NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR DISCOURSE ON ASR

[SIY]

 

[Xulonn]

 

[svart-hvitt]

Wow! I just found a font called Gibberish! It is as difficult to read as some comments here.

Actually, I am being a bit silly because these attempts to engage in a deep philosophical discussion about science at a website that is primarily concerned with audio engineering, circuit and case/housing design, applied research (as opposed to pure basic research) and audiophile consumer interests seem a bit misplaced.

Like many here, I will read about and consider new ideas in audio if they are presented in a logical and objective manner, but I have no idea - or desire - to evaluate them based on deep philosophical thought.

And I absolutely do not see the connection between economic theory and sonic preferences in audio. Correlation does not necessarily indicate causality.

@Xulonn, your comment illustrates the intention and title of this thread “norms and standards for discourse on ASR”.

You ridicule posts on science and its epistemological perspectives even if the name of this site is Audio SCIENCE Review. In other words, you criticize activity which deals with perspectives of science, on a site dedicated to science. Don’t you see the irony?

“Why most published research findings are false”, noted John P. A. Ioannidis in 2005. His paper “has been the most-accessed article in the history of Public Library of Science (>2.7 million hits)”, according to Stanford. So Ioannidis’ question garners great interest across the scientific community, except among regulars on ASR. That, in itself, is an interesting observation! Maybe the ASR community is not so interested in science after all? Maybe unquestioned belief and faith, a place of intellectual peace, is more comfortable?

We cannot ask the question Iioannidis did without any understanding of epistemology, can we? That’s why I think epistemology has a place on ASR too.

The natural question to ask on ASR, in the spirit of Ioannidis, is: “Why most published research findings are false in audio too”. My series of post has had the intention of promoting humility – pluralism of thought as a better alternative than hegemony – instead of what some people call “pigheadedness”. I wanted to further curiosity when confronted with basic questions instead of hostility and a Pavlov dog type reaction of waving off any question that hasn’t been settled by existing “gold rule” research.

You write that you can’t see the connection between “economic theory and sonic preferences in audio”. In 2004, James Surowiecki wrote the bestseller “The wisdom of crowds”, indicating the great interest of the broader population in this theme. The publisher wrote that “Surowiecki ranges across fields as diverse as popular culture, psychology, ant biology, behavioral economics, artificial intelligence, military history, and politics to show how this simple idea offers important lessons for how we live our lives, select our leaders, run our companies, and think about our world”. This “simple idea”, the wisdom of crowds, or vox populi, is the favored design of many a researcher, and audio is no exception. In fact, in some blind tests of speakers, the author had found that per vox populi people favored A over B, and from there the author concluded that a whole range of underlying characteristics had been implicitly been tested for preferences – even if the vox populi design of the research was based on just 28 participants, and didn’t apply ceteris paribus. To me, this indicates an even bigger belief in vox populi in audio than among economists.

I also showed that vox populi has become a central part of the Zeitgeist of the past few decades. The Surowiecki bestseller detour was meant to illustrate this. So the choice of a “gold standard” in audio science cannot be seen as being “quite exempt from any intellectual influence”.

Additionally, I showed that the use of “preferences” in audio research deserves rational criticism because preferences are evidently not stationary, but change from population to population (say consumers vs. professionals), which may indicate for example learning.

Your knee jerk response to questions on the validity of “science in audio” supports my coming back to the well-known Keynes quote once again:

“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”.

Does anyone feel caricatured here?

I read from your point that you feel a need to redefine science as “audio engineering, circuit and case/housing design, applied research (as opposed to pure basic research) and audiophile consumer interest”. Your opinion is shared by ASR regulars. I find your attempt at redefining a term as central as science to be much in line with the Zeitgeist I previously talked about where a population may decide for itself how to define things. In my view, your opinion is a dangerous one if shared by too many because it leads us to a place where the distinction between fake and real is taken out.

@amirm ‘s choice of Science in the ASR name was probably meant to add prestige to the site. Science sounds good doesn’t it? However, you cannot dress yourself up in the clothes of science without applying the norms and standards of science, can you?

“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”

 

[Wombat]

@Xulonn, your comment illustrates the intention and title of this thread “norms and standards for discourse on ASR”.

You ridicule posts on science and its epistemological perspectives even if the name of this site is Audio SCIENCE Review. In other words, you criticize activity which deals with perspectives of science, on a site dedicated to science. Don’t you see the irony?

“Why most published research findings are false”, noted John P. A. Ioannidis in 2005. His paper “has been the most-accessed article in the history of Public Library of Science (>2.7 million hits)”, according to Stanford. So Ioannidis’ question garners great interest across the scientific community, except among regulars on ASR. That, in itself, is an interesting observation! Maybe the ASR community is not so interested in science after all? Maybe unquestioned belief and faith, a place of intellectual peace, is more comfortable?

We cannot ask the question Iioannidis did without any understanding of epistemology, can we? That’s why I think epistemology has a place on ASR too.

The natural question to ask on ASR, in the spirit of Ioannidis, is: “Why most published research findings are false in audio too”. My series of post has had the intention of promoting humility – pluralism of thought as a better alternative than hegemony – instead of what some people call “pigheadedness”. I wanted to further curiosity when confronted with basic questions instead of hostility and a Pavlov dog type reaction of waving off any question that hasn’t been settled by existing “gold rule” research.

You write that you can’t see the connection between “economic theory and sonic preferences in audio”. In 2004, James Surowiecki wrote the bestseller “The wisdom of crowds”, indicating the great interest of the broader population in this theme. The publisher wrote that “Surowiecki ranges across fields as diverse as popular culture, psychology, ant biology, behavioral economics, artificial intelligence, military history, and politics to show how this simple idea offers important lessons for how we live our lives, select our leaders, run our companies, and think about our world”. This “simple idea”, the wisdom of crowds, or vox populi, is the favored design of many a researcher, and audio is no exception. In fact, in some blind tests of speakers, the author had found that per vox populi people favored A over B, and from there the author concluded that a whole range of underlying characteristics had been implicitly been tested for preferences – even if the vox populi design of the research was based on just 28 participants, and didn’t apply ceteris paribus. To me, this indicates an even bigger belief in vox populi in audio than among economists.

I also showed that vox populi has become a central part of the Zeitgeist of the past few decades. The Surowiecki bestseller detour was meant to illustrate this. So the choice of a “gold standard” in audio science cannot be seen as being “quite exempt from any intellectual influence”.

Additionally, I showed that the use of “preferences” in audio research deserves rational criticism because preferences are evidently not stationary, but change from population to population (say consumers vs. professionals), which may indicate for example learning.

Your knee jerk response to questions on the validity of “science in audio” supports my coming back to the well-known Keynes quote once again:

“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”.

Does anyone feel caricatured here?

I read from your point that you feel a need to redefine science as “audio engineering, circuit and case/housing design, applied research (as opposed to pure basic research) and audiophile consumer interest”. Your opinion is shared by ASR regulars. I find your attempt at redefining a term as central as science to be much in line with the Zeitgeist I previously talked about where a population may decide for itself how to define things. In my view, your opinion is a dangerous one if shared by too many because it leads us to a place where the distinction between fake and real is taken out.

@amirm ‘s choice of Science in the ASR name was probably meant to add prestige to the site. Science sounds good doesn’t it? However, you cannot dress yourself up in the clothes of science without applying the norms and standards of science, can you?

“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”

By dint this forum is primarily about practical science. It is obvious from responses to your posts that you are indulging your own needs rather than the ASR membership's. This would be fine if your interest wasn't so over represented by ungraspable volume.

I look at 'shifting sands' posts as a path to nowhere. Keep the number of points to a minimum and validate them, I'd advise.

 

[BDWoody]

@Xulonn, your comment illustrates the intention and title of this thread “norms and standards for discourse on ASR”.

You ridicule posts on science and its epistemological perspectives even if the name of this site is Audio SCIENCE Review. In other words, you criticize activity which deals with perspectives of science, on a site dedicated to science. Don’t you see the irony?

No, he's just ridiculing you. There's a huge difference.

You have become a parody of yourself, and he simply highlighted it.

 

[svart-hvitt]

By dint this forum is primarily about practical science. It is obvious from responses to your posts that you are indulging your own needs rather than the ASR membership's. This would be fine if your interest wasn't so over represented by ungraspable volume.

I look at 'shifting sands' posts as a path to nowhere. Keep the number of points to a minimum and validate them.

What if «most published research findings are false», as Ioannidis noted in another field of science.

Agreed, it’s simpler to measure a dac than questioning if research findings may be false or correct. But that’s not science; it’s measurements.

 

[Wombat]

What if «most published research findings are false», as Ioannidis noted in another field of science.

Agreed, it’s simpler to measure a dac than questioning if research findings may be false or correct. But that’s not science; it’s measurements.

Your overly long posts are full of 'what ifs' in an astounding variety of forms. You have a VERY, VERY small, like-minded cohort here.

ASR is generally concerned with 'what is'.

You seem to be impervious to feedback.

 

[March Audio]

@Xulonn, your comment illustrates the intention and title of this thread “norms and standards for discourse on ASR”.

You ridicule posts on science and its epistemological perspectives even if the name of this site is Audio SCIENCE Review. In other words, you criticize activity which deals with perspectives of science, on a site dedicated to science. Don’t you see the irony?

No, he ridicules your inability to understand that the site is specifically about audio science directly and not the wider side epistemological discussion of science in general.

Your inability to deliver any relevant discussion. If there is a specific issue with what ASR does or how it does it from this epistemological aspect then please discuss.

Otherwise it's simply self indulgent nebulous waffle with no purpose or relevance. You are talking endlessly without saying anything at all.

 

[Thomas savage]

 

[Wombat]

Useful waffles.

 

[pkane]

@Xulonn, your comment illustrates the intention and title of this thread “norms and standards for discourse on ASR”.

You ridicule posts on science and its epistemological perspectives even if the name of this site is Audio SCIENCE Review. In other words, you criticize activity which deals with perspectives of science, on a site dedicated to science. Don’t you see the irony?

“Why most published research findings are false”, noted John P. A. Ioannidis in 2005. His paper “has been the most-accessed article in the history of Public Library of Science (>2.7 million hits)”, according to Stanford. So Ioannidis’ question garners great interest across the scientific community, except among regulars on ASR. That, in itself, is an interesting observation! Maybe the ASR community is not so interested in science after all? Maybe unquestioned belief and faith, a place of intellectual peace, is more comfortable?

We cannot ask the question Iioannidis did without any understanding of epistemology, can we? That’s why I think epistemology has a place on ASR too.

The natural question to ask on ASR, in the spirit of Ioannidis, is: “Why most published research findings are false in audio too”. My series of post has had the intention of promoting humility – pluralism of thought as a better alternative than hegemony – instead of what some people call “pigheadedness”. I wanted to further curiosity when confronted with basic questions instead of hostility and a Pavlov dog type reaction of waving off any question that hasn’t been settled by existing “gold rule” research.

You write that you can’t see the connection between “economic theory and sonic preferences in audio”. In 2004, James Surowiecki wrote the bestseller “The wisdom of crowds”, indicating the great interest of the broader population in this theme. The publisher wrote that “Surowiecki ranges across fields as diverse as popular culture, psychology, ant biology, behavioral economics, artificial intelligence, military history, and politics to show how this simple idea offers important lessons for how we live our lives, select our leaders, run our companies, and think about our world”. This “simple idea”, the wisdom of crowds, or vox populi, is the favored design of many a researcher, and audio is no exception. In fact, in some blind tests of speakers, the author had found that per vox populi people favored A over B, and from there the author concluded that a whole range of underlying characteristics had been implicitly been tested for preferences – even if the vox populi design of the research was based on just 28 participants, and didn’t apply ceteris paribus. To me, this indicates an even bigger belief in vox populi in audio than among economists.

I also showed that vox populi has become a central part of the Zeitgeist of the past few decades. The Surowiecki bestseller detour was meant to illustrate this. So the choice of a “gold standard” in audio science cannot be seen as being “quite exempt from any intellectual influence”.

Additionally, I showed that the use of “preferences” in audio research deserves rational criticism because preferences are evidently not stationary, but change from population to population (say consumers vs. professionals), which may indicate for example learning.

Your knee jerk response to questions on the validity of “science in audio” supports my coming back to the well-known Keynes quote once again:

“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”.

Does anyone feel caricatured here?

I read from your point that you feel a need to redefine science as “audio engineering, circuit and case/housing design, applied research (as opposed to pure basic research) and audiophile consumer interest”. Your opinion is shared by ASR regulars. I find your attempt at redefining a term as central as science to be much in line with the Zeitgeist I previously talked about where a population may decide for itself how to define things. In my view, your opinion is a dangerous one if shared by too many because it leads us to a place where the distinction between fake and real is taken out.

@amirm ‘s choice of Science in the ASR name was probably meant to add prestige to the site. Science sounds good doesn’t it? However, you cannot dress yourself up in the clothes of science without applying the norms and standards of science, can you?

“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”

Again, you misinterpret simple English words when used in context. "Audio Science" in no way implies the larger Science and in no way implies Philosophy of Science. I suggest you stop posting volumes of text and references, and instead try using a dictionary. You'll find all the answers there.

 

[March Audio]

What if «most published research findings are false», as Ioannidis noted in another field of science.

Agreed, it’s simpler to measure a dac than questioning if research findings may be false or correct. But that’s not science; it’s measurements.

Then you will be able to identify those errors and or reasons for them. If not then you have no basis to question the result.

In which case your question is pointless, as much of this thread has been.

 

[Cosmik]

I don't understand why people object to other people having a discussion in a thread devoted to the more ideas-based side of audio.

Can we have a new section of the forum titled 'Philosophy' and then people won't stumble into it by accident and feel out of their depth.

 

[March Audio]

What if «most published research findings are false», as Ioannidis noted in another field of science.

.

On reflection I can only conclude you have taken this statement/conclusion out of context because it is one of the most dumb ass things I have ever seen stated on this forum.

Let's compare what we can do now to what we could do 200 years ago as a direct result of scientific endeavour.

So you think we acheive this through most science being wrong. LMAO.

 

[March Audio]

I don't understand why people object to other people having a discussion in a thread devoted to the more ideas-based side of audio.

Can we have a new section of the forum titled 'Philosophy' and then people won't stumble into it by accident and feel out of their depth.

This isn't that. This is a bunch of pointless what ifs without intelligent basis or relevance.

 

[Cosmik]

This isn't that. This is a bunch of pointless what ifs without intelligent basis or relevance.

But it is @svart-hvitt's thread, and he did start it with the word "Warning!"

 

[pkane]

On reflection I can only conclude you have taken this statement/conclusion out of context because it is one of the most dumb ass things I have ever seen stated on this forum.

Let's compare what we can do now to what we could do 200 years ago as a direct result of scientific endeavour.

So you think we acheive this through most science being wrong. LMAO.

Ioannidis is very clearly stating what kind of science is wrong in his paper: data-driven, individualized, group, clinical, including meta-analysis, i.e., Soft-science studies.

I'm confused, @svart-hvitt: you are criticizing ASR and Amir on the use of Hard-science approach and support this by demonstrating that most Soft-science studies are wrong? Interesting debate tactic

 

[March Audio]

But it is @svart-hvitt's thread, and he did start it with the word "Warning!"

I'm not sure that justifies the inane nebulous train of thought that has poured out. Psuedo intellectualism.

There has has also been IMO a wilfully deliberate misinterpretation/misrepresentation of some of the science that has been discussed for the purpose of creating unnecessary debate or provocation.

 

[Cosmik]

This isn't that. This is a bunch of pointless what ifs without intelligent basis or relevance.

I've got an interesting question for you, @March Audio.

Have you ever considered the significance of frame rate in video? Not many people have, I'll admit. But there's a phenomenon that might be termed 'film look' versus 'video look'. I could point you to various articles on an attempt to make a cinema film at 48 fps as opposed to the normal 24 fps. Some people liked 48 fps, but most preferred 'film look' 24 fps because of its slightly dream-like quality. On the other hand, people who watch sports on TV prefer higher frame rates primarily to do with the rendition of motion. Some TVs will cleverly convert all source frame rates to 120 Hz unless you turn it off. Tom Cruise has fronted a campaign to turn this off as a default setting because it makes cinema films look like a soap opera. On the other hand, when soap operas have adopted 'film look', viewers have written in to complain that there's something odd about the picture.

The interesting thing, I think, is that the difference is in plain sight, yet most people can't really put their finger on it. It's not just smoother motion, but a difference in 'clarity'.

Now, supposing you wanted to know which frame rate was best. Well I think it's a question that science can't answer. Cinema adopted 24 fps by accident, but stumbled upon a complete fluke: whatever you film at 24 fps, it ends up looking 'artistic' and 'dreamlike' - and this is pure subjectivity. Objectively there is no way to measure that quality.

Objectively, higher frame rates are 'better' in every way, and objective tests can demonstrate it: people can complete interactive tasks better at higher frame rates; in gaming they can judge time to impact better, etc.

And in this case, we know that context matters hugely because one person can prefer two different frame rates in two different contexts. And the slow frame rate of cinema created its own genre in the first place - without any Hollywood films to view, you couldn't run a meaningful test on whether 24 fps was better than 48. But had cinema adopted 48 fps to start with, it would have ended up making the same types of material as television did in the 1950s because - you guessed it - television adopted 50 or 60 fps (effectively) for video (it had to). Showing this material at 24 fps would look wrong to start with.

I would suggest this as an example where pure empirical science would fail without some background 'philosophy'. Simply setting out to find 'the best frame rate' would be doomed to never-ending confusion.

I think we have similar doomed quests in audio. The one that springs to mind is "What is the best target curve"? The reason why this is doomed to never-ending confusion is that the notion of target curve is 'wrong' because the curve is derived from the context, and assigning a curve despite the context is meaningless. Only by getting past the 'try it and see' mentality (a.k.a. 'science' for most people) can confusion be avoided.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've got an interesting question for you, @March Audio.

Have you ever considered the significance of frame rate in video? Not many people have, I'll admit. But there's a phenomenon that might be termed 'film look' versus 'video look'. I could point you to various articles on an attempt to make a cinema film at 48 fps as opposed to the normal 24 fps. Some people liked 48 fps, but most preferred 'film look' 24 fps because of its slightly dream-like quality. On the other hand, people who watch sports on TV prefer higher frame rates primarily to do with the rendition of motion. Some TVs will cleverly convert all source frame rates to 120 Hz unless you turn it off. Tom Cruise has fronted a campaign to turn this off as a default setting because it makes cinema films look like a soap opera. On the other hand, when soap operas have adopted 'film look', viewers have written in to complain that there's something odd about the picture.

The interesting thing, I think, is that the difference is in plain sight, yet most people can't really put their finger on it. It's not just smoother motion, but a difference in 'clarity'.

Now, supposing you wanted to know which frame rate was best. Well I think it's a question that science can't answer. Cinema adopted 24 fps by accident, but stumbled upon a complete fluke: whatever you film at 24 fps, it ends up looking 'artistic' and 'dreamlike' - and this is pure subjectivity. Objectively there is no way to measure that quality.

Objectively, higher frame rates are 'better' in every way, and objective tests can demonstrate it: people can complete interactive tasks better at higher frame rates; in gaming they can judge time to impact better, etc.

And in this case, we know that context matters hugely because one person can prefer two different frame rates in two different contexts. And the slow frame rate of cinema created its own genre in the first place - without any Hollywood films to view, you couldn't run a meaningful test on whether 24 fps was better than 48. But had cinema adopted 48 fps to start with, it would have ended up making the same types of material as television did in the 1950s because - you guessed it - television adopted 50 or 60 fps (effectively) for video (it had to). Showing this material at 24 fps would look wrong to start with.

I would suggest this as an example where pure empirical science would fail without some background 'philosophy'. Simply setting out to find 'the best frame rate' would be doomed to never-ending confusion.

I think we have similar doomed quests in audio. The one that springs to mind is "What is the best target curve"? The reason why this is doomed to never-ending confusion is that the notion of target curve is 'wrong' because the curve is derived from the context, and assigning a curve despite the context is meaningless. Only by getting past the 'try it and see' mentality (a.k.a. 'science' for most people) can confusion be avoided.

So movies would have become 1950's TV because of frame rates? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BTW, TV effectively had 30 frames per second (29.97 more precisely and 25 in some countries). And how did movies standardize on 24 fps (or 48 half fps)? If we are talking accuracy more frames is better. Some of the immersion technology makes people woozy if it runs less than 60 fps.