[Andrew Haley]

Scott wrote:
On Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:29:37 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote:

On Friday, September 27, 2013 12:00:48 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:

Scott wrote:

That high-end audio enthusiats can't do things
scientficially? because the priesthood will come and get them? Or
for some other reason? That only real scientists can perform
experiments?

The bottom line is that legitimate science has clear cut standards
and if the weekend warrior doesn't meet those standards then their
tests are considered anecdotal

By whom?

By actual scientists. Don't believe me? ask one. One of my best
friends happens to be one. He has a PhD in molecular genetic biology
and worked in the research field for many years as a research
scientist. When I state that peer review is the standard by which
research is considered scientifically valid or anecdotal and junk in
the world of science I am pretty much quoting him.

Sure. That's how the process of science works, but that's not really
relevant to the point I'm making. The science of hearing is quite
well-established, after all, and I don't expect it to be overturned.

Extraordinary claims are being made by audio reviewers that are in
conflict with some of what is known about thresholds of hearing. The
reviewers seem to believe these claims, but with no supporting
evidence. That is anecdotal and junk. How is it any less anecdotal
and junk than the exact same listening test, but with some bias
controls?

There is a much simpler explanation: we tend to "hear" differences
that aren't there. The only way to find out whether people actually
can hear such differences is a blind test. This is true whatever
unnamed PhDs in molecular biology say.

Besides that, more rigorous testing conditions aren't going to make
reviews any worse, even if they're imperfect. A little bit of
experimental control would inject a little reality.

History has shown us otherwise. Audio magazines have a really poor
track record when it comes to doing quality bias controlled tests.

Sure, but that's not an excuse for not trying. They've never been
much more than half-hearted, I suspect.

No: the whole point of science is that if an experiment is done
properly the results will be valid no matter who does the experiment.

Yeah , if it is done "properly." And science has a protocol for
determining this. It's called peer review and if an experiment
hasn't endured the peer review process it remains anecdotal and junk
in the eyes of real science.

Why does "the eyes of real science" matter?

It only matters if one wants to make claims in the name of
science.

All claims about audibility are scientific claims. The question is
whether those claims are justified or not.

If you want to do that then ya gots ta have the actual science to
back it.

Well, yes, you do.

The goal I'm talking about is to inject a bit of honesty into audio
reviewing. The Nobel Prize committee can wait.

I suggest you take a quick look at Howard Ferstler's attempt at
doing so and then tell me if you think it worked out.

References? He did that sort of thing quite a bit, IIRC.

Again, it seems to me that you have a terribly old-fashioned
attitude: that unless you can get published in the Proceedings of
the Royal Society, it's not worth using a scientific approach. But
people use science all the time when measuring things and making
things and repairing things, and they don't expect to be
peer-reviewed or published. They just want to know the truth.

No, it is not old fashioned. It is science. You can't have real
science without the rigors required by it. Without that you end up
with things like cold fusion and homeopathic medicine.

Indeed you do. The anecodotes used by homeopaths are essentially
indistinguishable from the anecdotes used by many audio reviewers.

Finally, let me remark: if some of the claims that are made in the
audio press are true, there is a real scientific breakthrough to be
announced: the thresholds of hearing of certain kinds of distortion
must be far lower than anyone thought. Who could resist the
opportunity to make a famous scientific discovery? Which
manufacturer would not be delighted to publish ground-breaking
results?

There was a time when objectivists back in the 60s declared the new
SS amps to be transparent due to their very low THD. But they were
really really wrong. Could be that the world of science really isn't
terribly concerned with such matters.

Maybe not: if some of the claims of audio reviewers are true, at least
a couple of chapters of Zwicker and Fastl would have to be rewritten,
and models of the way the auditory system works would have to be
revisited too.

Discovering that there were distortions in these SS amps that were
not being measured didn't really make news in the scientific
community. I don't think it is any different today.

So, you think that there may be mysterious forms of distortion that
are audible only to people who know which equipment is playing and no
measurements detect. I supose it may be so, but there's no reason to
believe it without, y'know, evidence.

And let's not forget, most people in audio who are doing research
that would pass peer review are mostly keeping their work under
wraps. Seems in the world of commercial audio there is more money in
using research for an advantage in the market place than there is in
getting the research published.

Hmm. So there may be secret methods known only to commercial audio
designers.

Andrew.