John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 2414 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29th June 2012, 04:53 AM   #24131
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Of experience. It might not be the 'best' word, but it is not far off.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th June 2012, 04:56 AM   #24132
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
You are correct, corroboration is the exact word that I was looking for.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th June 2012, 10:06 AM   #24133
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th June 2012, 05:18 PM   #24134
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th June 2012, 06:10 PM   #24135
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sitting behind the 'puter screen, in Illinois, USA, planet earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
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
__________________
Bring back mst3k and futurama
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th June 2012, 10:26 PM   #24136
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th June 2012, 10:58 PM   #24137
The one and only
 
Nelson Pass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Danley View Post
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.

  Reply With Quote
Old 29th June 2012, 11:15 PM   #24138
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
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?
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th June 2012, 03:31 AM   #24139
miklos is offline miklos  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
miklos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: toronto
'Wall of Sound'
Wall of Sound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
miklos
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th June 2012, 04:54 AM   #24140
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
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.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:17 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2