I have only been on this forum for 5 months but I have seen a disturbing trend of people who are seemingly offended by science. I see snarky posts by people towards scientific posts by others. Do we need to start labelling posts with (science) for people who actually want to have a professional and respectful discussion on a given topic without woo woo or scientifically ignorant opinion?
There is a place for new and unproven ideas but the only reason we are the technologically advanced society that we are today is because of the idea's that were explored with science. Personal opinions alone have not gotten us to where we are. You're brain is fooling you all the time! Heck what you are looking at right now is an illusion that your brain is creating with 2 different images from each of your eyes!
I don't want to rant, it is late, but I feel like this point really needs to get out into this forum. There is a divide and we need to realize it, discuss it, and possibly act on it.
There is a place for new and unproven ideas but the only reason we are the technologically advanced society that we are today is because of the idea's that were explored with science. Personal opinions alone have not gotten us to where we are. You're brain is fooling you all the time! Heck what you are looking at right now is an illusion that your brain is creating with 2 different images from each of your eyes!
I don't want to rant, it is late, but I feel like this point really needs to get out into this forum. There is a divide and we need to realize it, discuss it, and possibly act on it.
Be careful where you put the dividing line. There are lots of science-like posts that are really psudeo-science.
For instance you will find lots of posts with measures that have yet to have been correlated with what is heard by the ear/brain being passed off as scientic evidence. Use of single number THD is an example, it is a meaningless measure. Something for the marketing guys to put on a spec sheet.
Hifi as we know it today is pretty primitive with lots of things we don't understand.
I very much believe in science, but many posts that claim to be scientific are just mumbo jumbo, yet the posters have no idea.
There is science & there is bad science.
dave
For instance you will find lots of posts with measures that have yet to have been correlated with what is heard by the ear/brain being passed off as scientic evidence. Use of single number THD is an example, it is a meaningless measure. Something for the marketing guys to put on a spec sheet.
Hifi as we know it today is pretty primitive with lots of things we don't understand.
I very much believe in science, but many posts that claim to be scientific are just mumbo jumbo, yet the posters have no idea.
There is science & there is bad science.
dave
There are snarky posts here toward all sort of ideas, science is not the unique target. It is the Interweb, after all!
And as Dave points out, there is plenty of bad science posted that is no better than mumbo jumbo, or is simply misinformed and incomplete. Just because it claims to be scientific or appears to be, does not make it so. Caveat Emptor.
That said, this is still one of the most scientific and fact based large audio forums you are likely to find in English. It isn't all that bad. Better than most. 😉
And as Dave points out, there is plenty of bad science posted that is no better than mumbo jumbo, or is simply misinformed and incomplete. Just because it claims to be scientific or appears to be, does not make it so. Caveat Emptor.
That said, this is still one of the most scientific and fact based large audio forums you are likely to find in English. It isn't all that bad. Better than most. 😉
What I think the OP means is actually the 'scientific method' rather than 'science'. The scientific method is a way to find out that what you think is happening is actually happening. So if you have a theory and set out to prove it, the scientific method requires that you also do some tests to try to disprove your theory. If that fails, and the original test succeeded, that's one more piece of evidence that your theory is correct.
Another point is that you would need to fully disclose and describe what it is you tested, how you did it, ALL results, protocols etc so that others in other places can repeat your experiments. If others get different results than you with the same test and same protocols etc, that's bad news for your theory.
However, if people all over the world get exactly the same results as you, that's again a powerful indicator you're on the right track.
It is impossible to absolutely proof a theory - there's always a possibility that someone, somewhere devises a test that shows it incorrect. In that sense, all proven theories are proven provisionally, although in some cases the body of evidence is so huge it would take an extraordinary proof to topple it.
Jan
Another point is that you would need to fully disclose and describe what it is you tested, how you did it, ALL results, protocols etc so that others in other places can repeat your experiments. If others get different results than you with the same test and same protocols etc, that's bad news for your theory.
However, if people all over the world get exactly the same results as you, that's again a powerful indicator you're on the right track.
It is impossible to absolutely proof a theory - there's always a possibility that someone, somewhere devises a test that shows it incorrect. In that sense, all proven theories are proven provisionally, although in some cases the body of evidence is so huge it would take an extraordinary proof to topple it.
Jan
Last edited:
Absolutely. The thing is, for many of us the audio hobby is not an attempt to advance science but merely to improve our enjoyment of reproduced sound.
Can science be useful to achieve this? Maybe, in some very specific and limited circumstances. Can science explain why some electronics (what us ordinary folks call high end) sound better than what is sold at Costco? Doubtful.
So, go write a thesis, have it peer reviewed, feel proud and worthy, fine with me. Just don't tell me all resistors sound the same please 🙂
Well, the scientific method would allow you to prove or disprove that High End sounds better than Costco. Or that one resistor sounds different from another.
But I agree, you don't need to scientifically prove your every opinion. You can just enjoy exploring things and follow leads without it. In fact I would expect (but have not proven ;-) that this is how we most operate in life. If we would want to prove everything, we would probably all drive the same car, wear the same cloths and all try to marry the same woman 🙂
Jan
But I agree, you don't need to scientifically prove your every opinion. You can just enjoy exploring things and follow leads without it. In fact I would expect (but have not proven ;-) that this is how we most operate in life. If we would want to prove everything, we would probably all drive the same car, wear the same cloths and all try to marry the same woman 🙂
Jan
It's like building Lego, we do not have to understand the chemical bindnings in the plastic to enjoy building stuff. To understand some physical properties does however enhances the succesrate 🙂
It has been proven beyond any doubt that the entire High end is a scam. And that coat hangers sound the same as silver cables. So much for the scientific method and its application in this hobby.
It is really quite funny: we use all sorts of scientific principles to achieve particular objectives, but the objectives themselves are often not scientifically justified. Simple example: monocrystal wires - science is essential to draw them but at the same time is useless to explain why we need them 😀
Having done blind tests on this forum of cable made of mud, I can attest that the scientific method can be a lot of fun. 😀
The first statement is in error because it puts into the the future what has already happened in the past.
The second statement simply alludes to a generally imaginary event.
However, both statements are fraught with linguistic problems.
Noting in science is proven. Instead, over time more evidence may be gathered and that evidence may change the findings of Science. A classic example of this was Newtons false belief (and that of the established scientists of his century and the one that followed had) that kinetic energy was proportional to velocity. Tain't true, never was. As we now teach the brighter high school students, kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity.
While naive audiophiles are forever nattering about what sounds better, the real action is with what sounds different. Sounding reliably different can be determined relatively simply, and it is an often-missing prerequisite for sounding better.
THD is not meaningless; it has a precise meaning. It may not be as helpful as a few think, but it is certainly not as unhelpful as many seem to think. Try listening to music at 50% THD and you will find that it has some usefulness.planet10 said:
It is actually a good example of the science vs. anti-science issue. The anti-science people accuse the science people of relying on THD and say that THD is meaningless. The science people reply saying that THD has meaning, but is only a number and they don't use it much (in fact it is most often mentioned by those dissing it). Then the anti-science people say "There, we said you rely on THD!".
Hi-fi as we know it today is fairly advanced with only minor improvements possible. There are lots of things which some people don't understand, including things which other people do understand. However, "we don't understand" sounds so much more inclusive and modern than "I don't understand".
Absolutely.
No, in every circumstance that is productive.
No, for sure.
The most common explanation is that the alleged better sound turns out to be an illusion. The main problem with audio as it is commonly practiced today is that most people don't really get the difference between common audible illusions and actual differences.
I won't bother, because in my life I've learned a great deal about religious beliefs.
Last edited:
A certain amount of that pseudoscience is in the eye of the beholder who sees what he wants to see.
Science is a bitch, and its not always intuitive or otherwise easy to understand. It does not always give you the results you want.
It is very easy to misunderstand science (as I will quickly show) and there are tons of people who want to help you do that.
It has become very stylish to say that THD is meaningless, but that reflects more on the person who says it.
THD is a poor measure of nonlinear distortion when that distortion is at audible levels, but it is a very good measure of nonlinear distortion when that distortion is at inaudible levels.
Of course I realize that I am speaking this in a land where very many people don't believe that distortion can ever be inaudible. Their problem!
No, neither example represent a science person. That's a discussion among engineers and people on a varying spectrum of less than. Science as a principle wouldn't seek to know if it's a worthy measurement. Data collection on phenomenon of inconsistent relationship between THD and subjective reaction is a science based inquiry. It would be to establish data that shows predictability of people liking or not liking THD, with varying qualities of THD and scenarios. The objective of a scientist isn't to engineer the best THD possibility, it's to understand out interaction with it. With that information an engineer can make the best possible decisions with the knowledge at present; but that's not science, it's engineering.
There's more pseudo science FROM the actual engineer quality people on the forum, trying to belittle the curious minds, stubborn minds, and self-convincing minds. The word science gets used to support the engineers use of present knowledge, which may or may not represent data that an actual scientist would form were a new collection method deployed. The engineer says, "if this than this, duh." But a scientist looks for plausible consistency with the contingency of disagreement, and wants to collect data on why/when/where/who is convinced of the disagreement. That may reveal reason for further investigation if it seems to have validity as a phenomenon, so that data can be gathered on why it keeps occurring; which is likely to tell us if the present knowledge an engineer deploys is consistent with the subjective general preference among people. From there if it's not consistent, data can be collected on varying deployments of said difference to try and narrow down key elements as to what aspects create the variance. Hopefully at that point it'll become clear, but as you can see it may get deeper.
To make it real basic again, if there's any kind of consistent phenomenon then the "scientific" thing to do is to look at it, not denounce it because ""science"" of THD as performance measurements show you one thing is better based on the precept humans preface particular values that objectively desirable say for data transmission/low error/etc. It may be quickly discovered there's no validity in statistic relevance for the variance, or there is...
I feel as though I've dived in too deep... because I don't want to discuss this much more than that. I just wanted to say the word science is a joke around here, mostly used by elders to try and keep people from polluting the forum with overgrown-nonsense. Unfortunately it also creates strife because not everything is illegitimate. BTW I don't care that it isn't real science around here, there's other forums for that; I'm only bothered by blasphemy of the word seen so often here.
Last edited:
The data collection on THD has already been done. It showed that large THD is unpleasant to listen to. Smaller THD sounds more like the original sound. Some people have a preference for smallish THD over even smaller THD, especially if the distortion is mainly low order. Anyone who says that THD tells us everything is talking nonsense; anyone who says that THD tells us nothing is "not even wrong" (i.e. worse than nonsense).
Science is not just about data collection. It is also about understanding the data, making theories, and then showing what the predictions of those theories are. Engineers use the theories too, although in my experience they don't always understand them as well as the scientists so they don't always apply them sufficiently carefully.
Science is not just about data collection. It is also about understanding the data, making theories, and then showing what the predictions of those theories are. Engineers use the theories too, although in my experience they don't always understand them as well as the scientists so they don't always apply them sufficiently carefully.
A nice example of pseudo-science masquerading as science. Posting the exact same 'protocols' used in the coat hanger tale with the results flipped - that coat hangers were dramatically superior - would be (and its equivalent has been) met here with derision and ridicule, held up as another example of audiophoolery. Results are only part of science and not it's most important. Too many here confuse cooking skills with meals.
Dispensing with the methods and restrictions of science to trumpet its results is anti-science of the worst kind since it misrepresents science, its practice and its practitioners. IMO it contributes in no small measure to anti-science backlash.
I think it was arnyk who said it, but to paraphrase: “I won't even try to convince you of (X), as I have come to recognize the difference between religious beliefs and demonstrable science”
THAT, boys 'n' girls, is at the root of nearly every pitched long-lasting discussion on this forum. Oh, sometimes it is about contrary hypotheses and counting the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead in a scientific or theological sense. But mostly it the argumentum stems from mistaking beliefs and their philosophical connectivity for actual physical science results.
E = I R … and we hope R doesn't vary with time, temperature, voltage or current flow. It is ideal, with some resistors coming closer to the ideal than others, due to the physics of their construction, and whether parasitic L values creep in. Same goes for capacitors, inductors, for transistors, tubes, diodes, rectifiers, and all the rest. There are ideal equations that specify how they react to time varying voltages, currents; the real world is populated with devices that can never achieve mathematical perfection.
That said, the near-travesty of both high-end-audio and DIY practitioners of audio equipment is that too many fluffy-bunny words antithetical to “science” creep into discussions, derailing concrete discourse and replacing it with … handwaving. “Amazingly broadened and subtle sound stage with effortless mids, fast bass, tight and chime-like treble register performance”
That … is festooned hogwash.
Hence, why I prefer science.
GoatGuy
THAT, boys 'n' girls, is at the root of nearly every pitched long-lasting discussion on this forum. Oh, sometimes it is about contrary hypotheses and counting the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead in a scientific or theological sense. But mostly it the argumentum stems from mistaking beliefs and their philosophical connectivity for actual physical science results.
E = I R … and we hope R doesn't vary with time, temperature, voltage or current flow. It is ideal, with some resistors coming closer to the ideal than others, due to the physics of their construction, and whether parasitic L values creep in. Same goes for capacitors, inductors, for transistors, tubes, diodes, rectifiers, and all the rest. There are ideal equations that specify how they react to time varying voltages, currents; the real world is populated with devices that can never achieve mathematical perfection.
That said, the near-travesty of both high-end-audio and DIY practitioners of audio equipment is that too many fluffy-bunny words antithetical to “science” creep into discussions, derailing concrete discourse and replacing it with … handwaving. “Amazingly broadened and subtle sound stage with effortless mids, fast bass, tight and chime-like treble register performance”
That … is festooned hogwash.
Hence, why I prefer science.
GoatGuy
Thanks for gurgitating my previous point Arny!
As for the rest of your post, you probably missed the point that we are in agreement on the role of science, possibly because you were being detracted by my less than precise wording, me thinking (silly me) that context and meaning would be clear.
Apologies.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.