Expectation Bias

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Who's ignoring what we do know?    ... The word here is "inertia" 

 

Science, Frank. Don't ignore science. Ignoring facts that don't fit your opinion is the worst kind of inertia.  

 

 

[John Dyson]

On 9/19/2022 at 9:47 PM, fas42 said:

 

Use the system, with a variety of albums, CDs - until you find a track that has an edgy, uncomfortable, irritating quality about it. Listen to it enough to get a good handle on how it sounds - and then reseat the specific connection and play the track again; best if you can do it while the music keeps playing. If there is any change to the SQ, in any manner, whether for better or worse, then you have located a weakness. Typically, the rough edge to the music will be sweetened to some degree; if there are many poor connections, then the improvement may be very subtle, because all the sub-par contacts need to fixed, for the full benefit to be heard.

If I hear an edgy, uncomfortable, irritating quality about my own playback, it is usually the FA decoder...   HW is often the least of my worries :-).

 

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Science, Frank. Don't ignore science. Ignoring facts that don't fit your opinion is the worst kind of inertia.  

 

 

 

Ah, a smart move ... dropping in a picture of a scientist who said in so many words, "SpaceX can be ignored - they'll never be able to land a rocket like in the comics!" ... to paraphrase, when an expert in a field says something can't be done, then he can be safely disregarded ...  .

[fas42]

When people say, "You're arguing against science!", what they really mean is, "You're arguing against my current belief system!" ...

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, a smart move ... dropping in a picture of a scientist who said in so many words, "SpaceX can be ignored - they'll never be able to land a rocket like in the comics!" ... to paraphrase, when an expert in a field says something can't be done, then he can be safely disregarded ...  .

 

Magic is where it's at, right Frank? So I should ignore a scientist and listen to you, instead? ;)

 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

When people say, "You're arguing against science!", what they really mean is, "You're arguing against my current belief system!" ...

 

Right. Science is a belief system. And audio is based on magic. I got it, Frank. No need to go any further.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Right. Science is a belief system. And audio is based on magic. I got it, Frank. No need to go any further.

 

This is an interesting post, titled, “Is Science is a Belief System, Yes it is.”

 

 

https://medium.com/@ngxinzhao/is-science-a-belief-system-yes-it-is-f239f7e4861

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is an interesting post, titled, “Is Science is a Belief System, Yes it is.”

 

 

https://medium.com/@ngxinzhao/is-science-a-belief-system-yes-it-is-f239f7e4861

 

Clearly the author is confused. Science never requires blind faith. And how science is taught in schools is sadly not representative of real Science.

[botrytis]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is an interesting post, titled, “Is Science is a Belief System, Yes it is.”

 

 

https://medium.com/@ngxinzhao/is-science-a-belief-system-yes-it-is-f239f7e4861

 

As a card-carrying and practicing scientist, it is not. I was raised RC, in a Polish church around Chicago, there is a

huge difference.

 

Belief - example - Frank - everything he does is by a hope and a prayer. That is belief. There are no laws of physics that can be used in the way Frank says he does. 

 

Logic - @The Computer Audiophileand others on this forum. I think most are guided by 'Trust but Verify' type. A combination approach, I base many of ideas I have been working on, I can put a new idea based on past knowledge and the inventiveness to help put forth a new idea. Hence, what I am working on now.

 

I science, the reason a paper is published because it is new, it advances the field, and this is where the verify comes in, peer review and even people trying to reproduce your experiment. That means exact instructions, in a condensed form. That is the verify part.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, botrytis said:

 

As a card-carrying and practicing scientist, it is not. I was raised RC, in a Polish church around Chicago, there is a

huge difference.

 

Belief - example - Frank - everything he does is by a hope and a prayer. That is belief.

 

Logic - @The Computer Audiophileand others on this forum. I think most are guided by 'Trust but Verify' type. A combination approach, I base many of ideas I have been working on, I can put a new idea based on past knowledge and the inventiveness to help put forth a new idea. Hence, what I am working on now.

 

I science, the reason a paper is published because it is new, it advances the field, and this is where the verify comes in, peer review and even people trying to reproduce your experiment. That means exact instructions, in a condensed form. That is the verify part.

I think the article is interesting though. 
 

One thing I’m not exposed to much, if any, is creativity in science / scientific approaches.  I know it has to be there, but I just never see it discussed. I wish it was. 

[AudioDoctor]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think the article is interesting though. 
 

One thing I’m not exposed to much, if any, is creativity in science / scientific approaches.  I know it has to be there, but I just never see it discussed. I wish it was. 

 

I think real science is pretty boring, and then all of a sudden someone see's something weird in the data and says, huh, that's odd...

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

I think real science is pretty boring, and then all of a sudden someone see's something weird in the data and says, huh, that's odd...

 

I find it quite fun and fast paced, especially in start-ups. Sometimes A + B doesn't equal C, it could be M. Faith would say 'A + B = A miracle occurs here = M'.

 

Science would say 'A + B = A does X process + 1-2 more = M'.

 

Just different ways to think about it.

 

I am trying not to be too philosophical about it.

[fas42]

32 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Belief - example - Frank - everything he does is by a hope and a prayer. That is belief. There are no laws of physics that can be used in the way Frank says he does. 

 

 

It doesn't seem many are reading the post ...

 

Quote

 

In general there are three ways for believing in something:

1. We believe what we are told. This includes textbooks, scientific papers, religious books, what our parents told us, traditions, rumors, stuffs you read online, things which are revealed to us by a special person. This special person can be scientists, authority figures, religious leaders, etc. To sum it up, I would use this as believe based on authority. Typically, the atheists use this basis for believe as blind faith when the authority figure in question is a religious leader or book.
2. We believe based on logical reasonings. This includes mathematical proof, starting from axioms, because what you heard agrees with your previous views, because of clever arguments by lawyers or internet debaters like this article, because of combinations of different physical laws, we can derive special relativity from the two postulates. To sum it up, I would use this as believe based on logic.
3. Last one is believe based on experience. This includes empirical evidences, experiments, personal experiences which doesn’t necessarily need scientifically verified repeated testings eg. I know I love her, I know I am feeling sad now. Also meditation experiences, but only for that person. To sum it up, I would use this as believe based on evidence. I also use the synonym of knowing for this level of believe.

 

 

I've got to my current position from number 3. above. All the screaming, say in the ASR forum, that what I believe can't be true counts for nought - it's a level of belief that I would call, as above, "knowing".

 

The silliness of the arguments, here, is encapsulated in saying that somehow I'm "breaking the Laws of Physics!" - twaddle of the first order, . We're talking about, yes, conjuring up an illusion - persuading the mind to accept a 'mirage' - which can done numerous ways. Refining, and varying the method used to do this is just a mechanical process, and one gets better at it, the more you know, understand what's going on.

 

[fas42]

26 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

I think real science is pretty boring, and then all of a sudden someone see's something weird in the data and says, huh, that's odd...

 

Yes, like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal, which to date has not been satisfactorily explained.

[pkane2001]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It doesn't seem many are reading the post ...

 

 

I've got to my current position from number 3. above. All the screaming, say in the ASR forum, that what I believe can't be true counts for nought - it's a level of belief that I would call, as above, "knowing".

 

The silliness of the arguments, here, is encapsulated in saying that somehow I'm "breaking the Laws of Physics!" - twaddle of the first order, . We're talking about, yes, conjuring up an illusion - persuading the mind to accept a 'mirage' - which can done numerous ways. Refining, and varying the method used to do this is just a mechanical process, and one gets better at it, the more you know, understand what's going on.

 

 

Rrright... breaking laws of Physics is a silly argument. I can see X-rays and molecules with my unaided eyes. I can hear frequencies well into the GHz range and noise down to -300dB. Prove me wrong.

[AudioDoctor]

45 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

I find it quite fun and fast paced, especially in start-ups. Sometimes A + B doesn't equal C, it could be M. Faith would say 'A + B = A miracle occurs here = M'.

 

Science would say 'A + B = A does X process + 1-2 more = M'.

 

Just different ways to think about it.

 

I am trying not to be too philosophical about it.

 

I was thinking about my answer after I hit submit, and I think you're right in that scientists find it exciting because they understand what they're doing. To a Layman it can look boring because they don't understand it.

For example, anyone watching the woman develop the math that allowed us to see the blackhole for the first time would have been bored to death while someone involved in that, or close to it and able to understand what was going on would have found that process exciting.

 

Does that make sense?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Rrright... breaking laws of Physics is a silly argument. I can see X-rays and molecules with my unaided eyes. I can hear frequencies well into the GHz range and noise down to -300dB. Prove me wrong.

 

So, what's that got to do with audio ... if a playback system can run at realistic volume levels, and do it well enough that someone listening through a curtain can't pick it, what terrible sin has been committed?

[pkane2001]

47 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, what's that got to do with audio ... if a playback system can run at realistic volume levels, and do it well enough that someone listening through a curtain can't pick it, what terrible sin has been committed?

 

Magic is all in your head, Frank. 

 

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Magic is all in your head, Frank. 

 

 

The mental block in your head appears to be that sound replay can't be engineered to be subjectively convincing - why that should be so, I have no idea ...

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The mental block in your head appears to be that sound replay can't be engineered to be subjectively convincing - why that should be so, I have no idea ...

 

I've engineered my subjectively convincing sound replay, so I know it can be done, and I know how. You, on the other hand, want to convince me and others that you must use magic. Magic went out at least 3-4 centuries ago as an approach to making anything, but you continue to stick to it. Good luck pulling rabbits out of a hat -- you  do know that's all just a trick, right? ;) 

 

[fas42]

47 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I've engineered my subjectively convincing sound replay, so I know it can be done, and I know how. You, on the other hand, want to convince me and others that you must use magic. Magic went out at least 3-4 centuries ago as an approach to making anything, but you continue to stick to it. Good luck pulling rabbits out of a hat -- you  do know that's all just a trick, right? ;) 

 

 

You do know "there's more than one way to skin a cat", right ? But to you, "magic" is anything that doesn't follow your path - I, OTOH, make no such claims ... there are people out there who are getting very good results, without jumping through my hoops ...

 

My interest is in understanding what stops a particular rig getting good results - hence the term, "debugging". If troubleshooting a misbehaving system, like a piece of software, strikes you as claiming that magic is being performed, then so be it.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

My interest is in understanding what stops a particular rig getting good results - hence the term, "debugging". If troubleshooting a misbehaving system, like a piece of software, strikes you as claiming that magic is being performed, then so be it.

 

The debate about science is completly off topic here, as you rightly point out. 

 

Your approach, however, may be limited by a number of factors:

- your technical abilities

- the equipment you use (i.e. powered speakers with digital inputs allow for very limited tweaking)

 

You may also be "re-inventing the wheel" at times. But it is certainly fun to tweak.

 

[botrytis]

Is this Frank?

 

[DuckToller]

Frankly,

YES!

[botrytis]

6 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

The debate about science is completly off topic here, as you rightly point out. 

 

Your approach, however, may be limited by a number of factors:

- your technical abilities

- the equipment you use (i.e. powered speakers with digital inputs allow for very limited tweaking)

 

You may also be "re-inventing the wheel" at times. But it is certainly fun to tweak.

 

 

There is a difference between tweaking and delusions. Many of Frank's tweaks are just that.