Ethan Winer Null Test For WIre

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Let's cut to the chase:

 

"even a computer that's not "optimized" for audio with ostensibly "noisy" hardware does not actually deteriorate measured playback quality nor actually worsen the noise floor much at all even when put under a very intense processing load. "

 

And there's our answer. Because the perceived degradation doesn't fall in the areas that we measure, nor fit in an accepted category of anomaly, it doesn't exist! ... Ain't science grand - it compartmentalises our existence; every year it explains absolutely everything, until next year when it explains even more of "absolutely eberything" - ad infinitum ...

[kumakuma]

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Ain't science grand - it compartmentalises our existence; every year it explains absolutely everything, until next year when it explains even more of "absolutely eberything" - ad infinitum ...

 

Science may not be perfect but it's better than the alternative...

[Ralf11]

Over time, the scientific method has moved us closer to an understanding of objective reality.

 

I'm sure that is not what Frank was trying to say, which likely adds to its veracity.

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Over time, the scientific method has moved us closer to an understanding of objective reality.

 

For audio ? Not really that I notice.

[Ralf11]

Really?  We did not have recorded music at all; then shellac; 45s; LPs; wire recorders; tape; optical...

 

 

[fas42]

Along the lines of "how far have we progressed, really?", a current high end system using German cinema speakers that are about 60 years old produces sound which meets most of the criteria for competence - superb soundstage, essentially invisible in operation, full dynamics, ...

[PeterSt]

23 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Really?  We did not have recorded music at all; then shellac; 45s; LPs; wire recorders; tape; optical...

 

Ah, so that emerged by "scientific method". OK, I didn't realize you were hinting at that.

So if I start using a lower noise power supply (say because of some new chips on the block), this is developed by scientific method ?

 

Nah ...

 

It would be when I would be able to objectively measure the result on audio, for this new power supply. And *that* I sadly can't. I can measure the output noise / ripple etc. of the power supply though. Thus scientific after all ?

[PeterSt]

PS: I know this is gray area, but I do see how my own audio (and products if I may say so) improve vastly over time (and faster and faster), but the only science I see in it is my self-reasoning.

If we'll admit that this is science indeed, then OK.

 

haha

[Ralf11]

no, self-reasoning is not science

 

technological advancement rests on science; tho science also relies on technological advancement to extend its reach

[acg]

There is science, and there is applied science...they are two different things...one is best operated at arms-length and the other involves actually doing something with the knowledge.  In my life experience, generally speaking, those that are good at one are crap at the other...go figure.

 

 

[Ralf11]

I've done both, so keep figuring.

[esldude]

40 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I've done both, so keep figuring.

But were you good at either? ?

 

In my experience you have all kinds.  Sometimes it seems in my limited experience to work best when a theoretical scientist works with an experimental scientist.  But hey take it with a grain of salt.  I'm not a scientist and didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.  

[Ralf11]

people say both

 

but theoretical vs. experimental is a different gradient than pure vs. applied