Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob

In my experience it is not common in research reports or papers to
give all the details of why a given method was chosen.[1]

IME there isn't an explanation of methodology in 'vocational-academic'
journal papers. I feel this is in part due to the problem that
methodological issues are impossible to reconcile - at the end of the
day there is a subjective belief statement that underpins rationale.

Afraid I don't see that. The point of the scientific method is that it
defines the process by which its validity of application to a given topic
can be tested. This does not seem a 'subjective belief' to me. Perhaps I am
simply misunderstanding what you are saying.


Or I'm not explaining it very well! Ontological concerns are (IMO)
subjective - religion/etc is the classic 'fundamental' that's yet to be
disproved.

The point is not that results are taken to always be 'final and absolute'
in any except 'trivial' cases. The results or conclusions are always
'provisional' and it is open to someone else to propose a 'better' idea, or
test method *which can be put into action and tested by its results*. But
that final clause is vital. Anyone can express doubts or speculate, but in
itself they gets us nowhere much. The vital test is, what method
(experiment) can we employ whose results would distingush between a 'new'
proposal or method and an 'old' one in terms of reliability of results and
giving us a useful description of how things work/behave?


Yes, I agree. It'd be interesting if, say, I could suggest a tweak to
method that would produce unexpected results.

It just isn't going to happen because I don't know enough about this
subject. I simply have an unease with the methods suggested, so I'd like
to know the basis of them. Stephen Jay Gould and Burgess Shale
(Wonderful Life) is an example of what I'm getting at - and I certainly
ain't no SJG :-)

The only basic 'belief' here seems to me to be that the observable may be
'real', and we can make some sense of it, as opposed to assuming that
everything is a dream, or the behaviour of reality changes according to
what we think.

Despite fancy titles or statements in popular science books or TV
programmes, science and experimental methods aren't about the 'truth'. That
is best left to theologians, lawyers, and mathematicians. Different union,
so we have to avoid demarkation disputes. :-) Scientific experiments are
about obtaining evidence to check ideas and see if they are reliable as
descriptions of how things behave - or not. If this approach can't be used,
then it isn't science.


No I know. I'm not so dogmatic as to require truth. Tendency'll do.

[snip]

Concerning challenge to convention. I can't say more than 'paradigm
shifts' are a pretty hefty trick to manage, and that is *far* from
accepting that current paradigms are watertight. It's quite possible to
argue that we are at 'the end of history' in the physical world - we
know enough, in other words, to answer questions relating to audible
phenomena. I know you're not saying that, but that's where this thread
ends if people can't/won't talk about the reasoning behind the methods
they use.


FWIW It is many decades since many academic or professional scientists even
thought it would be *possible* to reach and 'end' of the kind you describe.
:-) Indeed, most of us would be horrified if it came about. No more
grants for that vital next bit of research. We'd all have to stop waving
our hands about and writing on the tablecloths. ;-


I wouldn't want to take the food off your - or Arny's - plate :-)

End of history is not me BTW - it's a feeble and (in fairness) sometimes
misrepresented hypothesis belonging to Francis Fukuyama.

Rob, if you are interested in the specifics for audio here, it might
make sense for you to join a body like the AES or find a suitable uni
library. This could probably lead to the info you require.

I've just had a quick look round the AES website. This caught my eye:

http://www.aes.org/publications/AudioCoding.cfm

Training people to listen for compression problems. Of course, that's
fine as it goes, and we all want a codec that captures as much of the
original in as small a space as possible. But wouldn't it be better for
non-scientists to listen to music?!

That depends on if you want to listen to music, or if you want to test the
claims and ideas people have about why one system/item 'sounds different'
to another, etc. :-)


Both is nice - it's always good to know why. But there does seem to a
sense of 'wrong way round' and self-fulfillment here?!

I don't have too much time to look into this, and predictably the work
server is down atm ;-). I only popped my head over the parapet to see if
anyone could shine some light on the reasoning behind these CD-LP
beliefs, and it seems the answer I have been asked to accept is that
convention dictates.

As yet, I am not sure if you have actually found the basis in experiment of
why people have developed the methods they now tend to use.


No, but I'm getting there by asking around. I have considerable
difficulty with 'lines in the sand' i'm afraid, which in part explains
why I get plenty of things started, but very little finished :-)

Of more practical use, I've been coerced into this:

http://www.musicintheround.co.uk/

So perhaps listening to live music, having a listen at home, and making
up my own mind (about media and equipment) is the way to go?! Life's too
short :-)

I gave up most attempts to compare items of equipment years ago. It is
useful if someone does this, but as you indicate, it does waste time you
could spend just enjoying the music. :-)

I now leave it to younger people who probably have better ears now than me,
more time to waste, and seem not to have got over being more interested in
the container than the contained. ;-


Which is in fact my whole point :-)