New vs Vintage
On Apr 1, 12:10=A0pm, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny believes that
since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed support for what he
calls "audiophile myths", it means that no evidence HAS or CAN be
found supporting those propositions, while many of the rest of us
takes that lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do so). You can't
find evidence if you don't look for it.
I think you're being grossly unfair. It's a matter of record that
Arny did once believe what he calls "audiophile myths", but he wasn't
satisfied with that, so he did some experiments himself. To say that
his experiments weren't "serious science" because they weren't funded
or sanctioned by a research institute is mere prejudice. Surely it's
better to have more people doing science, not keep it confined to an
ivory tower.
It's not prejudice. It's how science works. I had exactly the
opposite experience. I was a hard nosed objectivist who scoffed at the
notion that a tube amp could sound better than a modern SS amp and
mocked audiophiles for thinking one could get better sound than
digital audio by "dragging a rock over a piece of plastic." Yep that
is what I would say. So I did some blind comparisons. Wow was I
wrong!
Right, so you're not absolutely opposed to the idea of non-scientists
doing experiments.
Of course not. I am opposed to misrepresentations of their merit in
the eyes of real science. Whether that misrepresentation comes from
"creationist scientists" Bigfoot hunters, UFOlogists or rabid audio
objectivists. And yes you can throw in the radical audio subjectivists
like the Peter Beltians who advocate things like freezing pictures of
your dog and many other things that could not possibly affect the
performance of an audio system.
Neither Arny's nor my blind tests are anything other than anecdotal
evidence in the eyes of real science.
Think about how negative this sounds. =A0You're implying that there is
never any point to anyone who is not an official scientist doing a
careful experiment.
Not at all. Again it's not about people doing experiments it's about
misrepresenting real science. Weekend scientists don't get a special
pass that allows them to bypass the rigors of accepted scientific
methodologies. Do all the experiments you want just don't pretend it
is something the actual scientific community considers to be real
science.
=A0They might as well guess, because their results
won't be valid anyway. =A0Care and diligence is a waste of time.
Look validity means different things in different contexts. They are
as valid as one wants to think they are on a personal level. Just as
much as your opinions on your favorite flavor of ice cream is justa s
valid as you want it to be on a personal level. But scientific
validity is a different thing and demands very different standards.
It's the bait and switch that I take issue with.
So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
it up to the standards set by the scientific community.
There, I agree totally. =A0What matters is how well the experiment is
done. =A0But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.
I agree with your agreement. ;-)
I am going to go out on a limb and guess you would perefer that people
don't peddle junk science and anecdotes as real science as well.
|