Dogmatism in Science

[Leprkon]

I was last tested to hear up to 22KHz by two reputed labs in NYC, now according to modern medical science (read licensed quackery),

interesting to note that someone who hears well above the normal audio range would have a marked preference for a brand described by many as bright. gives a certain credibility to brand loyalty... it may be more than just in our minds..

 

[mtrycrafts]

[=av_phile]That is a typical cyborg logic. What can't be measured can't exist. Eveyrthing is black or white, 0 or 1. Something many so-called audio pundits in this forum and elsewhere adhere to with bigotrous abandon.

I suppose you know of something that is audible but cannot be measured yet?

Or, in other areas of science? I suppose that is why psychic power is real, as we just cannot measure the psychic energy and fields?

There's a gaping difference betwseen healthy skeptism and closed-book bigotry.

Close book is when the evidence is not accepted, no?
Just be carefulk how open ones mind is. Carl Sagan had an interesting say on this.




The scientific community never closed the book on the smallest particle in the universe so they ended up discoveing particles much smaller than the electron.

How is that a parallel to audio?

Sceintists can't still map-out 50% of the human brain's morphological and psychological functions.

Or this?


So in a hobby that makes use of the brain that leaves 80% a mystery, the field is quite open.


Not really. Not understanding how the brain sort messages, recalls memory has nothing to do with the ability to test what you think you hear instead of imagining it.
Perhaps you have an example that is closer and in listeing?

If one person says he hears an improvement on this or that snake oil claim, I can dismiss that as just another prejudiced perception. But if a hundred or thousand poeple say the same thing, I'll suspend judgement.

What? Thousands cannot possibly be wrong about a sensory input reliability? Happens all the time with much larger numbers or people.

Afterall, this hobby is a personal indulgence that has all the room for prejudiced perceptions as diverse as the people in it. Who is right, as long it satisfies his personal aural standards, doesn't matter. In short, it's a hobby where science has little relevance for me.


Ah, a personal reality then.

 

[gregz]

mtrycrafts said " I suppose you know of something that is audible but cannot be measured yet? Or, in other areas of science? I suppose that is why psychic power is real, as we just cannot measure the psychic energy and fields?"

Ah, someone finally picked up this axe.

Let me instead turn the question around:

In your professional experience, have you ever set up an array of instrumentation to capture an problem event, have the event occur, but not capture any significant data? At that point, do you conclude that the event didn't occur, or do you go back to study the problem again and come up with a new theory that guides you to set up your instrumentation differently? What if that fails to show anything? Do you throw in the towel then?

The above question is rhetorical because it assumes that you have a measurable problem, but have not yet determined the root cause. Because you know you have a problem event, you know to keep looking until you find the cause.

But let's take this farther. What if you resort to the shotgun approach and attemtp to change a few seeminly unrelated parameters, and what if it works? If you can't reason exactly why it works, do you discard the change and go back to square one?

Again, this is rhetorical because you know the problem event is no longer occurring.

Ok, now what if this is a product that was sold OEM to a customer, and the customer returns it for repair for a reported problem in the field that you have not been able to reproduce under what you deem similar conditions? Now it's not so clear, because the customer may be reporting the problem incorrectly, or there might not even be a problem with your product but instead an interfacing product that isn't yours...

I can go on ad nauseum, but I suspect the hard core "cyborg" types will still pick nits and sumarily reject my arguement.

The above is not a hypothetical fabrication; it is my work experience. It is the experience of fellow electrical engineers I work with. Friends I graduated with can name specific events that the above matches to a T. In half the cases, the shotgun fix mechanism was later understood. In the other half, one runs and doesn't look back.

Folks, An event is reality. We cannot measure reality, we can only measure its individual components. If we instrument blindly or based on a wrong assumption, we may not capture it. Does that mean it can't be captured with existing equipment? Of course not. Conversely, can anyone tell me they can confidently measure an event in its entirety?

 

[gregz]

...I suppose I could have just said that the ear is a valid measuring device that is as capeable of capturing an endless array of subtleties as it is of being tricked by the mind. It also varies by user.

If I change my audio setup in such a way that you are able to hear the difference in a double blind A/B comparison, then you won't argue because your built-in instrument can distinguish the change. However, if you don't personally hear the difference and don't understand why the change would even work, then do you determine that I don't hear it as well?

Or do you decide in both cases that my setup doesn't make a difference because you couldn't manage to define the change by measuring it with your scope or spectrum analyzer?

 

[Steve1000]

It wasn't bottled water. It's water we filter at home with PUR-brand water filters. I can't tell the difference, my wife can. We test it pre-filtered and post-filtered. My wife prefers it post-filtered and can tell it apart every time in a blind test.

Still not relevant to the discussion at hand, though.

Not much since who said municipal water was like bottled water or had no differences.
Consumer Reports tests these waters periodically. While they do find differences by the tasters, interestingly they usually prefer municipal water of some cities more so than bottled waters.

 

[Yamahaluver]

interesting to note that someone who hears well above the normal audio range would have a marked preference for a brand described by many as bright. gives a certain credibility to brand loyalty... it may be more than just in our minds..

Looks like there are many more like myself here judging by the number of cotes Yamaha got. You do raise a very valid point Leprkon, as I said before, lots of work is still left to be done and discovered, we are far from the absolute in any sense.

By the way, what is bright to many when matched with proper speakers is as detailed and articulate as it should be.

 

[Steve1000]

Well this is all very interesting.

The debate goes on and on and on. Most of it is rather clear-cut and the scientist-type folks are right and that is that. IMHO.

Does science have things profoundly wrong at times? Yes. Looks at ulcers, theories of mental illness and mental functioning and all sorts of other medical issues. Just for starters.

But to the extent that the argument is over cables and amplifiers and that sort of thing, in my view one side gets it and the other doesn't.

In terms of where do we go from here, in terms of recording technology and signal processing to improve the auditory experience, we need good measurements and excellent listening skills to evaluate the progress -- the skills of scientists and trained and confident ears are both needed. Refinement of loudspeaker design, audio compression, digital recording and EQ and surround sound are good examples.

We also need some new ideas and thinking outside of box type of stuff. Psychics get laughed at but so did the Wright Brothers and of course Galileo did not have an easy time of it. Telling the frauds from the innovative geniuses is not always simple, particularly because there are far more frauds than innovative geniuses.

IMHO of course.

I was never into mainstream politics. I could never choose one side of a polarized issue that I could fully agree with.

And so it is with audio.

As a degreed propeller-head, I have a natural distain for snake oil and cooked up theories that claim to be scientific, then turn around and say science can't fully explain how it all works. And junk science never passes a double blind or placebo test. Never.

At the same time, I can't quite adhere to the extremist philosophy that basically dictates "if you can't measure it with instruments, and you can't prove it scientifically, then it doesn't exist. (Unspoken: I don't care what you think you heard; I'm sure you're just fooling your ignorant self)."

The problem with junk science is easily definable. The arguements only begin when a specific product or theory is nominated for the category.

On the prove-it or move-it engineering side, the problem is one of attitude more than explicitly spoken words. While the articles I've read on the faith of snake oil interconnect wires were very informative and enlightening, they had the undertone of a different kind of faith - one of scientific dogmatism....

 

[mtrycrafts]

Ah, someone finally picked up this axe.

Let me instead turn the question around:

In your professional experience, have you ever set up an array of instrumentation to capture an problem event, have the event occur, but not capture any significant data? At that point, do you conclude that the event didn't occur, or do you go back to study the problem again and come up with a new theory that guides you to set up your instrumentation differently? What if that fails to show anything? Do you throw in the towel then?

The above question is rhetorical because it assumes that you have a measurable problem, but have not yet determined the root cause. Because you know you have a problem event, you know to keep looking until you find the cause.

But let's take this farther. What if you resort to the shotgun approach and attemtp to change a few seeminly unrelated parameters, and what if it works? If you can't reason exactly why it works, do you discard the change and go back to square one?

Again, this is rhetorical because you know the problem event is no longer occurring.

Ok, now what if this is a product that was sold OEM to a customer, and the customer returns it for repair for a reported problem in the field that you have not been able to reproduce under what you deem similar conditions? Now it's not so clear, because the customer may be reporting the problem incorrectly, or there might not even be a problem with your product but instead an interfacing product that isn't yours...

I can go on ad nauseum, but I suspect the hard core "cyborg" types will still pick nits and sumarily reject my arguement.

The above is not a hypothetical fabrication; it is my work experience. It is the experience of fellow electrical engineers I work with. Friends I graduated with can name specific events that the above matches to a T. In half the cases, the shotgun fix mechanism was later understood. In the other half, one runs and doesn't look back.

Folks, An event is reality. We cannot measure reality, we can only measure its individual components. If we instrument blindly or based on a wrong assumption, we may not capture it. Does that mean it can't be captured with existing equipment? Of course not. Conversely, can anyone tell me they can confidently measure an event in its entirety?

How do you know the event took place? What the even is? By sight But unable to measure? Maybe the even warrant such insignificant data only? Maybe someone else knows more? Lots of maybes that are just as valid?

On the other hand, audibility changes are very testable by just a plain listening test that controls for bias. Rather simple. No rocket science involved.

 

[mtrycrafts]

[=miklorsmith]Good
I'm told I can't hear the difference between amplifiers because million-dollar tests have shown them to be the audibly identical. Recently, because of a trip to the shop, I've gone from my PS Audio HCA-2 to a $1,000, 10-year-old Audiolab, to a $300, 10-year-old NAD, back to the Audiolab, finally returning to the HCA-2.

What about bias? Did that have anything to do with your perceptions?

If the testing shows no difference, the tests are broken, fellas.


Why is that? How do you know this to be? Because one fully trusts their hearing not to be biased and reliable all the time?
Actually, if the test were wrong, you'd have lots of positive outcomes in human testings.





Can't tell you where, I'm blaming the brain.

For what? Misleading ones perceptions? I suppose evolution is the cause.

Stereophile writers have speculated that the brain adapts too quickly for a blind test to work. I'll buy this.

That is unfortunate that you buy some speculations by some writers. It would be better if they could demonstrate this instead of speculate about it.

I wonder if the brain adapts so quickly in a sighted listening too? Or, only happens when your eyes and knowledge are restricted?


Each switch of my amplifiers was a large change from the last.

How do you know this for sure? Was it properly tested? Or, it just cannot be tested, beyond human capability? Or science?




I clearly hear the difference between well-burned CD-R's and the originals.

Are they numerically identical CDs? Maybe your listeing is unreliable?


Now that my system is whole again, the testing I promised is soon to come. I may change my mind some about the effectiveness of testing if I can positively ID these discs. If not, it goes straight into the can.

So, you are testing the test then?

 

[gregz]

Mtrycrafts, I wrote "The above question is rhetorical because it assumes that you have a measurable problem, but have not yet determined the root cause." That means yes, I know I have a problem. Yes, it is a measurable problem. To ask if maybe someone else knows more is off topic, but of course I didn't just sit there and fester all alone. We had a team on this, and we spent many late nights and weekends networking with other peers and in many cases the chip manufacturers themselves trying to solve these types of problems.

It seems that such a scenario has never happened to you in your carreer, or anything close to it. You've not only missed my point, but obsessed on defining a scenario that I never specified because it matches too many different cases I've experienced. Some have been unexpected EMI testing results, others a random hardware latch-up, and others still an improbable cross talk between two completely isolated units. The worst was what seemed to be an anticipatory response by a system to an outside input.

The list is endless, and in the end it isn't important. Your experience is apparently not the same as mine, which is fine. You could have just said "nope." I do accept that. We all base our opinions upon our own experience, and that's the way it should be.

Mtrycrafts, thank you for representing the side I'm attacking in this thread. I know this is an issue of contention, and a forum dialog alone is not going to solve it. Still, discussion threads like these are always more interesting when both sides are properly represented. I'm actually a little disappointed nobody else from the "science" camp joined in, but again I'm glad you did (even if it didn't always seem that way).

 

[miklorsmith]

[mtrycrafts] So, you are testing the test then?

Twofold - I'm not closed-minded enough to write off testing, I'm just too lazy to figure out and execute a way to do it properly. CDR's represent a large enough sonic difference and will be so easy to do that I will accomplish a couple things:

If I hear the difference, I will change my opinion about testing and be able to make some proclamations about CDR burns.

If I fail to produce results, it will reinforce my position about testing.

A test within a test if you will.

Hypothetically, what if the DBT is cursed by our brains and small sample sizes? What if there truly is no way to equalize the playing field? Has any large-scale DBT ever been done that showed, unequivocally, that some hi-fi whatnots are different?

If the test doesn't work, where does that leave us? And, don't tell me it definitely works - this is my hypothetical.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Ack...I'm about "debated out" on this subject. And I am a mere liberal arts grad. OK, there may be holes in our understanding of hearing. OK, scientific knowledge on every subject is evolving and subject to change. OK, maybe I have tin ears. Or am using skepticism to rationalize my need to make choices based on limited disposable income since I (like most of us here) am not a member of the Cost Is No Object club.

But...

Untold thousands of people - intelligent, educated people - have been and are convinced of the reality of witches, a flat Earth, perpetual motion machines, and many things that most educated people now see as superstition and nonsense. Experimental psychologists have much to tell us about the pitfalls of unaided perception and bias when evaluating an event. Even scentists can be fooled. Ever hear of "Clever Hans"? Do a Google search.

So when it comes to claims of audibility in amps, cables, CDRs and other equipment that our current scientific understanding does not support I say: <b>the burden of proof is on the claimants</b>, not on the skeptics. Audio and hearing (not necessarily "perception") is, after all, firmly in the physical world, and subject to physical laws and theories that are pretty well established. And let me repeat: unaided perception is demonstrably very subject to bias and the vagaries of memory, mood, and general mental state. Humans are not only easy to fool; we're also very good at fooling ourselves. I rely on science, imperfect and incomplete though it may be (not to mention my imperfect and incomplete understanding as a layperson), as the best insurance against fooling myself and being fooled.

And remember -- most of the debatable audio claims we argue about have their genesis with (or are exploited by) the marketing people who are trying to sell us their product. And when it comes to someone asking me to spend my money skepticism is only prudent and rational.

Believe me, I need all the prudence and rationality I can get where spending money is concerned! Just ask my wife.

BTW, based on my unscientific fooling around with a signal generator my hearing drops like a rock above 15KHz.

 

[Az B]

BTW, based on my unscientific fooling around with a signal generator my hearing drops like a rock above 15KHz.

Most people's hearing does at about that point. When we had our hearing tested, my wife could hear well over 17Khz and the ear guy stated that was well above average for a woman half her age. (Wimmen statistically have better average hearing than men)

There was some guy rattling around one of these forums that claimed to be able to hear to 22Khz. I think he must be part Dalmation.

 

[miklorsmith]

[Rip Van Woofer] So when it comes to claims of audibility in amps, cables, CDRs and other equipment that our current scientific understanding does not support I say: the burden of proof is on the claimants

I think more accurately the burden of proof rests with whoever's on the other side of the argument. It all depends on what jives with our own experiences and what seems contrary to it. Whatever doesn't make sense to each individual is counterintuitive and therefore subject to someone else's efforts to prove it.

Anecdote: I have a tube preamp from Modwright. It is a beta model, which means it is subject to periodic revisions pending ultimate release as a production model. I got one of the first units. Loved it - the "tubey" midrange was so liquid and warm that I didn't care about the rolled-off treble range and mushy bass. The power supply transformer fried and it was gone for a month, getting updated to (turns out) production status.

What a difference! Mids still there with newfound aplomb at both ends. All this entirely from a partial reworking of the innards and a new, much larger transformer. Prove it? No. Any doubt? None whatsoever.

I simply can't ignore my own experience in favor of objective measures which are difficult-to-impossible to obtain. Adopting the scientific process would, to me, equate to analysis-paralysis. I don't belong to the Levinson club either, but neither am I satisfied to sit on my laurels waiting for somebody else to prove to me that improvements are out there. That approach is simply inconsistent with my own experience.

Here's a new one (to me). This weekend, listening to my newly configured setup, the left channel sounded muffled. I lifted the speaker cable off the carpet (with an egg carton) and voila! - immediately fixed. Got your cables on the carpet? Try lifting one off and leave the other on. You'll be able to tell right away. Makes no sense to me. I doubt you need special products.

It might be different if, for instance, cables were shown to make no difference and amplifiers were hugely important. Or, that CDP's were a big deal but any amp would do. If all testing shows null results, save the odd false-positive, this implicates the test not the subject material.

I agree that we are dealing with scientific principles that are involved in the creation of every product. However, where we differ is that I believe proper execution of these principles will positively affect the final product.

I am skeptical about individual products but not to the extent that I'll wait for a test to validate a well researched purchase. It's not coming and I can't wait forever. Too much opportunity out there. . .

 

[WmAx]

The tendency for modern engineers to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to something without hard data is all too great. "Where's the theory behind that? Where's the statistical proof? Can it be measured? (Unspoken: I dismiss it then, and lump it into some category peghole)."

It's not that any particular product or theory out there is being unjustly hanged. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's the closed minded attitude that doesn't think it's closed that is the real problem.

It appears too me that many people don't understand science. Science is a methdology used to examine/observe physical phenomena and produce tenative conclusions. It's that simple. It's the best system that man has come up with in order to base the known pysical world upon. It is a system that uses carefully organized systematic observation and statistical analysis to arrive at conclusions. As far as beleiving it to be close-minded-- that is ABSURD! Every conclusion is tenative in science, and if not considered as such, is not true science.

What I see as absurd: people that believe that their speculations which have no basis in prior established data should be given weight and considered probable without being required to demonstrate such in controlled circumstances. THAT IS ABSURD.

-Chris

 

[miklorsmith]

But there is precious little evidence demonstrating any product to be sonically superior to any other product, scientifically. Should I get the Pioneer or the Denon? Wish there was a study. How do you make decisions between competing products when there is no scientific information available? To me, waiting for the database to catch up is the illogical position, as it will never happen.

Meanwhile, the open-minded scientists will be waiting. And waiting. And waiting. Nope, still no evidence. Guess I'll just hang onto this old stuff forever. There's no evidence anything else will sound better, so I'll just hang tight.

To me, it sounds like a justification for sitting tight and not seeking out the greener pasture. That's OK but the lack of supporting data doesn't mean the pasture doesn't exist. America was discovered on pure faith.

 

[av_phile]

What is absurd in this hobby is to sit tight and wait for sceintific evidence to validate one's personal experience with this or that amp, CDP, cable, CD-R or what have you. It is precisely because the listening experience behind this hobby is a personal one that the burden of proof for any personal claim is totally irrelevant, unecessary and provides no added incentive to enjoy the hobby. If a persons finds that his new cable, amp or CDP gives him more sonic nirvana than his previous set-up, what's the point in proving such a claim of sonic superiority to anyone. His personal satisfaction is all that matters in his hobby. It's HIS hobby. No one needs to force a personal revelation to another. The only rational why the scientific process requires evidentiary or mathematical proof is because the claim is expected to be raised as a sceintific fact beyond the discoverer. No such requirement exists in a personal hobby. The listening pleasures derive from one's personal value judgements and perceptions. What is valid to him in the hobby need not be to another.

 

[mtrycrafts]

But there is precious little evidence demonstrating any product to be sonically superior to any other product, scientifically. Should I get the Pioneer or the Denon? Wish there was a study. How do you make decisions between competing products when there is no scientific information available? To me, waiting for the database to catch up is the illogical position, as it will never happen.

You may want to look at historical data, what happened in th epast in such testing of other components. Why would there be no difference with inferior components of the past and expect there to be audible differences in todays products? Has hearing evolved over the past 20- 50 years? Hardly. If anything, with all the noise pollution, it may be getting worse.
No, you don't need to have the exact componets tested; one can look at historical data. Simple for som3e, too difficult for others



Meanwhile, the open-minded scientists will be waiting. And waiting. And waiting. Nope, still no evidence. Guess I'll just hang onto this old stuff forever. There's no evidence anything else will sound better, so I'll just hang tight.

Not if you need different features your old component doesn't offer.


To me, it sounds like a justification for sitting tight and not seeking out the greener pasture. That's OK but the lack of supporting data doesn't mean the pasture doesn't exist. America was discovered on pure faith.

No, you are missing the points. No reason why you shouldn't but something with features you need today that you don't have on yesterdays component.
But, if you are only after sonic differences or improvement, you indeed have a long time waiting to the end times; you could get one that is euphonicly designe intentionally .

 

[mtrycrafts]

What is absurd in this hobby is to sit tight and wait for sceintific evidence to validate one's personal experience with this or that amp, CDP, cable, CD-R or what have you.

What is absurd is to mis characterize this whole issue of testing to validate testable claims made by anyone.
I suppose then you proceed in a similar fassion in all your observed or experienced endevor, never questioning any of your senses credibility, when is it fooling you or misleading you?


It is precisely because the listening experience behind this hobby is a personal one that the burden of proof for any personal claim is totally irrelevant, unecessary and provides no added incentive to enjoy the hobby.

I suppose then I should fall head over heels about psychics, holistic healers, homiopathic medication, etc. Onews experience is cast in stone for reality, credibility and truthfullness?

If a persons finds that his new cable, amp or CDP gives him more sonic nirvana than his previous set-up, what's the point in proving such a claim of sonic superiority to anyone.

Zero. It has no reality to others if that is only a personal reality.


His personal satisfaction is all that matters in his hobby. It's HIS hobby.

Oh? audio is a singular hobby? What good is it to discuss it then?



No one needs to force a personal revelation to another. The only rational why the scientific process requires evidentiary or mathematical proof is because the claim is expected to be raised as a sceintific fact beyond the discoverer.

Or, reality beyond the discoverer or claimant. I suppose you would continue taking medications unproven to work, be safe, etc?



What is valid to him in the hobby need not be to another.

What good is it then to discuss it with others if it has no meaning to others? ZERO.

 

[av_phile]

What is absurd in this hobby is to sit tight and wait for sceintific evidence to validate one's personal experience with this or that amp, CDP, cable, CD-R or what have you.

What is absurd is to mis characterize this whole issue of testing to validate testable claims made by anyone.
I suppose then you proceed in a similar fassion in all your observed or experienced endevor, never questioning any of your senses credibility, when is it fooling you or misleading you?

My senses are credible to me, I don't give a hoot about yours. If I get a kick out of what I perceive, that's none of your business.

It is precisely because the listening experience behind this hobby is a personal one that the burden of proof for any personal claim is totally irrelevant, unecessary and provides no added incentive to enjoy the hobby.

I suppose then I should fall head over heels about psychics, holistic healers, homiopathic medication, etc. Onews experience is cast in stone for reality, credibility and truthfullness?

No one is imposing his beliefs on you. And neither should you. A personal experience is personal. You know what personal means?

If a persons finds that his new cable, amp or CDP gives him more sonic nirvana than his previous set-up, what's the point in proving such a claim of sonic superiority to anyone.

Zero. It has no reality to others if that is only a personal reality.

That is all the matters in a oersonal indulgence.

His personal satisfaction is all that matters in his hobby. It's HIS hobby.

Oh? audio is a singular hobby? What good is it to discuss it then?

I am not talking about AUDIO. I am talking about a hobby - a hobby where all your prejudices, wants and dislikes, biases, values and prefferneces, social and peer pressures bear on the aural perceptions that give you pleasures that only you as a listener can enjoy. No one else.

While an AUDIO gear is a product of meanufacturing sciences, different people will perceive them differently. Audio is science and engeinering, persoanl listening perception is not.

No one needs to force a personal revelation to another. The only rational why the scientific process requires evidentiary or mathematical proof is because the claim is expected to be raised as a sceintific fact beyond the discoverer.

Or, reality beyond the discoverer or claimant. I suppose you would continue taking medications unproven to work, be safe, etc?

Medicines, food, clothing, shelter, travel, communications. They are classoifeod as a necessity. Some due diligences are needed to patornize any of them to survive long. This hobby is a luxury - you don't need them to survive at all. This audiophil hobby is a personal indulgence to gratify the personal aural senses. I see no point applying an exacting science in any kind of personal luxury.

What is valid to him in the hobby need not be to another.

What good is it then to discuss it with others if it has no meaning to others? ZERO.

Apart from hearing other people's personal experiences, they can debate about any topic ad infinitum, just like what we're doing now.

Forums like this can list down all the snake oils in this hobby. Enlightening to many, but worthless to others. Nothing can change the fact that what is snake oil to you has done wonders to someone else, imagined or real, doesn't matter. This hobby goes beyond what is AUDIO. AUDIO gears can be likened to mere canvass sheets. What is painted on it is the music captured on AUDIO. Now, how different people in the HOBBY perceive such a mix of canvass and paint is a personal one. There is no corect perception. Appreciation is an art, not a science. Listening is an art. How one gets his kick out of listening is entirely his business. And his money. Not yours.