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 500234 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1200 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
The point I was making is that Arny Krueger's preferred miking technique is not accurate, in that original soundsource directions are not correctly mapped to the appropriate positions in the recorded stereo image. (For support of my statement, see the 'scope traces I linked to anther message in this thread.) Mr. Krueger has defended that inaccuracy on the grounds of preference, yet he has also strenuously criticized those who similarly express a preference for inaccuracy in reproduction. As I said, this is at best illogical and at worst hypocritical.


Opinion stated as if it were fact with zero supporting relevant documentation. About as close to supporting documention that we have is Atkinson's claim that the choir subtended 60 degrees, or should have. I laid out the user requirements for this recording, which apparently Atkinson either is intentionally ignoring, or simply unware of.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1201 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I'm ROTFLMAO at Atkinson's critque of my high school choir recording.

We have this self-proclaimed subjectivist, who bases his entire critique on two plots made by test equipment. Yes, test equipment.


I don't understand why you are making a big point about my using test equipment, Mr. Krueger.


That would be, abuse of test equipment, John.  Using test equipment only makes sense if you have a relevant reference. For example, a scope trace of a square wave is good if your source is supposed to be a square wvae, and not so good if your source is supposed to be a sine wave.

I've noticed this consistent error in your work Jhan, and that is the absence of the use of reliable references. In the case of your vectorscope analysis of my recording, you show this little squiggle all by itself, and say this proves that there is something wrong with my recording. Compared to what?

In the case of your spectral analysis, you insist that all properly-made choir recordings should have signficiant coherent spectral contents below 100 Hz, which is of course a travesty.  My recording shows that the room it was made in had active HVAC system with modest silencing, which is about what you should expect in a high school auditorium in Michigan in March.

So in your first case John you don't even say what you think a proper vectorscope analysis of a choir recording should show, and in the second case of your spectral analysis, your criteria is so rediculous that it isn't even a bad joke.

I submit that I was asked to produce recordings that represented what the judges heard. Prove that I didn't do a pretty fair job of that.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1202 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: ShowsOn on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
A degree of extra separation, yes, but coincident cardioids or hypercardioids still give what one veteran engineer, Tony Faulkner, has called "fat mono."

Why does nearly every second post you make feature an argument from authority?


Sorry, journalistic force of habit, to attribute out-of-the-ordinary usage. Ignore it if it bothers you.

The point I was making is that Arny Krueger's preferred miking technique is not accurate, in that original soundsource directions are not correctly mapped to the appropriate positions in the recorded stereo image. (For support of my statement, see the 'scope traces I linked to anther message in this thread.) Mr. Krueger has defended that inaccuracy on the grounds of preference, yet he has also strenuously criticized those who similarly express a preference for inaccuracy in reproduction. As I said, this is at best illogical and at worst hypocritical.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

None of this answers my question.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1205 –
Quote
Quote
Quote from: ShowsOn on

Why does nearly every second post you make feature an argument from authority?


Sorry, journalistic force of habit, to attribute out-of-the-ordinary usage. Ignore it if it bothers you...


None of this answers my question.


How does this response of mine not answer your question? (I snipped the rest of my post in case it was confusing you.) The phrase "fat mono" was in quotes, to show that it was not my coinage. As I said, I attributed the usage, as is usual in my profession. And regarding the wider response to your question, putting to one side your hyperbole - "every second post"? - as this is Hydrogen Audio, I assumed that support for statements is generally thought a good thing. My apologies if I have been incorrect in that assumption.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1206 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
How does this response of mine not answer your question? (I snipped the rest of my post in case it was confusing you.) The phrase "fat mono" was in quotes, to show that it was not my coinage. As I said, I attributed the usage, as is usual in my profession. And regarding the wider response to your question, putting to one side your hyperbole - "every second post"? - as this is Hydrogen Audio, I assumed that support for statements is generally thought a good thing. My apologies if I have been incorrect in that assumption.


For the measruement pleasure of your vectorscope John, I submit the "grossly obese mono" version of my choral file at this location:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=636578

John, given how strongly measurements seem to control what you hear over there at Stereophile, this should greatly improve your listening pleasure. ;-)


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1207 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
The point I was making is that Arny Krueger's preferred miking technique is not accurate, in that original soundsource directions are not correctly mapped to the appropriate positions in the recorded stereo image. (For support of my statement, see the 'scope traces I linked to [in another] message in this thread.) Mr. Krueger has defended that inaccuracy on the grounds of preference, yet he has also strenuously criticized those who similarly express a preference for inaccuracy in reproduction. As I said, this is at best illogical and at worst hypocritical.


Opinion stated as if it were fact with zero supporting relevant documentation.


Sigh. How much more support for my statements is necessary? My analysis of your recording was supported by the two graphs I made available. Your statements about people being wrong to prefer reproduction that you feel technically inaccurate was made in multiple postings you made to this very thread in the past 3 days. Your defense of your preferred recording technique on the grounds that it is your preference was made in a posting in this thread yesterday.

I don't see that it is unsupported or illogical to point out that you are either attacking or supporting preference for technical inaccuracy depending on what you are arguing, Mr. Krueger.

Quote
About as close to supporting documention that we have is Atkinson's claim that the choir subtended 60 degrees, or should have.


I have not said this. Please do not put words in my mouth, Mr. Krueger. What I wrote was in response to your general statement that there is no "imaging" in live performance compared to domestic playback: "Sit so that the subtended angle of the performing group is 60 degrees, the typical angle between stereo speakers, and unless the hall is so reverberant that the critical distance is minimal, you will still perceive a well-defined image."

Quote
I laid out the user requirements for this recording, which apparently Atkinson either is intentionally ignoring, or simply unware of.


Even if the choir's director requested you to record in mono, Mr. Krueger, and was well-pleased with the result, that does not correlate with your statement that your preferred miking technique gave rise to a recording that has "a little too much separation to be lifelike." As my vectorscope graph demonstrates - see http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/sho....php/photo/2021 - it actually has very little separation, hence minimal image width. Unless the choir had arranged themselves in a human pyramid - and I suspect they hadn't, because of the lack of reverb energy in the difference signal - your use of an inappropriate miking technique distorted the original stage, Mr. Krueger, just as I have been saying all along.

Quote
In the case of your vectorscope analysis of my recording, you show this little squiggle all by itself, and say this proves that there is something wrong with my recording. Compared to what?


Compared to a true stereo recording, Mr. Krueger. Do you really not know how to read a vectorscope graph? The trace in the sum axis has a maximum length of 400 pixels; in the difference direction, it measures 55 pixels. As the number of pixels is proportional to voltage, this shows that the ratio between the sum signal (L+R) and the difference signal (L-R) of your recording is 17dB, rather than, say, the more usual 3dB-6dB, let alone 0dB, which is what you would get with a modern multimike recording that used the entire soundstage for placement of full-level source images. Regardless of what you call the "user requirements" for your recording, Mr. Krueger, the "little squiggle" indicates that your "stereo" recording is to a large extent mono. And it sounds that way also.

Quote
I submit that I was asked to produce recordings that represented what the judges heard. Prove that I didn't do a pretty fair job of that.


As I was not privy to your conversations with the judges, Mr. Krueger. I have no idea. I can only assume they requested you to produce an almost monophonic recording with insufficient energy in the lower midrange, and audible LF noise, hiss, and distortion. In which case yes, you did "a pretty fair job" of giving them what they asked for.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1208 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
For the measruement pleasure of your vectorscope John, I submit the "grossly obese mono" version of my choral file at this location:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=636578


Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Sorry for the tardy reply. Sometimes life gets in the way of posting to Internet forums :-)

Quote
John, given how strongly measurements seem to control what you hear over there at Stereophile...


I don't know why you would say that, Mr. Krueger. As you know having asked me about this subject before, Stereophile's reviewers don't see the measurements until after they have submitted their review texts, to avoid the possibility of them hearing what they think they should.

Quote
this should greatly improve your listening pleasure. ;-)


Sadly, it didn't. It still sounds tonally threadbare, with audible hiss and LF noise, and a scratchy, "intermoddy" quality in the treble. It also sounds quite phasey and checking with the vectorscope indicated that it has considerable out-of-phase information. I don't know what you did to the recording, Mr. Krueger; it doesn't look as if you flipped the polarity of just one channel, but as the spectral content is identical to that of the original close-to-mono recording, all I can conjecture is that you amplified the difference signal in an attempt to try to widen the stage.

Didn't work, I am afraid. I am still puzzled about why you didn't hear the lack of stereo separation on the original recording. It was immediately obvious when I auditioned it, which is why I checked with a vectorscope.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1209 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I am still puzzled about why you didn't hear the lack of stereo separation on the original recording. It was immediately obvious when I auditioned it, which is why I checked with a vectorscope.


More to the point John, I'm still puzzled by the fact that you don't hear the lack of stereo separation in orchestral performances when heard from seats  in the middle of the hall.

I also am puzzled that you can't understand it when I tell that the purpose of the recording was to duplicate a certain sonic perspective on a certain kind of performance when listened to from a certain point in a certain hall.

I presume John that were you ever asked to record a performance from a middle-of-the hall perspective, that naturally sounded reedy in a hall with normal levels of acoustic noise for a high school auditorimum, that you would somehow jimmy the recording so that the noise was gone, the stereo perspective was wide, and somehow alter the voices of the singers so that they stopped sounding reedy. This is presumably what you think all choirs naturally sound like, no matter who sings in them or where they sing.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1210 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I am still puzzled about why you didn't hear the lack of stereo separation on the original recording. It was immediately obvious when I auditioned it, which is why I checked with a vectorscope.


More to the point John, I'm still puzzled by the fact that you don't hear the lack of stereo separation in orchestral performances when heard from seats  in the middle of the hall.

I also am puzzled that you can't understand it when I tell that the purpose of the recording was to duplicate a certain sonic perspective on a certain kind of performance when listened to from a certain point in a certain hall.

I presume John that were you ever asked to record a performance from a middle-of-the hall perspective, that naturally sounded reedy in a hall with normal levels of acoustic noise for a high school auditorimum, that you would somehow jimmy the recording so that the noise was gone, the stereo perspective was wide, and somehow alter the voices of the singers so that they stopped sounding reedy. This is presumably what you think all choirs naturally sound like, no matter who sings in them or where they sing.


Arnold, I've been following this discussion thread for a while, but I'm saddened that you've chosen not to directly respond to John's counterarguments regarding your recording. This response is more along the lines of a baseless personal attack since all you've discussed herein is 1) feigned puzzlement for sarcasm's sake, 2) more sarcasm based on feigned presumption, and 3) further sarcasm based on feigned presumption again.

Before the revolution of quantum physical measurements and experimentation (e.g., split photon experiments and double slit laser experiments), any scientist worth his or her salt would've called a lot of current post-Einsteinian physics canon BS too. Speaking strictly as a social psychologist, the role of emotion in human perception is just beginning to be understood. There are some very reliable ways in which stimuli can impinge upon our emotional processes, and some robust ways in which emotional processes have been found to impinge upon the rest of our cognitive perceptions, and so I am very curious to learn more about the role of emotion in auditory perception and interpretation of music and I think this discussion has some bearing on that.

You've been a good discussant so far for the most part, as has John. Please don't let the spirit of this debate die in such an onerous way. I think in the spirit of HA as I've briefly come to know it, a response to John's statements regarding his vectorscope measurements of your recording are in order. Empiricism can win the day yet!

-Nathan.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1211 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
Before the revolution of quantum physical measurements and experimentation (e.g., split photon experiments and double slit laser experiments), any scientist worth his or her salt would've called a lot of current post-Einsteinian physics canon BS too. Speaking strictly as a social psychologist, the role of emotion in human perception is just beginning to be understood. There are some very reliable ways in which stimuli can impinge upon our emotional processes, and some robust ways in which emotional processes have been found to impinge upon the rest of our cognitive perceptions, and so I am very curious to learn more about the role of emotion in auditory perception and interpretation of music and I think this discussion has some bearing on that.


Yes, it's pretty reliable that our emotions will 'impinge upon' our auditory perceptions -- another way to phrase it is that there are conscious and unconscious prejudices that commonly affect (or 'bias') them.  That's why double blind tests and measurements are called for when the audio quality -- and *only* the *audio* quality -- is being rated.  Because without controls in place, it's hard to know if even the most elementary mistake has been avoided -- such as reporting two presentations as 'sounding different' when they are really the SAME.

This view, while commonplace in the sciences and in product testing, is largely at odds with audiophile culture and the practice of audio reviewing generally.  Stereophile, for example goes only to the halfway mark by including extensive measurements (of some kinds of gear), but keeping its reviews 'sighted', resulting in occasional humorous juxtapositions of objective fact with subjective impression. 

Perhaps THAT is why we need audiophiles?


('Interpretation of music' is outside the scope of discussion here, so please don't go there.)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1212 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: nlsteele on
Before the revolution of quantum physical measurements and experimentation (e.g., split photon experiments and double slit laser experiments), any scientist worth his or her salt would've called a lot of current post-Einsteinian physics canon BS too. Speaking strictly as a social psychologist, the role of emotion in human perception is just beginning to be understood. There are some very reliable ways in which stimuli can impinge upon our emotional processes, and some robust ways in which emotional processes have been found to impinge upon the rest of our cognitive perceptions, and so I am very curious to learn more about the role of emotion in auditory perception and interpretation of music and I think this discussion has some bearing on that.


Yes, it's pretty reliable that our emotions will 'impinge upon' our auditory perceptions -- another way to phrase is that there are conscious and unconscious prejudices that commonly affect (or 'bias') them.  That's why double blind tests and measurements are called for when the audio quality -- and *only* the *audio* quality -- is being rated.  Because without controls in place, it's hard to know if even the most elementary mistake has been avoided -- such as reporting two presentations as 'sounding different' when they are really the SAME.

This view, while commonplace in the sciences and in product testing, is largely at odds with audiophile culture and the practice of audio reviewing generally.  Stereophile, for example goes only to the halfway mark by including extensive measurements (of some kinds of gear), but keeping its reviews 'sighted', resulting in occasional humorous juxtapositions of objective fact with subjective impression.


('Interpretation of music' is outside the scope of discussion here, so please don't go there.)


I couldn't agree more, Krabapple. That's why I suggested that Arnold shy away from the sarcastic responses and stick to responding to the empirical evidence of the vectorscope measurements of the audio sample he supplied.

If you'll note in my post, when I discussed the role of emotion (referring back to mainly the original discussion in the early parts of this thread; the *why* of why we "need" audiophiles or audiophools depending on your perspective), I was expressing what interests me largely in this discussion and why I will continue to avidly follow it as long as the level of open debate stays above the level it seemed to be heading toward.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1213 –
Is not the current "debate" thus:

Atkinson: This recording doesn't sound very good, and here are some measurements to show how/why.

Krueger: That is because it is an accurate recording of a not very good performance in a not very good hall.

This is only being protracted because Messrs Atkinson and Krueger have a long and dearly cherished fight which they are now dragging over the forums of HA in the belief that it is as interesting to the rest of the world as it is to themselves.

And I'm only a medievalist, but I have a very high level of trust that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the physics or psychology of perception, but does have something to do with the rhetoric of woo.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1214 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
And I'm only a medievalist, but I have a very high level of trust that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the physics or psychology of perception, but does have something to do with the rhetoric of woo.


Both the rhetoric of woo and the state of the science as analogy (until measurement was possible, strange and counterintuitive but perfectly measurable and real things have been overlooked as voodoo in even the most fundamental of observation based sciences).

Thanks for the explanation.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1215 –
Hi Nate,

I'll have to disagree here. That something real could have been seen as "fringe" (polite for "nutty") is not an excuse to treat all fringe stuff as equally potentially real.

The example of QM, for instance, is good because QM wasn't imagined by someone as an explanation for phenomena that already had a better, simpler and evidenced explanation for. It sprung from observations that needed explanations (IIRC, one of Einstein's own papers sparked it) and it went "mainstream" not because of just theory, but more importantly, experiments.

So far the type that we consider "woo" that uses QM as an example, is not in the same position nor it had similar beginnings as QM as a scientific theory did. It usually started with un-evidenced assumptions, followed by vague claims, and ignoring already existing simpler, better, evidenced explanations. In fact, QM has become so popular for its supposed esoterism (which really is not THAT hard to "get" its basics) that New Agers like Deepak Chopra use its terms WAY out of context, and completely devoid of actual content, to woo the unsuspecting.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1216 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
I couldn't agree more, Krabapple. That's why I suggested that Arnold shy away from the sarcastic responses and stick to responding to the empirical evidence of the vectorscope measurements of the audio sample he supplied.


In fact a vector scope portrayal of a recording says nothing all by itself. It has to be referred to something in the real world. I said this early on, but it seems like it flew over more than a few heads. What to do when the key issue is seemingly ignored by one and all?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1217 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
Quote from: MichaelW on
And I'm only a medievalist, but I have a very high level of trust that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the physics or psychology of perception, but does have something to do with the rhetoric of woo.


Both the rhetoric of woo and the state of the science as analogy (until measurement was possible, strange and counterintuitive but perfectly measurable and real things have been overlooked as voodoo in even the most fundamental of observation based sciences).


Let's examine your examples of 'observed voodoo that turned out to be perfectly measurable and real' on a case-by-case basis, please.

Ready when you are....


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1218 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: nlsteele on
Quote from: MichaelW on
And I'm only a medievalist, but I have a very high level of trust that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the physics or psychology of perception, but does have something to do with the rhetoric of woo.


Both the rhetoric of woo and the state of the science as analogy (until measurement was possible, strange and counterintuitive but perfectly measurable and real things have been overlooked as voodoo in even the most fundamental of observation based sciences).


Let's examine your examples of 'observed voodoo that turned out to be perfectly measurable and real' on a case-by-case basis, please.

Ready when you are....


Krabapple, the effect of and existence of germs for one.

The rotation of the world around the sun for two.

The ability of a photon's two halves when split and maintained a distance apart to respond in complimentary fashoin to measurements made on the other half at faster than the speed light could travel between the two because they still exist as a quantum whole for three.

I can go on if you really need me to, but it was an analogy to suggest that folks not simply dismiss everything out of hand and take even their own VERY SERIOUS positions with a grain of salt, as many people who've had many VERY SERIOUS positions over time have found themselves standing on the wrong side of a paradigm shift in science. Like Newton, Einstein, and others.

------------------------------

Andy, it's great to see you on here. I should've tried to keep my mouth shut longer, but I have a hard time not jumping into discussions I'm reading. Thanks for tipping me off on HA and this thread in particular.

You're absolutely right that people are bastardizing the seemingly perpendicular nature of QM to mainstream science to promote their own BS. I've got a friend from my doctorate program who ran off recently and disheartened us all by becoming a life-coach who herself cites QM as something she "uses" in her coaching.

I meant it not as a carte blanch for any suspect finding, but a suggestion to remain open to at least reviewing well collected evidence of an empirical nature even if it contradicts what you've come to assume to be true. That's the core of good science, but many go just far enough to find what they want to believe within science as it exists and then become as bad a faith-based "truth" monger as a religious zealot, ignoring (and refusing to review or respond to) any contradictory evidence as badly sampled, flawed, or otherwise. Good science doesn't cover its ears and close its eyes.

(I think what MichaelW meant by rhetoric of woo is that in the hands of a less than scrupulous young man, QM can be turned to most romantic purposes in conversation with the fairer sex; photons being in love and whatnot) 

-------------------------------

Arnold, as I understand it, a vectorscope of an audio recording provides information about the relative difference between the left and right channels of signal within a recording. They're deltas basically. There are countless examples within science of using deltas as measurement of relationship (correlation), deviance (standard deviation and variance as a square), change (delta and pre-post designs), and self-relationships (auto-regressive time based models). I've excerpted this from Wikipedia's article on vectorscopes:

"Audio Applications

In audio applications, a vectorscope is used to measure the difference between channels of stereo audio signals. One stereo channel drives the horizontal deflection of the display, and the other drives the vertical deflection. A monoaural signal, consisting of identical left and right signals, results in a straight line with a slope of positive one. Any stereo separation is visible as a deviation from this line, creating a Lissajous figure. If the straight line (or deviation from it) appears with a slope of negative one, this indicates that the left and right channels are 180° out of phase."

So what John has demonstrated with the vectorscope of your recording is that it is in fact a monaural recording with no stereo separation; backing at least that single one of his own claims. What you've then done is come back and tease him kind of meaninglessly about stereo separation and its relation to live listening.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1219 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
Before the revolution of quantum physical measurements and experimentation (e.g., split photon experiments and double slit laser experiments), any scientist worth his or her salt would've called a lot of current post-Einsteinian physics canon BS too.

Nonsense. The notion that a scientist would call a successful scientific hypothesis BS is absurd. Science does not progress in the manner of an adverserial debate, although it is often portrayed like that by non-scientists, but by cooperatively finding and fitting pieces of evidence together.

Audiophiles are outside the scientific process because they do not follow the scientific method. They produce no alternative scientific hypotheses to predict the observations of interest to them nor are their observations in conflict with established scientific knowledge on sound, sound perception and how audio equipment functions which might attract the attention of a scientist.

I am curious about what you think you are observing when, for example, you follow a discussion between Arnold B. and John Atkinson? I too find the audiophile phenomenon interesting but it is wholly irrelevant to the science of sound, sound perception or audio. It is about people and how they choose to reason.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1220 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: nlsteele on
Before the revolution of quantum physical measurements and experimentation (e.g., split photon experiments and double slit laser experiments), any scientist worth his or her salt would've called a lot of current post-Einsteinian physics canon BS too.

Nonsense. The notion that a scientist would call a successful scientific hypothesis BS is absurd. Science does not progress in the manner of an adverserial debate, although it is often portrayed like that by non-scientists, but by cooperatively finding and fitting pieces of evidence together.

Audiophiles are outside the scientific process because they do not follow the scientific method. They produce no alternative scientific hypotheses to predict the observations of interest to them nor are their observations in conflict with established scientific knowledge on sound, sound perception and how audio equipment functions which might attract the attention of a scientist.

I am curious about what you think you are observing when, for example, you follow a discussion between Arnold B. and John Atkinson? I too find the audiophile phenomenon interesting but it is wholly irrelevant to the science of sound, sound perception or audio. It is about people and how they choose to reason.


While I'm prone to agree with your last two statements, I'm compelled to respond to the first. As an active and participating experimental scientist, I can tell you without qualification that scientific progress and science itself is often adversarial debate. You might be surprised how many different "camps" there are in nearly all scientific fields when you get up to the level of reading academic and scientific journals rather than the summaries of them in magazines or textbooks wherein one individual usually gets to coalesce the current findings and state of theory under their particular flag. Even particle physics has its camps, and that says something.

As to what I think I observe within this thread as a whole, and not just limiting to John and Arnold's discussion, is some potential indication of what that as yet unidentified or measured element of the human perception of audio may be. That thing that allows music to connect in a way with a listener that isn't captured by any other sorts of tones or sounds in series. It's certainly an unscientific pursuit unto itself, but that doesn't mean we simply have to wage a war of opinion. We can look at what little empirical evidence we have and postulate falsifiable hypotheses from there the way that all science begins.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1221 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
As to what I think I observe within this thread as a whole, and not just limiting to John and Arnold's discussion, is some potential indication of what that as yet unidentified or measured element of the human perception of audio may be. That thing that allows music to connect in a way with a listener that isn't captured by any other sorts of tones or sounds in series. It's certainly an unscientific pursuit unto itself, but that doesn't mean we simply have to wage a war of opinion. We can look at what little empirical evidence we have and postulate falsifiable hypotheses from there the way that all science begins.


The guts of the issue is whether or not there is any "potential indication" of an "as yet unidentified or measured element of the human perception of audio."

You will find on HA somewhat tolerant discussions of the possibility of higher frequencies or greater bit-depths than CD being relevant. But it is not at all clear that the supposed phenomena reported in audiophile magazines are real data, because there is a resistance to subjecting such claims to the most basic kinds of verification, like double-blind testing. Since there are other explanations for the claims, in terms of psychology, economics, and willy-waving, Occam's razor suggests they be ignored. Occam's razor is a methodological guide, not a law of nature, but there is nothing in audio as big and uncontested as the black body radiation anomaly to suggest that any kind of new paradigm is needed.

Alas, far too often the discussion is carried on, on both sides, in a manner calculated to "win" a debate, not to advance truth, but the fringers question the whole set of scientific methods of investigation of perception, which would seem to kipper the possibility of rational inquiry right from the start.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1222 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
The guts of the issue is whether or not there is any "potential indication" of an "as yet unidentified or measured element of the human perception of audio."

You will find on HA somewhat tolerant discussions of the possibility of higher frequencies or greater bit-depths than CD being relevant. But it is not at all clear that the supposed phenomena reported in audiophile magazines are real data, because there is a resistance to subjecting such claims to the most basic kinds of verification, like double-blind testing. Since there are other explanations for the claims, in terms of psychology, economics, and willy-waving, Occam's razor suggests they be ignored. Occam's razor is a methodological guide, not a law of nature, but there is nothing in audio as big and uncontested as the black body radiation anomaly to suggest that any kind of new paradigm is needed.

Alas, far too often the discussion is carried on, on both sides, in a manner calculated to "win" a debate, not to advance truth, but the fringers question the whole set of scientific methods of investigation of perception, which would seem to kipper the possibility of rational inquiry right from the start.


Well said, Michael.

I do wonder if we do any good to the audiophile magazine's "resistance to subjecting such claims" by bullying one of their editors when he actually starts discussing matters in a testable way (and even comes over to the counterpoint's camp to share in that discussion).

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1223 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
As an active and participating experimental scientist, I can tell you without qualification that scientific progress and science itself is often adversarial debate.

In which case you should be able to put forward some examples. But I am going to add a qualification and that is not examples from the "soft sciences" but examples from the real sciences that are based on scientific laws/hypotheses. The qualification is important because it is basing reasoning on a pyramid of established, self-supporting and agreed "facts" that makes adversarial debate meaningless. In order to disagree one side has got to believe one thing while the other believes something else but if both sides have signed up for the scientific method then this is not an option.
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1224 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
Krabapple, the effect of and existence of germs for one.

The rotation of the world around the sun for two.

The ability of a photon's two halves when split and maintained a distance apart to respond in complimentary fashoin to measurements made on the other half at faster than the speed light could travel between the two because they still exist as a quantum whole for three.


None of these represent 'overlooked as voodoo' phenomena (and the quantum relatedness example hardly qualifies as something the layman would have ever noticed or claimed to be happening in the first place, much less be called 'voodoo' for it).  And really, if you are going to go back the Middle Ages, you are simply acknowledging that we knew less in the past than we know now (where often it wasn't mainly scientists who believed in the 'voodoo', it was the scientists who *exposed them* as voodoo), and that scientific findings can be controversial until the evidence for them mounts -- in otherwords, recognizing the way science works.

You also need to consider how many idea that were dubbed as 'voodoo', turn out to be voodoo, before you wag your finger. 


Quote
I can go on if you really need me to, but it was an analogy to suggest that folks not simply dismiss everything out of hand and take even their own VERY SERIOUS positions with a grain of salt, as many people who've had many VERY SERIOUS positions over time have found themselves standing on the wrong side of a paradigm shift in science. Like Newton, Einstein, and others.


What looks to you like 'dismissing out of hand' may well be dismissal based on WHAT IS KNOWN.  When there is a preponderance of evidence on one side, it's up to the 'other side' to provide the reason why we should reinterpret that evidence.  That's how science works.  The door remains open, but not wide open.  "I heard it" isn't good enough evidence.