Testing or Listening? :|: Split from Blowtorch II

[jkeny]

Thread split from - Blowtorch part II
__________________________________________________ ____

Originally Posted by Soundminded

.......
That tests are flawed does not negate the fact that they are the only reliable way to determine the limits of perception among those being tested. ............

Is this not a contradiction in terms - emphasis is mine?

[cliffforrest]

Originally Posted by jkeny

Is this not a contradiction in terms - emphasis is mine?

Not at all.

Most things have some flaws. If these are understood they can be accounted and allowed for in drawing conclusions.

If we waited for infalllable tests for everything, we would still be waiting.

[jkeny]

Originally Posted by cliffforrest

Not at all.

Most things have some flaws. If these are understood they can be accounted and allowed for in drawing conclusions.

If we waited for infalllable tests for everything, we would still be waiting.

Science, by definition is not infallible, so that argument is a straw man one. What's your definition of reliability then?

Soundminded's paragraph before my quoted sentence

Specific tests may not be valid for a number of reasons. The science isn't sufficiently advanced to devise meaningful tests that examine salient variables. The tests fail to simulate real world conditions but are inherited from a more primitive time when they were once meaningful. There are more variables in the test procedure than it controls and one variable at a time is not being tested but multiple variables are at work simultaneously. There are others.

Tell me where you draw the line to decide when a test is "good enough"?

[jcx]

but when related evidence suggests the test flaws have more effect on the test outcome than the claimed hypothesis we do need to address those flaws

in subjective testing of human perceptions it's pretty clear that sighted tests have flaws too big to be relied on in many situations


on the other subject engineering principles can be used to translate measurements of an effect in one system to predict its impact on the perfromance in another circuit topology

tape heads have air gaps, different windings than purpose designed MC step up xfmr - so the papers/discussions Mr Curl mentions should be presented in/translated to "transferable" engineering models - noise source levels and impedances, mutual inductance factor estimates may be needed to adjust for winding differences

as mentioned in the Stereophile phono EQ article 2nd order roll off (like xfmr hf response) can have much less amplitude error than 1st order filters over some frequency range

curious minds do wonder why we're seeing seemingly randomly chosen, poorly contextualized objections rather than comments on measurements, datasheet numbers of existing MC xfmr for the bandwidth, flatness issues, or valid information from the cited sources translated to the conditions of the MC xfmr circuit model

an engineering approach to me means use good models, measurements and engineering knowledge, models to calculate the magnitude of effects like lamination thickness - in the intended application: MC step up xmfer

if it is a "problem" by whatever criteria we choose perfromance "requirements" then you can see what solutions are technically available - "tape wound" "bobbin" cores can be had with 1/8 mil Supermalloy

[Soundminded]

Originally Posted by jkeny

Is this not a contradiction in terms - emphasis is mine?

You have misread what I said or at least meant to say. The fact that a particular test or set of tests are flawed does not change the fact that testing is the only path to knowledge. That is an inherent part of the scientific method that is distinguished from natural philosophy where people just contemplated their navels to learn the truth. That's what led them to believe that everything was made out of earth, water, fire, and air. If the test is flawed, devise a better test, don't give up on the notion that testing is crucial. The scientific method consists of hypothesis, testing, results, and conclusion. If the test is inadequate then the conclusion will be invalid. But it is only proven methodology for getting at the truth.

[Soundminded]

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy

Let's examine that statement.

Ultimately, the end goal is to sell product and make money.

That requires marketing and advertising.

And in this market, as with many others sadly, playing the numbers game is a highly effective marketing tool.

The numbers are achieved through engineering.

Therefore, does the engineer in this case not have a rational reason for what they do?

Surely you're not arguing that the desire to make money is irrational are you?

se

If the market is ignorant and unregulated, sell them snake oil, they won't know the difference. No need to bother with engineering in that case, just as long as it tastes and smells foul, they'll think they're getting better from it.

[jkeny]

Originally Posted by Soundminded

You have misread what I said or at least meant to say. The fact that a particular test or set of tests are flawed does not change the fact that testing is the only path to knowledge. That is an inherent part of the scientific method that is distinguished from natural philosophy where people just contemplated their navels to learn the truth. That's what led them to believe that everything was made out of earth, water, fire, and air. If the test is flawed, devise a better test, don't give up on the notion that testing is crucial. The scientific method consists of hypothesis, testing, results, and conclusion. If the test is inadequate then the conclusion will be invalid. But it is only proven methodology for getting at the truth.

Studying a bit of philosophy might be a good way of avoiding the logic flaws in your argument, perhaps?

[Joshua_G]

Originally Posted by Soundminded

...
The fact that a particular test or set of tests are flawed does not change the fact that testing is the only path to knowledge. ...

Oh boy!
There are things in life that can be known by experience, rather than by testing.
Love is one example. Elated spirit that stems from viewing some nature views is another.

When it comes to the joy of listening to music, I choose experience and skip testings entirely.

[kevinahcc20]

The joy of listening is not measurable...making a system that closer approximates the real thing and (presumably) increases your joy is! We would not have made it from crystal radios and Edison wax cylinders to the current state through the dutiful application of the joy principle.

[jkeny]

Originally Posted by kevinahcc20

The joy of listening is not measurable...making a system that closer approximates the real thing and (presumably) increases your joy is! We would not have made it from crystal radios and Edison wax cylinders to the current state through the dutiful application of the joy principle.

Audio replay is an illusion - you are not approximating the real thing - you're creating a more pleasing illusion - nobody can measure that scientifically.