Expectation Bias

[bodiebill]

Science is overrated. The scientists among us are actually the ones most prone to expectation bias. It starts with humans not understanding the complexity of reality. Next they start simplifying, reducing reality to a few parameters, putting things in boxes. Then they start describing and experiencing reality as seen from these boxes. The result is that they are missing out on most of what reality has to offer. Some people's intuition senses reality more accurately than most people's ratio. Sorry if this sounds like I had a glass of Condrieu -- because I had.

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

Science is overrated. The scientists among us are actually the ones most prone to expectation bias. It starts with humans not understanding the complexity of reality. Next they start simplifying, reducing reality to a few parameters, putting things in boxes. Then they start describing and experiencing reality as seen from these boxes. The result is that they are missing out on most of what reality has to offer. Some people's intuition senses reality more accurately than most people's ratio. Sorry if this sounds like I had a glass of Condrieu -- because I had.

 

Science is overrated? Really? Everything we talk about on this forum comes from science. All your medicines, etc. Your new cars, etc.

 

Why not just go back to the stone age if you don't want science?

 

 

[bodiebill]

8 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Science is overrated? Really? Everything we talk about on this forum comes from science. All your medicines, etc. Your new cars, etc.

 

Why not just go back to the stone age if you don't want science?

 

Science is needed and very valuable, but overrated by audiophiles. Put a rocket on the moon and I am convinced. But for most audiophiles it is just reducing cognitive dissonance.

[botrytis]

26 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

 

Science is needed and very valuable, but overrated by audiophiles. Put a rocket on the moon and I am convinced. But for most audiophiles it is just reducing cognitive dissonance.

 

It is not. Audio is controlled by science laws, if you don't think so then why are people treating their rooms, etc. because science says where and how to treat the room. Believing false or mis-informed ideas is audio IS the dissonance, not the other way around. 

[bodiebill]

10 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

It is not. Audio is controlled by science laws, if you don't think so then why are people treating their rooms, etc. because science says where and how to treat the room. Believing false or mis-informed ideas is audio IS the dissonance, not the other way around. 

 

That is my point. As we understand so little, it is inevitable that effective room treatment is mostly empirical, i.e. relies on fine-tuning using our ears.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ask three acousticians how to treat a room. You’ll get nine answers. 
 

I’m a fan of creativity. Use scientific principles, but be more creative in the application of them. Don’t let the science guide everything. That’s just me. 

[bodiebill]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Ask three acousticians how to treat a room. You’ll get nine answers. 
 

I’m a fan of creativity. Use scientific principles, but be more creative in the application of them. Don’t let the science guide everything. That’s just me. 

 

Chris, you are a perfect moderator!

[botrytis]

33 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Ask three acousticians how to treat a room. You’ll get nine answers. 
 

I’m a fan of creativity. Use scientific principles, but be more creative in the application of them. Don’t let the science guide everything. That’s just me. 

 

Not disagreeing. If one type was perfect, we wouldn't have all the choices we do.

 

Until an accurate 3D model can be done, without any negative reactions, well choices happen. It is like speaker design and, look at the different DSP powered speakers and how they approach it. It is based on the philosophy of the company, same with room treatments currently. It happens, the designers all do follow the laws of physics some just bias to some laws over others. We don't have the ability to do them all.

 

Look at RNA vaccines. Scientists have been working on them for over 25 years, and some experimental ones, tested, were quite effective. It wasn't until multiplex sequencing and other tech (like faster computers became cheaper) made it more reasonable to do. Before, it was too expensive. Just saying...

 

When I started in Science, Molecular Biology was in its infancy (1990 for Grad School), look at it now. Things advance.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

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.

 

 

I'm not worried about technical abilities - these days, energy and motivation are more the issue; as in, do I really want to go through all the steps to fix something in the best possible way? People can approach 'knowledge' in a number of ways: go out and learn, learn, learn everything in sight, be up to their eyeballs in certificates, and degrees; or, wait til something comes along where they need the understanding, and so then, and only then, do the reading, etc, to acquire the skills needed to achieve a good result- the latter is where I fall .

 

All audio equipment benefits from tweaking - you only have to read accounts of mega expensive rigs improving beyond their raw state, from efforts made; and at the bottom of the pile, anything cheap has so many shortcuts in it that there are a heap of things that can be done. The powered speakers are no exception; like all setups, noise and interference are major problems, and currently working on getting an optimum solution to improving the optical waveform characteristics - 'jitter reduction', is the bottleneck, right now.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, bodiebill said:

 

That is my point. As we understand so little, it is inevitable that effective room treatment is mostly empirical, i.e. relies on fine-tuning using our ears.

 

The room treatment thing is required, because the accuracy of the playback is sub-par. And anything you do to reduce the obviousness of reproduction anomalies will help, because the mind has to work less hard to hear what matters, the music. A fully capable replay chain doesn't require such crutches, because the integrity of the presentation is then good enough for the mind to 'see' the illusion without the extra assistance of an 'optimised' room.

 

The above is fundamental. Anyone who doesn't 'know' this will always have to work so much harder to achieve satisfying playback. Of course, the audio game is so obsessed with "dealing with the room!" that it doesn't put the necessary energy into something far more effective - understanding how to improve the integrity of the reproduction chain.

[Racerxnet]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

like all setups, noise and interference are major problems, and currently working on getting an optimum solution to improving the optical waveform characteristics - 'jitter reduction', is the bottleneck, right now.

Maybe start by replacing the low end CD player you use to reduce the jitter to the setup. Investigate known players with low jitter as a start, and then purchase one. Problem solved with the source. If you want to go to computer use to the Alpha USB converter to the Edifiers via coax. It has known values for jitter reduction and well documented. 

 

"Two key factors combine to achieve the excellent audio performance of the Alpha USB; the unprecedented degree of electrical isolation between the USB input connection and the digital audio output and the very low noise/low jitter performance of the individually tested audio output master clocks".

 

 

[Racerxnet]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The room treatment thing is required, because the accuracy of the playback is sub-par. And anything you do to reduce the obviousness of reproduction anomalies will help, because the mind has to work less hard to hear what matters, the music. A fully capable replay chain doesn't require such crutches, because the integrity of the presentation is then good enough for the mind to 'see' the illusion without the extra assistance of an 'optimised' room.

Frank, You have neither of the attributes you mention. 

[fas42]

Just now, Racerxnet said:

Maybe start by replacing the low end CD player you use to reduce the jitter to the setup. Investigate known players with low jitter as a start, and then purchase one. Problem solved with the source. If you want to go to computer use to the Alpha USB converter to the Edifiers via coax. It has known values for jitter reduction and well documented. 

 

"Two key factors combine to achieve the excellent audio performance of the Alpha USB; the unprecedented degree of electrical isolation between the USB input connection and the digital audio output and the very low noise/low jitter performance of the individually tested audio output master clocks".

 

 

 

Yes, that would be the normal approach. But if you read at the end of my Edifying thread you will see that my intention is to create a "universal" solution - that is, switching of inputs, and anything that can source a digital stream will be fed in, conditioned, and then be of the right characteristics for the speakers to give a good account of the track.

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Frank, You have neither of the attributes you mention. 

 

Don't follow ...

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, that would be the normal approach. But if you read at the end of my Edifying thread you will see that my intention is to create a "universal" solution - that is, switching of inputs, and anything that can source a digital stream will be fed in, conditioned, and then be of the right characteristics for the speakers to give a good account of the track.

No such thing. You might as well say you are using The Holy Grail. Same fake idea.

[Racerxnet]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Don't follow ...

Trust me, I don't follow a word you say. Maybe get rid of the crap CD player as a start. Then again, 300ps of jitter is no problem for your solution. We just need to see the measured results to confirm it works. All based on subjective science of course. 😁

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, botrytis said:

No such thing. You might as well say you are using The Holy Grail. Same fake idea.

 

For somebody who claims to be on the side of science, you seem not to realise how silly what you just said is ... if you have a variety of CD players, as input to some system, one of which has the worst possible jitter characteristics you could imagine, and another one, is effectively perfect in this regard, and the others are in between - the goal would be to eliminate any audible differences, irrespective of which player was used. And to you, that is a "fake idea", .

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Trust me, I don't follow a word you say. Maybe get rid of the crap CD player as a start. Then again, 300ps of jitter is no problem for your solution. We just need to see the measured results to confirm it works. All based on subjective science of course. 😁

 

We have different goals. You just want something that works, that also measures well. I want to understand what makes a system work well, and how to do that in the most cost effective way.

[Racerxnet]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

For somebody who claims to be on the side of science, you seem not to realise how silly what you just said is ... if you have a variety of CD players, as input to some system, one of which has the worst possible jitter characteristics you could imagine, and another one, is effectively perfect in this regard, and the others are in between - the goal would be to eliminate any audible differences, irrespective of player was used. And to you, that is a "fake idea", .

Until yours materializes, it's a idea. 

[kumakuma]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

For somebody who claims to be on the side of science, you seem not to realise how silly what you just said is ... if you have a variety of CD players, as input to some system, one of which has the worst possible jitter characteristics you could imagine, and another one, is effectively perfect in this regard, and the others are in between - the goal would be to eliminate any audible differences, irrespective of which player was used. And to you, that is a "fake idea", .

 

After you finish your CD player project, I've got some 8-track, Betamax, and MS-DOS projects for you to work on... 

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Until yours materializes, it's a idea. 

 

As mentioned in my thread, it will be based on the Genesis Digital Lens product concept. Something which is now incorporated in PS Audio DAC products, and some other manufacturers have their versions. Like all these sorts of methods, implementation is everything. Get it slightly wrong, and the SQ could get worse!

 

Not trivial to do, and requires some time and focus to make happen at a good cost. So, won't be overnight ... .

[fas42]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

After you finish your CD player project, I've got some 8-track, Betamax, and MS-DOS projects for you to work on... 

 

What's the pay rate?  ...

[Racerxnet]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

We have different goals. You just want something that works, that also measures well. I want to understand what makes a system work well, and how to do that in the most cost effective way.

Frank, that is the most ignorant thing I have read repeatedly from you of those who disagree with your method. 

 

"We have different goals."

You don't know what my goals are nor a large majority of people on the forum. I never confided in you regarding them with my system.

 

"You just want something that works, that also measures well."

You want a $400.00 pig to look like a silk purse. It's your system and you like it, that's cool, but don't TELL me what I am after. 

 

" I want to understand what makes a system work well, and how to do that in the most cost effective way.

What makes you so special that YOU think others cannot achieve their goals. Why such a ignorant statement to others?  Are the people who disagree with your perspective dumb and incapable?

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What's the pay rate?  ...

 

I won't charge you much.

[botrytis]

For me, if he has to ask, he can't afford me.