I think there is a language barrier here. Pig headed just means very stubborn to the point of exclusion of alternative ideas.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR DISCOURSE ON ASR
- Thread starter svart-hvitt
- Start date
OP
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
- Thread Starter
- #302
The thread was just moderated for tone. One could have used say «stubborn» for a more neutral tone, I don’t think anyone would use «pig head» at Gearslutz, would they?
On «pigs»: In my language, it’s been settled in court that you can call police «horse cock», which is a normal expression in the north of Norway: https://www.itromso.no/nyheter/article577451.ece
In that respect, «pig» pales.
I'm interested in how they came to be recorded by someone like this, did they check their work before booking, or just book a studio at random? I'm also interested in how the conversions before recording went, did they explain what they want, or were they simply not asked, a professional should be getting out of their clients what they want, and guiding them to the best approach for them, this sounds like the opposite, you get slammed mess regardless.
Iv got some brawn and blood sausages in my fridge that suggest a good long boil can do wonders for the humble pig head..
Pig ignorant , now thats a insult.
Parts of this thread read like a case study into the dangers of children growing up with insufficient levels of intellectual affirmation from male authority figures.
By all means carry on but I'd suggest regression therapy maybe more effective for some.
Pig ignorant , now thats a insult.
Parts of this thread read like a case study into the dangers of children growing up with insufficient levels of intellectual affirmation from male authority figures.
By all means carry on but I'd suggest regression therapy maybe more effective for some.
OP
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
- Thread Starter
- #306
Diversion by means of labelling others is quite common in (heated) debates, for example when a natural scientist, Richard Dawkins, puts a label from the science of psychology on those who believe in God («The God delusion», see also the debate with mathematics professor John Lennox for entertainment and learning).
At least one other user used a label from psychology to make a point. «Norms and standards for discourse», anyone?
Please attack argument and idea, not person.
This is one of the few threads on ASR on epistemology, i.e. about questioning why some people think a certain form of scientific inquiry is superior to others. I wish there was more debate, more formal presentation of arguments instead of Twitter style opinions.
I "prefer" the simple, concise Merriam-Webster definition of a term that was first used in the 15th Century:
There is great irony in this display of a continuing a stubborn refusal (one of the very definitions of "pigheadedness") by the OP to "seek truth" via even a minimal amount of research, especially when that person claims to be a strong advocate for "SEEKING TRUTH." I also detect a bit of "concern-trolling" in the OP's response to Blumlein's comment, which may indicate a motive of stirring up controversy to provoke strong responses.
The dynamics of online forum discussions has always fascinated me, because, unlike face-to-face conversations, one can take the time to compose and edit comments. However, one can still blurt out comments that lead to regret. Fortunately, here at ASR we can at least edit or delete our indiscretions and minimize the embarrassment - as I have done a couple of times over the past year to return to the "norms and standards" of this forum.
I already knew the meaning of the term pigheaded (which is commonly used either with or without a hyphen), and It took me about 10 seconds to verify the definition, which I did before I clicked on Wombat's link which lead to the same definition. It doesn't take a genius - or much time - to do an online search. As with many words, details regarding the definitions vary, and they also evolve, but pigheadedness as used by many in the modern world does not necessarily mean "stupidly" stubborn as in the past. This is after all, 2019 and not 1638!
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 2,778
- Likes
- 8,164
No, for the nth time, whatever it is is, it's not "symptomatic of discourse on ASR." As long as you keep insisting that there's a pathological problem with ASR (that has symptoms and that you are diagnosing and that others are unable or unwilling to see), you will continue to get the same responses you've been getting for many pages now.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,784
- Likes
- 37,678
They didn't check out prior work even though I said they should. The place was suggested by people they knew. The studio was nearby and affordable in an area with relatively few choices. The studio's work is mainly for TV and radio ads in recent years.
Now prior to recording there were conversations about what was wanted. It was explicitly explained that though the norm these days was to highly compress and slam music they didn't want that. They also didn't want extreme processing to make it sound like something it wasn't. They wanted it to sound like acoustical musical instruments and singers. I can only surmise he listened and thought these people don't know what they were talking about or asking for. I was there during recording, the guy understood music, and was well equipped to record music.
When they received the 1st result they were rather unhappy and not sure what to think. They sent that to me. It was obvious what had happened. They were afraid it was something wrong in how he recorded it and couldn't be fixed. I assured them about some things he had done and using what he recorded it could just be done a different way.
The 2nd attempt would have been pretty poor had you not heard the 1st result. So they went to the guy again, and took some recordings I had made of their practice sessions. Told the guy, "this is more of what we had in mind". I wasn't there, but they reported he was surprised, and said "well, I didn't know THAT is what you had in mind".
So then he did a really good job with it. He has some real skills, had a result that sounded fairly natural though it had some goodly amount of processing. He did things I am not capable of doing. And it was good. He just doesn't think that kind of sound is worth pursuing. Which tends to be the norm I suppose. I don't get the whole idea that you are showing skill by compressing music into near uniform loudness if you do that without it sounding quite as horrible as it otherwise might. It still sounds horrible to me.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,784
- Likes
- 37,678
As others have already explained, I called no one a pig. I used a term descriptive of being unwilling to listen to what others think or want. I could have used obstinate or stubborn or variations. If it is thought using a less courteous term is off-putting and keeps mixing or mastering people from taking part in the forum I'll edit and change it. On the other hand, in this thread at least about standards of discourse I think it is okay. Just for the discussion about the term and its use.
So forget about pigs. Toole said the biggest problem or distortion is in the recording process and studios because of a huge circle of confusion. I should have downplayed the recording result in the experience I described. The reason I brought it up is the studio had some capable JBL monitors. The studio had heavily altered the response of those. And then normally does extreme processing which can sound somewhat balanced on a very intentionally unbalanced set of monitors. They have gone out of their way to create a circle of confusion where none existed. I've wondered if when this recording pro did the final version of those recordings if he listened over the JBL monitors with that altered response or if he put them into straight bypass to work? If not listening to the monitors straight, he was probably wondering why anyone wanted such a bland dead sounding recording.
What time I talked to him about it, and I was as courteous and nice as I can be, he was always tight-lipped. As if I was trying to steal secrets of how the real pros work. More likely he just thought I was an amateur duffer who didn't know what he knew and couldn't understand. He is right about that I suppose.
I don't know...I thought it was pretty funny, and likely quite insightful.
Maybe I'm just being pig-headed about all of this, but so far I haven't seen you make a single cogent point, despite pages and pages of (sooooo manyyyyy) words. Just...painful...
As far as I know, the cochlear implants don't restore Hi-Fi music listening ability. Neither they restore full speech recognition ability. They do save from deafness though.
A person with a typical contemporary cochlear implant needs to be trained to use it; best results are achieved in a quiet environment; lips reading skills help a lot too.
A cochlear implant isn't exactly a vocoder, yet the effect is similar: what a person hears is a "robotic" voice. I guess some of Lo-Fi music could be recognized and enjoyed more readily, yet in general the science and practice of cochlear implants aren't there yet for arbitrary genres of music.
Another porcine piece of the English language for the edification of those unaware of it.
Pigs arse.
OP
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
- Thread Starter
- #314
A BASKET OF ESSAYS ON AUDIO SCIENCE
“All I want is to sit on my arse and fart and think of Dante”
Samuel Beckett
To present philosophical ideas on ASR will easily be regarded as a Don Quijotic effort. Still, audio is an extremely interesting place for people who are interested in group behavior and dynamics. Unsurprisingly, each competing group thinks the other group is delusional.
The S in ASR stands for science. Conequently, epistemology is central to our understanding of clashes between groups that think they represent the one truth at the same time.
“Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits?”, says the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/).
It’s summer time, so here it goes, a new basket of deplorable thoughts from the sun bed. A list of the coming essays:
BATTLE FOR EPISTEMOLOGICAL HEGEMONY
ON SEEKING TRUE PREFERENCES
AN ENTICING MARKET STORY
THE FAT TONYS AND TONY LIPS OF AUDIO RESEARCH
“All I want is to sit on my arse and fart and think of Dante”
Samuel Beckett
To present philosophical ideas on ASR will easily be regarded as a Don Quijotic effort. Still, audio is an extremely interesting place for people who are interested in group behavior and dynamics. Unsurprisingly, each competing group thinks the other group is delusional.
The S in ASR stands for science. Conequently, epistemology is central to our understanding of clashes between groups that think they represent the one truth at the same time.
“Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits?”, says the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/).
It’s summer time, so here it goes, a new basket of deplorable thoughts from the sun bed. A list of the coming essays:
BATTLE FOR EPISTEMOLOGICAL HEGEMONY
ON SEEKING TRUE PREFERENCES
AN ENTICING MARKET STORY
THE FAT TONYS AND TONY LIPS OF AUDIO RESEARCH
Last edited:
OP
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
- Thread Starter
- #315
BATTLE FOR EPISTEMOLOGICAL HEGEMONY
The naïve observer of science is satisfied when the researcher says that “scientific methods have been applied”, or even “the scientific method has been applied” – as if scientific inquiry had one “gold standard” to guide us, in a world of an unrivalled epistemological hegemony.
In reality, science is a dirtier game where there are clashes between epistemological positions, little known to the casual observer of science. These battles have fascinated previous generations of scientists, and while our casual observer of science believes science advances due to new evidence, the reality is as if “science makes progress funeral by funeral: the old are never converted by the new doctrines, they simply are replaced by a new generation”, as Paul A. Samuelson said, when quoting Max Planck.
Let me take you back over 70 years, to 1947, to an old clash between old and new doctrines in the field of economics. The author of the article and the following quote was Tjalling C. Koopmans, who received the so called Nobel prize in economics in 1975:
“When Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler engaged in the systematic labor of measuring the positions of the planets, and charting their orbits, they started with conceptions and models of the planetary system which later proved incorrect in some aspects, irrelevant in others. Tycho always, and Kepler initially, believed in uniform circular motion as the natural basic principle underlying the course of celestial bodies. Tycho’s main contribution was a systematic accumulation of careful measurements. Kepler’s outstanding success was due to a willingness to strike out for new models and hypotheses if such were needed to account for the observations obtained. He was able to find simple empirical “laws” which were in accord with past observations and permitted the prediction of future observations. This achievement was a triumph for the approach in which large scale gathering, sifting, and scrutinizing of facts precedes, or proceeds independently of, the formulation of theories and their testing by further facts”.
Source: http://static.stevereads.com/papers_to_read/koopmans_review_of_measuring_business_cycles.pdf
The Koopmans critique, titled “Measurement without theory”, was an accusation that the prevailing economics research program was naïve empiricism. Today we know the result of this clash. The old research program, institutionalism, lost and new and more mathematically, “theoretically” oriented programs won. In hindsight, probably not a fortunate development as the modern research program is characterized more by hegemony than pluralism, as argued by Akerlof (2019).
Is this old clash relevant for our understanding of research programs in audio too? Are there competing research programs in audio or is audio a place of intellectual peace? Is “the approach in which large scale gathering, sifting, and scrutinizing of facts precedes, or proceeds independently of, the formulation of theories and their testing by further facts” déjà vu all over again when one looks at the state of audio research?
On ASR, a certain research program has been called “the gold standard”. Challenging this research program sets a common response in motion when confronted with uncomfortable knowledge: Denial, dismissal, diversion and displacement (Rayner (2012)). The “gold standard” research program is based on vox populi, i.e. listening to the voice of a shaped population to uncover something. This “something” is defined as preferences, which is an important detail because “preferences” and say “Truth” are not the same.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Is the Koopmans critique of early 1900s economics relevant for our understanding of the “gold standard” research program in audio? Is the vox populi based research program in audio measurement without theory? Is audio science a research program of epistemological hegemony without controversy, or is audio science characterized by pluralism? Does raising these questions feel as if disturbing the intellectual peace or are epistemological questions met with curiosity and a good will to reflect?
The naïve observer of science is satisfied when the researcher says that “scientific methods have been applied”, or even “the scientific method has been applied” – as if scientific inquiry had one “gold standard” to guide us, in a world of an unrivalled epistemological hegemony.
In reality, science is a dirtier game where there are clashes between epistemological positions, little known to the casual observer of science. These battles have fascinated previous generations of scientists, and while our casual observer of science believes science advances due to new evidence, the reality is as if “science makes progress funeral by funeral: the old are never converted by the new doctrines, they simply are replaced by a new generation”, as Paul A. Samuelson said, when quoting Max Planck.
Let me take you back over 70 years, to 1947, to an old clash between old and new doctrines in the field of economics. The author of the article and the following quote was Tjalling C. Koopmans, who received the so called Nobel prize in economics in 1975:
“When Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler engaged in the systematic labor of measuring the positions of the planets, and charting their orbits, they started with conceptions and models of the planetary system which later proved incorrect in some aspects, irrelevant in others. Tycho always, and Kepler initially, believed in uniform circular motion as the natural basic principle underlying the course of celestial bodies. Tycho’s main contribution was a systematic accumulation of careful measurements. Kepler’s outstanding success was due to a willingness to strike out for new models and hypotheses if such were needed to account for the observations obtained. He was able to find simple empirical “laws” which were in accord with past observations and permitted the prediction of future observations. This achievement was a triumph for the approach in which large scale gathering, sifting, and scrutinizing of facts precedes, or proceeds independently of, the formulation of theories and their testing by further facts”.
Source: http://static.stevereads.com/papers_to_read/koopmans_review_of_measuring_business_cycles.pdf
The Koopmans critique, titled “Measurement without theory”, was an accusation that the prevailing economics research program was naïve empiricism. Today we know the result of this clash. The old research program, institutionalism, lost and new and more mathematically, “theoretically” oriented programs won. In hindsight, probably not a fortunate development as the modern research program is characterized more by hegemony than pluralism, as argued by Akerlof (2019).
Is this old clash relevant for our understanding of research programs in audio too? Are there competing research programs in audio or is audio a place of intellectual peace? Is “the approach in which large scale gathering, sifting, and scrutinizing of facts precedes, or proceeds independently of, the formulation of theories and their testing by further facts” déjà vu all over again when one looks at the state of audio research?
On ASR, a certain research program has been called “the gold standard”. Challenging this research program sets a common response in motion when confronted with uncomfortable knowledge: Denial, dismissal, diversion and displacement (Rayner (2012)). The “gold standard” research program is based on vox populi, i.e. listening to the voice of a shaped population to uncover something. This “something” is defined as preferences, which is an important detail because “preferences” and say “Truth” are not the same.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Is the Koopmans critique of early 1900s economics relevant for our understanding of the “gold standard” research program in audio? Is the vox populi based research program in audio measurement without theory? Is audio science a research program of epistemological hegemony without controversy, or is audio science characterized by pluralism? Does raising these questions feel as if disturbing the intellectual peace or are epistemological questions met with curiosity and a good will to reflect?
Last edited:
OP
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
- Thread Starter
- #316
ON SEEKING TRUE PREFERENCES
If a poll shows that a population has a preference for A over B, what do we know?
In audio, it has been claimed that a population’s preference of A over B, also implies a preference of secondary order, like C over D, of E over F, and/or that there is indifference between factors G, H, I…etc. . Does audio research act as if guilty by association?
Given the fact that audio research has borrowed many features from economics, not least its preference for a vox populi process to uncover “something”, it’s interesting to note that audio research doesn’t practice ceteris paribus, which is considered important in economics. How can one reliably know more than say A>B if a poll tests A vs B only? All the other, secondary factors, say C, D, E…etc., can they be accounted for without a ceteris paribus analysis? How can one really uncover second-order preferences if the poll doesn’t test for these preferences explicitly?
Absence of ceteris paribus analyses represents a possible hurdle for conclusions in economics; why not so in audio research?
The complexity in the audio research program of vox populi increases as we dive more deeply into “preferences”. What are “preferences”? A rational criticism of preferences can be formulated like this:
“Preferences are rationally criticized if vivid representation of confirmed beliefs will result in a reversal or strengthening (…) For reflection on facts can alter preferences when the preference is seen to be a result (1) of inadequate representation of facts, or (2) of influence by temporary motivational states, or (3) of stimulus generalization from abnormal cases, or (4) of overlooking unpleasant facts about the object, or (5) of failure of making discriminations, or (6) as a result of suggestions by teachers, or (7) as a result of false or unjustified factual beliefs. The author suggests we say a preference has been rationally criticized if reflection on these defects results in a modification of the preference”.
Source: Preferences, Brandt in Fehige and Wessels (1998)
Are we uncovering preferences if the population has had prior training to prefer something over another thing? Will priming of participants alter their preferences? Confusing? For an example, see this quote by @Floyd Toole:
“As I discuss at several points in my book, audio professionals tend to prefer being in a dominant direct sound field. Whether this is fashion, habituated preference, hearing loss consequences, or something else we may never know. Consumers/audiophiles more often prefer to have some amount of reflected sound arriving at the listening position. We know that this is likely to be most pleasant if the direct and reflected sounds have something spectrally in common - hence the need to look at off-axis performance in anechoic measurements”.
Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-for-discourse-on-asr.8212/page-2#post-204484
What Dr. Toole describes, is a change in preferences – from A>B to B<A – when one changes from one population to the next. In other words, do Dr. Toole’s observations deserve a “rational criticism of preferences”?
The literature on preferences is vast and much of it has been written by philosophers. However, philosophy is, paradoxically, one of the most despised parts of science on ASR. What does this distaste for philosophy tell us about the “norms and standards for discourse on ASR” if philosophy is key to understanding “preferences” that is central in the “gold standard” in audio science?
If a poll shows that a population has a preference for A over B, what do we know?
In audio, it has been claimed that a population’s preference of A over B, also implies a preference of secondary order, like C over D, of E over F, and/or that there is indifference between factors G, H, I…etc. . Does audio research act as if guilty by association?
Given the fact that audio research has borrowed many features from economics, not least its preference for a vox populi process to uncover “something”, it’s interesting to note that audio research doesn’t practice ceteris paribus, which is considered important in economics. How can one reliably know more than say A>B if a poll tests A vs B only? All the other, secondary factors, say C, D, E…etc., can they be accounted for without a ceteris paribus analysis? How can one really uncover second-order preferences if the poll doesn’t test for these preferences explicitly?
Absence of ceteris paribus analyses represents a possible hurdle for conclusions in economics; why not so in audio research?
The complexity in the audio research program of vox populi increases as we dive more deeply into “preferences”. What are “preferences”? A rational criticism of preferences can be formulated like this:
“Preferences are rationally criticized if vivid representation of confirmed beliefs will result in a reversal or strengthening (…) For reflection on facts can alter preferences when the preference is seen to be a result (1) of inadequate representation of facts, or (2) of influence by temporary motivational states, or (3) of stimulus generalization from abnormal cases, or (4) of overlooking unpleasant facts about the object, or (5) of failure of making discriminations, or (6) as a result of suggestions by teachers, or (7) as a result of false or unjustified factual beliefs. The author suggests we say a preference has been rationally criticized if reflection on these defects results in a modification of the preference”.
Source: Preferences, Brandt in Fehige and Wessels (1998)
Are we uncovering preferences if the population has had prior training to prefer something over another thing? Will priming of participants alter their preferences? Confusing? For an example, see this quote by @Floyd Toole:
“As I discuss at several points in my book, audio professionals tend to prefer being in a dominant direct sound field. Whether this is fashion, habituated preference, hearing loss consequences, or something else we may never know. Consumers/audiophiles more often prefer to have some amount of reflected sound arriving at the listening position. We know that this is likely to be most pleasant if the direct and reflected sounds have something spectrally in common - hence the need to look at off-axis performance in anechoic measurements”.
Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-for-discourse-on-asr.8212/page-2#post-204484
What Dr. Toole describes, is a change in preferences – from A>B to B<A – when one changes from one population to the next. In other words, do Dr. Toole’s observations deserve a “rational criticism of preferences”?
The literature on preferences is vast and much of it has been written by philosophers. However, philosophy is, paradoxically, one of the most despised parts of science on ASR. What does this distaste for philosophy tell us about the “norms and standards for discourse on ASR” if philosophy is key to understanding “preferences” that is central in the “gold standard” in audio science?
Last edited:
OP
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
- Thread Starter
- #317
AN ENTICING MARKET STORY
- OR WHY DID VOX POPULI RESEARCH PROGRAMS GAIN POPULARITY IN AUDIO TOO?
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”.
John Maynard Keynes
In 1951, Milton Friedman, the economist and Nobel laureate, wrote:
“If these judgments are correct, we are currently at one of these periods when what Dicey called the “cross-currents” of public opinion are at a maximum, a period at which underlying opinion is confused, vague, and chaotic. The same beliefs are still largely held by the same people, but there is no longer the same unthinking acceptance of them. Stubbornness and unwillingness to relinquish a faith once blindly held are taking the place of fanaticism. The stage is set for the growth of a new current of opinion to replace the old, to provide the philosophy that will guide (…) the next generation even though it can hardly affect those of this one.
Ideas have little chance of making much headway against a strong tide; their opportunity comes when the tide has ceased running strong but has not yet turned. This is, if I am right, such a time, and it affords a rare opportunity to those of us who believe (…) to affect the new direction the tide takes. We have a new faith to offer; it behooves us to make it clear to one and all what that faith is”.
Source: https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/Farmand_02_17_1951.pdf
The title of Friedman’s article was “Neo-liberalism and its prospects”. Central to “the new faith” was, and still is, the Weltanschauung that “”the market” is posited to be an information processor more powerful than any human brain, but essentially patterned on brain/computation metaphors” (Mirowski and Plehwe, 2009).
Though Galton wrote his essay on vox populi in 1907, his “evidence” (the median contestant guessed the ox weight with an error margin of almost zero) didn’t gain immediate foothold in society. An indication of how long it takes to “affect the new direction the tide takes”, for the “current opinion to replace the old”, is the fact that Surowiecki’s bestseller “The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations” was published in 2004, about one hundred years after Galton (1907) and 50 years after Friedman (1951). The curios and skeptical observer may start to ask when “stubbornness and unwillingness to relinquish a faith once blindly held are taking the place of fanaticism” will once again describe what used to be the new way of thinking 100 and 50 years back in time, but which has become the new Old in the meantime.
Is it just coincidence that the “gold standard” in audio is a research program that is built upon vox populi? Can the prevailing hegemony of vox populi based research be linked to the hegemony of market-oriented thought in modern society? Or is audio science an island of isolation where Truth prevails in a paradise of intellectual peace? Is audio science “exempt from any intellectual influence”?
The contemporary audio researcher resorts to vox populi and expects a spontaneous order of speaker characteristics, i.e. the self-organization, a spontaneous order from chaos, based on prior characteristics of the population and the goods under study, and based on an algorithm that was set prior to the study. Out of confusion comes order, until the designer of the market of speaker characteristics decides to change method and/or data, for a never-ending tweaking of perfect speaker characteristics.
There are a couple of terms above I would like to dwell over, in order to make the Keynes quote on "some academic scribbler of a few years back", "madmen in authority", "slaves" and "practical men" more visibly relevant for the science interested reader who is fascinated by vox populi in audio research. Hayek said that “[o]rder is an indispensable concept for the discussion of all complex phenomena, in which it must largely play the role the concept of law plays in the analysis of simpler phenomena”.
Mapping out the perfect speaker characteristics is a discussion of “complex phenomena, right? What did Hayek mean by “order”?
Order is “[a] state of affairs in which a multiplicity of elements of various kinds are so related to each other that we may learn from our acquaintance with some spatial or temporal part of the whole to form correct expectations concerning the rest, or at least expectations which have a good chance of proving correct. There is an order to a state of affairs, then, when it is possible to make more-or-less accurate predictions about how it will behave on the basis of “macro"-level information”.
The implication is that by designing a market of speaker characteristics through listening tests and manipulating the population of the test to fit a predetermined target shape, perfections of (unspecified) loudspeakers and (unspecified) rooms are uncovered. It is an enticing market story.
(A much more funny version is @Cosmik ‘ s constructed dialogue: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...for-discourse-on-asr.8212/page-14#post-210475).
Some historians of thought have started to ask the economist: If you control the design of the market, don’t you control the outcome as well?
Is the pensée unique in audio primarily an enticing market story?
Are there «some academic scribbler of a few years back», «madmen in authority», «slaves» and «practical men» in audio too?
- OR WHY DID VOX POPULI RESEARCH PROGRAMS GAIN POPULARITY IN AUDIO TOO?
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”.
John Maynard Keynes
In 1951, Milton Friedman, the economist and Nobel laureate, wrote:
“If these judgments are correct, we are currently at one of these periods when what Dicey called the “cross-currents” of public opinion are at a maximum, a period at which underlying opinion is confused, vague, and chaotic. The same beliefs are still largely held by the same people, but there is no longer the same unthinking acceptance of them. Stubbornness and unwillingness to relinquish a faith once blindly held are taking the place of fanaticism. The stage is set for the growth of a new current of opinion to replace the old, to provide the philosophy that will guide (…) the next generation even though it can hardly affect those of this one.
Ideas have little chance of making much headway against a strong tide; their opportunity comes when the tide has ceased running strong but has not yet turned. This is, if I am right, such a time, and it affords a rare opportunity to those of us who believe (…) to affect the new direction the tide takes. We have a new faith to offer; it behooves us to make it clear to one and all what that faith is”.
Source: https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/Farmand_02_17_1951.pdf
The title of Friedman’s article was “Neo-liberalism and its prospects”. Central to “the new faith” was, and still is, the Weltanschauung that “”the market” is posited to be an information processor more powerful than any human brain, but essentially patterned on brain/computation metaphors” (Mirowski and Plehwe, 2009).
Though Galton wrote his essay on vox populi in 1907, his “evidence” (the median contestant guessed the ox weight with an error margin of almost zero) didn’t gain immediate foothold in society. An indication of how long it takes to “affect the new direction the tide takes”, for the “current opinion to replace the old”, is the fact that Surowiecki’s bestseller “The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations” was published in 2004, about one hundred years after Galton (1907) and 50 years after Friedman (1951). The curios and skeptical observer may start to ask when “stubbornness and unwillingness to relinquish a faith once blindly held are taking the place of fanaticism” will once again describe what used to be the new way of thinking 100 and 50 years back in time, but which has become the new Old in the meantime.
Is it just coincidence that the “gold standard” in audio is a research program that is built upon vox populi? Can the prevailing hegemony of vox populi based research be linked to the hegemony of market-oriented thought in modern society? Or is audio science an island of isolation where Truth prevails in a paradise of intellectual peace? Is audio science “exempt from any intellectual influence”?
The contemporary audio researcher resorts to vox populi and expects a spontaneous order of speaker characteristics, i.e. the self-organization, a spontaneous order from chaos, based on prior characteristics of the population and the goods under study, and based on an algorithm that was set prior to the study. Out of confusion comes order, until the designer of the market of speaker characteristics decides to change method and/or data, for a never-ending tweaking of perfect speaker characteristics.
There are a couple of terms above I would like to dwell over, in order to make the Keynes quote on "some academic scribbler of a few years back", "madmen in authority", "slaves" and "practical men" more visibly relevant for the science interested reader who is fascinated by vox populi in audio research. Hayek said that “[o]rder is an indispensable concept for the discussion of all complex phenomena, in which it must largely play the role the concept of law plays in the analysis of simpler phenomena”.
Mapping out the perfect speaker characteristics is a discussion of “complex phenomena, right? What did Hayek mean by “order”?
Order is “[a] state of affairs in which a multiplicity of elements of various kinds are so related to each other that we may learn from our acquaintance with some spatial or temporal part of the whole to form correct expectations concerning the rest, or at least expectations which have a good chance of proving correct. There is an order to a state of affairs, then, when it is possible to make more-or-less accurate predictions about how it will behave on the basis of “macro"-level information”.
The implication is that by designing a market of speaker characteristics through listening tests and manipulating the population of the test to fit a predetermined target shape, perfections of (unspecified) loudspeakers and (unspecified) rooms are uncovered. It is an enticing market story.
(A much more funny version is @Cosmik ‘ s constructed dialogue: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...for-discourse-on-asr.8212/page-14#post-210475).
Some historians of thought have started to ask the economist: If you control the design of the market, don’t you control the outcome as well?
Is the pensée unique in audio primarily an enticing market story?
Are there «some academic scribbler of a few years back», «madmen in authority», «slaves» and «practical men» in audio too?
Last edited:
OP
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
- Thread Starter
- #318
THE FAT TONYS AND TONY LIPS OF AUDIO RESEARCH
“So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said”.
Source: H.C. Andersen’s “The emperor’s clothes”
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the bestselling author, tells the story about Fat Tony, a street smart guy who never got the chance to go to university to replace practical knowledge with “hegemonic ideas”.
The same guy – painted in a more nuanced story than Taleb’s bestsellers – is Tony Lip from “Green Book”, which won Oscar for best film this year. Lip says to Don Shirley, the well-polished virtuoso pianist of colour in early 1960s America: “I’ve been working on night clubs all my life. I know it’s a complicated world”.
Both Fat Tony and Tony Lip know much about complexity, and they have practical experience. Don’t Fat Tony and Tony Lip remind us about experienced people in audio who talk about factors in sound reproduction that disappear after vox populi based research on preferences has established order from chaos? An example from ASR comes to mind (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...particular-speaker-dynamics.7742/#post-183006).
Responding to the opening post of “Dr. Klaus Heinz of HEDD Audio (ex ADAM Audio) - measuring speakers, in particular speaker dynamics”, the third comment from an ASR regular reads – unsurprisingly – like this (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...particular-speaker-dynamics.7742/#post-183006):
“Is there blind test research that backs this no measurement for dynamics claim up?”
A bit later, another ASR regular writes:
“The problem is that "microdynamics" and "macrodynamics" are audio reviewer terms, not things with an actual definition”.
Klaus Heinz of Hedd, a man who has built speakers in all his life, could easily be regarded as a Fat Tony or a Tony Lip who “know it’s a complicated world”. The critical responses of ASR regulars are as surprising as the behaviour of Pavlov’s dogs, who learned to respond in a certain way without thinking about it.
“Stubbornness and unwillingness to relinquish a faith once blindly held are taking the place of fanaticism”, wrote Friedman (1951). Can the same be said about discourses on audio science?
“So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said”.
Source: H.C. Andersen’s “The emperor’s clothes”
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the bestselling author, tells the story about Fat Tony, a street smart guy who never got the chance to go to university to replace practical knowledge with “hegemonic ideas”.
The same guy – painted in a more nuanced story than Taleb’s bestsellers – is Tony Lip from “Green Book”, which won Oscar for best film this year. Lip says to Don Shirley, the well-polished virtuoso pianist of colour in early 1960s America: “I’ve been working on night clubs all my life. I know it’s a complicated world”.
Both Fat Tony and Tony Lip know much about complexity, and they have practical experience. Don’t Fat Tony and Tony Lip remind us about experienced people in audio who talk about factors in sound reproduction that disappear after vox populi based research on preferences has established order from chaos? An example from ASR comes to mind (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...particular-speaker-dynamics.7742/#post-183006).
Responding to the opening post of “Dr. Klaus Heinz of HEDD Audio (ex ADAM Audio) - measuring speakers, in particular speaker dynamics”, the third comment from an ASR regular reads – unsurprisingly – like this (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...particular-speaker-dynamics.7742/#post-183006):
“Is there blind test research that backs this no measurement for dynamics claim up?”
A bit later, another ASR regular writes:
“The problem is that "microdynamics" and "macrodynamics" are audio reviewer terms, not things with an actual definition”.
Klaus Heinz of Hedd, a man who has built speakers in all his life, could easily be regarded as a Fat Tony or a Tony Lip who “know it’s a complicated world”. The critical responses of ASR regulars are as surprising as the behaviour of Pavlov’s dogs, who learned to respond in a certain way without thinking about it.
“Stubbornness and unwillingness to relinquish a faith once blindly held are taking the place of fanaticism”, wrote Friedman (1951). Can the same be said about discourses on audio science?
Last edited:
Say again?
Wow.
I suddenly thought of Jack Handey.
As for speakers, I have both types - with and without smooth off-axis response.
I prefer the direct sound, so apparently I get lumped in with the "audio professionals", per Dr Toole's research.
I can live with that.
I suddenly thought of Jack Handey.
As for speakers, I have both types - with and without smooth off-axis response.
I prefer the direct sound, so apparently I get lumped in with the "audio professionals", per Dr Toole's research.
I can live with that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
