John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[Wavebourn]

Originally Posted by mlloyd1

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,

Originally Posted by 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):

Originally Posted by Richard Feynman

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,

Originally Posted by jneutron

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,

Originally Posted by jneutron

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]

Originally Posted by ThorstenL

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.