Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

[Jud]

True, but it does fail my personal litmus test. I recognize that a website can have mixed info (snake oil and worthy recommendations).

 

Y'know, I think back to college, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, both in terms of my personal awareness and of the country's social-political awareness in many respects. A good friend of mine named Bruce brought me and another friend over to visit his older brother Mark. It was the first time I'd met Mark - and his boyfriend, whom I didn't know about until then. First time I'd met people who were openly gay. (Yeah, really - sheltered existence and a long time ago.)

 

Until then, pretty much all I'd read and heard was negative. But Mark and his boyfriend were both great people. All it took for me to think the same way about folks who were gay as I did about race and religion - that everyone's just people, and we should each be treated as individuals - was to meet individual human beings and realize they didn't fit the information I'd previously been fed.

 

All this is a very long way round of saying litmus tests can be useful, but I find it best to evaluate people and information on an individual basis.

[Jud]

I don't know Jud ... but do any of the companies he designs for sell equipment with suspended chassis or similar? Surely that would be included in the area of "vibration control"?

 

Nothing at all on the Spectral site, Eloise. (Demian hasn't worked for them for many years.) The most I can get off the Constellation Audio site is a single mention per page with regard to the mono and stereo reference series amps that the transformers and some of the circuitry are in suspended enclosures. At the prices of these items, a single mention of transformers being in suspended enclosures isn't going to be the reason anyone buys them.

[Jud]

I think you may have been saying later in the post ... but what differentiates Peter Higgs from "some random kook" is that Peter presented a coherent thesis that IF the Higgs Boson existed in the form he suspected it would explain the evidence being recorded. This thesis was then reviewed by peers, and proposals were made to how such a particle could be measured.

 

On the other hand with respect to cables (and I'm being deliberately over the top here); the thesis tends to be "if I freeze this cable it will sound cooler" ... and peer review tends to exist in the form of "my mate listened to the frozen cable and he agrees".

 

Eloise

 

Yes, certainly a problem (re the cable thing), and yes, that's right (about the Higgs thing). Your "coherent thesis" approximately equals my "plausible mechanism."

 

There is snake oil, where the manufacturer knows what he's saying isn't true; manufacturers who believe they hear an improvement and present a plausible mechanism they haven't tested; manufacturers who believe they hear an improvement and have performed testing of an unscientific nature; manufacturers who believe they hear an improvement and have performed testing of a scientific nature (e.g., measurements) that does not include listening tests; manufacturers who believe they hear an improvement and have performed testing of a scientific nature that does include listening tests; and manufacturers who have done all the forgoing and have made the results public. There are frustratingly few of the latter in the audio category.

 

I can think of more or less acceptable reasons for this: Some testing may require time, money or access to other resources the manufacturer doesn't have; and no one wants to be the next Xerox (who had their intellectual property stolen first by Apple, then Microsoft, who have alternated through the ensuing years as the most valuable companies in the world, while Xerox languishes, at least relatively speaking). Still, there are not many people in the audio realm who have done what Nelson Pass has done on the electronics side, and Damien Plisson did for some time on the software side: Put their intellectual property out in public for anyone and everyone to examine. (Sadly, Damien had to stop doing this after his intellectual property was ripped off.)

[JR4321]

Y'know, I think back to college, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, both in terms of my personal awareness and of the country's social-political awareness in many respects. A good friend of mine named Bruce brought me and another friend over to visit his older brother Mark. It was the first time I'd met Mark - and his boyfriend, whom I didn't know about until then. First time I'd met people who were openly gay. (Yeah, really - sheltered existence and a long time ago.)

 

Until then, pretty much all I'd read and heard was negative. But Mark and his boyfriend were both great people. All it took for me to think the same way about folks who were gay as I did about race and religion - that everyone's just people, and we should each be treated as individuals - was to meet individual human beings and realize they didn't fit the information I'd previously been fed.

 

All this is a very long way round of saying litmus tests can be useful, but I find it best to evaluate people and information on an individual basis.

 

I agree completely with what you said. I like to think I have an open mind, but I'm not naïve. I realize there is a lot of BS floating around, and am cautious with my spending. So how to sort out truth from "other"? For me, I rely on what I personally believe to be true (my litmus test). If someone fails this test, I am skeptical of everything else they say. But there are varying degrees to the test. For instance, if some claims cable directionality...that is truly the coup-de-grace for me.

 

It's not personal. I don't know these people. I'll give them opportunities to prove themselves correct in other areas. I'm simply looking for accurate information.

[Jud]

I agree completely with what you said. I like to think I have an open mind, but I'm not naïve. I realize there is a lot of BS floating around, and am cautious with my spending. So how to sort out truth from "other"? For me, I rely on what I personally believe to be true (my litmus test). If someone fails this test, I am skeptical of everything else they say. But there are varying degrees to the test. For instance, if some claims cable directionality...that is truly the coup-de-grace for me.

 

It's not personal. I don't know these people. I'll give them opportunities to prove themselves correct in other areas. I'm simply looking for accurate information.

 

Sounds fair. I think most of us do more or less the same thing out of "self-defense" (we've only got so much budget and there are lots of products out there).

 

Edit: I just wanted to add something regarding the balance between having an open mind and naivete - I try not to dismiss out of hand that which I personally am skeptical of or even what I believe to be untrue. After all, that provides learning opportunities, in audio and the rest of life. But if it involves spending a significant amount of money, you can bet I'll research thoroughly.

[alfe]

I agree completely with what you said. I like to think I have an open mind, but I'm not naïve. I realize there is a lot of BS floating around, and am cautious with my spending. So how to sort out truth from "other"? For me, I rely on what I personally believe to be true (my litmus test). If someone fails this test, I am skeptical of everything else they say. But there are varying degrees to the test. For instance, if some claims cable directionality...that is truly the coup-de-grace for me.

 

It's not personal. I don't know these people. I'll give them opportunities to prove themselves correct in other areas. I'm simply looking for accurate information.

 

For snake oil and BS there is prior art called Dennis, so careful you may end up paying royalties if you continue in this direction:)

[esldude]

Eloise

You know exactly what I mean here. esldude will never accept ANY evidence, no matter what kind , unless he is able to measure the differences to his own satisfaction, and using his own methodology. Are you perhaps his twin sister separated from him at birth ? (grin)

Alex

 

You know when you type this it isn't true Alex. Yes, I want some evidence. It doesn't have to be measured by me or even using my own methodology. I do want some sort of evidence from some reasonably rational process. Getting two guys together and listening then stating their impressions doesn't fit my idea of being very much evidence. You on the other hand do consider it solid evidence.

[sbgk]

I agree completely with what you said. I like to think I have an open mind, but I'm not naïve. I realize there is a lot of BS floating around, and am cautious with my spending. So how to sort out truth from "other"? For me, I rely on what I personally believe to be true (my litmus test). If someone fails this test, I am skeptical of everything else they say. But there are varying degrees to the test. For instance, if some claims cable directionality...that is truly the coup-de-grace for me.

 

It's not personal. I don't know these people. I'll give them opportunities to prove themselves correct in other areas. I'm simply looking for accurate information.

 

It's important to have the writing on the cable going from source to component.

[esldude]

Actually, we have a case of two self styled experts. Dennis seems to feel that his opinion is the gold standard, and so does Alex.

 

It's like putting a pair of cats in a blender... (*sigh*)

 

-Paul

 

I don't consider myself an expert. I do want as rational as possible explanation because far too many in audio are not. And because a rational approach is more effective for good audio usually at less expense. Surely seems if every Tom, Dick and Harry are willing to post up their sighted listening impressions of highly improbably tweaks, I should at least be able to question it on more reasonable grounds. I don't have to be an expert for that. If then some other Tom, Dick and Harry hold themselves as "experienced" listeners with tales of what they hear, certainly seems I should be able to post my experiences of how people reach the same conclusions about something that isn't real. Again I don't need to be an expert for that.

[sandyk]

You know when you type this it isn't true Alex. Yes, I want some evidence. It doesn't have to be measured by me or even using my own methodology. I do want some sort of evidence from some reasonably rational process. Getting two guys together and listening then stating their impressions doesn't fit my idea of being very much evidence. You on the other hand do consider it solid evidence.

 

Here we go again. You know damn well ,that in addition to M.C. and others such as Roch, Teresa , and Silverlight (Geoff) from N.Y.C. there were a whole series of tests done with Marcin Ostapowicz from jPlay and John Kenny, in addition to a couple of Sydney E.E.s with one having wide Industry experience with DBX, Cochlear etc.

[kumakuma]

It's important to have the writing on the cable going from source to component.

 

Many cables even have arrows on them for dyslexic audiophiles.

[esldude]

It's important to have the writing on the cable going from source to component.

 

Unless the maker says otherwise. If you will use nothing except balanced cabling the decision has already been made for you. You don't have a choice.

[esldude]

Here we go again. You know damn well ,that in addition to M.C. and others such as Roch, Teresa , and Silverlight (Geoff) from N.Y.C. there were a whole series of tests done with Marcin Ostapowicz from jPlay and John Kenny.

 

The here we go again part is right. M.C.'s tests are shrouded in mystery. Knowing you I already know all the tests you are talking about were sighted listening (except for the mysterious M.C. blind tests which we know nothing about). Why you think repeating those one more time will finally convince me I don't know.

[esldude]

Eloise

What we do both agree on however, is the need to measure the analogue output from the DAC, even with USB cable comparisons. However, that's not so easy these days without using Digital Techniques. Even if we manage to do that, we need to know what we are looking for, and the differences are likely to be very small indeed and at very low levels, perhaps even at or below system noise level ?

Sonar experts such as Miska and Paul will attest that intelligible information can be heard well below the system noise floor.

Alex

 

It is as easy as ever to measure without using digital techniques. The reason digital has become most common is because of its repeatable accuracy beyond most of those non-digital techniques. If you know of things digital misses, that other methods don't, and think it effects sound nothing preventing that from being measured non-digitally.

[sandyk]

The here we go again part is right. M.C.'s tests are shrouded in mystery. Knowing you I already know all the tests you are talking about were sighted listening (except for the mysterious M.C. blind tests which we know nothing about). Why you think repeating those one more time will finally convince me I don't know.

 

The tests with Marcin and John Kenny were no more sighted than those with Silverlight or Peter St.

The file names did not reveal any details about the origin of the files they compared.

I have already made it clear that I believe that you will never accept any positive results from others in this area , just as you will never accept that RB CD is audibly inferior to well recorded 24/192 or double rate DSD.

[esldude]

The tests with Marcin and John Kenny were no more sighted than those with Silverlight or Peter St.

The file names did not reveal any details about the origin of the files they compared.

I have already made it clear that I believe that you will never accept any positive results from others in this area , just as you will never accept that RB CD is audibly inferior to well recorded 24/192 or double rate DSD.

 

So spill the beans, tell us the details and results of these unsighted tests. Why do you always try and hold back on that? Too many times you have implied non-sighted tests only to find they were in fact sighted. If a matter of protecting the identity of people, use fictional names or something.

[JohnSwenson]

On the vibration issue I have a fair amount of experience. It comes in two major categories: DVD players and electronics in general.

 

I have several posts here that go into detail on the DVD player issue so I'll just give a summary here. The optical head in DVD players (and blue ray) float in a magnetic field which is used to move the head in microscopic amounts to track the pits on the disk. This magnetic suspension has a resonant frequency in the low Hz range. The designers did not consider this to be a problem. But it turns out that that there exists strong seismic noise in this frequency range. We normally don't notice it because almost everything in our environment moves together with this noise.

 

Unfortunately the DVD suspension is quite sensitive to this noise. (the designers didn't realize that they had developed a very sensitive seismic noise detector). The result of this sensitivity is that the feedback loop keeping the head centered on the track has to work much harder than it should. The coils generating the magnetic fields need significant current to do their job, this causes a LOT of electrical noise on the power and ground system of the DVD player. If the DVD player is isolated from this seismic noise that power and ground noise goes way down. Note in no way am I talking about actual bit errors, I'm talking about power and ground noise that can get into other parts of the player and cause increased noise and distortion of audio signals.

 

Fortunately it is possible to isolate players from this seismic noise without spending a lot of money.

 

The next grouping is general electronics: all capacitors are microphonic to some degree, vibrations on the capacitors will cause voltage changes across them. Some capacitors are worse than others and some contain very strong resonances which radically increase this effect in certain frequency ranges. A good part of "high end" electronics design is learning how to choose capacitors to minimize these effects. Certain capacitor designs damp resonances which can help a lot with this. Unfortunately this damping tends o cost significantly more than designs without it. Another option is to use capacitors with resonances, but choose ones where they are significantly above the audio range so they have less impact.

 

One way to decrease the sensitivity to microphonics is to don't put capacitors in places where they cause the most harm! (this seems simple enough, but it's amazing how few people do this) In my own designs I spend a lot of effort on this, it can help a lot without having to go with expensive parts.

 

Inductors can also be fairly microphonic, that usually means the power transformer. The transformers on the market vary greatly as to their resonances, so one way to help designs is to choose ones with low mechanical resonances. Again unfortunately that is not done all that often.

 

So yes there are real mechanisms by which vibrations on the equipment can cause noise and distortions. Equipment varies radically on how sensitive it is to those vibrations.

 

That brings up the vibration control methods on the market. A lot of them change the spectrum without significantly decreasing the amount. That CAN help if your equipment is sensitive to a certain frequency range that the "control method" decreases, but there is no way to know that in advance it is purely trial and error.

 

The methods I have discussed work very well in almost all cases since they actually do isolate vibrations not just move the energy around.

 

Of course you can get lucky and wind up with gear that has low sensitivity to vibrations in the first place.

 

John S.

[JR4321]

On the vibration issue I have a fair amount of experience. It comes in two major categories: DVD players and electronics in general.

 

I have several posts here that go into detail on the DVD player issue so I'll just give a summary here. The optical head in DVD players (and blue ray) float in a magnetic field which is used to move the head in microscopic amounts to track the pits on the disk. This magnetic suspension has a resonant frequency in the low Hz range. The designers did not consider this to be a problem. But it turns out that that there exists strong seismic noise in this frequency range. We normally don't notice it because almost everything in our environment moves together with this noise.

 

Unfortunately the DVD suspension is quite sensitive to this noise. (the designers didn't realize that they had developed a very sensitive seismic noise detector). The result of this sensitivity is that the feedback loop keeping the head centered on the track has to work much harder than it should. The coils generating the magnetic fields need significant current to do their job, this causes a LOT of electrical noise on the power and ground system of the DVD player. If the DVD player is isolated from this seismic noise that power and ground noise goes way down. Note in no way am I talking about actual bit errors, I'm talking about power and ground noise that can get into other parts of the player and cause increased noise and distortion of audio signals.

 

Fortunately it is possible to isolate players from this seismic noise without spending a lot of money.

 

The next grouping is general electronics: all capacitors are microphonic to some degree, vibrations on the capacitors will cause voltage changes across them. Some capacitors are worse than others and some contain very strong resonances which radically increase this effect in certain frequency ranges. A good part of "high end" electronics design is learning how to choose capacitors to minimize these effects. Certain capacitor designs damp resonances which can help a lot with this. Unfortunately this damping tends o cost significantly more than designs without it. Another option is to use capacitors with resonances, but choose ones where they are significantly above the audio range so they have less impact.

 

One way to decrease the sensitivity to microphonics is to don't put capacitors in places where they cause the most harm! (this seems simple enough, but it's amazing how few people do this) In my own designs I spend a lot of effort on this, it can help a lot without having to go with expensive parts.

 

Inductors can also be fairly microphonic, that usually means the power transformer. The transformers on the market vary greatly as to their resonances, so one way to help designs is to choose ones with low mechanical resonances. Again unfortunately that is not done all that often.

 

So yes there are real mechanisms by which vibrations on the equipment can cause noise and distortions. Equipment varies radically on how sensitive it is to those vibrations.

 

That brings up the vibration control methods on the market. A lot of them change the spectrum without significantly decreasing the amount. That CAN help if your equipment is sensitive to a certain frequency range that the "control method" decreases, but there is no way to know that in advance it is purely trial and error.

 

The methods I have discussed work very well in almost all cases since they actually do isolate vibrations not just move the energy around.

 

Of course you can get lucky and wind up with gear that has low sensitivity to vibrations in the first place.

 

John S.

 

Fantastic. Thank you very much.

 

Here's my question, though. If you own a relatively well-designed amp (or other elec equip), where they took care with cap placement and selection, etc, wouldn't they design their hardware to insure optimal performance. If they felt it needed a bike tire placed under it, wouldn't they either state that in their owner's manual, or accomplish with a more elegant method?

[sandyk]

So spill the beans, tell us the details and results of these unsighted tests. Why do you always try and hold back on that? Too many times you have implied non-sighted tests only to find they were in fact sighted. If a matter of protecting the identity of people, use fictional names or something.

 

I no longer have copies of the series of email exchanges back then, as Windows email gets very sluggish and problematical once you have more than several thousand emails stored. This means that I regularly need to delete emails much more than a year old.

Feel free to ask Marcin from jPlay about those series of tests if you wish. Josef from jPlay even set the methodology, with things like rebooting the PC before doing further comparisons. John Kenny may also be able to shed some light if you ask him, aAlthough he may consider discussing this with you as big a waste of time as discussions with E.E. Frans De Gruitjer from The Netherlands who is very much like you in many ways , although we both shared the same kind of humour and taste in Music.

I will not be doing any more in finding those details if you are unwilling to help yourself, as I am utterly convinced that nothing will ever change your mind other than perhaps a direct demonstration.

[esldude]

I no longer have copies of the series of email exchanges back then, as Windows email gets very sluggish and problematical once you have more than several thousand emails stored. This means that I regularly need to delete emails much more than a year old.

Feel free to ask Marcin from jPlay about those series of tests if you wish. Josef from jPlay even set the methodology, with things like rebooting the PC before doing further comparisons. John Kenny may also be able to shed some light if you ask him, aAlthough he may consider discussing this with you as big a waste of time as discussions with E.E. Frans De Gruitjer from The Netherlands who is very much like you in many ways , although we both shared the same kind of humour and taste in Music.

I will not be doing any more in finding those details if you are unwilling to help yourself, as I am utterly convinced that nothing will ever change your mind other than perhaps a direct demonstration.

 

About what I expected Alex. So you don't have the details. I don't know some of the people in your list. Nor anything about which tests, which times, what they were about etc. etc. You don't help and it is up to me to go find out what happened to support your very radical claims. Gee thanks, but I have better things to do.

[Audio_ELF]

The tests with Marcin and John Kenny were no more sighted than those with Silverlight or Peter St.

The file names did not reveal any details about the origin of the files they compared.

I have already made it clear that I believe that you will never accept any positive results from others in this area , just as you will never accept that RB CD is audibly inferior to well recorded 24/192 or double rate DSD.

Alex... As I recall you ask the question "which of these files sound better?" (Or words to that effect).

 

That question invalidates and "blindness" as you have already put in the listeners mind that there IS a difference when what you are trying to show is that there CAN be a difference in files which to the level that a computer normally works in are identical.

 

PS I'm not trying to open the discussion over your findings, just explaining why I personally find your test unconvincing.

[sandyk]

Gee thanks, but I have better things to do.

And I have far better things to do than try and find details of tests that were done via email several years ago, and most likely using my previous XP/W7 machine, for the benefit of perhaps the most highly sceptical member of the whole forum, when there is a snow flake's chance in hell of you ever modifying your stance on this subject and others, even 5/8 of SFA.

[mmerrill99]

Thanks John S - very informative, as usual

 

There's one other vibrational issue that I have seen mentioned in respect of digital audio - the audio clock itself. At the heart of such audio clocks is a crystal oscillator which is suspended on mountings. External (or internal) vibrations can find their way through these mounting to the crystal itself vibrating it causing spurious frequencies spurs. SC-cut crystals are designed to minimize the frequency effect of mounting stress and they are therefore less sensitive to vibration hence why SC-cut crystals are considered the premium choice for audio.

 

[mmerrill99]

Fantastic. Thank you very much.

 

Here's my question, though. If you own a relatively well-designed amp (or other elec equip), where they took care with cap placement and selection, etc, wouldn't they design their hardware to insure optimal performance. If they felt it needed a bike tire placed under it, wouldn't they either state that in their owner's manual, or accomplish with a more elegant method?

 

There are so many if, ands & buts in any answer to this question

IF the amp is designed by an EE who doesn't believe in vibrations (& there are many who don't) would your expectations be met?

AND even if it was designed by a knowledgeable EE who was aware of vibrations, do you think the accountants/business partners would allow the time & expense needed to investigate components with low vibrational sensitivity?

[sandyk]

Alex... As I recall you ask the question "which of these files sound better?" (Or words to that effect).

 

That question invalidates and "blindness" as you have already put in the listeners mind that there IS a difference when what you are trying to show is that there CAN be a difference in files which to the level that a computer normally works in are identical.

 

So what ? Either there is an audible difference or there isn't. Simples !

I say that sometimes so that hard line sceptics like yourself won't open them first in a binary editing program and jump to a conclusion without even listening to them. Yes, that has happened on quite a few occasions, even with our Admin.

Are you so blinded by incomplete science , that you are unable to listen to sets of .wav files, without being aware of which file is which due to their naming , while playing them randomly, then noting any differences that you perceive ?