Let's see, I posted some serious testing myself and some friends did several years ago in another thread because it was relevant and some people who actually build stuff might be interested, only to have the testing deemed "seriously flawed" and my methods questioned.
I was an engineer for Motorola for 41 years designing circuits and components for everything from cheap cell phones to mission critical two way radio for military and police use. I can assure you that I know, understand, and use the scientific method. Working in a corporate environment also teaches "product economics." You learn where and how to allocate your testing budget as well as all other money used, whether its for a zillion dollar endeavor, or a simple DIY project.
The testing was the best 5 guys looking to buy a bunch of SE OPT's could do with the resources at hand, and the results were useful to us, and others.
This IS a DIY forum. Most of us actually build stuff, or are learning how to build stuff. The majority of my posts come from experience gained on stuff I have designed, built, or worked on during the past 50 years.
Here on this forum, as with technical meetings at work, there are often one or two people who choose to criticize, dispute, argue with, or try to debate with the presented data, often without facts, data, or any other information of their own to add. These people often consume a lot of time and resources without offering much substance to the discussion at hand. Therefore I usually choose to "non-answer" these thread as soon as it becomes evident where they are going.
I was an engineer for Motorola for 41 years designing circuits and components for everything from cheap cell phones to mission critical two way radio for military and police use. I can assure you that I know, understand, and use the scientific method. Working in a corporate environment also teaches "product economics." You learn where and how to allocate your testing budget as well as all other money used, whether its for a zillion dollar endeavor, or a simple DIY project.
The testing was the best 5 guys looking to buy a bunch of SE OPT's could do with the resources at hand, and the results were useful to us, and others.
This IS a DIY forum. Most of us actually build stuff, or are learning how to build stuff. The majority of my posts come from experience gained on stuff I have designed, built, or worked on during the past 50 years.
Here on this forum, as with technical meetings at work, there are often one or two people who choose to criticize, dispute, argue with, or try to debate with the presented data, often without facts, data, or any other information of their own to add. These people often consume a lot of time and resources without offering much substance to the discussion at hand. Therefore I usually choose to "non-answer" these thread as soon as it becomes evident where they are going.
Unless you have access to a university library, who can keep up with the hundreds of journals?
The sad thing is that they are actually pretty correct in their "not worth caring" assessment. There are preciously few commercial recordings commanding a very accurate amp for full enjoyment. The others usually have >10%THD built in just during mastering.....
I do have access (Ph.D at a UC school, so we have licences to most anything you desire), but when I read a reporter's take on a study, then go read the study myself, the similarities between what's reported and what's defensible in the study itself usually pertain to the fact that both use words and sentences. Content is oft entirely divorced, and there's always some compunction on the part of the reporter to give a "practical" application, which tend towards being tenuous at best and utterly misleading at worst.
All of which leads the public to have a gross misunderstanding of scientific progress and remote literacy.
Keep your BS card on the quick draw anytime to read a popular media's interpretation of a scientific study.
Usually, the number you need to track that closely is a goodly amount less than 100s.
If you look at the footnotes for papers in your area of interest, usually most of the cites come from just a few journals.
Audio forums especially seem to encourage that confusion. Too many approach collections of scientific findings with the same perspective others hold for religious tracts, mistaking themselves for scientific simply for being on the 'right side' of results. Rarely do their criticisms hold to anything recognizable as science. From my perspective they're more damaging than homeopaths, spiritualists, crystal gazers or any who stand completely outside of science. The latter are at least honest enough to generally distance themselves from the scientific method and carry no risk of misrepresenting it.
It's true. I think the tough thing with audio is what I assume to be a lack of funding. I wonder how much good research is really being done about acoustic, reproduction, home stereo, whatever it is called.
It's 'easier' to refute something in a field like genetics, where there is enough money to go fund a study of one's own. Unfortunately with audio us diy'ers are at the mercy of the body of practical knowledge that is out there. However big or small, and however slowly growing.
I appreciate Geddes work. Yes I agree he makes claims like some things are 'proven' when really they've only been tested on small sample sizes. (from what I can tell) but it is on the right path. fwiw I believe what I've read of his.
I'd like to see more reference to what studies we have though. I'd like for us to know what is 'theory' and what is hypothesis. To say it again, I have the luxury as a genetics student that if someone says something to me I can say "point it out in a textbook" or "show me the paper" or "go test it in the lab and get back to me" But with audio and on this forum it seems hard to know what is folklore and what is theory. I think that was the point of this thread. To have a better idea where the lines are, and who cares about them.
And then there's the discussion about good and bad science, and efficient use of it that Tubelab.com talked about. I appreciate that post.
If my post seems meandering, it's because that's where I'm at with this, and that's why I made this thread.
p.s. I also made this thread when I read some mention of why some industry professionals choose not to come here. Because of some aspects of the 'culture' and the behavior of some. And that's too bad. I would like this to be a place that would attract those people.
Last edited:
and even then u must deal with the journal editor's bias and control of the information.
that is true if your interest is limited such as in audio.
But there are other fields where u do have many journals.
And yet sometimes you must read several journals and connect the dots on your own because there is no current research 🙁
Such as the link between excessive salt and hearing loss or statin drugs and hearing loss.
Such as the link between excessive salt and hearing loss or statin drugs and hearing loss.
Religion?!
Very true! I like science. Its the only religion that can bring you as near as possible to god! 🙂
Its a tool, a way of thinking, making progress, developing...I hope we as human beings are more then that and dont need to respect or even cherish it as religion...
Very true! I like science. Its the only religion that can bring you as near as possible to god! 🙂
Its a tool, a way of thinking, making progress, developing...I hope we as human beings are more then that and dont need to respect or even cherish it as religion...
I worry far less about this than I do loose editorial control (and fraud) and the explosion of utterly crap publications. Yes, it's sometimes hard to get your stuff published (especially in a "renown" journal) because either they're carving out a niche or focusing on a "sexy" topic, but usually you can get it somewhere respectable if you're persistent.
I can write much more about my opinion of academic publishing culture, but I'll stop here. I'm not terribly worried about censorship at large.
As far as salt intake and hearing loss, there's been a documented disease and pathway since 1861. No need for dot connecting; it's already been done. Not finding much evidence about ototoxicity of statins. Plenty on cisplatin and a couple of membrane-permeablizing antibiotics.
Geez... this thread seems to be eNabl-ing alot of discussion about science vs. psuedoscience, eh?
Science reporters don't need to do that, but they do need to have the knowledge taught (or that should be taught) in high school about science - things such as the scientific method, and common scientific knowledge such as (for an example I heard recently that someone didn't know) the Earth having a molten iron core that causes its magnetic field which protects from radiation from outer space.
These reporters/writers don't have that basic knowledge of science.
In this era, where science already jump into nanotech or high bosson particle, where high end now? I think that 6moon or stereophile whill not put any digital compact player as high end, but rather going back to 60's era for vinyl and tubes. Even most of audio book used still refer to published decades ago.
Does it mean that scienties do not care about audio anymore?
Does it mean that scienties do not care about audio anymore?
+1
wow so true to life & nicely said
respect the folks who actually build stuff not just talk about the way they might of done it with unlimited time and budgets. pie in the sky anyone?
Last edited:
I'll drop this here now that arnyk has finished waggling his willy....
Listen to podcast 66, it is an interesting view of why people are susceptible to BS
https://soundcloud.com/youarenotsosmart
Mentioned in the podcast is this delicious website, which might be easily modified to sell hi end gear:
http://bit.ly/1qkLjUt
😉
Listen to podcast 66, it is an interesting view of why people are susceptible to BS
https://soundcloud.com/youarenotsosmart
Mentioned in the podcast is this delicious website, which might be easily modified to sell hi end gear:
http://bit.ly/1qkLjUt
😉
Last edited:
There is a lava cave under my house. I have it all to myself as a listening room. Down there it's as silent as a tomb - until I turn on the stereo! Amazing how much you can hear with a very, very low noise floor.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.