John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[john curl]

Of experience. It might not be the 'best' word, but it is not far off.

[john curl]

You are correct, corroboration is the exact word that I was looking for.

[DF96]

I have no knowledge of AES but I would like to put in a word in favour of peer review, having been on both sides of it. If you have ever been a reviewer you will know how much poor quality work is being done around the world and then submitted for publication. There must be some filtering, and peer review seems to be the best option - publishing on the basis of money or reputation would surely lead to a worse outcome?

If you have ever been an author you will know how reviewers can be picky about inconsequential details, can fail to understand even simple theory, or may simply misunderstand or not like what you are saying. Nevertheless, this is the system we have for learned journals and I can't think of a better system.

Should AES be a learned society or a cosy club for audio designers? That is for others to discuss.

[john curl]

It so happens that Einstein would not have been published, if peer review was not waived by the editor.
Walt Jung was kept from the AES journal for 'trivial' and unbacked up reasons, in his seminal SID paper with two other authors.
Matti Otala was kept out of the AES journal with his original PIM paper. Yet he published in the IEEE without any problem.
Just 20 years ago, you could GIVE a paper, WITHOUT referees, at the AES. This does not mean that some guy, off the street, could give a paper. You still had to write an abstract and deal with some committee head selected for a specific range of topics to give at a specific time. This 'weeds out' the 'crazies', and you are left with the really boring stuff, made for 'publish or perish' reasons or sometimes something really interesting, even if controversial to the establishment point of view.
Something like 'current drive' in loudspeakers, or 'wire measurements' or what does feedback do, and is it always good for audio?
However, today, it appears that referees come in BEFORE the paper is even written, potentially dismissing some topic that might be controversial. This was not done before, to my knowledge. You were first screened by the topic chairman, who, if they found you 'sane', then you could give your paper. HOWEVER, it might NOT get into the Journal of the AES, because then the referees would come in, and trust me, people who want that kind of power, are not necessarily nice, easy going people, and they might quash your effort, WITHOUT any proof, just suspicion of irregularities, like 'What do you mean, that you found distortion in a cable assembly? Or 'I don't like your math'.
Reality is not like yes-no to everything. There is some 'fuzzy' stuff in between, that at least, should be open to discussion, or we get the equivalent of 'book burning' and we do not have all the information that we need to effectively make our own decisions about some topics.

[Tom Danley]

Originally Posted by john curl

It so happens that Einstein would not have been published, if peer review was not waived by the editor.

Reality is not like yes-no to everything. There is some 'fuzzy' stuff in between, that at least, should be open to discussion, or we get the equivalent of 'book burning' and we do not have all the information that we need to effectively make our own decisions about some topics.

Hi John
Fuzzy stuff, good way to put it.

It is as if at times they have forgotten what the strength of science is and how the cutting edge often wavers back and forth before the molecules freeze into a solid form.
The real strength of science is that it is provisional, subject to change if a better explanation comes along. That view pretty much requires an open mind not the omnipotent view some in academia adopt.

For big things like Pangea or the northern lights, it might take the better part of a generation for the change to be accepted but it still happens with some kicking and screaming “lies” to the end.

For them to posture that all is known and “this doesn’t fit” automatically rules out some things at the cutting edge which are contrary to the comfortable “faith” view of science that many adopt. It is not always hard and fast like a concrete foundation.
In our lifetimes, how many foods for example have gone from good to bad to good to bad again (like coffee, chocolate, eggs and so on), how many things once thought impossible are now reality.

The scientific historian James Burke’s series “connections” and “the day the universe changed” are good chronicles of how some advancements things came to be and how often the reality is NOT what history records as well.
Best,
Tom Danley

[DF96]

If your description is accurate then AES does not use peer review, because peer reviewers are not special power crazy people but just ordinary scientists/engineers who have happened to publish something on a similar topic. A committee of the 'great and the good', whoever appointed them, is not peer review because the emphasis must be on 'peer' not 'review'. The final decision of course rests with the editor; that is what editors are for.

I thought James Burke was just a TV journalist.

[Nelson Pass]

Originally Posted by Tom Danley

The scientific historian James Burke’s series
“connections” and “the day the universe changed” are good chronicles of how
some advancements things came to be and how often the reality is NOT
what history records as well.

Often the history is simply ignored. This is illustrated by Feyerabends "Against
Method", where Galileo is right for the wrong reasons and the Catholic church
is wrong for the right reasons.

[SY]

Originally Posted by john curl

It so happens that Einstein would not have been published, if peer review was not waived by the editor.

Sigh. Since that legend was thoroughly debunked the last several times you recited it, why do you keep throwing that out there?

[miklos]

'Wall of Sound'
Wall of Sound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[john curl]

SY, I was wondering when you would respond. SY and I have philosophical differences as to the actual 'history of science'. His view appears to be, even back as far as Galileo, that the 'authorities' at the time were wise and reasonable, and 'stories' about their resistance to new ideas is a fiction.
However, this is what I have come to believe:
New ideas are resisted by 'authorities', for the most part, and this usually goes:
It is impossible.
It is possible, but it is not important.
We discovered it, or It's obvious.
This has been my professional experience, and what I have read regarding the 'history of science'. I don't make my opinions up, BUT I have to rely on sources, like books and the internet, and expect that THEY are NOT lying to me about the history of science.
For any of you who is interested, just Google: ' Einstein Planck 1905 ' and read about the controversy around Einstein's paper's. Of course, a 'polite' description of the history of the time period, might edit out any 'controversy' as being irrelevant to the subject. You have to find sources that dig 'deeper' as to the actual events at the time. We all tend to 'smooth over' history with time. If further interested, you will also find that Max Planck was not regarded, at first, as to being 'right' by much of the physics community. That is why his, as well Einstein's Nobel Prize, did not come at the time of their breakthrough papers.