Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Article: Why We Need Audiophiles (Read 494983 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #425 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Perhaps you didn't read my posting carefully enough.
Ah, I actually misunderstood Arny's stance on the matter.


Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I didn't compare audio to religion. I stated that Mr. Krueger is arguing about non-audio-related behavior of others based on beliefs that are not based on physical evidence. I find that strange behavior in someone who subscribes to this group.

Ah. You're working the same argument I thought you were only you're coming at it backwards. 

No, just because you believe in God doesn't mean that you necessarily must reject any methodology or conclusion loosely related to science. There's quite a few fundamentalist in this world that would like you to think that, but such an idea is the most obvious kind of non sequitur.

[edit]fixed spelling
elevatorladylevitateme

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #426 –
Quote from: cpchan on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
My standing advice for use of lossy compression for use on space-limited iPods is to encode at 320kpbs AAC.


Geez, I wonder how many tracks people with a 2 GB DAP can put on their device at that bitrate. 


I think to fair to assume that someone who is not prepared to pay for more than 2GB of storage will accept some tradeoff in sound quality. Where each of us decides to balance sound quality against storage requirements is a personal choice. For myself, I choose lossless or no compression for serious listening ie, at home, and either lossless or AAC at 320kbps for portable use, depending on how temporary that music's residence on my iPod will be. Why do I have to answer to someone else for those preferences?

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
But even that will not be transparent to all listeners at all times with all kinds of music, which is what I deem necessary for "serious" listening.


Quote
Please backup your claims with some ABX test results that you can actually hear a difference...


Why do I have to? I have not said anything that is in dispute. It has been established that 16-bit LPCM at 44.1Hz sampling is not audibly transparent, ie, undetectable by all listeners under all practical circumstances with all kinds of program material (see Stuart, Fielder et al). As the performance of a lossy codec can only asymptotically approach that of the original LPCM file, thus it, too, is not audibly transparent.

From my reading of the literature and my discussions with some of the engineers involved in designing lossy codecs, audible transparency does not appear to be the goal. Instead, it is that a lossy codec be undetectable enough of the time with enough listeners with enough kinds of program that it will be appropriate for use in circumstances where storage space or transmission bandwidth is at a premium.

Quote
or are you too afraid that your precious ego will be destroyed?


I fail to see what you think is achieved by descending to personal remarks. Your opinion and presumably your experiences are different from mine, is all.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #427 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Not at all. As I write in an article quoted elsewhere in this thread, I don't regard lossy-compressed files as appropriate for serious listening, particularly when lossless compression is easy and convenient and hard-drive space is ridiculously cheap. My standing advice for use of lossy compression for use on space-limited iPods is to encode at 320kpbs AAC. But even that will not be transparent to all listeners at all times with all kinds of music, which is what I deem necesary for "serious" listening. My opinion. YMMV, of course.


Why have "standard advice" at all?  Why not, you know, consider the needs of the person doing the asking?  A lot of the time it seems to me that when hardcore audiophile types give "advice" they are really just taking the the opportunity to show off, ramble on about their gear, their collection or their real/imagined knowledge and not making a sincere effort to do right by the questioner.  I had a coworker a couple of weeks ago who had still been listening to portable music on a cassette Walkman which died and she had gotten an 8GB Nano to replace it.  She asked me how to import her music.  I knew she wasn't excessively concerned with sound quality, wasn't a huge music junkie the way I am, wasn't technically inclined or terribly into computers and definitely wouldn't be interested in mucking around with bitrates, ABX and so forth.  An approach like the one I took recently would be a horrible choice for her though it has turned out to be perfect for me.  I just explained to her how to set up iTunes, rip the songs she wanted with checks, make playlists, sync up the iPod and told her that she would most likely be just fine with the default 128kbps AAC settings.  She's happy, not bogged down with jargon and arcane audiophilia and she likes the iPod much better than the Walkman. 

Anyway, I'll ask you one more time:  If I can't tell the difference between an AAC file ripped to my iPod at a bitrate determined by ABX testing and a lossless file then in what way, precisely, is the AAC file not appropriate for serious listening?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #428 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
From my reading of the literature and my discussions with some of the engineers involved in designing lossy codecs, audible transparency does not appear to be the goal. Instead, it is that a lossy codec be undetectable enough of the time with enough listeners with enough kinds of program that it will be appropriate for use in circumstances where storage space or transmission bandwidth is at a premium.


True. However it should be perceptionally transparent at a high enough bitrate. If not, then it is failure of the codec- this is why they are constantly tuned for problematic samples. The point is, can you hear the difference? This is what ABX is for.

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I fail to see what you think is achieved by descending to personal remarks. Your opinion and presumably your experiences are different from mine, is all.


You posted on this board. You agreed to TOS #8:

8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

I am not being condescending here. You just refuse to prove to us that you can actually hear a different with ABX testing. The only reason that I can think of for this refusal is that you are afraid that you can't hear a difference.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on  Gordon Holt's remarks?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #429 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
It has been established that 16-bit LPCM at 44.1Hz sampling is not audibly transparent, ie, undetectable by all listeners under all practical circumstances with all kinds of program material (see Stuart, Fielder et al). As the performance of a lossy codec can only asymptotically approach that of the original LPCM file, thus it, too, is not audibly transparent.

I am a bit puzzled by this comment. If a given 16bit/44.1KHz LPCM encoding of a particular source material was indeed non-transparent, and an mp3 was made from the 16bit/44KHz LPCM encoding rather than the source, then an assumption that the mp3 would also not be transparent to the source would be correct.
But if the 16bit/44.1KHz LPCM is the source material, as is the case for the vast majority of currently available music, how can it not be totally transparent with itself? If the source was something other than 16bit/44.1KHz LPCM, then any information or test results about 16bit/44.1KHz LPCM are irrelevant to discussions about an mp3 encoding of the source, and one cannot make any assumptions about mp3 based on them.

As far as I can tell:
* you seem content with 16bit/44KHz LPCM for serious listening
* you are not content with mp3 for serious listening, because it is not transparent to all people, all of the time, for all types of material
* you do not feel the need to perform tests to acertain whether or not mp3 is transparent to you personally, based on the limitations of the 16bit/44KHz LPCM source material which you are content with for serious listening!

If I have misinterpreted your comments, or misrepresented your views, perhaps you would like to provide clarification?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #430 –
I agree with Dracaena.

I think we have different notions of the meaning of "transparency". For me (and most others in this forum, I think), transparency of a lossy audio codec is achieved when the decoded signal is indistinguishable from the signal fed into the encoder. So if a decoded 44-kHz signal "sounds exactly like" the original 44-kHz signal, the codec is transparent, isn't it?

Btw, the AAC standard allows for coding of 24-bit/96-kHz PCM signals. So Mr. Atkinson, even by your stringent requirements: if we assume that 24-bit/96-kHz audio actually is transparent to everyone, a lossy codec can be transparent if you use a sufficient bitrate.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #431 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
No, just because you believe in God doesn't mean that you necessarily must reject any methodology or conclusion loosely related to science.

Erm no, "fundamentalists" (cultists) may use it from time to time, but most of the time it's certainly the other camp who purposely uses this as a strawman to attack (and win, obviously).


Isn't transparency completely subjective (i.e. to the individual's capability) and hence needs a universally objective methodology (DBT) to measure with?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #432 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Hydrogen Audio appears, by its charter, to be a community of logical positivists in that something that cannot be proved through experiment to exist must be assumed not to exist. (Forgive me, moderators, if this paraphrase is not sufficiently nuanced.) Arny Krueger has long adopted this position on Usenet and on this forum, condemning those, like me, who describe our perceptions as being deluded.


This is typical of John Atkinson't inability to be communicated with. His problem is his inability to distinguish what he wants to hear from what he's actually hearing.  Like every other human I've got the same problem, but I address them with appropriate tools such as ABX.

Here's a typical statement by me on a public forum that Atkinson is well-known to monitor quite carefully:

"People who perceive (imaginary) subtleties in sighted evaluations aren't
nuts or liars, they are just confusing seeing with hearing. They
aren't deluded, they are just illuded. What they experience isn't a
psychological pathology, it's simply how normal people work."

The most important sentences above are:

"They aren't deluded, they are just illuded. What they experience isn't a
psychological pathology, it's simply how normal people work."

This is from a direct reply to an Atkinson post:

"I figured from the onset that I was
speaking to a group of people who were pretty well set in
their illuded ways..."

I think I also said something similar in the HE2005 debate.

Therefore, the idea that I think that true believers in the perceptions of Atkinson are deluded is yet another one of John's many misapprehensions that I have been unable to disabuse him of, despite years of diligent effort on my part.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #433 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Why do I have to? I have not said anything that is in dispute. It has been established that 16-bit LPCM at 44.1Hz sampling is not audibly transparent, ie, undetectable by all listeners under all practical circumstances with all kinds of program material (see Stuart, Fielder et al). As the performance of a lossy codec can only asymptotically approach that of the original LPCM file, thus it, too, is not audibly transparent.


John, to the best of my knowlege, the various writings of Stuart and Fielder that you have cited do not in fact themselves meet the standards of HA TOS #8. Therefore, they cannot be cited in your obvious efforts to circumvent TOS #8.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #434 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I stated that Mr. Krueger is arguing about non-audio-related behavior of others based on beliefs that are not based on physical evidence. I find that strange behavior in someone who subscribes to this group.



What Atkinson finds strange about my belief structure is not the issue at hand. But personally-directed comments like this are typical of his habitual methodologies for avoiding more important issues at hand like his obvious attempts to circumvent HA TOS 8.

Quote
No, just because you believe in God doesn't mean that you necessarily must reject any methodology or conclusion loosely related to science.


I agree with that and raise you 5 trillion. ;-)

I believe that all true and reliable Scientific beliefs and all true and reliable beliefs about God *must* converge. One of the biggest mistakes that religionists make is trying to limit everybody's beliefs about God to their own beliefs, which are necessarily limited and therefore almost certainly in error. This is actually counter to the clear teachings of a book they love to cite, namely the Bible. At this time the most notorious example of this kind of confused thinking is probably what some call Creationism.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #435 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Why do I have to? I have not said anything that is in dispute. It has been established that 16-bit LPCM at 44.1Hz sampling is not audibly transparent, ie, undetectable by all listeners under all practical circumstances with all kinds of program material (see Stuart, Fielder et al). As the performance of a lossy codec can only asymptotically approach that of the original LPCM file, thus it, too, is not audibly transparent.
Can I get more of a citation than that? I can't pinpoint a precise article using only those two names and a smattering of relevant keywords. The studies I am familiar with regarding the matter seem to affirm the opposite.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #436 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Why do I have to? I have not said anything that is in dispute. It has been established that 16-bit LPCM at 44.1Hz sampling is not audibly transparent, ie, undetectable by all listeners under all practical circumstances with all kinds of program material (see Stuart, Fielder et al). As the performance of a lossy codec can only asymptotically approach that of the original LPCM file, thus it, too, is not audibly transparent.


John, to the best of my knowlege, the various writings of Stuart and Fielder that you have cited do not in fact themselves meet the standards of HA TOS #8. Therefore, they cannot be cited in your obvious efforts to circumvent TOS #8.


Sigh. I had assumed that academic  papers published in the Journal of the AES (in this case by two AES Fellows), could be cited on this forum. If this is not the case, then I apologize to the moderators, of course. But it does seem inappropriate that the research of third parties is not available for reference by posters.

To avoid thread bloat, I am addressing comments made by Arny Krueger in other recent postings here:

Quote
This is typical of John Atkinson't inability to be communicated with. His problem is his inability to distinguish what he wants to hear from what he's actually hearing.


Yet more personal comments. It really doesn't seem possible for you to address the argument, Mr. Krueger rather than the arguer, does it.

Quote
Like every other human I've got the same problem, but I address them with appropriate tools such as ABX.


Actually, for codec testing, ABX is not useful, because of its yes/no response scoring. The literature tends to support using ABC/HR testing using an impairment scale for lossy codecs. I suppose you are now going to claim that that published research also does not meet the requirements of TOS#8, Mr. Krueger. :-)

Quote
(Stereoeditor @ Apr 26 2009, 12:25) *
I stated that Mr. Krueger is arguing about non-audio-related behavior of others based on beliefs that are not based on physical evidence. I find that strange behavior in someone who subscribes to this group.


Quote
What Atkinson finds strange about my belief structure is not the issue at hand. But personally-directed comments like this are typical of his habitual methodologies for avoiding more important issues at hand like his obvious attempts to circumvent HA TOS 8.


I am not trying to circumvent anything in this posting, Mr. Krueger, nor am I making any kind of unsupported personal comment. Instead, I am directly addressing a misstatement that you made earlier in the thread, out of the blue and with no connection to audio, codes, bitrates, etc etc. You even admitted that the statement was not supported by any evidence. If the moderators are willing to allow you the license to wander off-topic in this manner, then surely I should be allowed the same license to correct your misstatement? Ideally, of course, I would prefer the thread stay on-track.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #437 –
ABX is the appropriate test to demonstrate that you can distinguish a lossy encode from the source from which it was created.

Why you're evading the issue is somewhat a mystery to me.  Perhaps it's not intentional because you simply don't understand the methods and how they apply to this forum.  Based on what you've said so far this appears to be the case.

It also appears that you'd rather engage people on their method of arguing rather than the substance of what they argue.

It is my opinion that Arny is quite right when he suggests that you are completely unwilling to make an attempt to correlate what you actually hear with what you want to hear.  If this is true, then please, just go away.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #438 –
Quote from: Canar on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I have not said anything that is in dispute. It has been established that 16-bit LPCM at 44.1Hz sampling is not audibly transparent, ie, undetectable by all listeners under all practical circumstances with all kinds of program material (see Stuart, Fielder et al). As the performance of a lossy codec can only asymptotically approach that of the original LPCM file, thus it, too, is not audibly transparent.


Can I get more of a citation than that? I can't pinpoint a precise article using only those two names and a smattering of relevant keywords.


Search the AES paper database for Louis Fielder's paper on dynamic range and J.R. Stuart's on the coding requirements for transparency. (I think Bob Stuart actually published 2 papers on this subject.) If you can't find them, I'll dig out the exact references.

Quote
The studies I am familiar with regarding the matter seem to affirm the opposite.


Ah, yes. Not one of the JAES's better days when they published the Meyer-Moran paper, not the least because of its lack of experimental detail. YMMV, of course.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Member of the AES since 1981, BTW

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #439 –
Quote from: greynol on
Why you're evading the issue is somewhat a mystery to me.


I agree. I would also like to see him address Gordon Holt's comment. He seem to be evading that too.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #440 –
Quote from: greynol on
ABX is the appropriate test to demonstrate that you can distinguish a lossy encode from the source from which it was created.


I disagree. You need to establish the degree of departure from transparency using an impairment scale. As I said, the literature appears mainly to feature ABC/HR testing for codec testing and from what I have observed of tests that use that protocol, it does appear a more fruitful tool for blind testing of small but real differences.

Quote
Why you're evading the issue is somewhat a mystery to me.


I am not avoiding anything. I have been addressed points made by other posters who have referred to comments I have made elsewhere. I really don't see that TOS#8 applies to my writings that have published outside this group. If the moderating team wishes me not to comment, then perhaps they should request those posters not to quote my published work.

Quote
Perhaps it's not intentional because you simply don't understand the methods and how they apply to this forum.  Based on what you've said so far this appears to be the case.


See above. I have been an AES member for 28 years and have been involved in a great deal of blind testing, both as an organizer and as a test subject. There certainly isn't the bandwidth to go into all that work here but you can find my writings on the subject and the descriptions of many of those tests in Stereophile and in Hi-Fi News.

Quote
It also appears that you'd rather engage people on their method of arguing rather than the substance of what they argue.


The only comments I have made on this topic concern personal and insulting comments made about me by certain other posters. I felt it appropriate to point that fact out as it appears to conflict with Hydrogen Audio's TOS#2. All other comments I have made have been factual and have addressed specific point raised by other posters, not the posters themselves.

Quote
It is my opinion that Arny is quite right when he suggests that you are completely unwilling to make an attempt to correlate what you actually hear with what you want to hear.  If this is true, then please, just go away.


It is certainly not true and I have no problem answering specific points made on this forum. I don't see what purpose would be served by my not responding. If you do feel that I have infringed on TOS#2 and TOS#8, then I apologize, of course. But I don't intend to go away.
 
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #441 –
"...Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel "

J Gordon Holt, founder of Stereophile magazine

This needs unpicking, IMO.

"Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand." Pretentious nonsense. It was nothing to do with audio types destroying their own business - other businesses pushed it aside. Audio as a hobby has been dying ever since TV became widely available and relatively cheap to buy and run. By the time it got to the 1980s, we all had a million other things to play with before we got to audio. Now we have got hundreds of things that can play audio before we get to audio. So where audio might be a legitimate hobby to someone in the 1950s, because there really weren't many other things as competition, those days are long gone.

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s..." More nonsense. High-end audio only briefly had a moment of credibility when those guys who built things in the 1950s got rich enough during the 1960s to afford to get someone else to build their things for them. Once the 1970s came round, PR created a personality cult around product designers and the die was cast.

"When it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal." Er, I may be wrong on this, but I don't remember Stereophile being a paragon of scientific virtue when it was under J Gordon Holt's wing.

"[This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel." Hmm, would that be the gospel according to St Chocolatey, or the one by St Microdynamics, the patron saint of liquid inner details?

Perhaps we can conclude that old reviewers never die, they just turn objective with age.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #442 –
Quote from: cpchan on
Quote from: greynol on
Why you're evading the issue is somewhat a mystery to me.


I agree. I would also like to see him address Gordon Holt's comment. He seem to be evading that too.


I have commented on Gordon's essay elsewhere, but not on Hydrogen Audio. And as the person who interviewed Gordon and published his essay in my magazine, perhaps you might want to give me some credit for that.

While on the face of it, Gordon's statement at http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi is powerful, it must be pointed out that Gordon never performed any blind testing to support his review conclusions when he edited Stereophile nor after I took over from him as  editor in 1986. (Perhaps paradoxically, I have been involved in a considerably greater amount of blind testing than Gordon.)  He did review the ABX Comparator - see http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/121 - but ultimately decided it would not be a useful reviewing tool - see http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/141 - writing "We never purchased an ABX comparator for several reasons. First, we have never felt the need for it. Second, we are finding that, regardless of "controls," an A/B test doesn't reveal small differences between components as well as does prolonged listening."

It is fair, therefore, to point out that Gordon hadn't practiced what he now preaches.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #443 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
ABX is the appropriate test to demonstrate that you can distinguish a lossy encode from the source from which it was created.


I disagree. You need to establish the degree of departure from transparency using an impairment scale.

There's nothing to disagree about.

ABX determines if something is perceptually transparent or not. This is the first question to answer. If it is satisfied with a statistically significant result, then ABC/HR can be used to rank the degree of non-transparency.

It is my understanding is that you challenge the idea that anything (e.g. a lossy codec, or an amplifier, or an interconnect) can be perceptual transparent to begin with. Yes or no?

Is there an actual reason for that challenge, or is this just a poor assumption?
elevatorladylevitateme

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #444 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
ABX is the appropriate test to demonstrate that you can distinguish a lossy encode from the source from which it was created.
I disagree. You need to establish the degree of departure from transparency using an impairment scale.

Such a test is not suitable when only a difference is to be discerned. Sample rating is typically desirable but not necessary when the only information sought is the answer to the question "can I perceive a difference?".

greynol is correct.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #445 –
Your dissection of Gordon Holt's comment is very true (especially the part about "personality cult around product designers") and amusing.

Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
Perhaps we can conclude that old reviewers never die, they just turn objective with age.


Agreed.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #446 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Search the AES paper database for Louis Fielder's paper on dynamic range and J.R. Stuart's on the coding requirements for transparency. (I think Bob Stuart actually published 2 papers on this subject.) If you can't find them, I'll dig out the exact references.
Aha! That does it exactly. The way you phrased the citation made me think it was a jointly-authored document. I shall get back to you.
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #447 –
I've been reading this thread with great amusement seeing how those three people, Framer, Atkinson and Krueger (I don't know any of them) act and behave like children. I expected discussion, but instead, I read pages of childish fighting, the kind my daughter went through in 4th grade.
People, please, show some dignity. You are not children anymore, and are able to have civilized conversation.

Mr. Framer, Mr. Atkinson, do you even believe that ABX test can be used to show if there are really a difference between two amplifiers, or two codecs?
Error 404; signature server not available.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #448 –
Quote from: hlloyge on
I've been reading this thread with great amusement seeing how those three people, Framer, Atkinson and Krueger (I don't know any of them) act and behave like children. I expected discussion, but instead, I read pages of childish fighting, the kind my daughter went through in 4th grade.
People, please, show some dignity. You are not children anymore, and are able to have civilized conversation.

Mr. Framer, Mr. Atkinson, do you even believe that ABX test can be used to show if there are really a difference between two amplifiers, or two codecs?


That's fightin' talk where I come from.

Fortunately, I moved.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #449 –
Mr. Atkinson, thank you for your comments. That is all I wanted to see.

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
It is fair, therefore, to point out that Gordon hadn't practiced what he now preaches.


True. However, he seem to have recognized that he was wrong and that scientific rigour must be applied.