|
|
The role of 'fake science' in audio
The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful
in identifying pseudoscience. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements as a basis [18]. Failure to make use of operational definitions [19] Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20] Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the superficial trappings of science.[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience Also....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in particular where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the scientific method entirely. Graham |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
"Eeyore" wrote in
message ... The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful in identifying pseudoscience. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements as a basis [18]. Failure to make use of operational definitions [19] Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20] Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the superficial trappings of science.[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience Also....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in particular where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the scientific method entirely. Graham The use of a pair of objects that help to define the quality of the equipment before purchase. EARS. If you can't hear an improvement, don't upgrade. Some people can't tell an MP3 file from a CD. Some people can't tell a live brass band from an old shellac 78. If you can't, why waste thousands on expensive equipment, e.g use bellwire for your speaker cables, etc. etc. Diminishing returns. The £100 gear sounds a lot better than the £10 lot. The £1,000 gear sounds quite a bit better than the £100 lot. The £10,000 a bit better than the £1,000 lot, and so on. Recently I visited a house where they had an ipod attached to some sort of mains powered speaker arrangement that all packed into a handbag. They thought it sounded great. Kept turning it louder and louder and saying how marvellous that it fitted into the small handbag. One man's meat is another man's gravy. -- John the West Ham fan |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
"Eeyore" ** This page from Doug Self gives audio specific and detailed analysis. http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...o/subjectv.htm Shame most if it will go way over the heads of all non-technical and half-technical folk. As someone famous one said, " You cannot reason someone out of a position that they were never first reasoned into." ....... Phil |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in
particular where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the scientific method entirely. Graham I think the words you are looking for are "non-science", and the reason you've pulled "devotees of thermionics" out of a very large hat may be because they are more discriminating and require further degrees of sound quality than the average ss user. So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"! Would you go on to say that boys who select their girlfriends on the basis of looks are "anti-science" because they haven't considered the compatibility of their DNA? We're on a very slippery slope here. I could go on with further examples but you get the point. |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
On 18 Sep 2006 02:57:59 -0700, "Andy Evans"
wrote: So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"! Would you go on to say that boys who select their girlfriends on the basis of looks are "anti-science" because they haven't considered the compatibility of their DNA? We're on a very slippery slope here. I could go on with further examples but you get the point. We get the point that you're switching target from sound to appearance, but forgetting to also switch from ears to eyes. |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Andy Evans wrote: Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in particular where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the scientific method entirely. Graham I think the words you are looking for are "non-science", and the reason you've pulled "devotees of thermionics" out of a very large hat may be because they are more discriminating and require further degrees of sound quality than the average ss user. I'd say rather that my idea of discrimination is different to theirs. So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"! No. It's the 'pseudo-arguments' they propose to explain in their how tubes / valves are so wonderful. In fact they're simply revelling in the sound of added low-order distortion. The effect is well-known and indeed often intentionally used in the studio as an *EFFECT* ! Would you go on to say that boys who select their girlfriends on the basis of looks are "anti-science" because they haven't considered the compatibility of their DNA? We're on a very slippery slope here. I could go on with further examples but you get the point. No. What we're talking abou is the confusion of objective science with subjective preferences, with the subjectivists believing that 'what they like' must be inherently technically superior but with no regard to any supporting science and a wholesale dismissal of the science that counters their ideas. Graham |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
In article , housetrained
wrote: The use of a pair of objects that help to define the quality of the equipment before purchase. EARS. They are vital. The snag is that knowing how to use them is also vital if any conclusions you draw are to have value, and for results to mean what you assume in a given case. For example, you would need to know that a small movement of the head may alter the sounds reaching your ears. And that your hearing physiology changes with time, and with factors like having just listened to something. Hence what you hear may change for reasons that have nothing to do with any items/changes you are trying to compare by listening. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!
No. It's the 'pseudo-arguments' they propose to explain in their how tubes / valves are so wonderful. In fact they're simply revelling in the sound of added low-order distortion. The effect is well-known and indeed often intentionally used in the studio as an *EFFECT* ! I'll pass over the fact that these arguments are tired old rubbish from vague memories of 60s valve equipment and simply say that there are no "pseudo arguments" at all. Valve users do so because the sounds they hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound. You just can't seem to accept this, can you? You insist on continuing this silly crusade to ridicule valve users who, for their part, are completely happy with their equipment and have heard all these old tired arguments as often as double bass players have heard the comment "why don't you take up the flute" What we're talking about is the confusion of objective science with subjective preferences, with the subjectivists believing that 'what they like' must be inherently technically superior but with no regard to any supporting science and a wholesale dismissal of the science that counters their ideas. There's no confusion - you've made all this up to create a forum for you tired arguments. Valve users believe that valves SOUND MORE REALISTIC. My God, how many times does it have to be said. Valve users don't dismiss science - they are as scientific about the schematics they use as are any other equipment builders. The fact that they make preferences with their ears rather than a spreadsheet of figures doesn't make them unscientific either. And if they chose a piece of equipment that sounded worse to their ears because there was 0.1% less harmonic distortion, they would be plain bonkers. But that seems to be what you expect them to do! Sheesh......... |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
"Andy Evans" wrote There's no confusion - you've made all this up to create a forum for you tired arguments. Valve users believe that valves SOUND MORE REALISTIC. My God, how many times does it have to be said. Valve users don't dismiss science - they are as scientific about the schematics they use as are any other equipment builders. The fact that they make preferences with their ears rather than a spreadsheet of figures doesn't make them unscientific either. And if they chose a piece of equipment that sounded worse to their ears because there was 0.1% less harmonic distortion, they would be plain bonkers. But that seems to be what you expect them to do! Sheesh......... Well said Andy, but I trust you've got the soldering iron on while you are wasting your breath arguing with the Denial Boyz....!! ;-) (Me? I've got 'em binned - I can't be arsed with them any more....) |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Andy Evans wrote: So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"! No. It's the 'pseudo-arguments' they propose to explain in their how tubes / valves are so wonderful. In fact they're simply revelling in the sound of added low-order distortion. The effect is well-known and indeed often intentionally used in the studio as an *EFFECT* ! I'll pass over the fact that these arguments are tired old rubbish from vague memories of 60s valve equipment and simply say that there are no "pseudo arguments" at all. Valve users do so because the sounds they hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound. And who are they to say ? Typically they're a bunch of deaf old fogeys. You just can't seem to accept this, can you? Certainly not when any scientific test proves very simply that they're quite wrong ! I'm not saying btw that the sound they like may not be flattering to the ear but it has nothing whatever to do with true fidelity. You insist on continuing this silly crusade to ridicule valve users who, for their part, are completely happy with their equipment and have heard all these old tired arguments as often as double bass players have heard the comment "why don't you take up the flute" If someone likes their valve kit, that's up to them and good listening to them. I'm simply tired of them pushing their subjectivist reasoning and false science down everyone else's throats. What we're talking about is the confusion of objective science with subjective preferences, with the subjectivists believing that 'what they like' must be inherently technically superior but with no regard to any supporting science and a wholesale dismissal of the science that counters their ideas. There's no confusion - you've made all this up to create a forum for you tired arguments. There's nothing tired about it at all. The accuracy of the reproduction chain can be easily measured to very high degrees of accuracy. Please now try to explain intelligently why the tube nuts would have us believe that a clealry very inaccurate amplifier is 'better' ? Note, this is not about 'I like it - therefore.....' arguments. Valve users believe that valves SOUND MORE REALISTIC. Possibly because they aren't even familiar with true realism ? Open up Windows Media Player and select the SRS featue and tell me if a recording sounds more 'full' or 'realistic' with or without the SRS ! Then come back and explain how it works. My God, how many times does it have to be said. Valve users don't dismiss science - they are as scientific about the schematics they use as are any other equipment builders. But ignore the measurements. The fact that they make preferences with their ears rather than a spreadsheet of figures doesn't make them unscientific either. And if they chose a piece of equipment that sounded worse to their ears because there was 0.1% less harmonic distortion, they would be plain bonkers. But that seems to be what you expect them to do! Sheesh......... So - are you now going to argue in favour of high distortion figures ? Graham |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Keith G wrote: Well said Andy, but I trust you've got the soldering iron on while you are wasting your breath arguing with the Denial Boyz....!! ;-) It's the tubists who are in denial about reality. Graham |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Eeyore wrote:
It's the tubists who are in denial about reality. How are they? How do you measure "sounds better"? -- Wally www.wally.myby.co.uk You're unique - just like everybody else. |
Ford Cortina engine for sale, Chelmsford area.
Hasn't functioned since the 60s. May be of use to somebody.
|
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Wally wrote:
How do you measure "sounds better"? You measure it in the same way as other preferences. How do we know that more people prefer Coke to Pepsi and that 9 out of 10 cats prefer Kat-E-Chunks? |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
"andy" wrote in message ups.com... Wally wrote: How do you measure "sounds better"? You measure it in the same way as other preferences. How do we know that more people prefer Coke to Pepsi and that 9 out of 10 cats prefer Kat-E-Chunks? Yebbut, how do the people you ask know why they have the preferences they do...?? |
Course fishing rod for sale, Chelmsford area
Hasn't functioned since the 60s. May be of use to somebody.
|
Course fishing rod for sale, Chelmsford area
On 18 Sep 2006 05:19:27 -0700, "Andy Evans"
wrote: Hasn't functioned since the 60s. May be of use to somebody. Has the missus told you she needs to spring clean the living room? :-) d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
andy wrote:
How do you measure "sounds better"? You measure it in the same way as other preferences. How do we know that more people prefer Coke to Pepsi and that 9 out of 10 cats prefer Kat-E-Chunks? Poor logic, dude. A million flies won't make **** taste any better for them wot don't like it. -- Wally www.wally.myby.co.uk Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for dinner. |
Course fishing rod for sale, Chelmsford area
Has the missus told you she needs to spring clean the living room? DP
Hello Don - trust an islander to notice a fishing rod in two microseconds...... Missus left 15 years ago. I'm waiting for somebody to show me how to work the Hoover. |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Wally wrote: Eeyore wrote: It's the tubists who are in denial about reality. How are they? How do you measure "sounds better"? Only they know the answer to that. Sounds 'better' ( in whoever's opinion ) does not mean it's accurate though. See my comment about the SRS test. Graham |
Course fishing rod for sale, Chelmsford area
On 18 Sep 2006 05:33:34 -0700, "Andy Evans"
wrote: Has the missus told you she needs to spring clean the living room? DP Hello Don - trust an islander to notice a fishing rod in two microseconds...... Hardly used a rod as a lad. A hand line with a huge lead weight and half a dozen hooks worked brilliantly for herring and halibut from the boat. The rod I did use was a ten foot bamboo pole with the line tied on at the end. That was all it took from the little jetty below the house. Ten minutes with that would see me returning to the house with half a dozen plaice for dinner. Missus left 15 years ago. I'm waiting for somebody to show me how to work the Hoover. Sure, but first you have to find it. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
andy wrote: Wally wrote: How do you measure "sounds better"? You measure it in the same way as other preferences. How do we know that more people prefer Coke to Pepsi and that 9 out of 10 cats prefer Kat-E-Chunks? These are subjective judgements. You might prefer Coke. I might prefer Pepsi. By your resoning though I should prefer Coke and I'm an idiot not to understand that.. Graham |
Course fishing rod for sale, Chelmsford area
Andy Evans wrote: Hasn't functioned since the 60s. May be of use to somebody. Don't you mean coarse fishing ? Graham |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
"Andy Evans" wrote in message ps.com... Valve users do so because the sounds they hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound. Were you present when the original sound was made? Is there just one "original sound" |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Arny Krueger wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote in message ps.com... Valve users do so because the sounds they hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound. Were you present when the original sound was made? Is there just one "original sound" I presume it must be a belief that they know best that does it ! I'll bet most of them aren't professional audio practicioners. It's almost unkown to come across a valve amp in a studio monitor setup. I also wouldn't mind betting that very few of them are that familiar with the very instruments whose recordings they listen to. Referring back to my original post...... Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements as a basis [18]. Failure to make use of operational definitions [19] Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20] Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the superficial trappings of science.[21] Now scientifically define 'better' ! Graham |
Course fishing rod for sale, Chelmsford area
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On 18 Sep 2006 05:33:34 -0700, "Andy Evans" wrote: Has the missus told you she needs to spring clean the living room? DP Hello Don - trust an islander to notice a fishing rod in two microseconds...... Hardly used a rod as a lad. A hand line with a huge lead weight and half a dozen hooks worked brilliantly for herring and halibut from the boat. The rod I did use was a ten foot bamboo pole with the line tied on at the end. That was all it took from the little jetty below the house. Ten minutes with that would see me returning to the house with half a dozen plaice for dinner. Missus left 15 years ago. I'm waiting for somebody to show me how to work the Hoover. Sure, but first you have to find it. To find it he'll need to know what one looks like and Googling images won't help! (Try it!!) |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:53:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote in message ps.com... Valve users do so because the sounds they hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound. Were you present when the original sound was made? Is there just one "original sound" I presume it must be a belief that they know best that does it ! I'll bet most of them aren't professional audio practicioners. It's almost unkown to come across a valve amp in a studio monitor setup. I also wouldn't mind betting that very few of them are that familiar with the very instruments whose recordings they listen to. Referring back to my original post...... Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements as a basis [18]. Failure to make use of operational definitions [19] Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20] Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the superficial trappings of science.[21] Now scientifically define 'better' ! For me this is easy. I assume that the artists who made the records knew what they wanted to present to me as a listening experience. I use equipment that makes as good a job of that as is possible. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Eeyore wrote:
andy wrote: Wally wrote: How do you measure "sounds better"? You measure it in the same way as other preferences. How do we know that more people prefer Coke to Pepsi and that 9 out of 10 cats prefer Kat-E-Chunks? These are subjective judgements. You might prefer Coke. I might prefer Pepsi. By your resoning though I should prefer Coke and I'm an idiot not to understand that.. It is not my reasoning and I cannot follow your logic. The people that ran this type of advert had the data to support it to appease the ASA although I cannot recall seeing this type of advert for a few years. Seriously though, there are no problems measuring preference and it is done a lot by marketing people. I can even recall seeing some work on loudspeaker preferences from Harman I think but a quick google has not thrown it up. |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Don Pearce wrote: On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:53:13 +0100, Eeyore wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote Valve users do so because the sounds they hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound. Were you present when the original sound was made? Is there just one "original sound" I presume it must be a belief that they know best that does it ! I'll bet most of them aren't professional audio practicioners. It's almost unkown to come across a valve amp in a studio monitor setup. I also wouldn't mind betting that very few of them are that familiar with the very instruments whose recordings they listen to. Referring back to my original post...... Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements as a basis [18]. Failure to make use of operational definitions [19] Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20] Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the superficial trappings of science.[21] Now scientifically define 'better' ! For me this is easy. I assume that the artists who made the records knew what they wanted to present to me as a listening experience. This is indeed normally the case. I use equipment that makes as good a job of that as is possible. Likewise. I have no objection to those who wish to use the known technical failings of old technology to 'enhance' their listening expereince as they see ( hear ) it but it's a big mistake for them to confuse this with fidelity. Graham |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
andy wrote: Eeyore wrote: andy wrote: Wally wrote: How do you measure "sounds better"? You measure it in the same way as other preferences. How do we know that more people prefer Coke to Pepsi and that 9 out of 10 cats prefer Kat-E-Chunks? These are subjective judgements. You might prefer Coke. I might prefer Pepsi. By your resoning though I should prefer Coke and I'm an idiot not to understand that.. It is not my reasoning and I cannot follow your logic. It seemed as obvious as I could make it ! The people that ran this type of advert had the data to support it to appease the ASA although I cannot recall seeing this type of advert for a few years. Seriously though, there are no problems measuring preference and it is done a lot by marketing people. I can even recall seeing some work on loudspeaker preferences from Harman I think but a quick google has not thrown it up. Preferences are everywhere. To confuse them with fidelity or accuracy on a purely subjective basis is wholly false though. Graham |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:53:13 +0100, Eeyore For me this is easy. I assume that the artists who made the records knew what they wanted to present to me as a listening experience. I use equipment that makes as good a job of that as is possible. That leads to the *dreaded* accuracy and sonic transparency as goals. IOW, uncolored reproduction. ;-) |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:53:13 +0100, Eeyore For me this is easy. I assume that the artists who made the records knew what they wanted to present to me as a listening experience. I use equipment that makes as good a job of that as is possible. That leads to the *dreaded* accuracy and sonic transparency as goals. IOW, uncolored reproduction. ;-) Fine, whoopy doo and all that, then what do you do with it? Play it how? LOL!! :-) |
Parrot for sale, Chelmsford area.
Hasn't moved since the 60s. Beautiful plumage. May be of use to
somebody. |
Parrot for sale, Chelmsford area.
"Andy Evans" wrote in message oups.com... Hasn't moved since the 60s. Beautiful plumage. May be of use to somebody. I knew a vicar who had a parrot once - he used to have to tape its beak up when he was expecting visitors....?? ??? :-) |
Parrot for sale, Chelmsford area.
"Keith G" wrote in message ... "Andy Evans" wrote in message oups.com... Hasn't moved since the 60s. Beautiful plumage. May be of use to somebody. I knew a vicar who had a parrot once - he used to have to tape its beak up when he was expecting visitors....?? ??? :-) This isn't getting my routing done.... |
Parrot for sale, Chelmsford area.
This isn't getting my routing done....
I'm posting in between hitting my thumb with a hammer. Now have working power supply. |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Eeyore wrote:
These are subjective judgements. You might prefer Coke. I might prefer Pepsi. By your resoning though I should prefer Coke and I'm an idiot not to understand that.. Let's have a little culture here. We should be discussing snails and oysters. -- Eiron No good deed ever goes unpunished. |
Course fishing rod for sale, Chelmsford area
Hardly used a rod as a lad. A hand line with a huge lead weight and
half a dozen hooks worked brilliantly for herring and halibut from the boat. The rod I did use was a ten foot bamboo pole with the line tied on at the end. That was all it took from the little jetty below the house. Ten minutes with that would see me returning to the house with half a dozen plaice for dinner. DP Brings back a lot of memories - fishing for mackerell off the coast of West Wales as a kid, taking a frying pan and small gas cooker in the boat and frying them as they came out of the water, watching the big red sun rising over the waves. Then later in Norway, fishing just about anywhere off the coast, and bringing in cod on a rod and line, as well as a host of other stuff - like a Garfish with green bones!! (That was delicious) Andy |
Parrot for sale, Chelmsford area.
"Andy Evans" wrote in message oups.com... This isn't getting my routing done.... I'm posting in between hitting my thumb with a hammer. Now have working power supply. *Hammer*....???? Fark..... When I use my stock phrase ' 'it it wiv a nammer' I'm usually only joking....??? :-( Anyway, got me routing done: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Halfway.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/All%20Done.JPG |
The role of 'fake science' in audio
Keith G wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote "Don Pearce" wrote in message For me this is easy. I assume that the artists who made the records knew what they wanted to present to me as a listening experience. I use equipment that makes as good a job of that as is possible. That leads to the *dreaded* accuracy and sonic transparency as goals. IOW, uncolored reproduction. ;-) Fine, whoopy doo and all that, then what do you do with it? Listen to it maybe ? Graham |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk