Reproduction is not like creating something you like. It is about recreation. If you want to get creative then you have to move further upstream where the creative process takes place.
huh?
Your cited references are certainly excellent - there are doubtless dozens more from which to chose, but continuing the OP's chosen metaphor, I'd think that in addition to reading all cookbooks extant, establishing a general sense of one's personal "taste" couldn't hurt, and please don't try to argue that that isn't a valid consideration.
Your cited references are certainly excellent - there are doubtless dozens more from which to chose, but continuing the OP's chosen metaphor, I'd think that in addition to reading all cookbooks extant, establishing a general sense of one's personal "taste" couldn't hurt, and please don't try to argue that that isn't a valid consideration.
Taste is always a valid consideration but sound reproduction is not about taste. It's about reproducing someone else's taste. If you don't like the taste of certain musicians, recording, mixing and mastering engineers then you need to get behind the mixing desk yourself. Once the recording is finished the cooking process is done. You can't un-cook a meal.
Given that speakers are so bad given where they could be (maybe 10-20% of the way), it is certainly possible to choose sets of compromises such that equally valid speaker designs that sound completely different. Hence room, and individual taste are important considerations.
dave
Scientific studies have found that our taste is less individual than some might expect when tested blind. After all we are all humans. I take it you are familiar with the work done by Olive. If listeners see a tube glow or if a speaker is painted in a specific color then bias might kick in big time.
Toole & Olive. I am. A good start. Still needs to be duplicated to be a valid scientifically valid result. And more comprehensive studies need to follow, they have not covered anywhere near all the bases.
And one also has to at least mention the potential for manufacturer bias.
dave
An experiment does not necessarily need to be duplicated to be a scientifically valid result. One criteria of a scientifically valid experiment is that it can be reproduced. The aforementioned experiment can be reproduced any time hence it complies with the scientific criteria of repeatability.
If you feel the results might have been in error then you can do your own testing any time. Until then you have to accept the results. Any other reaction would be irrational.
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I agree that a lot more things could be tested but that doesn't diminish the findings by Olive in any way.
Yes it does. Doesn't mean it isn't a useful result, but if it can't be duplicated then it is not valid. Take Cold Fusion as an example.
dave
No, that's why I've posted a link to how the scientific method works.
The experiment can be duplicated. What questions as to how to duplicate the experiment are left unanswered in your mind?
Olive did repeat the experiment. Several times. With different people. At different locations. At different times. Same results. What else do you want?
It's probably time that you do your own scientific studies if you can't accept Olive's results.
Last edited:
So you say. I expect it can too. But, until it is independently duplicated it hasn't been yet. And i think that more comprehensive tests will show where the conclusions fall short. I see a very constrained set of results being touted globally which is decidedly not scientific.
dave
Yes and as I've said before the experiment can be repeated by anyone, anytime. What makes you think it couldn't be repeated?
What else do you want? If you have doubts than you have to do something. Until then you have to accept the findings. Anything else would be irrational.
In science you don't get to choose if evidence fits your beliefs or not.
Last edited:
Why? Not many have the funds of someone like Harmon to replicate these tests. And i am not the only one who has cast doubts on how the results are being used by some in a universal manner.
Until duplicated independently the prudent response is to be careful... just like Geddes (equally valid) studies that show measured distortion in speakers is irrelevant.
We know far to little about ear/brain function to take anything at face value (one only needs to read a text on auditory perception to realize how constrained studies to date are)
dave
So you accept the Geddes study although there was never a third party that reproduced the experiment but at the same time you dismiss the findings of Olive?
By the way, the Geddes/Lee study doesn't show that measured distortion in speakers is irrelevant.
Reality isn't just black and white.
pnix, your loosing your time here. what do you want to proove? that fullrange based system cannot be good enough for hifi?
Most of us already know and you certainly also know.
what I have a problem here, is how certain members alway push the same drivers
its all MA or Fostex been recommended over and over and over again. this I have a serious problem and then claim that those drivers are hifi. this has not been my experience at all.
Most of us already know and you certainly also know.
what I have a problem here, is how certain members alway push the same drivers
its all MA or Fostex been recommended over and over and over again. this I have a serious problem and then claim that those drivers are hifi. this has not been my experience at all.
Just so. Linus Pauling fell into that trap with his book on Vitamin C & the Common Cold. Considered interesting when published, widely ridiculed ever since. In point of fact, he was right -to a point. There weren't all that many studies on the subject when he wrote his book, and one of the most significant available happened to use athletes as the sample group. This skewed his findings, because they do appear to benefit from supplementing their vitamin c intake, unlike the majority of other people, as shown by the additional 4 decades worth of research.
One thing about research on human beings never changes: if you want to generalise, then to establish any kind of certainty you need a statistically significant sample size, drawn from as wide a range of subjects as possible. Smaller scale experiments are interesting and indicative, but cannot be universally applied without more or less significant risk. Black swan hypothesis.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.