• 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

OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
I am willing to bet that quite a few of us just go "oh, no, not again" and skip most of what you have to say because of the semi-related citations bombing.



You don't. That Dr. Mäkivirta makes a fuzzy analogy to push his brand marketing message. Whether he is right in some kind of absolute framework upon which humans have not agreed yet, whether he is right in his narrow field of experience, whether you agree with him or do not is irrelevant.

There's no way a fuzzy rhetorical analogy can be proven wrong or right.

I agree that a message from corporate mouth could be read in a cynical way due to the profit motive. The absence of the same cynicality on ASR with regard to Harman research is conspicuous, isn’t it?

However, you missed my point, which was about evaluating Dr. Mäkivirta’s comment using one’s tools of preference; math, simulations, empirical data, or prose.
 

Floyd Toole

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
367
Likes
3,893
"This tells us that listeners prefer a certain amount of natural room gain."

No it doesn't. It's an observation of a correlation that has no explanatory power.

This is actually the perfect example of the debate. A correlation between preference and frequency response is not an explanation of it, even if the experimenter decided at the outset that this was his hypothesis. It's like a weather forecaster noticing that pine cones close up in wet weather and deciding that it is the pine cones that are causing it to rain.

This is where 'science' loses its philosophical moorings and simply observes correlations and doesn't think about it any further. A neutral speaker in a room will give the sloping response, but it isn't the in-room frequency response that is the cause of perceived neutrality. Many different in-room frequency responses will give the same perceived neutrality if the experiment is repeated in many different rooms with different speakers. The listener is hearing the neutral speaker, not the in-room frequency response. But there's a 'blob' of average-ish speakers in average-ish rooms that all produce a more-or-less similar response when set up something like correctly (i.e. with some compensation for their non-neutral dispersion). This is all the experiment shows.

But different types of speakers vary in terms of dispersion. That's a whole layer of confusion that a purely empirical approach will fall foul of: "I don't understand it. The box speaker sounded fine with the Harperson 37B target response, but the panel speaker with an identical measured response at the listener's ear sounds different."

A preference for a downward tilting steady-state room curve is the result of two things:
1. beginning with my very first double-blind listening tests in the late 1960s, through the detailed tests in my 1985-86 JAES papers, continuing to this date, the highest rated loudspeakers have had the smoothest, flattest on-axis anechoic response. This is the direct sound.
2. The normal forward-firing configurations of drivers inevitably start out as omnidirectional at low frequencies, becoming progressively more directional at higher frequencies. The rising bass energy yields a steady-state room curve with a downward tilt.

A fundamental problem has been the incorrect assumption, made long, long ago (in the age of RTAs), that the audio rule "flat is beautiful" should apply to steady-state room curves, not the direct sound. It corrupted the movie industry and its problematic "X-curve" (Chapter 11 in my book), and the rest of audio in its application to the ITU-R BS.1116-3 and EBU Tech 3276 standards, unfortunately still used by at least some. broadcasters and monitor manufacturers. Turning back the clock is difficult.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
@amirm , you wrote (my underlining):

«None of this is constructive and is wasting the forum resources».

I just checked the review of the Totaldac d1-six dac, which measures poorly and costs €13.500:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...and-measurements-of-totaldac-d1-six-dac.8192/

Since July 25th, there are 957 posts in that thread:facepalm:

Talk about waste and the efficient use of resources...
So audiophiles have voted with their fingers on what data they like to get and discuss (how a very expensive DAC performs). And you think that means a failure?

What you see is a formula that is working. There is consumer demand for that type of information, and we/I are providing the platform and data for it. By your definition Apple is a failure because so many people have bought iPhones. Perhaps you advocate going back to wired phones, or feature phones Nokia made.

We are not here to google for philosophical quotes thrown at the membership with nary a slice of common sense applied to why. And how it doesn't reflect poorly on you. Go and do something constructive here or elsewhere instead of just complaining about your favorite horse not being talked about....
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
You ask me about my experience in designs of say optimal behaviour in decision making processes. So let me give you an exercise. Genelec’s R&D director Aki Mäkivirta recently wrote that «Neutrality is the safe choice». And he added: «In many walks of life, it is wise to stay neutral. This saves you from a lot of trouble...».
Source: https://www.genelec.com/blog/neutrality-safe-choice

How would you go on to prove Dr. Mäkivirta right or wrong? You can use math, simulations, empirical data/observations or prose to prove your position.
It is trivial to show his position is wrong. Here is what he says:

1564682457345.png


So let's look up ITUR BS116 with respect to room response:

1564682544918.png


The BS1116 is fantastic reference on how to perform listening tests to find small differences but is absolutely wrong on the above. Bass variations all get wiped out with 1/3 octave filtering. You have no prayer of finding frequency response differences and arriving at what Dr. Mäkivirta is saying.

Here is an actual room measurement with 1/12 octave smoothing:

Twelft octave smoothing.png


Here is the same measurement with recommended ITU 1/3 octave smoothing:

one third smoothing.png


Notice how you have lost all the detail that tell you how the bass sounds.

You don't have to take my word for it that this is wrong. You can take Genelec's! They surveyed a bunch of rooms using their speakers calibrated with the Dolby 1/3 octave smoothing in this paper:

1564683484449.png


1564683522450.png


Notice the large amount of error due (in part) to use of 1/3 octave smoothing. You can see the same graph better:
Genelec Studio Speaker Study.png


That "target line" is the dreaded X-curve that Dr. Toole talked about.

These systems despite being 1/3 octave EQed, and using Genelec speakers, absolutely do not sound the same. The reference to ITU-R BS1116 is just wrong. That requirement is based on wrong notions of sound reproduction, not proper research as modern science advocates.

As an aside, it is funny how idol worshiping with no due diligence is in play by you. Did you even bother reading the BS1116?

Sadly the authors of the paper including Dr. Mäkivirta that you cherish, still make the mistake of advocating 1/3 octave smoothing:

1564683724029.png


This is just wrong. You must not filter the base frequencies to this level. Or if you want to advocate it, you better roll out the listening tests to prove it. Not state as a fact.
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
It is trivial to show his position is wrong. Here is what he says:

View attachment 30480

So let's look up ITUR BS116 with respect to room response:

View attachment 30481

The BS1116 is fantastic reference on how to perform listening tests to find small differences but is absolutely wrong on the above. Bass variations all get wiped out with 1/3 octave filtering. You have no prayer of finding frequency response differences and arriving at what Dr. Mäkivirta is saying.

Here is an actual room measurement with 1/12 octave smoothing:

View attachment 30482

Here is the same measurement with recommended ITU 1/3 octave smoothing:

View attachment 30483

Notice how you have lost all the detail that tell you how the bass sounds.

You don't have to take my word for it that this is wrong. You can take Genelec's! They surveyed a bunch of rooms using their speakers calibrated with the Dolby 1/3 octave smoothing in this paper:

View attachment 30486

View attachment 30487

Notice the large amount of error due (in part) to use of 1/3 octave smoothing. You can see the same graph better:
View attachment 30485

That "target line" is the dreaded X-curve that Dr. Toole talked about.

These systems despite being 1/3 octave EQed, and using Genelec speakers, absolutely do not sound the same. The reference to ITU-R BS1116 is just wrong. That requirement is based on wrong notions of sound reproduction, not proper research as modern science advocates.

As an aside, it is funny how idol worshiping with no due diligence is in play by you. Did you even bother reading the BS1116?

Sadly the authors of the paper including Dr. Mäkivirta that you cherish, still make the mistake of advocating 1/3 octave smoothing:

View attachment 30488

This is just wrong. You must not filter the base frequencies to this level. Or if you want to advocate it, you better roll out the listening tests to prove it. Not state as a fact.

:facepalm:

I quoted this from Dr Mäkivirta:

«Neutrality is the safe choice (...) In many walks of life, it is wise to stay neutral. This saves you from a lot of trouble...».

And then you come up in a couple of minutes with a lot of prepared material on why Genelec’s room compensation algorithm is wrong. That seems biased, doesn’t it?

Dr. Mäkivirta says «in many walks of life», so why come up with premade stuff on Genelec products?

The challenge is still there to comment on why neutrality can be wise in many walks of life to save you from trouble. You’ve already shown you’re not neutral, so I guess the «saves you from a lot of trouble» comment is obvious.

You can choose math, simulations, empirical data or prose to show that neutrality in many walks of life saves you from a lot of trouble.

And please don’t forget the «in many walks of life» dimension this time.
 

Absolute

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
Messages
1,084
Likes
2,125
Would my answering of your questions in any way alter your existing opinion?
I don't have an opinion on these philosophical matters as of yet, but if you were to have a solid background studying these things it would certainly make me more interested than if you just have a fascination for philosophical questions and trying to apply it to non-related matters.

Because to me, and to most people here I suppose, it comes across as irrelevant and can possibly be perceived as it's motivated by some kind of personal grudge.

I actually find alot of your deep-digging questions rather thought-provoking and enjoyable when I'm in the mood, but it's something about this streak you're on that doesn't have the usual sensical attraction to it.

Some of the references I used, are things I already read. The references used in the opening post are something that came my way this summer. Some - but not all - of the other references I’ve used are things that I find to illustrate how others answered similar questions. I am open on my sources of ideas instead of pretending it all came from my own head. I have never heard anyone getting formal critique for being open on references used.
Thank you for clearing that out. So some of the stuff you paste can actually be considered as "possibly non-related" due to uncertainty whether or not similar questions were answered in a similar context, but we should read the white papers/books/articles to find out?

Normally that's not a problem, but I think you can agree that when we get such a massive amount of different papers/articles etc it's just too much work to double check if your references have any value to your point(s).

What I'm about to write is very important that you don't misunderstand, because I'm not saying you're like them.
But this kind of semi-related bombardment of information is how the conspiracy theories gain traction with massive amounts of people that either don't fully read the provided links or doesn't fully understand the information within the linked sources.

Since I've spent far too many hours of my life digging into all kinds of linked info/sources, I'm just more careful about where and what I'm willing to dedicate my time to. That's why I'm asking about it.
Nothing to do about my initial opinion.

Readers of this thread complain about my writing style. That’s fair. I believe it comes from people not being used to discussing epistemologic questions and a need for instant gratification, plus downright poor writing - which is a sin I hardly do on my own on ASR. If I showed you an SNR measurement of a dac, a more familar theme providing you with an instant gratification through a data point, you’d be more happy, I guess.
Your writing style is a tad tedious, kind of like the complete works of Aristotle I have, but the only thing I would wish for is that you write your opinion/point (or abstract) at the top of your posts and then go on to explain why.

If you did, I'm sure you would get more replies. Because quite often you have interesting things to discuss. It's just difficult sometimes to find out exactly what that is.

You say you don’t understand what I’m writing because of messy composition; but isn’t your hostility a sign that some of the content in what I wrote provoked you? So are you complaining about substance in content or a feeling of cognitive dissonance?
Not provoked in the slightest. But I am feeling out the water if there's an actual fruitful debate within these threads that gives me an eerie sense of a personal thing going on between you and ASR/Amir.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
You are conflating Interest with Importance, a sin we have from economists who have been so succcessful in promoting the concept of vox populi
And who should be judge of importance? You? By your notion if it doesn't come from Nordic countries, it is not important.
I quoted this from Dr Mäkivirta:

«Neutrality is the safe choice (...) In many walks of life, it is wise to stay neutral. This saves you from a lot of trouble...».

And then you come up in a couple of minutes with a lot of prepared material on why Genelec’s room compensation algorithm is wrong. That seems biased, doesn’t it?
No, it means I have studied the science, and you have not. It means I have published articles on it, and you have not:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/validity-of-x-curve-for-cinema-sound.204/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/target-room-response-and-cinema-x-curve.10/

Your read is superficial. You did not even bother to read the one reference in there. You haven't studied the field, and not even the papers from the idol you are presenting to us.

At to the quote, you provided a link and I read it. Did you not expect me to do that?

That aside, we are not talking about "many walks of life." That is how you fall in a ditch often with respect to psychoacoustics. Take HAAS effect where we don't perceive low-latency reflections as echos. There is nothing intuitive about that, nor same as "many other walks of life."

Statements like that and the mini-opinion piece need to have controlled listening tests to demonstrate them. As it is, controlled listening tests directly contradict it the way he advocates measuring neutrality. In low frequencies, low-q/wide resonances as little as 0.5 dB are audible. From Dr. Toole's book from their J. AES paper:

Floyd Resonances.PNG



You can't filter the heck out of the measurements and then say, "look, it is more or less flat, so it must be neutral."

All of this aside, notice how you are feeding is word salad and I am presenting research and data. And you tell me your ramblings are more important than what the rest of us do?
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
And who should be judge of importance? You? By your notion if it doesn't come from Nordic countries, it is not important.

No, it means I have studied the science, and you have not. It means I have published articles on it, and you have not:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/validity-of-x-curve-for-cinema-sound.204/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/target-room-response-and-cinema-x-curve.10/

Your read is superficial. You did not even bother to read the one reference in there. You haven't studied the field, and not even the papers from the idol you are presenting to us.

At to the quote, you provided a link and I read it. Did you not expect me to do that?

That aside, we are not talking about "many walks of life." That is how you fall in a ditch often with respect to psychoacoustics. Take HAAS effect where we don't perceive low-latency reflections as echos. There is nothing intuitive about that, nor same as "many other walks of life."

Statements like that and the mini-opinion piece need to have controlled listening tests to demonstrate them. As it is, controlled listening tests directly contradict it the way he advocates measuring neutrality. In low frequencies, low-q/wide resonances as little as 0.5 dB are audible. From Dr. Toole's book from their J. AES paper:

View attachment 30489


You can't filter the heck out of the measurements and then say, "look, it is more or less flat, so it must be neutral."

All of this aside, notice how you are feeding is word salad and I am presenting research and data. And you tell me your ramblings are more important than what the rest of us do?

SIN OF OMISSION: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I think I need to come back to why neutrality is the safe choice in many walks of life, and how it may apply to audio too.

My language will be simple math and prose. I have, however simulations and empirical data, but I think math and prose will suffice.
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
I don't have an opinion on these philosophical matters as of yet, but if you were to have a solid background studying these things it would certainly make me more interested than if you just have a fascination for philosophical questions and trying to apply it to non-related matters.

Because to me, and to most people here I suppose, it comes across as irrelevant and can possibly be perceived as it's motivated by some kind of personal grudge.

I actually find alot of your deep-digging questions rather thought-provoking and enjoyable when I'm in the mood, but it's something about this streak you're on that doesn't have the usual sensical attraction to it.

Thank you for clearing that out. So some of the stuff you paste can actually be considered as "possibly non-related" due to uncertainty whether or not similar questions were answered in a similar context, but we should read the white papers/books/articles to find out?

Normally that's not a problem, but I think you can agree that when we get such a massive amount of different papers/articles etc it's just too much work to double check if your references have any value to your point(s).

What I'm about to write is very important that you don't misunderstand, because I'm not saying you're like them.
But this kind of semi-related bombardment of information is how the conspiracy theories gain traction with massive amounts of people that either don't fully read the provided links or doesn't fully understand the information within the linked sources.

Since I've spent far too many hours of my life digging into all kinds of linked info/sources, I'm just more careful about where and what I'm willing to dedicate my time to. That's why I'm asking about it.
Nothing to do about my initial opinion.

Your writing style is a tad tedious, kind of like the complete works of Aristotle I have, but the only thing I would wish for is that you write your opinion/point (or abstract) at the top of your posts and then go on to explain why.

If you did, I'm sure you would get more replies. Because quite often you have interesting things to discuss. It's just difficult sometimes to find out exactly what that is.

Not provoked in the slightest. But I am feeling out the water if there's an actual fruitful debate within these threads that gives me an eerie sense of a personal thing going on between you and ASR/Amir.

I get your point on conspiracy theories and such. Providing lots of sources can be used to give an image of credibility, no doubt. But I wouldn’t have any drive in lack of a better word for that behaviour.

My drive is an intuition that audio science has committed certain sins that haven’t been fully highlighted as far as I know. I bring no professional audio experience into ASR. My experience comes from a failed research program (cfr. Akerlof (2019)) where we have become masters of vox populi related issues. As I try and understand audio science, it’s as if déjà vu all over again.
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
UNCOMFORTABLE KNOWLEDGE IN MONOTHEISTIC SOCIETIES IN SEARCH FOR UNIVERSAL TRUTHS

The title may seem odd but the interested reader will learn why I used those words and terms.

To the more action-seeking reader, who loves twitter-style - but hates Trump for it, I promise to open his eyes for a battle going on, a battle for hegemony, no less!

So fasten the seat belts for a very slow, but uncomfortable ride. Hopefully, the reading will be painful, as we know that cognitive dissonance triggers reactions in the brain that remind us of real pain :)

Ignorance is bliss! Without ignorance, storytelling would be hard. Something needs to be left out to tell a catchy story.

From Steve Raynor (2012), “Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses” in Economy and Society:

“Sense-making is possible only through processes of exclusion. Storytelling is possible only because of the mass of detail that we leave out. Knowledge is possible only through the systematic ‘social construction of ignorance’ (Ravetz, 1986; Rayner, 1986), a phrase which draws on Berger and Luckmann’s 1966 classic The social construction of reality, and which aims to highlight the ways that ignorance is a socially produced and maintained phenomenon, and the ways that knowing and not knowing are interdependent.” ‘Uncomfortable knowledge is “that knowledge which is in tension or outright contradiction with those versions [and] must be expunged””.

From Bent Flyvbjerg (2013), “How planners deal with uncomfortable knowledge: The dubious ethics of the American Planning Association” in Cities:

“In organizational theory, uncomfortable knowledge is knowledge that is disagreeable or intolerable to an organization. Rayner (2011: 5-7) identifies four strategies in increasing order of sophistication for how organizations typically deal with uncomfortable knowledge:

1. Denial represents a refusal to acknowledge or engage with information.
2. Dismissal acknowledges that information exists, and may involve some minimal
engagement up to the point of rejecting it as faulty or irrelevant.
3. Diversion involves the creation of an activity that distracts attention away from an
uncomfortable issue.
4. Displacement occurs when an organization engages with an issue, but substitutes
management of a representation of a problem for management of the problem itself”.

Another synthetization of Rayner (2012), by Andrea Saltelli:

“Denial: “There isn’t a problem”
Dismissal: “It’s a minor problem”
Diversion: “Yes I am working on it” (In fact I am working on something that is only
apparently related to the problem)
Displacement: “Yes and the model we have developed tells us that real progress is
being achieved” (The focus in now the model not the problem)”.

So at the one hand people need ignorance to be told a story that catches, but sometimes at the expense of suppressing knowledge.

Here’s an example of denial, possibly dismissal, after I introduced a critique of @amirm ’s use of “gold standard” to promote a certain research program.

@Xulonn wrote:

“Rejecting the dictionary definition of a phrase and attempting to create controversy by mentioning a debate about its meaning in some obscure corner of academia is not useful in this discussion of audio science. Such localized controversy might be of academic interest to you, but I am sure that most here, like me, could care less about it, and find it irrelevant to the audio aspects of this thread”.

Key words are “obscure”, “localized controversy”, “academic interest”, “irrelevant”.

After my initital critique of “gold standard” on ASR (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-for-discourse-on-asr.8212/page-4#post-205468) I referred to a short essay on the origin and usage of the term (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-for-discourse-on-asr.8212/page-4#post-205601).

A longer treatise on the subject is Jones and Podolosky (2015), “The history and fate of the gold standard” in Lancet (https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736(15)60742-5).

Interestingly, the Lancet article doesn’t only deal with the term “gold standard” in science - a discussion that @Xulonn found “obscure”, “localized”, “academic” and “irrelevant” - it also deals with a research program that resembles what @amirm described as a gold standard in audio. The research program under scrutiny in the Lancet article, is so called RCTs, Randomized Controlled Trials. It’s quite an interesting read. Recommended!

On CRTs, Wikipedia wrote: “A well-blinded RCT is often considered the gold standard for clinical trials” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial).

Sounds familiar? Remember, @amirm wrote:
“Sound evaluation by ear is the gold standard in audio science as long as it is controlled. You know, a proper blind AB comparison with levels matched”.

Let’s look at some quotes from the Lancet article:

“It was, ironically, in this setting—of the final abandonment of the financial gold standard in the USA—that the phrase began to appear in The Lancet and NEJM as something valuable, not merely as a standard of exchange but as the definitive exemplar of quality and reliability. A 1975 Lancet review of new diagnostic criteria described how they set the “gold standard”, providing a new “esperanto of liver disease””.

In other words, it was first after the original gold standard died that the gold standard as a term entered science. Does everybody see the irony, how the need to tell a powerful story comes at the expense of knowing the full history? There cannot be a gold standard, can it, if it goes away at will to be replaced by a newer standard. Something reeks of cult making here, where one uses rhetorical tricks to win a scientific debate, right?

To cast light on the somewhat religious message in the usage of “gold standard” in science (I have bolded and underlined certain passages from the Lancet article):

“But many of its uses in relation to RCTs were critiques, reflecting a legacy of the controversies that had long ensnared those who would claim the epistemic hegemony of RCTs. The debates about RCTs, and about the notion of a medical “gold standard” more generally, often took on religious overtones. Angry about cardiologists’ demands that coronary artery bypass grafting be subjected to RCTs, Lawrence Bonchek encouraged surgeons in 1979 to “resist the almost religious fervor of those who would sanctify randomized studies as the only means of learning the truth”. Writing in 1992, P Finbarr Duggan complained that the phrase “gold standard” itself “smacks of dogma” and should be abandoned”.

Let’s see what happened when I used a smiliar language in posts on ASR:

@simbloke wrote: “...@svart-hvitt your continued use of the words 'cult' and 'gospel' does nothing to advance your argument and is actually quite insulting” (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-and-smooth-off-axis.8090/page-15#post-200957)

@Xulonn wrote: “Your snide remark about ASR regulars and "gospel" is a bit weird - and that was what prompted me to respond. Perhaps there is a language barrier issue...” (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-and-smooth-off-axis.8090/page-13#post-200608).

It seems like journals of medicine have thicker skinned readers than ASR.

Let me quote more from The Lancet:

“Allegiance to a single approach provides a focus around which communities can organise and rally. But critics have pointed to the dangers of such medical monotheism. As pioneering cardiac surgeon René Favaloro wrote in 1998, reflecting on three decades of debate about bypass grafting, “Randomized trials have developed such high scientific stature and acceptance that they are accorded an almost religious sanctification...If relied on exclusively they may be dangerous””.

And the article concludes (my bolding and underlining):

“The past several years have seen increasing calls for an ecumenical approach to clinical research, with more flexible standards for what counts as acceptable study designs. Physicians have developed new methods to extract robust analyses from patient registries and from the ever-growing databases provided by electronic medical records. Will this erode the status of RCTs as a gold standard? The rise of personalised medicine, meanwhile, might make it more difficult to defend gold standards in diagnostic and therapeutic practice. Personalised medicine refocuses clinical attention away from the “typical” patients analysed by RCTs and onto the idiosyncrasies, genetic or otherwise, of individual patients. Has the phrase outlived its usefulness in medicine? It is too soon to tell. Yet even as some physicians turn away from their commitment to medical gold standards, some politicians, newly wary about global financial turbulence, talk of restoring the financial gold standard. Gold standards, whether actual or figurative, represent structures of exchange and aspirations toward stability, despite developments that threaten both”.

I hope readers had a déjà vu all over again experience when reading this. Can ASR also be viewed as an attempt to establish an “epistemic hegemony”, to push the belief of “randomized studies as the only means of learning the truth”? Have we, on the other hand, seen evidence on ASR for wishes to implement an “ecumenical approach to (...) research”, calls for “more flexible standards for what counts as acceptable study designs”? I guess no, right?

What about attempts to review “personalised [audio reproduction]”, to draw the attention “away from the ‘typical’ [consumer]” and into “idiosyncrasies...of individual [consumers]”?

Isn’t it obvious that the Harman method reminds one of RCTs, where the individual is replaced by an average, as if a randomized patient? Is it coincidence that Harman is dogmatically against room correction (above transition area/Schroeder), for isn’t room correction an attempt to “[refocus] attention away from the ‘typical’ patients analysed by RCTs and onto the idiosyncrasies, genetic or owherwise, of individual patients”?

And have in mind that Harman’s only study of room correction software a decade ago concluded that some room correction software had benefits. The strongest Harman voice on room correction since then, is @Floyd Toole , who wrote an article in JAES recently (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...keting-story-theory-without-measurement.7127/) where he called such software “an enticing marketing story”, despite the fact that his conclusion did not rest on the equivalent of CRTs, the gold standard, which is blind testing in audio research. Is this an example of selective use of “the gold” standard?

Have in mind too, that a recent debate on ASR was about the Harman method in headphones research. Even if there is good reason to use an individual’s unique head related transfer function (HRTF), Harman insists on averaging HRTFs for a randomized customer. There was, again, little support for a debate that “refocuses clinical attention away from the “typical” patients analysed by RCTs and onto the idiosyncrasies, genetic or otherwise, of individual patients”.

When one raises epistemic questions on ASR, readers react with denial, dismissal and diversion. As predicted by Rayner (2012). The uncomfortable knowledge is the fact that on ASR, as in other research fields, there is a fight to preserve a certain “epistemic hegemony”. And this hegemony is sometimes called “the gold standard of audio science”. Has ASR anything to learn from the debate on gold standard in other fields? Is Lancet too “obscure”, a place for “localized controversy”, “irrelevant”?

What happened when @amirm read my question of gold standard? Take a look at this answer:

“No. I used the term generically as people do in conversation. For @svart-hvitt to run with that word is beyond pedantic”.
Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-for-discourse-on-asr.8212/page-4#post-205602

Full dismissal, right? As predicted by Rayner (2012).

ASR has a promising start. This post is written in good spirit. However, why not learn about epistemology from other fields to avoid making the same mistakes over again? How come the need to form ASR in the “monotheistic traditions”, “...with a commitment to universal truths, unitary paradigms, and a “single-minded approach to illness and care””?

- - - - - - -

REFERENCE OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE: https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736(15)60742-5


Brevity is the soul of wit...
 

Hugo9000

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
574
Likes
1,749
Location
U.S.A. | Слава Україні
I get your point on conspiracy theories and such. Providing lots of sources can be used to give an image of credibility, no doubt. But I wouldn’t have any drive in lack of a better word for that behaviour.

My drive is an intuition that audio science has committed certain sins that haven’t been fully highlighted as far as I know. I bring no professional audio experience into ASR. My experience comes from a failed research program (cfr. Akerlof (2019)) where we have become masters of vox populi related issues. As I try and understand audio science, it’s as if déjà vu all over again.
If you are masters, then how is it your program failed? Perhaps some self-reflection would be better at this stage than to speculate endlessly on the possibly-only-partially-highlighted 'sins' that you intuit (lol) regarding audio science.
 
Last edited:

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
Standards for discourse?


HARTMAN: I am Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, your Senior Drill Instructor. From now on, you will speak only when spoken to, and the first and last words out of your filthy sewers will be "Sir!"

Do you maggots understand that?

RECRUITS: (in unison) Sir, yes, sir!

HARTMAN: Bullshit! I can't hear you. Sound off like you got a pair.

RECRUITS: (louder) Sir, yes, sir!



Maybe that's not the best model for discussing audio, but it comes to my feeble mind.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
SIN OF OMISSION: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Reminds me of just about every post of yours in this thread....

I think I need to come back to why neutrality is the safe choice in many walks of life, and how it may apply to audio too.
There is a proper definition of neutrality in sound reproduction, but what you quoted was not it (1/3 octave smoothed and equalized).

My language will be simple math and prose. I have, however simulations and empirical data, but I think math and prose will suffice.
No. You need to bring controlled listening tests. You have anything like that?

And please, no idol worshipping as that is the sin you stated in the starting post of yours in this thread...
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
You are conflating Interest with Importance, a sin we have from economists who have been so succcessful in promoting the concept of vox populi
I made no judgement of importance. I made an observation.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,421
Likes
2,406
Location
Sweden
This seems to be a complicated and mixed debate about science and philosophy in audio, psychoacoustics and preferences. I would like to chime in and just talk about models of how we like to view our listening environment. 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? What basic models do we have , and is that just a preference? The two models would require quite different audio systems where one would be a totally damped room but with hideous number of speakers and multichannel recordings to get the transfer to the event itself. Or is it just the room as a lounge towards the event? In the second case, the wall behind the speakers should just be taken away or you need speakers that use the wall to make it "disappear" As Toole, Shirley and others have stated, stereo is flawed in many ways both with timbral changes in the phantom centre and should (IMO) been invented with three speakers from start (left-center-right). Or go all in with multichannel - but then is that preferred by all if we start with different models and preferences?
 
Top Bottom