening variable not addressed in precious studies, but sense memory is quite short, and expecting people to tell reliable difference between short consecutive tones, IMO, may not be possible. What it means is that, if someone can't reliably tell the difference in tests, it’s not because no difference exists, but because the test method isn't sensitive enough.
As for where I'm located, Upstate New York, I work for an agency that is part of the Cornell Family Life Development Center. My specialization isn't in audio; I'm a child development and behavior specialist. I should be careful now because obviously, based on my credentials, measuring audio is a little out of my realm. However I would argue this, my actual specialization is in methods and stats, my job is to find a way to measure human behavior and relate it to cognitive processes. I also, in fact mostly, develop the studies used to assess the effectiveness of intervention programs. I'm currently in-between my Masters and PhD.
I know I'm going to get stuck needing to site this now, and it will take me some time to find the article again, but a few of the better university based DBT audio tests specific to music, which was my earlier point really, had the major problem of using test tones during short bursts, and asking listeners to reliably tell the difference between a test tone recorded at say 16 bit and then 24 bit, or on Sony headphones and then I think the others were Beyer dynamic. I've also read ones using test tones to find out perceivable differences in distortion levels, again, short bursts. Now mind you, this is speculation, its a potential intervening variable not addressed in precious studies, but sense memory is quite short, and expecting people to tell reliable difference between short consecutive tones, IMO, may not be possible. What it means is that, if someone can't reliably tell the difference in tests, it’s not because no difference exists, but because the test method isn't sensitive enough.
As for where I'm located, Upstate New York, I work for an agency that is part of the Cornell Family Life Development Center. My specialization isn't in audio; I'm a child development and behavior specialist. I should be careful now because obviously, based on my credentials, measuring audio is a little out of my realm. However I would argue this, my actual specialization is in methods and stats, my job is to find a way to measure human behavior and relate it to cognitive processes. I also, in fact mostly, develop the studies used to assess the effectiveness of intervention programs. I'm currently in-between my Masters and PhD.
You've got the right background to start digging in. Experimental design and interpretation require those tools. I do organoleptic tests on a professional basis and was formerly involved in haptics research; sensory testing methodology and practice are very well-established.
There's some very good published work on the audibility of various phenomena, but you have to dig into it yourself and ignore the comic books. Nothing like the primary literature to help you cut through the fog, eh?
There's some very good published work on the audibility of various phenomena, but you have to dig into it yourself and ignore the comic books. Nothing like the primary literature to help you cut through the fog, eh?
Somebody asked why I can't get my idea passed for research. A few reasons, one is that my area of expertise generally requires that I get brought in as a consultant on a project, not run the project on my own. I would need someone who specializes more in audio or sound to come up with the project, and ask that I be a part of it. Problem two is that I'm no longer a Cornell grad student, I work for an agency that works for an agency of Cornell, so I'm not even paid by Cornell anymore, I'm paid by a grant I got for the research project at this agency. The third reason is that I don't want to use sound accepted scientific methods, because I find them too limiting, and removing too much external validity. They have no real world practicality, so I feel they won't give me the results, but Cornell is currently trying to distance itself from these methods. The group I work with is part of the Human Development department at Cornell, and they have been working towards different methods, inwhich studies are more "acceptable." I also would need a lot of help developing the methods, as I don't have the understanding I need of how sound is reproduced, seperate from human perception. Thats where the engineer would come in. I don't fully know biologicly how our hearing works, I have a rough idea, but having a medical professional would be useful. Then somebody who has worked with brain mapping would also be a useful consultant, from the information I would gather in talking with them, I would then have the role of developing a useful measurement system. However, Since I want to develop a better new system, I would also have to validate the method, to ensure its reliability, and given my age and credentials, its douptful Cornell would want to chance that on me. Any PhD's out there want to sponsor me in a university study!!!
" ... I don't want to use sound accepted scientific methods, because I find them too limiting, and removing too much external validity. They have no real world practicality, so I feel they won't give me the results, but Cornell is currently trying to distance itself from these methods. ..."
So, when did you come to this conclusion yourself ? ...And when do you believe that the scientific establishment went astray ? ... And do you feel that there will ever be a time when the established scientific community will revert to the more practical aspects of scientific research ?
Personally I have been lead to believe that around 1913 was a "split date", the time when teaching scientists, generally, began to follow esoteric mathematical and theoritical work away from reality, leading the established scientific community to "stray" from the path of real world exploration and research (in the lab, etc.) ... writing papers full of speculation instead of actually trying to make discoveries discoveries in the physical universe.
Your take?
So, when did you come to this conclusion yourself ? ...And when do you believe that the scientific establishment went astray ? ... And do you feel that there will ever be a time when the established scientific community will revert to the more practical aspects of scientific research ?
Personally I have been lead to believe that around 1913 was a "split date", the time when teaching scientists, generally, began to follow esoteric mathematical and theoritical work away from reality, leading the established scientific community to "stray" from the path of real world exploration and research (in the lab, etc.) ... writing papers full of speculation instead of actually trying to make discoveries discoveries in the physical universe.
Your take?
Did you type that on a computer? Using silicon ICs? And printed circuits? Sent over fiber optic lines? Via satellites? In response to something you read on a video screen?
And are you still alive (what as life expectancy in 1913 compared to now?)?
edit: For a dose of real irony, it's worth clicking your www link.
SY: " ... Did you type that on a computer? Using silicon ICs? And printed circuits? Sent over fiber optic lines? Via satellites? In response to something you read on a video screen? ..."
Yes, but you see almost every one of the technical advances you refer to here were made by engineers and non-degreed technicians and even hobbiests working in a real laboratory without benifit of the "advanced" esoteric speculation of academic science and phylosophy ... they found out the answers for themselves, in many cases, ignoring the conventional "wisdom" ...
Schottky discovered the fast diode himself by experiment in the lab. Guthrie, Braun, Edison and Fleming and then years later, Shockley theorized about radio diodes , long after the discoveries, not before.
Dr. Ramo worked out all of the basic photographic processes for [silicon and other] IC manufacture in his home laboratory, demonstrating that the theorists were wrong and actual hobbiests' experimental evidence was right ... at least that's what he told me. (Same / same with TTL logic = all hobbiests lab work, trial and error experiment and invention, not the commonly held belief that it was worked out by theoritical mathematicians ahead of the curve.)
Farnsworth and raster scan TV? ... while sitting on a tractor, plowing his father's field, then building it in his shop. Etching optical pathways in glass with ultra sound? Two very bright high school dropouts in a lab at UC Davis, contrary to the wishes and directions of their overseeing theoritician. (They both work for Intel now and discolsure can not be done until Intel theorists get the patent applications written.)
The generally accepted consensus that theory leads practice made the "split" around 1913, IMOP. I was not there, but it sure appears that after Einstein's various theories became accepted by experimental evidence, academic scientists seemed to believe they could do as well or better than inventors, the inventors (many unaccredited) demonstarting repeatedly that elbow grease and sweat almost always uncovers reality better than pencil and paper ...
Always Question Authority ... and try it in the lab before you believe what the paper writers are pushing.
Yes, but you see almost every one of the technical advances you refer to here were made by engineers and non-degreed technicians and even hobbiests working in a real laboratory without benifit of the "advanced" esoteric speculation of academic science and phylosophy ... they found out the answers for themselves, in many cases, ignoring the conventional "wisdom" ...
Schottky discovered the fast diode himself by experiment in the lab. Guthrie, Braun, Edison and Fleming and then years later, Shockley theorized about radio diodes , long after the discoveries, not before.
Dr. Ramo worked out all of the basic photographic processes for [silicon and other] IC manufacture in his home laboratory, demonstrating that the theorists were wrong and actual hobbiests' experimental evidence was right ... at least that's what he told me. (Same / same with TTL logic = all hobbiests lab work, trial and error experiment and invention, not the commonly held belief that it was worked out by theoritical mathematicians ahead of the curve.)
Farnsworth and raster scan TV? ... while sitting on a tractor, plowing his father's field, then building it in his shop. Etching optical pathways in glass with ultra sound? Two very bright high school dropouts in a lab at UC Davis, contrary to the wishes and directions of their overseeing theoritician. (They both work for Intel now and discolsure can not be done until Intel theorists get the patent applications written.)
The generally accepted consensus that theory leads practice made the "split" around 1913, IMOP. I was not there, but it sure appears that after Einstein's various theories became accepted by experimental evidence, academic scientists seemed to believe they could do as well or better than inventors, the inventors (many unaccredited) demonstarting repeatedly that elbow grease and sweat almost always uncovers reality better than pencil and paper ...
Always Question Authority ... and try it in the lab before you believe what the paper writers are pushing.
I generally agree with what is being said here, though I was getting at a slightly different aspect of this issue. Part of it is that, the scientists aren't necassarily wrong, but without applied practice of their idea's, we don't know. They won't share them with engineers, so we never see them in practice, and they won't apply the ideas themselves, probably because they lack the ability to do so.
Let me give you my perspective, which comes from a very different history in science. Again I work in behavioral sciences, not traditional lab sciences. Psychologists, behaviorists, psychiatrists, etc. have worked for near a century now developing theories on why we are the way we are, how our brains work, what makes us act, etc. etc... The problem is, none of this information has been readily used for practical purposes. Though I don't want to overstate and say that this is a new idea, it is a new revolution in social research, and that is what we call applied methods work. For example, B.F. Skinner developed a theory related to operant conditioning on the effectiveness of positive reinforcement over punishment or negative reinforcement as a means to behavior change. As it was structured it was completely impractical for real world use. Within the last 15 years or so researchers have expanded this behaviorist view into practical parenting practices, managerial styles, etc. in order to improve their effectiveness. Today all the things we commonly see, like them or not, come from this system. Ideas like reward scales, getting stickers, 5 good things for every bad thing you say, counting to three, praising good grades, timeout, etc.
I'm currently working in a sort of cutting edge area of research where we are taking it farther. A lot of universities develop wonderful programs to deal with thigns like Parent Child Interaction, which require highly trained psychologist in a well funded university based center, in order to be effective. We take these idea's and disseminate them so that we can rebuild the programs into packages usable by basic community centers without the great funding and resources. My most recent contribution to this work is taking a complex direct behavioral analysis system designed to track changes in PCI, and create a usable version for our center. The original system required an initial outlay of 15,000 dollars and annual costs of close to 10,000, along with the fees to pay a well educated research to do all the coding. My changes not only improved the real world reliability of the measure, at the expense of some internal validity, but also reduced the costs to around 1000 dollars initially, 100 dollars a year, and the cost trained associate level worker. I accomplished this through the miracles of software really, I did all the hard work for them in the software, making it as simple as loading a video into this piece of software, and clicking on buttons each time something is seen. All the stats are then automaticly generated, including Kappa R's for inter-rater reliability. Its great, its super simple, and its actually useful.
Let me give you my perspective, which comes from a very different history in science. Again I work in behavioral sciences, not traditional lab sciences. Psychologists, behaviorists, psychiatrists, etc. have worked for near a century now developing theories on why we are the way we are, how our brains work, what makes us act, etc. etc... The problem is, none of this information has been readily used for practical purposes. Though I don't want to overstate and say that this is a new idea, it is a new revolution in social research, and that is what we call applied methods work. For example, B.F. Skinner developed a theory related to operant conditioning on the effectiveness of positive reinforcement over punishment or negative reinforcement as a means to behavior change. As it was structured it was completely impractical for real world use. Within the last 15 years or so researchers have expanded this behaviorist view into practical parenting practices, managerial styles, etc. in order to improve their effectiveness. Today all the things we commonly see, like them or not, come from this system. Ideas like reward scales, getting stickers, 5 good things for every bad thing you say, counting to three, praising good grades, timeout, etc.
I'm currently working in a sort of cutting edge area of research where we are taking it farther. A lot of universities develop wonderful programs to deal with thigns like Parent Child Interaction, which require highly trained psychologist in a well funded university based center, in order to be effective. We take these idea's and disseminate them so that we can rebuild the programs into packages usable by basic community centers without the great funding and resources. My most recent contribution to this work is taking a complex direct behavioral analysis system designed to track changes in PCI, and create a usable version for our center. The original system required an initial outlay of 15,000 dollars and annual costs of close to 10,000, along with the fees to pay a well educated research to do all the coding. My changes not only improved the real world reliability of the measure, at the expense of some internal validity, but also reduced the costs to around 1000 dollars initially, 100 dollars a year, and the cost trained associate level worker. I accomplished this through the miracles of software really, I did all the hard work for them in the software, making it as simple as loading a video into this piece of software, and clicking on buttons each time something is seen. All the stats are then automaticly generated, including Kappa R's for inter-rater reliability. Its great, its super simple, and its actually useful.
pjpoes: " ... Part of it is that, the scientists aren't necassarily wrong, but without applied practice of their idea's, we don't know. They won't share them with engineers, so we never see them in practice, and they won't apply the ideas themselves, probably because they lack the ability to do so. ..."
Well, they do usually share quite readily with the engineers, whether right or wrong, and that's the point.
" ... Psychologists, behaviorists, psychiatrists, etc. have worked for near a century now developing theories on why we are the way we are, how our brains work, what makes us act, etc. etc... The problem is, none of this information has been readily used for practical purposes. ..."
... again, whether right or wrong ... although I might differ on the "none ... used" part. I would have said that theories are being applied in some cases (brain washing, subliminal communication in advertising, etc.), although occasionally incorrectly and with rare but significant disaster resulting (belief paradigm @ Jonestown? ... & Taliban?).
" ... wonderful programs to deal with thigns like Parent Child Interaction, which require highly trained psychologist in a well funded university based center, in order to be effective. We take these idea's and disseminate them so that we can rebuild the programs into packages usable by basic community centers without the great funding and resources. ... ... [doing it with] software, making it as simple as loading a video into this piece of software, and clicking on buttons each time something is seen. ... ... its super simple, and its actually useful. "
A laudable goal, no doubt. Extropolation from real world, quantifiable, verifiable lab results to the more general case, in a very cost effective manner.
Wondering: how much of the past, commonly accepted wisdom and theory (ala Skinner, et al) is being "tweaked" or modified to accomodate your current resulting laboratory work?
Well, they do usually share quite readily with the engineers, whether right or wrong, and that's the point.
" ... Psychologists, behaviorists, psychiatrists, etc. have worked for near a century now developing theories on why we are the way we are, how our brains work, what makes us act, etc. etc... The problem is, none of this information has been readily used for practical purposes. ..."
... again, whether right or wrong ... although I might differ on the "none ... used" part. I would have said that theories are being applied in some cases (brain washing, subliminal communication in advertising, etc.), although occasionally incorrectly and with rare but significant disaster resulting (belief paradigm @ Jonestown? ... & Taliban?).
" ... wonderful programs to deal with thigns like Parent Child Interaction, which require highly trained psychologist in a well funded university based center, in order to be effective. We take these idea's and disseminate them so that we can rebuild the programs into packages usable by basic community centers without the great funding and resources. ... ... [doing it with] software, making it as simple as loading a video into this piece of software, and clicking on buttons each time something is seen. ... ... its super simple, and its actually useful. "
A laudable goal, no doubt. Extropolation from real world, quantifiable, verifiable lab results to the more general case, in a very cost effective manner.
Wondering: how much of the past, commonly accepted wisdom and theory (ala Skinner, et al) is being "tweaked" or modified to accomodate your current resulting laboratory work?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.