Sound science

[h.g.]

It's interesting that you equate engineering with science, and that you make maths central to it. Maybe, but only in one direction (it is not commutative..?). Many people think that the ability to do maths makes a person a scientist, or that if an engineer launches into a mathematical description of something they must be a scientist by another name. This is part of what I was saying: people are unduly impressed by a person who has learned how to do the 'tricks' of simple calculus.

All engineers have to learn calculus whether they like it or not with many students being pretty disappointed to find that at undergraduate level engineering is dominated by applied maths. I am not sure the people here are unduly impressed by engineers. On the other hand, if you look at the response to the equation in post #3 and to a fair extent the reason it was posted then maths can certainly be used to guide a response among those that are not on top of it.

Are you saying that everything audio-related can (and should) be formulated into a testable hypothesis?

For that which lies in the physical domain (i.e. addressable with science) and that you are prepared to put in some work to answer then pretty much.

I don't. You might think that science could formulate a hypothesis for finding the 'best' attributes for an audio system (for a particular listener in a particular room perhaps), but I don't think it could.

This is because your thinking is muddled. You have to pose the question in a form that can be answered. That means you have to define in terms of a quantity that can be measured what 'best' means.

I, on the other hand, am happy to take on "faith" that linearity (or as close as I can get to it) is best - despite what any scientific experiment based on ABX purports to tell me.

Why?

If you go to a hi-fi shop and have a listen to what is getting bought is it the most neutral sounding stuff?

What is your faith based on and how easy might it be for people to manipulate it for their own ends?

Edit: just had a thought. Could you create a testable hypothesis that could determine whether vinyl sounds (to an audiophile) better than CD?

Ask a group of them which sounds better.

I am digital only, "on faith". Measurements would show that CD is more linear, but would also show that it has a sharply-defined bandwidth. Maybe vinyl's other characteristics are more pleasing to the ear also (frequency-related crosstalk perhaps..?). This would be a point of contention that presumably could only be tested using ABX.

Why not simply ask them which sounds better?

But how could the experiment be 'de-biased' if the hiss and scratches of LP are so obvious, audibly?

You cannot de-bias something without first identifying the quantity being measured. Is it the sound with hiss and scratch, the sound without or something else? Going through the process of working out the question to be answered (the testable hypothesis) is likely remove many if not all the "problems" audiophiles have with performing experiments.

 

[Cosmik]

You have to pose the question in a form that can be answered. That means you have to define in terms of a quantity that can be measured what 'best' means.

Maybe that is an excellent way to ensure that we only ask scientifically answerable questions, but it doesn't tell us that all questions are answerable scientifically.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

it doesn't tell us that all questions are answerable scientifically.

Science doesn't claim to know all the answers, the exact opposite. That assertion is believer red herring.
As it pertains to audio (stereo systems mainly), vs say people running around the sky, what do believers feel science can't answer?

 

[Cosmik]

As it pertains to audio (stereo systems mainly), vs say people running around the sky, what do believers feel science can't answer?

I can't speak for "believers" and audiophiles, but I gave several examples earlier.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I can't speak for "believers" and audiophiles, but I gave several examples earlier.

Cognizance is a big part of it.
Don't see any example earlier. What doesn't science explain?

 

[Cosmik]

Cognizance is a big part of it.
Don't see any example earlier. What doesn't science explain?

The goalposts have moved! Answering a question has mutated into "explain". Before we know it it will be "describe".

 

[AJ Soundfield]

The goalposts have moved! Answering a question has mutated into "explain". Before we know it it will be "describe".

So you can't cite any examples. Ok.
Belief always unravels under scrutiny.

 

[Cosmik]

So you can't cite any examples. Ok.
Belief always unravels under scrutiny.

You are amazing!

OK. Consider your own excellent (and I mean that) speakers. You tour them around *audiophile* shows and, as far as I am aware, you don't just present a page of measurements, but play music through them to *audiophiles*. The speakers are not behind a curtain. Some say that you even make ad hoc adjustments to a laptop while listening to them without a blindfold on, and without a random selection of other speakers on a shuffler.

What I would like to know is: what is the best, scientific way for me to decide whether I should buy some, and will they sound good to me in 5 years time? Or would I get better long term mileage out of some other technology like electrostatics, horns etc. All these technologies can be "explained" scientifically and modelled mathematically, but can science and engineering give me a mathematically-sound reason to part with a not inconsiderable (but very reasonable) sum for your speakers?

(Nice veneer by the way. Can you enlighten us on the process that went into engineering its selection and design?)

 

[amirm]

The word "science" is the most over-used and misapplied term by objectivists in audio forum arguments. I don't recall the last time I read that word in any AES paper. Its use in forums is to impress the other camp and shut down the argument by saying the other side is "anti-science." Meanwhile the person making those arguments usually has neither science or engineering background. Use of such tactics cheapens the proper notion of engineering and objectivity.

An engineer's job is to optimize cost, performance, schedule, risks and meeting market requirements. Apple did that with ipod and iphone. No one uses the word "science" to describe those products. They were greatly engineered products.

I have also yet to see an engineer who is not proud of having forgotten all of their math in school. Engineering is about building products optimally. It is not about new science.

Now there are pockets of engineering which overlap real research and science by say, inventing a new transistor to be used in an IC. But those are not the topics or concepts that deal with the debates that we have on forums about audio.

So I am with Cosmik on this.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Ok, so you can't cite any examples previously in the thread and now the classic exasperation Red Herring shift to my speakers. Got it.
Ok, let's play.

What I would like to know is: what is the best, scientific way for me to decide whether I should buy some, and will they sound good to me in 5 years time? Or would I get better long term mileage out of some other technology like electrostatics, horns etc.

No clue. Not a psychiatrist/psychologist, nor would I dare predict what an audiophile would like today, much less staring at them 5yrs in future. Completely irrelevant sound science/engineering question.

All these technologies can be "explained" scientifically and modelled mathematically, but can science and engineering give me a mathematically-sound reason to part with a not inconsiderable (but very reasonable) sum for your speakers?

That isn't a science/engineering of sound question. Your whims are whatever they are and need no scientific explanation. Perhaps a dictionary with the word "Subjective" would be appropriate.
The science and engineering questions related to sound have been answered by the design loudspeakers already.

cheers

 

[RayDunzl]

According to Google Images:

Scientists wear lab coats.

Engineers wear hard hats.

Any questions?

 

[amirm]

According to Google Images:

Scientists wear lab coats.

Engineers wear hard hats.

Any questions?

So what is this guy who used to wear these beautiful outfits in Verizon commercials?

 

[RayDunzl]

So what is this guy who used to wear these beautiful outfits in Verizon commercials?

Technician.

 

[amirm]

Technician.

You mean AJ???

 

[RayDunzl]

AJ? Amir?

Ok, you make me say it. As a casual reader, I think you two clash more because of your similarities than differences.

 

[Purité Audio]

Frank Dernie ( engineer ) who sometimes posts here has a great quote about engineers, paraphrasing , anyone can design something that costs five pounds and engineer can design it so it costs one.
Keith.

 

[Thomas savage]

Well this is a lot of nonsense... Well done chaps

 

[Cosmik]

Ok, so you can't cite any examples previously in the thread and now the classic exasperation Red Herring shift to my speakers. Got it.
Ok, let's play.


No clue. Not a psychiatrist/psychologist, nor would I dare predict what an audiophile would like today, much less staring at them 5yrs in future. Completely irrelevant sound science/engineering question.


That isn't a science/engineering of sound question. Your whims are whatever they are and need no scientific explanation. Perhaps a dictionary with the word "Subjective" would be appropriate.
The science and engineering questions related to sound have been answered by the design loudspeakers already.

cheers

Earlier on you said:

As it pertains to audio (stereo systems mainly), vs say people running around the sky, what do believers feel science can't answer?

I (not a "believer" I might add) just asked a simple question pertaining to stereo systems, and it appears science/engineering/maths apparently cannot answer it. It's what I thought.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I (not a "believer" I might add) just asked a simple question pertaining to stereo systems, and it appears science/engineering/maths apparently cannot answer it. It's what I thought.

Right, audio science can't answer a vague psychology question about you, posed by you. That's correct.
Regarding specific questions about audio systems, yes. But you can't ask one, despite all the hand waving.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

According to Google Images:

Scientists wear lab coats.

Engineers wear hard hats.

Any questions?

Matthew Polk (some reason can't find image).