NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR DISCOURSE ON ASR

[March Audio]

or Wah-Wah.

Howling feedback - just stuff going round in circles.

 

[PierreV]

The correct answer is:

Percentile rank 37.5

Mathemetically: 50%*50 + 50%*25 = 37.5

The median strategy is my advice to people who aspire for success.

So you have advice, not only on good and bad science, but also on success in life?

And you, involuntarily, nailed it: math-emetic is a perfect description for the above expression
It is just so unfortunate that the answer is not 42...

median is zero for each of the tone controls. In other words, none of the individual users preferred straight zeros, but the way we made our calculation made it look like zero (i.e. “Flat”) is the preference of the population.

Obviously, since you used a weak, but roughly non biased RNG.

Food for thought: Was it real science or the design of the research model that guided the “scientist” to conclude that flat is Truth? Is the vox populi method better at finding a compromise, an average, a consensus independent of Truth?

The design of a study will obviously define the possible outcomes...

In audio reality, I believe an average (median) of a large number of speakers would look a bit like the experimental model above. The thing is, will the power of the median strategy lead us to “Flat” in terms of frequency response because it is Truth or because it is the result of averaging a large number of (random) preferences where the median strategy rewards the consensus speaker?

There is no need to believe - check the data yourself if you feel that is an important issue. I would assume, possibly wrongly, that speakers aren't designed by a non-biased, weak random frequency response generator.

Idea based science told us that Flat (in terms of frequency response) was correct long before vox populi-processes were used to arrive at the same conclusion by accident or real insight. The thing about Flat in terms of frequency response, is that its representation is a one-dimensional, linear one. What if there are multidimensional, non-linear aspects of sound that are not as easily picked up by my Excel sheet? What if an important dimension were “colour”, or a set of coordinates from a to z?

Yeah, what if? Formulate and formalize a hypothesis. Find a way to test it, then go for it.

original research on which later work was based. In other words, there is a growing awareness in psychology that the design of research methods influences the results.

Yeah, there is a kind of growing awareness of.... hmmmm... issues...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...es-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

But, on the core issue itself

- flat was not the preferred response. (and apparently a further study found two groups of users with different preferences)
- most people understand what "most people prefer" means.
- most people understand that one can use the term "gold standard" somewhat casually on the Internet and in real life.
- most people understand that while there is an absolute mathematical truth to signal reconstruction (given the well known band-limiting constraints) there is no such thing when it comes to preferences.

 

[Sergei]

One of them could be: do we actually need any more progress? If progress in any field had reached its limit but people naturally expected constant progress, what would that look like? I think the answer could well be the current situation in audio. Feverish attempts to create progress when none is possible can only end up being detrimental.

I happen to be on the side that believes that we do need more progress. While there are individuals who enjoy audio systems that "practically reached the limit", significant part of the world population doesn't: e.g. because they can't afford what is currently offered at the top end, or because they have special needs that can't yet be profitably addressed by established manufacturers.

Audio in the 1970s may have been so good purely by accident (large drivers, three way, large sealed boxes with wide baffles).

As the famous character from "Magic School Bus" liked to say - "According to my research" - that wasn't an accident Acoustics and audiology made great strides in the last half of nineteenth century, and body of knowledge in these areas became surprisingly rich by 1915. Take, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clément_Ader, who practically demonstrated the advantages of stereo sound in 1881 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Théâtrophone).

Then the series of rising political tensions and wars changed the focus of audio researchers. Monsieur Ader went on to working on military aviation, culminating in invention of modern aircraft carrier. As another example, Canadian acousticians were mightily preoccupied at the time with the subject of marine and submarine warfare.

After the great wars concluded, acoustic researchers and entrepreneurs went back to working on peaceful applications, and the field flourished. The population of post-war youth reached their peak around mid-1960s, and provided eager mass-market for the audio gear and popular music. The rest, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Invasion, is history.

The 'progress' onto slim speakers with bass reflex may have been a triumph of naive measurements over the sound, and we all suffered from it for decades.

Perhaps a better explanation is the one that I saw in a museum in Toronto a while back. One of the rooms was devoted to the Realm of the Queen classic furniture of the end of 19th century and beginning of 20th: absolutely exquisite, created from special kinds of wood, which were often imported from far reaches of British Empire, obsessed over and crafted to perfection by world's best masters.

Next room was shocking in contrast. Primitive, I would even go as far as to say vulgar, contraptions, only sharing general function with the fine classic furniture. The caption explained that this kind of furniture quickly evolved due to the demand from rapidly expanding middle class. Instead of genuine wood, its manufacturers used all kinds of cheap pseudo-wood. Understated elegance gave way to risqué shapes and strong colors.

I guess something similar happened to the Hi-Fi market as it greatly expanded. Designers and manufacturers had to find ways to produce ever-cheaper audio gear for ever-less-discerning masses. I'm not aware of scientific research on this subject, yet viscerally, I felt same admiration while looking at fine early radios at an exhibit in San Francisco, and same revulsion evoked by cheap mass-market radios that followed.

http://www.radiolaguy.com/images/consoles/Arvin927.jpg vs https://www.retroradiofarm.com/products/powder-pink-1957-motorola-57r-tube-am-antique-radio

 

[svart-hvitt]

Why is it that otherwise smart people (even) on ASR talk past each other? I think it’s a bit complicated.

ASR has in its infancy attracted its fair share of well educated and experienced engineers. That is a big asset for ASR.

Our host, @amirm , falls into the same category: Educated in electronic engineering and a life’s experience in software and hardware.

If we look to the premier publication that people on ASR go to, it’s called the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. There we have the key word “engineering” once again.

At the same time, eveyone on ASR, and in AES for that matter, would agree that it’s the speaker (and its integration in the room/venue) that plays the main role. And when those same engineers test the quality of speakers (in room/venue), they resort to what’s been called the “gold standard”, i.e. listening tests to map out preferences.

“Listening tests” and “preferences” are key words here. A very short review of the concepts - in addition to some comon sense - tells me the following:

=> A quantitative approach to mapping out preferences is often the theme in marketing, economics, health care. I could also add philosophy to the list as philosophy often deals with rational choices.

=> Listening tests: Well, our hearing system, including the brain, is a field of inquiry in medical journals, for people who study neurology etc. Statistics is a big issue in such tests. Even economics could arguably be important in understanding of vox populi based tests.

My precision in the two points above could probably be better, buy my point is this:

AS AUDIO ENGINEERS TEST THEIR PRODUCTS (I.E. HYPOTHESES), THEY LEAVE THE NARROW WORLD OF ENGINEERING, TO ENTER A WHOLE NEW REALM WHERE OTHER RULES AND OTHER MODES OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY APPLY

Could it be that some of the discussions on ASR are dumbed down due to the fact that engineers don’t have the science, tools, language and even mind set to discuss audio where it matters, i.e. as a complex interaction between inner factors like ears, brain and outer factors like speakers and room?

Could it be that the definition of audio science is so narrow, lack of progress (for example accumulation of practical knowledge) in this discipline is to be expected?

It’s complicated, right?

 

[Wombat]

Why is it that otherwise smart people (even) on ASR talk past each other? I think it’s a bit complicated.

ASR has in its infancy attracted its fair share of well educated and experienced engineers. That is a big asset for ASR.

Our host, @amirm , falls into the same category: Educated in electronic engineering and a life’s experience in software and hardware.

If we look to the premier publication that people on ASR go to, it’s called the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. There we have the key word “engineering” once again.

At the same time, eveyone on ASR, and in AES for that matter, would agree that it’s the speaker (and its integration in the room/venue) that plays the main role. And when those same engineers test the quality of speakers (in room/venue), they resort to what’s been called the “gold standard”, i.e. listening tests to map out preferences.

“Listening tests” and “preferences” are key words here. A very short review of the concepts - in addition to some comon sense - tells me the following:

=> A quantitative approach to mapping out preferences is often the theme in marketing, economics, health care. I could also add philosophy to the list as philosophy often deals with rational choices.

=> Listening tests: Well, our hearing system, including the brain, is a field of inquiry in medical journals, for people who study neurology etc. Statistics is a big issue in such tests. Even economics could arguably be important in understanding of vox populi based tests.

My precision in the two points above could probably be better, buy my point is this:

AS AUDIO ENGINEERS TEST THEIR PRODUCTS (I.E. HYPOTHESES), THEY LEAVE THE NARROW WORLD OF ENGINEERING, TO ENTER A WHOLE NEW REALM WHERE OTHER RULES AND OTHER MODES OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY APPLY

Could it be that some of the discussions on ASR are dumbed down due to the fact that engineers don’t have the science, tools, language and even mind set to discuss audio where it matters, i.e. as a complex interaction between inner factors like ears, brain and outer factors like speakers and room?

Could it be that the definition of audio science is so narrow, lack of progress (for example accumulation of practical knowledge) in this discipline is to be expected?

It’s complicated, right?

Come up, clearly, with a more productive(verifiable) alternative rather than the talking-head natter/chatter. Cut the somewhat vague waffle and make a clear case for, provided by you, up-front propositions.

 

[pkane]

Why is it that otherwise smart people (even) on ASR talk past each other? I think it’s a bit complicated.

ASR has in its infancy attracted its fair share of well educated and experienced engineers. That is a big asset for ASR.

Our host, @amirm , falls into the same category: Educated in electronic engineering and a life’s experience in software and hardware.

If we look to the premier publication that people on ASR go to, it’s called the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. There we have the key word “engineering” once again.

At the same time, eveyone on ASR, and in AES for that matter, would agree that it’s the speaker (and its integration in the room/venue) that plays the main role. And when those same engineers test the quality of speakers (in room/venue), they resort to what’s been called the “gold standard”, i.e. listening tests to map out preferences.

“Listening tests” and “preferences” are key words here. A very short review of the concepts - in addition to some comon sense - tells me the following:

=> A quantitative approach to mapping out preferences is often the theme in marketing, economics, health care. I could also add philosophy to the list as philosophy often deals with rational choices.

=> Listening tests: Well, our hearing system, including the brain, is a field of inquiry in medical journals, for people who study neurology etc. Statistics is a big issue in such tests. Even economics could arguably be important in understanding of vox populi based tests.

My precision in the two points above could probably be better, buy my point is this:

AS AUDIO ENGINEERS TEST THEIR PRODUCTS (I.E. HYPOTHESES), THEY LEAVE THE NARROW WORLD OF ENGINEERING, TO ENTER A WHOLE NEW REALM WHERE OTHER RULES AND OTHER MODES OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY APPLY

Could it be that some of the discussions on ASR are dumbed down due to the fact that engineers don’t have the science, tools, language and even mind set to discuss audio where it matters, i.e. as a complex interaction between inner factors like ears, brain and outer factors like speakers and room?

Could it be that the definition of audio science is so narrow, lack of progress (for example accumulation of practical knowledge) in this discipline is to be expected?

It’s complicated, right?

You do realize that preference testing is complicated, usually involving a large group effort, with significant complications if such a large group must evaluate loudspeakers under repeatable set of conditions with all the test controls required, such as proper room set up, precise speaker positioning, and blinding protocol? Why do you keep asking ASR to conduct tests that are beyond the capabilities of any of us?

Are you willing to fund this effort to the tune of multiple millions of dollars as a proper research study? You can't keep complaining that ASR isn't doing what you want if that something is well beyond the financial and organizational capabilities of this group (well, you can, and you have been, but it seems very childish to do so given the realities of such testing).

Please, either suggest a workable method to do what you want, or stop complaining!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Why is it that otherwise smart people (even) on ASR talk past each other? I think it’s a bit complicated.

ASR has in its infancy attracted its fair share of well educated and experienced engineers. That is a big asset for ASR.

Our host, @amirm , falls into the same category: Educated in electronic engineering and a life’s experience in software and hardware.

If we look to the premier publication that people on ASR go to, it’s called the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. There we have the key word “engineering” once again.

At the same time, eveyone on ASR, and in AES for that matter, would agree that it’s the speaker (and its integration in the room/venue) that plays the main role. And when those same engineers test the quality of speakers (in room/venue), they resort to what’s been called the “gold standard”, i.e. listening tests to map out preferences.

“Listening tests” and “preferences” are key words here. A very short review of the concepts - in addition to some comon sense - tells me the following:

=> A quantitative approach to mapping out preferences is often the theme in marketing, economics, health care. I could also add philosophy to the list as philosophy often deals with rational choices.

=> Listening tests: Well, our hearing system, including the brain, is a field of inquiry in medical journals, for people who study neurology etc. Statistics is a big issue in such tests. Even economics could arguably be important in understanding of vox populi based tests.

My precision in the two points above could probably be better, buy my point is this:

AS AUDIO ENGINEERS TEST THEIR PRODUCTS (I.E. HYPOTHESES), THEY LEAVE THE NARROW WORLD OF ENGINEERING, TO ENTER A WHOLE NEW REALM WHERE OTHER RULES AND OTHER MODES OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY APPLY

Could it be that some of the discussions on ASR are dumbed down due to the fact that engineers don’t have the science, tools, language and even mind set to discuss audio where it matters, i.e. as a complex interaction between inner factors like ears, brain and outer factors like speakers and room?

Could it be that the definition of audio science is so narrow, lack of progress (for example accumulation of practical knowledge) in this discipline is to be expected?

It’s complicated, right?

I'm also still fuzzy on what it is you want or think is not being done. This will be the 5th or 6th or more time I've asked for a more concrete example.
Speakers, okay speakers. What would you like to see done in regards to testing or selecting or ranking speakers in regard to quality of playback or accuracy or is that even going to far for your view on this? I certainly agree speakers are what will make a difference to what the user hears, and about the only thing currently. So how do you suggest things proceed at this point? It is developing and applying a model of how sound is processed applied to the sound a speaker makes?

 

[Absolute]

I fail to understand the supposed error in establishing statistical significance in regards to preference with double blind listening tests.

How can we possibly make better observations about preferences without including listening tests?
I don't think it was engineers that came up with the testing procedure, so not sure if the term "engineer-mindset" is relevant to the findings in the research.

 

[svart-hvitt]

You do realize that preference testing is complicated, usually involving a large group effort, with significant complications if such a large group must evaluate loudspeakers under repeatable set of conditions with all the test controls required, such as proper room set up, precise speaker positioning, and blinding protocol? Why do you keep asking ASR to conduct tests that are beyond the capabilities of any of us?

Are you willing to fund this effort to the tune of multiple millions of dollars as a proper research study? You can't keep complaining that ASR isn't doing what you want if that something is well beyond the financial and organizational capabilities of this group (well, you can, and you have been, but it seems very childish to do so given the realities of such testing).

Please, either suggest a workable method to do what you want, or stop complaining!

Hmmm...pointing out the deficiencies of a research program leads to critique for not lying out the sketch of evidences of a better research program.

Doesn’t anyone see the lack of logic here? It reminds me of those who criticize modern economics, where the estsblishment says «There Is No Alternative». This master suppression technique even has a name: TINA!

It’s déjà vu all over again.

So what do I suggest can be done immediately in audio research?

1) Stop using terms like «gold standard» because there is no such thing (its use comes from the need to promote one set of thinking).

2) Acknowledge that audio science - if what’s processed by our ears and brain is key to its success - has as much if not more to do with fields like medicine/neurology, psychology and other «soft» sciences as with electrical engineering.

3) Acknowledge that tools and terms in audio science are borrowed from statistics, marketing, economics, health care/medicine and other philosophical and «soft» fields.

4) Acknowledge the fact that lack of progress in certain «soft sciences» may be of interest to those that wonder why audio is stuck too; good speakers from the 1970s sound perfectly fine compared to speakers of the 2000s.

5) Insist on using the same methods of inquiry across audio research efforts; like blind test of amplifiers instead of blind test of speakers only. However, this is not to say that only one method of inquiry should be applied, just a reminder that choice of inquiry method is susceptible to bias(es).

6) Acknowledge that preferences and truth are not necessarily the same thing.

7) Acknowledge that sample size matters; if one man does 100 different tests on 5000 individuals, that’s arguably still a sample of one because this is a one man effort.

I could go on.

My main point is that audio science is a mix of so many sciences it looks awkward to favor say electrical engineering over medicine/neurology or philosophical pursuits like statistics.

 

[watchnerd]

For example, do you want to be transferred to the event or do you want to keep your room and pretend it is a lounge where you can look our through the wall where the event is occurring?

While this is a valid question, a large portion of this act of illusion and artifice is in the hands of the recording engineers.

Thus, IMHO, the job of the reproduction chain is to try to match what the engineers heard / intended.....which ain't easy at all, see "Circle of Confusion".

But it's the closest I can intellectually get to a semi-model that doesn't involve never-ending tail-chasing.

 

[BDWoody]

Come up, clearly, with a more productive(verifiable) alternative rather than the talking-head natter/chatter. Cut the somewhat vague waffle and make a clear case for, provided by you, up-front propositions.

Did you ever record yourself when you were high, and thought you were being really profound, only to play it back later and find that you were just spouting self indulgent mumbo jumbo?

Not sure why I just thought of that...

 

[svart-hvitt]

I fail to understand the supposed error in establishing statistical significance in regards to preference with double blind listening tests.

How can we possibly make better observations about preferences without including listening tests?
I don't think it was engineers that came up with the testing procedure, so not sure if the term "engineer-mindset" is relevant to the findings in the research.

Say you make a blind test. 50 participants. However, you base your summary statistics on only 30 of those.

Such things happen.

Should we take this kind of statistics at face value?

 

[watchnerd]

The correct answer is:

Percentile rank 37.5

Mathemetically: 50%*50 + 50%*25 = 37.5

Given no or little skill among other contestants, the experiment will lift the median guess over time to 1st percentile (the competitors’ average percentile rank willl be 50).

WHAT WISDOM LIES IN THE MEDIAN?

By doing nothing, simply free-riding on the work of others, the median strategy will never work very poorly (never below 50th percentile), but the strategy will in half of the time lift you to a rank that is higher than 50th percentile.

By applying the median strategy, one will never stick out, but over time one will look pretty smart. Have you ever met a person who performed the median strategy? He was always in the middle, never sticking out, never doing big idiosyncratic errors or mistakes, and over time he became successful.

Please note that the median strategy works well independent on the revealed number in the contest, if the number is Truth or Nonsense. The median strategy will work in either case, and from a scientific point of view, this is the food for thought: How can you know that the optimal strategy in this vox populi game was Truth seeking or Nonsense seeking?

If this vox populi based approach was an optimal one for our lazy contestant, can it work outside of a model? I already raised the question if you had ever noticed such a person, a smooth person who was was celebrated for his ability to define and talk for the consensus, a characteristic that led to his success? Would this strategy work for companies too? Smooth talking companies that never challenged the consensus, spending their money on marketing instead of science, R&D and capital expenditure? Only the philosopher would ask: The success of the median strategy is apparent, but is it a successful strategy for society? The cynical observer, inspired by homo economicus, would respond: The strategy makes money. What other need for evidence do you need?

Every man for himself. The median strategy is my advice to people who aspire for success. Consensus is a comfortable place too. Probably good for one’s well being and long-term health. The strategy’s mathematics is unbeatable, and it doesn’t matter if the median is based on Truth or Nonsense.

A THOUGHT ON THE MEDIAN SPEAKER
For this exercise one can illustrate the point for oneself by the RANDBETWEEN function in Excel.

Say a speaker has 7 tone controls, from A to G.

Here’s one empirical observation on all over the place EQ settings:

“However, many of us have seen evidence of such listener preferences in the “as found” tone control settings in numerous rental and loaner cars”.
Source: Floyd Toole, Sound Reproduction (latest ed.), chapter 12.3

For the ease of seeing the point, make a column in Excel with seven rows from A to G. Apply the formula RANDBETWEEN in every cell, and use minus 10 and plus 10 [RANDBETWEEN(-10,10)] to generate random numbers for every tone control, A to G. Say minus and plus 10 is the equivalent of plus/minus 10 dB deviation from “Flat”. Your first row of seven random generated numbers will look...random...much like the tone control you saw in the rental and loaner cars? If this column represented the only person in the world, the numbers associated with every tone control from A to G would represent Truth as per the vox populi way of thinking - even if this column of numbers doesn’t look like “Flat” (i.e. zeros from A to G) at all.

To expand the experiment, make 100 or even 1000 columns to represent 100 or 1000 individuals’ preferences. I will bet you a free beer that none of the columns shows straight zeros. However, if you calculate the median of the 100 or 1000 tone preferences from A to G, you’ll start to see that the median is zero for each of the tone controls. In other words, none of the individual users preferred straight zeros, but the way we made our calculation made it look like zero (i.e. “Flat”) is the preference of the population.

Food for thought: Was it real science or the design of the research model that guided the “scientist” to conclude that flat is Truth? Is the vox populi method better at finding a compromise, an average, a consensus independent of Truth?

In audio reality, I believe an average (median) of a large number of speakers would look a bit like the experimental model above. The thing is, will the power of the median strategy lead us to “Flat” in terms of frequency response because it is Truth or because it is the result of averaging a large number of (random) preferences where the median strategy rewards the consensus speaker?

Idea based science told us that Flat (in terms of frequency response) was correct long before vox populi-processes were used to arrive at the same conclusion by accident or real insight. The thing about Flat in terms of frequency response, is that its representation is a one-dimensional, linear one. What if there are multidimensional, non-linear aspects of sound that are not as easily picked up by my Excel sheet? What if an important dimension were “colour”, or a set of coordinates from a to z?

In a previous post, AES Fellow John Watkinson was ridiculed for presenting the idea of perfect waveform reproduction, not only through dacs and amplifiers, but through speakers as well. Vox populi polls has shown us that Watkinson’s “perfect waveform” is not what listeners wanted, so Truth is discarded in favor of a vox populi based result. Could one argue that Truth is Nonsense because vox populi said so?

To finish off this short essay, let me add that I am in favor of vox populi based institutions and methods. But I am also aware of the vox populi method’s limits. In economics, there has been vox populi related discussions for decades. Even though very few economists reject the idea of a market, most economists find it enjoyable to discuss the limits of vox populi. In psychology, old Truth may be about to be replaced by new Truth. There is a growing suspicion that Truth may be Nonsense in some cases for which for example Daniel Kahneman is a well-known figure. The new insight is that the results of legacy research on preferences and behaviour may be the results of framing, the way questions were asked in the original research on which later work was based. In other words, there is a growing awareness in psychology that the design of research methods influences the results. So old Truth is new Nonsense.

Some people have criticized economics - which arguably is a failed research program - for physics envy, and for applying principles from physics onto economics related problems, principles that were later abandoned by younger generations in the physics discipline. Does audio have a certain economics envy, applying a narrow focus on vox populi as more and more economists raise questions about sins of emission in their discipline? Do even younger audio researchers have a psychology envy too, putting too much weight on preference related research at the same time as psychologists too are waking up to the fact that old Truth is new Nonsense?

I am not saying, either, that vox populi based research in audio is Nonsense. But a certan awareness, a sound discussion of sins of omission, is in place in audio science as in other research areas. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[pkane]

Hmmm...pointing out the deficiencies of a research program leads to critique for not lying out the sketch of evidences of a better research program.

Doesn’t anyone see the lack of logic here? It reminds me of those who criticize modern economics, where the estsblishment says «There Is No Alternative». This master suppression technique even has a name: TINA!

Well, no. My critique is of the context in which you are asking to do this research. This is a hobbyist site with no capacity to do that kind of testing. So why keep asking (and, in fact, complaining)? Unless you have a few million dollars to donate, what do you hope will happen by you repeatedly proposing that ASR should do speaker preference evaluations?

 

[March Audio]

Could it be that the definition of audio science is so narrow, lack of progress (for example accumulation of practical knowledge) in this discipline is to be expected?

It’s complicated, right?

Could it be that conversing in such utterly nebulous baseless conjecture leads to a lack of progress in this thread?

It? Complicated? Well it's clear you don't even know what it is you are referring to.

 

[Thomas savage]

Did you ever record yourself when you were high, and thought you were being really profound, only to play it back later and find that you were just spouting self indulgent mumbo jumbo?

Not sure why I just thought of that...

I remember listening to a recording of my own voice ( from a dictaphone I was using to interview people with while traveling as a 21 year old)

Upon hearing said recording I thought " Christ what a pretentious wanker , I want to punch that guy in the face" .

The morally appropriate thing to do would have been to take a vow of silence for the rest of my natural life.

 

[March Audio]

Hmmm...pointing out the deficiencies of a research program leads to critique for not lying out the sketch of evidences of a better research program.

Doesn’t anyone see the lack of logic here? It reminds me of those who criticize modern economics, where the estsblishment says «There Is No Alternative». This master suppression technique even has a name: TINA!

It’s déjà vu all over again.

So what do I suggest can be done immediately in audio research?

1) Stop using terms like «gold standard» because there is no such thing (its use comes from the need to promote one set of thinking).

2) Acknowledge that audio science - if what’s processed by our ears and brain is key to its success - has as much if not more to do with fields like medicine/neurology, psychology and other «soft» sciences as with electrical engineering.

3) Acknowledge that tools and terms in audio science are borrowed from statistics, marketing, economics, health care/medicine and other philosophical and «soft» fields.

4) Acknowledge the fact that lack of progress in certain «soft sciences» may be of interest to those that wonder why audio is stuck too; good speakers from the 1970s sound perfectly fine compared to speakers of the 2000s.

5) Insist on using the same methods of inquiry across audio research efforts; like blind test of amplifiers instead of blind test of speakers only. However, this is not to say that only one method of inquiry should be applied, just a reminder that choice of inquiry method is susceptible to bias(es).

6) Acknowledge that preferences and truth are not necessarily the same thing.

7) Acknowledge that sample size matters; if one man does 100 different tests on 5000 individuals, that’s arguably still a sample of one because this is a one man effort.

I could go on.

My main point is that audio science is a mix of so many sciences it looks awkward to favor say electrical engineering over medicine/neurology or philosophical pursuits like statistics.

Without discussing each point. Those things are acknowledged, done and considered.

Where do you get this thought train from?

 

[svart-hvitt]

Without discussing each point. Those things are acknowledged, done and considered.

Where do you get this thought train from?

Are you really suggesting that most ASR regulars can sign off each of (i.e. agree with) the points above?

 

[svart-hvitt]

The math I showed is matter of factual. The model biases certain ranking schemes where the median will win over time. It’s a way to show that mediocrity can be celebrated, both in a world of real innovation and progress and in a world of confusion and utter nonsense.

The model has empirical support across over two decades and over a million data points.

 

[SIY]

Are you really suggesting that most ASR regulars can sign off each of (i.e. agree with) the points above?

No. "Considered" is not the same as "agrees with fully." Or "finds word games and gassy philosophizing useful and interesting."