Not really for science, it is about reliably predicting the future.
For law, yes, it is about evidence, it's weight, and it's credibility, etc.
Whilst the debate about what constitutes proof is very interesting and the talk of facts and truth are worthwhile philosophical concepts, what exactly have they got to do with the thread?
That word (ITU-R BS.1534-3) is wrong, the correct one is ITU-R BS.1116-3.
Recommendation ITU-R BS.1534-3 (which uses MUSHRA method) is intended for, quote, "subjective assessment of intermediate audio quality".
Recommendation ITU-R BS.1116-3 (which uses double-blind triple-stimulus with hidden reference method) is, quote, "Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems.
This Recommendation is intended for use in the assessment of systems which introduce impairments so small as to be undetectable without rigorous control of the experimental conditions and appropriate statistical analysis."
Last edited:
It's about amount and quality of evidence for and against a theory/hypothesis.
It still does not make it a fact or truth...its about absolutes.
It still does not make it a fact or truth...its about absolutes.
Oh dear, can someone help me decide which I should buy? Perhaps I should get both and be done with it
The more discerning one is Recommendation ITU-R BS.1116-3 and you can download it free:
https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf
https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf
There is such a thing. A fact or truth remains the same it will never change.
Fire is hot that is a absolute factual truth, it will never change.
Well, I can't argue with that, I know from experience. Although, that is only my perception of fire
Isn´t it actually the other way round? Philosophers were discussing if inductive proof is possible in sciences that are based on observations. Poppers falsificationism concept is imo based on this and therefore is only looking for falsification but not verification.
Scientific proof of the deductive kind would be accepted but is usually not available. Within an axiomatic system inductive proof (see mathematics) is possible.
Last edited:
Please, we were discussing a deliberately introduced level difference used as a positive control. So, obviously "levels are not matched" , but within the test used the listeners will still be asked if there is a difference/preference.
In case of _small_ level differences listeners don´t notice and identify the level difference as such, but perceive a difference in the sound event. So they don´t think "wow this one is louder than the other" but instead for example "this one is more open/dynamic/detailed" .
Congratulations; that´s why it can be used as a positive control.
Either it is "marketing lingo" or you simply don´t know the basics.
Jens Blauert coined the terms "sound event" and "auditory event" in the 1960s - ´70s and are used to define the basis of modern psychoacoustic, i.e. to examine if sound events (or differences in sound events) lead to auditory events (or different auditory events).
Or to quote the notorious "marketing lingo" of some well known "high end audio electronic sellers" :
(bold feature activated by me)
(Guillaume Lemaitre et al. , Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Sound Scenes and Events)
Friendly hint: if you want to play games, it works much better if you know what you are talking about. 😎
Last edited:
Some people want to have absolute certainty as to 'truth' and believe science can provide such 'facts.' My point was that such absolute knowledge of the physical world is not possible. The best we can do is good science, which is always a work in progress. The closest we can come to proof in science is when our models can be used to reliably predict the future (but the process of science cannot be more than inductive with limitations ascribed thereto, since the physical world does not conform to any set of axioms we know of).
Last edited:
Electronics has a tradition of theory and practice. You learn about voltage, current and resistance. This is then followed by you building circuits and measuring them.
In this thread you are expected to accept the theory because it is written in a book with no evidence to back it up.
Anyone get the feeling we are talking to rocket scientists that have never built a rocket?
In this thread you are expected to accept the theory because it is written in a book with no evidence to back it up.
Anyone get the feeling we are talking to rocket scientists that have never built a rocket?
I love it when people quote Toole as if he is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge
Last edited:
@Jokob2, This topic of this thread appears to be asking what people would consider as sufficient evidence to be accepted as proof, and it looks like it is hard to get a direct answer to the question. Instead people talk about whatever they would like to talk about at the moment or maybe comment in response to previous posters.
How about this: People don't really know what they would accept as proof in advance. The process of changing one's mind is complex and not fully observable by conscious awareness.
Why not skip the questions and move on to starting the process of changing opinions? Hard to see why waste time stuck on a thread that is not working as originally intended.
How about this: People don't really know what they would accept as proof in advance. The process of changing one's mind is complex and not fully observable by conscious awareness.
Why not skip the questions and move on to starting the process of changing opinions? Hard to see why waste time stuck on a thread that is not working as originally intended.
It's in The Lounge, don't know who's idea that was, but it was a bad one if the intention was to avoid idle chatter
- Status
- Not open for further replies.