Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you cite,
and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.

It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded analog
audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in the region, and
compared a short piece of wire with a device that put the audio signal into
CD format and then conveted it back to a regular audio signal. We found no
audible difference, using a variety of musicians, audio engineers and
experienced audiophiles as our listeners.


Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

What are they?


I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I
would have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience.
Sample - did you test their hearing acuity? It strikes me, and here I
lapse into stereotype, that the people involved were possibly middle
aged men? Who by training listen for and expect particular things? Whose
hearing is possibly past its best?!

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you
cite, and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.

It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded
analog audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in the
region, and compared a short piece of wire with a device that put the
audio signal into CD format and then conveted it back to a regular audio
signal. We found no audible difference, using a variety of musicians,
audio engineers and experienced audiophiles as our listeners.

Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

Again, you're turning me off with your endless hair-splitting. If you want
an endless discussion of semantics, I suggest you find an appropriate Usenet
group. There are at least 3 Usenet groups with semantics in their names.

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

What are they?

I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I would
have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience.

Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?

Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think that yo would
naturally find a lot of people in a group of musicians, audio engineers and
experienced audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to distinguish
sonic differences?

It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that the people involved
were possibly middle aged men?

No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the youngest were in their
20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio engineers, and audiophiles.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?

You are obviously clutching for straws.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you
cite, and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.
It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded
analog audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in the
region, and compared a short piece of wire with a device that put the
audio signal into CD format and then conveted it back to a regular audio
signal. We found no audible difference, using a variety of musicians,
audio engineers and experienced audiophiles as our listeners.

Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

Again, you're turning me off with your endless hair-splitting. If you want
an endless discussion of semantics, I suggest you find an appropriate Usenet
group. There are at least 3 Usenet groups with semantics in their names.


It's quite simple! The two words have *very* different meanings in a
research context. I accept that they're used interchangeably in the
popular/public media, but when you're talking about tests and evidence
you should, I think, explain the reasoning behind your methods. Is that
so unreasonable?

I have no real desire to turn you on to this, or anything else, btw :-)

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
What are they?

I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I would
have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience.

Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?

Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think that yo would
naturally find a lot of people in a group of musicians, audio engineers and
experienced audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to distinguish
sonic differences?


Yes - I did read the summary relating to the participants ...

It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that the people involved
were possibly middle aged men?

No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the youngest were in their
20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio engineers, and audiophiles.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?

You are obviously clutching for straws.


.... who have two characteristics (at least) in common - professional
familiarity with audio, and (related) an element of expectation relating
to the results. Add to this peer pressure (the results matter to them in
a way that they would not matter - thankfully - to a 10 year old child)
and I think I'm right to question method. It really isn't that difficult.

We had a thread on the tests of a UK consumer mag (called 'Which?') a
while back - their tests 'revealed' audible differences in CD players
and amplifiers. This was fairly unanimously rejected as unscientific
drivel on this NG, and I did go to the trouble of writing to the
magazine editiors for clarification of their test protocols. They were
far more forthcoming - and aware of limitations - than you appear to be.
Why might that be?

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

I think, explain the reasoning behind your methods. Is
that so unreasonable?

Why not just ask for what you want, instead of pontificating so much?

The goal of our method was that we wanted to develop a test for audio gear
that was as fair as possible and that could be self-administered.

The reasoning behind our method was to identify as many significant sources
of bias as we could, and manage them with a relatively simple piece of
hardware.


I have no real desire to turn you on to this, or anything
else, btw :-)
I also have a few issues with method mentioned
elsewhere in this thread. What are they?

I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in
this context. I would have thought any lay person would
point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating,
audience.

Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?

Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think
that yo would naturally find a lot of people in a group
of musicians, audio engineers and experienced
audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to
distinguish sonic differences?

Yes - I did read the summary relating to the participants

But, you haven't answered the question.

It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that
the people involved were possibly middle aged men?

No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the
youngest were in their 20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio
engineers, and audiophiles.

Again, no answer.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?

You are obviously clutching for straws.

... who have two characteristics (at least) in common -
professional familiarity with audio, and (related) an
element of expectation relating to the results. Add to
this peer pressure (the results matter to them in a way
that they would not matter - thankfully - to a 10 year
old child) and I think I'm right to question method. It
really isn't that difficult.

Again, you've really said nothing, just cast a few unfounded aspersions.

Since you won't answer any of my questions...

We had a thread on the tests of a UK consumer mag (called
'Which?') a while back - their tests 'revealed' audible
differences in CD players and amplifiers. This was fairly
unanimously rejected as unscientific drivel on this NG,
and I did go to the trouble of writing to the magazine
editiors for clarification of their test protocols. They
were far more forthcoming - and aware of limitations -
than you appear to be. Why might that be?

What do you want to know about our test protocols that you can't easily find
out from the sources that have been cited?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

I think, explain the reasoning behind your methods. Is
that so unreasonable?

Why not just ask for what you want, instead of pontificating so much?

The goal of our method was that we wanted to develop a test for audio gear
that was as fair as possible and that could be self-administered.

The reasoning behind our method was to identify as many significant sources
of bias as we could, and manage them with a relatively simple piece of
hardware.


Mmmm. That is the reason for the test, not the approach. This could go
on and on :-)



I have no real desire to turn you on to this, or anything
else, btw :-)
I also have a few issues with method mentioned
elsewhere in this thread. What are they?
I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in
this context. I would have thought any lay person would
point to:
Environmental variables - light, heat, seating,
audience.
Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?
Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think
that yo would naturally find a lot of people in a group
of musicians, audio engineers and experienced
audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to
distinguish sonic differences?
Yes - I did read the summary relating to the participants

But, you haven't answered the question.


I felt it was implied in my summary - professional experience, so yes
they could deduce difference to a degree.

It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that
the people involved were possibly middle aged men?
No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the
youngest were in their 20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio
engineers, and audiophiles.

Again, no answer.


I thought that was a rhetorical point, not a question.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?
You are obviously clutching for straws.

... who have two characteristics (at least) in common -
professional familiarity with audio, and (related) an
element of expectation relating to the results. Add to
this peer pressure (the results matter to them in a way
that they would not matter - thankfully - to a 10 year
old child) and I think I'm right to question method. It
really isn't that difficult.

Again, you've really said nothing, just cast a few unfounded aspersions.


Common sense I would have thought? The method resembles snowballing (not
the sexual version!) - fine in certain circumstances, but I can't fathom
the methodological context here.

Since you won't answer any of my questions...


?! Of course for me to reject your qs would be inexcusable!

We had a thread on the tests of a UK consumer mag (called
'Which?') a while back - their tests 'revealed' audible
differences in CD players and amplifiers. This was fairly
unanimously rejected as unscientific drivel on this NG,
and I did go to the trouble of writing to the magazine
editiors for clarification of their test protocols. They
were far more forthcoming - and aware of limitations -
than you appear to be. Why might that be?

What do you want to know about our test protocols that you can't easily find
out from the sources that have been cited?


It's not really the test protocols, although I've raised a couple of
issues above relating to samples that you've dismissed.

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

I think, explain the reasoning behind your methods. Is
that so unreasonable?

Why not just ask for what you want, instead of
pontificating so much? The goal of our method was that we wanted to
develop a
test for audio gear that was as fair as possible and
that could be self-administered. The reasoning behind our method was to
identify as many
significant sources of bias as we could, and manage them
with a relatively simple piece of hardware.


Mmmm. That is the reason for the test, not the approach.
This could go on and on :-)



I have no real desire to turn you on to this, or
anything else, btw :-)
I also have a few issues with method mentioned
elsewhere in this thread. What are they?
I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in
this context. I would have thought any lay person
would point to:
Environmental variables - light, heat, seating,
audience.
Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?
Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think
that yo would naturally find a lot of people in a group
of musicians, audio engineers and experienced
audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to
distinguish sonic differences?
Yes - I did read the summary relating to the
participants

But, you haven't answered the question.


I felt it was implied in my summary - professional
experience, so yes they could deduce difference to a
degree.
It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that
the people involved were possibly middle aged men?
No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the
youngest were in their 20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular
things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio
engineers, and audiophiles.

Again, no answer.


I thought that was a rhetorical point, not a question.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?
You are obviously clutching for straws.

... who have two characteristics (at least) in common -
professional familiarity with audio, and (related) an
element of expectation relating to the results. Add to
this peer pressure (the results matter to them in a way
that they would not matter - thankfully - to a 10 year
old child) and I think I'm right to question method. It
really isn't that difficult.

Again, you've really said nothing, just cast a few
unfounded aspersions.

Common sense I would have thought? The method resembles
snowballing (not the sexual version!) - fine in certain
circumstances, but I can't fathom the methodological
context here.
Since you won't answer any of my questions...


?! Of course for me to reject your qs would be
inexcusable!
We had a thread on the tests of a UK consumer mag
(called 'Which?') a while back - their tests 'revealed'
audible differences in CD players and amplifiers. This
was fairly unanimously rejected as unscientific drivel
on this NG, and I did go to the trouble of writing to
the magazine editiors for clarification of their test
protocols. They were far more forthcoming - and aware
of limitations - than you appear to be. Why might that
be?

What do you want to know about our test protocols that
you can't easily find out from the sources that have
been cited?

It's not really the test protocols, although I've raised
a couple of issues above relating to samples that you've
dismissed.

By saying nothing that makes any sense, you've released me from further
comments, I think.

In article , Rob
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you
cite, and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.

It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded
analog audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in
the region, and compared a short piece of wire with a device that put
the audio signal into CD format and then conveted it back to a
regular audio signal. We found no audible difference, using a variety
of musicians, audio engineers and experienced audiophiles as our
listeners.


Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

Do you mean by "methodology" here, the reasons for the choice of the
specific experimental method and protocol used? If so, see below...

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this
thread.

What are they?


I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I
would have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience. Sample - did
you test their hearing acuity? It strikes me, and here I lapse into
stereotype, that the people involved were possibly middle aged men? Who
by training listen for and expect particular things? Whose hearing is
possibly past its best?!

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] They would normally be
summarised or taken as assumed on the basis that those working in the field
can be expected to have read the relevant background material for
themselves and should know already the strengths, weaknesses, and purposes
of specific methods or protocols for that specific area of study. e.g. they
would already know what main confounding or interfering factors would need
to be controlled or dealt with by the means employed.

The main exception to the above is where a 'new' method is being introduced
(or challenged), and the reasons for this should then either be given, or
explicitily referred to so the reader can look at the reference(s) to
decide this for themselves.

The above is probably why it seems that many experimental scientists tend
not to concern themselves with this as they just use the 'usual tools from
the toolkit'. However when a method/protocol is well established the normal
expectation is that anyone who wishes to challenge it has the onus on them
to do so, and to give both (testable) reasons for their concerns and an
alternative which can be put into practice and judged by its behaviour.[2]

i.e. the methods/protocols themselves are also subject to the scientific
method.

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.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] Note, though, that this is mostly in areas quite different to audio
listening comparisons, etc.

[2] Doing so may then quickly lead to finding material already published
that covers the relevant points - or may not. Such is research. :-)

--
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

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you
cite, and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.
It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded
analog audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in
the region, and compared a short piece of wire with a device that put
the audio signal into CD format and then conveted it back to a
regular audio signal. We found no audible difference, using a variety
of musicians, audio engineers and experienced audiophiles as our
listeners.


Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

Do you mean by "methodology" here, the reasons for the choice of the
specific experimental method and protocol used? If so, see below...


Yes

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this
thread.
What are they?


I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I
would have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience. Sample - did
you test their hearing acuity? It strikes me, and here I lapse into
stereotype, that the people involved were possibly middle aged men? Who
by training listen for and expect particular things? Whose hearing is
possibly past its best?!

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. In
social science I would hope editors use a panel that appreciates this,
and opposing methodological positions. Often, no one methodology is
necessarily wrong.

Having said this many papers 'hang off' some well-trodden reasoning, and
they'll use a fleeting reference to (in my field) constructionism,
marxism, empiricism, whatever.

They would normally be
summarised or taken as assumed on the basis that those working in the field
can be expected to have read the relevant background material for
themselves and should know already the strengths, weaknesses, and purposes
of specific methods or protocols for that specific area of study. e.g. they
would already know what main confounding or interfering factors would need
to be controlled or dealt with by the means employed.

The main exception to the above is where a 'new' method is being introduced
(or challenged), and the reasons for this should then either be given, or
explicitily referred to so the reader can look at the reference(s) to
decide this for themselves.

The above is probably why it seems that many experimental scientists tend
not to concern themselves with this as they just use the 'usual tools from
the toolkit'. However when a method/protocol is well established the normal
expectation is that anyone who wishes to challenge it has the onus on them
to do so, and to give both (testable) reasons for their concerns and an
alternative which can be put into practice and judged by its behaviour.[2]

i.e. the methods/protocols themselves are also subject to the scientific
method.

Yep, no problem with any of that. But(!) you can see that some might
find this 'fiercely inductive' - particularly in the non-rigorous
context of this thread?! - CD resolution recording captures the entire
audible range of LP sound. Therefore [insert your own conclusion].

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.

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?!

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.

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 :-)

Rob


Slainte,

Jim

[1] Note, though, that this is mostly in areas quite different to audio
listening comparisons, etc.

[2] Doing so may then quickly lead to finding material already published
that covers the relevant points - or may not. Such is research. :-)

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.

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?

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.

[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. ;-


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. :-)

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.

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. ;-

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

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 :-)