Objectivity is based on subjective experience

[Rexp]

7 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Please pick a topic in audio you thin is wrong and present your case.

Scientists haven't come up with a way of measuring the distortion (I hear) baked into poor digital recordings so to them it doesn't exist. 

[AnotherSpin]

6 hours ago, March Audio said:

 

[...]

 

So if you have doubts about a scientific conclusion then you can challenge it and provide you own evidence to disprove the conclusion.

 

[...]

 

In a perfect world, maybe. In the real world, wrong scientific conclusions have not been challenged for centuries, or have been challenged by the few who have lost their jobs, or even their lives, as a result. Read history books.

[semente]

7 hours ago, March Audio said:

Observation and revision are very much part of science and the scientific method.

 

Except in this case the observation was not controlled.

 

Had it happen with audiophiles it would have gone through a double-blind test and then deemed illusion. Beause double-blind comparisons are blunt instruments, unlike the paraphernalia of tests at the disposal of the neurology department.

[AnotherSpin]

33 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Except in this case the observation was not controlled.

 

Had it happen with audiophiles it would have gone through a double-blind test and then deemed illusion. Beause double-blind comparisons are blunt instruments, unlike the paraphernalia of tests at the disposal of the neurology department.

 

Also, if only observation and revision could explain to us why we tend to listen to music. Or rather, we could get an explanation, but would we be willing to accept the validity of such an explanation?

[semente]

17 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Also, if only observation and revision could explain to us why we tend to listen to music. Or rather, we could get an explanation, but would we be willing to accept the validity of such an explanation?

 

I don't know if that was where the discussion was coming from but I was referring to critical listening only (listening to assess playback performance).

E.g. you replaced the SMPS which came with your DAC and you hear a difference/improvement in certain aspects of the reproduction.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

I don't know if that was where the discussion was coming from but I was referring to critical listening only (listening to assess playback performance).

E.g. you replaced the SMPS which came with your DAC and you hear a difference/improvement in certain aspects of the reproduction.

 

Yes, that's exactly what happened every time I've been improving the power supply chain. Earlier, not any more -- at some point, I suddenly realized clearly that I was hearing a difference/improvement for the first week or two only. And then I don't hear a difference anymore, everything sounds "as before". Human perception knows how to adjust. 

[semente]

1 hour ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Yes, that's exactly what happened every time I've been improving the power supply chain. Earlier, not any more -- at some point, I suddenly realized clearly that I was hearing a difference/improvement for the first week or two only. And then I don't hear a difference anymore, everything sounds "as before". Human perception knows how to adjust. 

Did you try going back to the original PS after a couple of weeks? That sometimes makes the difference (more) obvious.

[pkane2001]

9 hours ago, Rexp said:

Which leads to scientists being wrong on many things including audio. 

[pkane2001]

6 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

In a perfect world, maybe. In the real world, wrong scientific conclusions have not been challenged for centuries, or have been challenged by the few who have lost their jobs, or even their lives, as a result. Read history books.

 

Science is the ONLY approach known to man for systematically studying the real world that has a proven track record of getting things right. Not because scientists are always right, but because the system itself, the scientific process, is set up to self-correct. You don't need to read history books to understand this. Look at everything around you, from computers to space flight to cars to radio, medicine and to audio systems. These and billions of other things are all the result of scientific successes, not failures.

 

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

Yes, that's exactly what happened every time I've been improving the power supply chain. Earlier, not any more -- at some point, I suddenly realized clearly that I was hearing a difference/improvement for the first week or two only. And then I don't hear a difference anymore, everything sounds "as before". Human perception knows how to adjust. 

 

It's the other way around, human perception knows how to find differences when you're looking for them. Even if they are not really there. That's why new components in the system always make a big difference: you're trying to find them! When the initial excitement passes and you're no longer trying to hear every possible change brought on by the new piece of equipment, you stop hearing these "huge" differences.

 

It's really simple to prove it to yourself, and I've done it a number of times by accidentally forgetting to swap in the new equipment and still hearing all the new amazing, not-subtle differences... while still using the old component without realizing it.

[March Audio]

6 hours ago, semente said:

 

Except in this case the observation was not controlled.

 

Had it happen with audiophiles it would have gone through a double-blind test and then deemed illusion. Beause double-blind comparisons are blunt instruments, unlike the paraphernalia of tests at the disposal of the neurology department.

Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about or it's relevance.

[March Audio]

5 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Also, if only observation and revision could explain to us why we tend to listen to music. Or rather, we could get an explanation, but would we be willing to accept the validity of such an explanation?

Again I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about or it relevance.

[March Audio]

7 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

I have nothing against science. I just don't think the scientific opinion is any different from or better than ordinary bias. Intellect is wonderful instrument to approach practical everyday tasks, but it is no use for the really important questions, such as what is love, or how to make an omelette.

Then with respect you don't understand the scientific process.

 

It is *not* opinion.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[March Audio]

7 hours ago, Rexp said:

Scientists haven't come up with a way of measuring the distortion (I hear) baked into poor digital recordings so to them it doesn't exist. 

Actually they have.

 

Ever considered that perhaps it doesn't exist? 😉

 

I don't know how many times I have tested audiophiles who couldn't hear the things they claimed they could the moment they couldnt see or know what kit was playing.

[March Audio]

7 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

In a perfect world, maybe. In the real world, wrong scientific conclusions have not been challenged for centuries, or have been challenged by the few who have lost their jobs, or even their lives, as a result. Read history books.

Again this is just nebulous generalisation.

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Science is the ONLY approach known to man for systematically studying the real world that has a proven track record of getting things right. Not because scientists are always right, but because the system itself, the scientific process, is set up to self-correct. You don't need to read history books to understand this. Look at everything around you, from computers to space flight to cars to radio, medicine and to audio systems. These and billions of other things are all the result of scientific successes, not failures.

 

Precisely.  There appears by some here to be a misunderstanding of the scientific method.

 

As you say practically everything around us is touched by science and it obviously works.

 

I find it very concerning that there is a section of society that denies science, or believes that their own opinion outweighs it.

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It's the other way around, human perception knows how to find differences when you're looking for them. Even if they are not really there. That's why new components in the system always make a big difference: you're trying to find them! When the initial excitement passes and you're no longer trying to hear every possible change brought on by the new piece of equipment, you stop hearing these "huge" differences.

 

It's really simple to prove it to yourself, and I've done it a number of times by accidentally forgetting to swap in the new equipment and still hearing all the new amazing, not-subtle differences... while still using the old component without realizing it.

Indeed.  Not to mention the obvious lack of scientific rigour in the example.

 

The subject spent money and "improved" the power supply. Therefore they expected or at least hoped for an audible improvement.  Of course they got one!

 

It's science 101.  The most basic of errors 

 

Then of course they get all huffy because you have suggested they imagined it.

 

Which is obviously not the case, it's just the basics of human psychology and why when being scientific you put controls in place to avoid such biases.

[AnotherSpin]

3 hours ago, semente said:

Did you try going back to the original PS after a couple of weeks? That sometimes makes the difference (more) obvious.

 

This is what is happening now. After I sold the expensive Paul Hynes LPSU I use the original PSU in the computer. Music is still a music.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Science is the ONLY approach known to man for systematically studying the real world that has a proven track record of getting things right. Not because scientists are always right, but because the system itself, the scientific process, is set up to self-correct. You don't need to read history books to understand this. Look at everything around you, from computers to space flight to cars to radio, medicine and to audio systems. These and billions of other things are all the result of scientific successes, not failures.

 

 

Really? It seems to me that science has nothing to do with reality. As to whether things get right over time, I suggest you get off the computer and look around. But, I don't mind at all if you have a different point of view. So be it. 

[March Audio]

12 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Really? It seems to me that science has nothing to do with reality. As to whether things get right over time, I suggest you get off the computer and look around. But, I don't mind at all if you have a different point of view. So be it. 

I really don't know how to respond to that ludicrous assertion.

 

However I will get of the computer (scientifically developed) and wonder if it's really there!? 🤪

[MarkusBarkus]

IMO what some folks get confused over is the debate, among scientists, over the interpretation of findings/data, which happens regularly (including in our house). 

It's possible to misinterpret data, and to over-interpret data. 
 

The idea that scientists debate findings doesn't invalidate the findings or the scientific method. That is (part of) the scientific method. 
 

And TV pundits and politicians are not helpful here. If I hear/read: "follow the science" one more time...

[AnotherSpin]

7 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I really don't know how to respond to that assertion.

 

How did people live before the emergence of something called modern science? And not only did they live, but they discovered fundamental truths whose value has not changed over time.

[March Audio]

4 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

How did people live before the emergence of something called modern science? And not only did they live, but they discovered fundamental truths whose value has not changed over time.

Well actually they often died. Suffered,  had short life expectancy, feared or revered things that didn't exist.................shall I go on?

 

Would you prefer to go back to living in a cave?

 

Beyond this I'm not sure what point you are trying to make or it's relevance to audio reproduction.

 

[Racerxnet]

16 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

And TV pundits and politicians are not helpful here. If I hear/read: "follow the science" one more time...

The politicization of science is leverage against the gullible in life. There is one born every minute. 

[Racerxnet]

6 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Well actually they often died. Suffered,  had short life expectancy, feared or revered things that didn't exist.................shall I go on?

Of course the earth is still flat! HOW DARE YOU... As Greta would say.