The power of the thought experiment

[Cosmik]

Thought experiments

are devices of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things. They are used for diverse reasons in a variety of areas, including economics, history, mathematics, philosophy, and the sciences, especially physics.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/

I think there's something missing in the world of 'audio science'. People are assumed to be either 'objectivists' or 'subjectivists' and in this forum, for example, only 'objectivist' statements are given any credence. This is extremely limiting, because it says that unless an experiment has been carried out (measurements or ABX listening tests) and its results are unequivocally 'good', 'bad, 'better' or 'worse' then no progress is made - the subject is still 'open' and nothing has been concluded. Experiments are extremely time consuming and expensive, and rarely produce clean, unambiguous results.

There is an alternative, but it would be dismissed unthinkingly by some here as "hand waving" or "believing". It is the power of the thought experiment. If, with a few calculations, we find that the amount of distortion being added by some process or other is the equivalent of a person whispering one mile away, we can - if we have an imagination - draw a conclusion: we don't need to worry about it. We have carried out no experiments. No listeners have been tortured by making them listen to snippets of string quartets and jazz for two hours. We didn't need to train any listeners or hide any equipment behind curtains and yet we have drawn a sensible conclusion.

Likewise, if there are miles of cheap cables bringing electricity to our house, we can maybe draw a sensible conclusion about the likely effects of fitting our own $10,000 power cable without resorting to any measurements or experiments. This, for me, is far more decisive than the graphs and figures that are rarely unambiguous.

Thought experiments and the construction of arguments are also the currency of 'higher learning' and I think that is something we should all aspire to, even if we don't get there - it doesn't stop me for example . Talking about nothing but empirical experiments and 'facts' is little more than pub quiz team territory.

 

[Liberal Democracy]

plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/

I think there's something missing in the world of 'audio science'. People are assumed to be either 'objectivists' or 'subjectivists' and in this forum, for example, only 'objectivist' statements are given any credence. This is extremely limiting, because it says that unless an experiment has been carried out (measurements or ABX listening tests) and its results are unequivocally 'good', 'bad, 'better' or 'worse' then no progress is made - the subject is still 'open' and nothing has been concluded. Experiments are extremely time consuming and expensive, and rarely produce clean, unambiguous results.

There is an alternative, but it would be dismissed unthinkingly by some here as "hand waving". It is the power of the thought experiment. If, with a few calculations, we find that the amount of distortion being added by some process or other is the equivalent of a person whispering one mile away, we can - if we have an imagination - draw a conclusion: we don't need to worry about it. We have carried out no experiments. No listeners have been tortured by making them listen to snippets of string quartets and jazz for two hours. We didn't need to train any listeners or hide any equipment behind curtains and yet we have drawn a sensible conclusion.

Likewise, if there are miles of cheap cables bringing electricity to our house, we can maybe draw a sensible conclusion about the likely effects of fitting our own $10,000 power cable without resorting to any measurements or experiments. This, for me, is far more decisive than the graphs and figures that are rarely unambiguous.

Thought experiments and the construction of arguments are also the currency of 'higher learning' and I think that is something we should all aspire to, even if we don't get there - it doesn't stop me for example . Talking about nothing but empirical experiments and 'facts' is little more than pub quiz team territory.

This is not a forum for only ' objectivists' , listening impressions and ideas are welcome.

Theory's, speculation and imaginings are welcome... They just need to be presented as... Theory's , speculation and imaginings. After all this is the seed for knowladge and advanced learning.

No matter how you look at it, it all starts as a imagination to be verified. You cant have one without the other.

 

[Cosmik]

No matter how you look at it, it all starts as a imagination to be verified. You cant have one without the other.

I am saying precisely the opposite. I am saying that by the power of reason alone, there are many things that do not need to be verified empirically, and it is the demand for empirical 'proof' that keeps certain topics from ever being resolved. Going down the ABX route or whatever is just playing into the hands of the snake oil salesmen. We are implying that we give their fevered imaginings enough credence to go to the pain and expense of setting up an experiment. And we are admitting that we are nothing more than technicians who can't hold a thought without seeing a picture or some numbers to go with it. When someone tells us that their gold-plated CPU sounds better than a standard one we shouldn't dignify it with measurements or ABX tests. It can be dismissed by simply 'thinking it through'.

 

[Liberal Democracy]

I am saying precisely the opposite. I am saying that by the power of reason alone, there are many things that do not need to be verified empirically, and it is the demand for empirical 'proof' that keeps certain topics from ever being resolved. Going down the ABX route or whatever is just playing into the hands of the snake oil salesmen. We are implying that we give their fevered imaginings enough credence to go to the pain and expense of setting up an experiment. And we are admitting that we are nothing more than technicians who can't hold a thought without seeing a picture or some numbers to go with it. When someone tells us that their gold-plated CPU sounds better than a standard one we shouldn't dignify it with measurements or ABX tests. It can be dismissed by simply 'thinking it through'.

Ah, yes a lot of time is wasted in unnecessary arguments but my friend it's precisely the unnecessary that makes us human.. So.

Some times it's good because it's unnecessary.

It's a audio forum, we are not on a time limit to cure world poverty.

Not forgetting we are a resource for others rather than just a 'what's right or wrong' haven. So the argument and it's complete nature is important.

But yes it's rather tempting to just write off the nonsense.

So I don't agree

 

[Speedskater]

The problem is that the audiophile world has redefined the word 'subjective' at least in the area of listening tests. In the past it meant "if A and B sound different, which one do you prefer?" Now listening (with ears only) has nothing to do with it. Now it means "because I say so".

This new definition which eliminates real listening tests, forces everyone into the 'objectivists' or 'subjectivists' camps.

 

[Liberal Democracy]

The problem is that the audiophile world has redefined the word 'subjective' at least in the area of listening tests. In the past it meant "if A and B sound different, which one do you prefer?" Now listening (with ears only) has nothing to do with it. Now it means "because I say so".

This new definition which eliminates real listening tests, forces everyone into the 'objectivists' or 'subjectivists' camps.

Yes!

 

[Blumlein 88]

The most successful thought experiment in history has to be the one Einstein did which lead to relativity. Yet it had to be verified and has been confirmed to a level beyond possibly any other idea.

On the flip side are the various string theories which are born of thought experiments of very, very clever people. Most are untestable and when people have figured out ways to test them, they have failed.

So thought experiments are very good. As you mention you can calculate how much a conversation between two people a mile away would impact you listening to music up close. It could be shown to a relative level of THD or noise pollution and shown to be inconsequential. Then show equally low noise in gear is equally inconsequential. The problem is much of audiophilia thinks they have first hand experience to the contrary and will completely dismiss your thought experiments. Another is the bad kind of thought experiment that is so easily sold. Like the idea electrons are speeding down your copper cable to deliver the signal. Diode like effects or impurities cause the electron flow to be more turbulent, less fluid and it leads to distortion or unnatural sound. Many will find that thought experiment compelling and believable. Somewhere you need to confront it with testing for reality and for size of effects.

 

[Blumlein 88]

You might have seen where I recently put up files and polls on how something sounds. They typically get very limited response. Audiophiles who espouse listening to your ears are curiously afraid of such things. Actually it isn't so curious, they can't hear half the crap they claim and have sunken so much belief in it they can't bear the thought of finding out they are wrong. Equally, I think they will reject your thought experiments the same way. And I repeat that thought experiments that lead to surprising though reasonable conclusions will need actually testing out.

One of my polls was a pure thought experiment as its origin. It is my opinion that quite inexpensive DACs and ADCs are fully transparent in sound quality. Measurements of a conventional nature show they should be. So would they still be transparent if you multiplied the damage they do in fact cause to the signal. I played and recorded a bit of music through 8 generations of copy/record. Most audiophiles who think sub thousand dollar DACs quite mediocre certainly believed 8 times that would be trivially obvious. My thinking of distortion and noise levels that would result made me think "it might be just barely audible, but it won't be easy, probably won't be audible". The argument worked not at all on people. So I did the actual experiment. The DAC and the ADC were $400 units.

I posted two original files and one 8th generation copy and asked people to choose. Limited response as expected. I also expected some to claim the identical files sounded different. Another part of the thought experiment in how I arranged it. On another forum I did get some response. And the votes are equal between all three choices. Amir and another person on the other forum figured it out though not really by sound, just by a timing shift in the multi-generation copy. On the other forum an argument broke out after a couple people did indeed come to the conclusion all three sounded different. I might add their choice for the worst one as the copy was incorrect. Even after being shown all the facts they have developed what in my opinion are wild thought experiments about how identical files still sound different and stand by their evaluations. I then used their thought experiments to post another poll. It hasn't panned out for them so far. One of them will no longer communicate with me over this.

So some thought experiments might help, some will have to be verified and I think among the greater audiophile community those thought experiments that don't support the often strange ideas in high end audio will be simply dismissed without thought.

 

[TBone]

One of my polls was a pure thought experiment as its origin. It is my opinion that quite inexpensive DACs and ADCs are fully transparent in sound quality. Measurements of a conventional nature show they should be ... Most audiophiles who think sub thousand dollar DACs quite mediocre certainly believed 8 times that would be trivially obvious. My thinking of distortion and noise levels that would result made me think "it might be just barely audible, but it won't be easy, probably won't be audible".

not just cheaper models ... a while ago, a friend purchased a very expensive DAC, which the manufacturer claimed SOTA. He wax'd poetic about its performance on every visit, especially in comparison to prior models that he once claimed as "great". Within months, the inevitable "new/superior" model appeared on the horizon. With bait dangling, knowing he couldn't resist the temptation, I asked if he'd purchase the newer unit? He had, and of course, the newer unit was pronounced "greater than great".

Many expensive DACs later, he's still on that merry-go-round, circling, waiting ...

 

[fas42]

In my world I don't need thought experiments ... how good is the system? Treat it like a car design issue - is the front suspension good enough? Do I drive it up and down smooth highways to check it out - no, I take it to my favourite backroad, with a particularly nasty pothole in it - and drive across it at various speeds ... how well is that bit of nastiness being coped with? Finally, I drive up to and slam the brakes hard on as I go across the ugliness - is the suspension now hanging at a crooked angle underneath? Err, yes - OK, boys, not good enough yet - go away and have another try in the workshop ...

 

[tomelex]

thought experiments have their place. However, inevitably I think they lead to a demand for some proof from someone who does not follow the train of thought. For example, the dirt in the box that you hook up to your component ground, there can certainly be a thought experiement there, and believers in their ears (who trust their ears as if they were objective test instruments) will say it does blah and blah, and yet, we (Amir) did some testing to see what it was all about. The thought experiment, if carried out by someone well versed in the art of the subject, should carry some weight. The question with almost all experiements, whether thought or not, always comes down to audibility imo, and that always comes down to some sort of blind testing.

Good topic though.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I am saying precisely the opposite. I am saying that by the power of reason alone, there are many things that do not need to be verified empirically, and it is the demand for empirical 'proof' that keeps certain topics from ever being resolved. Going down the ABX route or whatever is just playing into the hands of the snake oil salesmen. We are implying that we give their fevered imaginings enough credence to go to the pain and expense of setting up an experiment. And we are admitting that we are nothing more than technicians who can't hold a thought without seeing a picture or some numbers to go with it. When someone tells us that their gold-plated CPU sounds better than a standard one we shouldn't dignify it with measurements or ABX tests. It can be dismissed by simply 'thinking it through'.

I agree. We shouldn't have to convince anyone that the last three feet of power cable doesn't clean up the electrical grid, regardless of its cost. We shouldn't have to argue that ultra sonic content neither enhances nor detracts from audio quality. But we do. There are so many audiophiles who seem to believe audio reproduction is alchemy, not engineering. Common sense doesn't deter them in the slightest.

Tim

 

[RayDunzl]

We shouldn't have to convince anyone that the last three feet of power cable doesn't clean up the electrical grid, regardless of its cost.

I'm unlikely to expend much educational effort there.

We shouldn't have to argue that ultra sonic content neither enhances nor detracts from audio quality.

A fair range of the sonic stuff is ultrasonic to me. I'm not in a position to argue that very hard, either. I don't think I can even imagine sounds at higher frequencies than I can hear. Can you? That's a Thought Experiment that doesn't work for me.

There are so many audiophiles who seem to believe audio reproduction is alchemy, not engineering.

The real voodoo is in the composition and interpretation. That part largely comes through regardless of the common variations in playback quality.

Common sense doesn't deter them in the slightest.

I hate all the Them or Us stuff (though I like Them or Us itself). Besides, it's difficult to have common sense about something in which you haven't chosen to become educated (at least somewhat).

 

[Blumlein 88]

You know I have slowed down high rez files in software to make the slightly ultrasonic within our range. And then slowed it more. There just isn't enough there to possibly matter were it audible (and it is decidedly not audible).

 

[amirm]

You know I have slowed down high rez files in software to make the slightly ultrasonic within our range. And then slowed it more. There just isn't enough there to possibly matter were it audible (and it is decidedly not audible).

That's a pretty clever technique!

 

[TBone]

interesting idea 88 ... more to you than just blue stripes & a pretty face.

 

[fas42]

What is valuable with Thought Experiments is providing insight, and answers regarding the Eternal Question, "Why doesn't my system sound as good as I think it should ?!" ... very profitable use of time, actually ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm unlikely to expend much educational effort there.



A fair range of the sonic stuff is ultrasonic to me. I'm not in a position to argue that very hard, either. I don't think I can even imagine sounds at higher frequencies than I can hear. Can you? That's a Thought Experiment that doesn't work for me.



The real voodoo is in the composition and interpretation. That part largely comes through regardless of the common variations in playback quality.



I hate all the Them or Us stuff (though I like Them or Us itself). Besides, it's difficult to have common sense about something in which you haven't chosen to become educated (at least somewhat).

Agreed on all points.

Tim

 

[tomelex]

I think we need to be careful when talking in general terms about cables, as they are part of a system. So, bring your power cable over by your mm transformer device and listen to the hum, or playing your amp at high volumes you would in the same case induce more hum into the moving magnet transformer. Now if you shield part of that cable back to the wall outlet, then the E-fields will be less and some of the magnetic fields too and so a bit less hum induced into hyour transformer. Also, tighter twist of the wires in the cable can have an effect of the radiated fields. So, it is a system thing, obviously audiophiles should get a decent shielded mm transformer and keep it well away from power cords etc. So, cables and interconnects are part of a system, and someone who understands what electromagnetic fields are will naturally account for that when setting up a system. Shielding the last 6 feet can indeed make a difference locally. I described the concept of the mmtransformer, which I think can even be done simply as a thought experiment.

 

[Ken Newton]

It is said that Einstein loved to utilize thought experiments (in German, called an Gedankin) in his explorations of theoretical physics.

However, one can be mislead by an thought experiment should it be oversimplified. Such as, I think, in your power cable example. Viewing a meter of power cable as unable to make any impact different than the thousands of meters of power mains cable which may precede it overlooks other potential mechanisms possibly associated with the power cable connecting the box under power, such as radiated RF intrusion, or common-mode noise coupling. I'm not advocating expensive power cables, I'm merely pointing this out as an example of possible oversimplification giving a potentially misleading conclusion by thought experiment.

That said, please don't misunderstand me, I do agree with your general premise, particularly your very good point about the difficulty of setting up and conducting controlled listening tests to guide every development juncture. Your harmonic distorion thought experiment seems a quite valid example.