Why aren’t there more university level controlled tests?

[MAB]

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Whilst I think most of the points made are more than valid, I still believe more testing is a good thing. Validating what you already know is not a waste of time.

I validate what I know all the time.
But I don't often challenge it. And real science is a challenge, testing a null-hypothesis. And no way a professor is going to tell a graduate student to go challenge/test/validate a bunch of comprehensive ABX tests published in the journals of AES in 1977. And would get laughed at for revisiting old observations in order to just validate.

I validate that my car starts when I turn the key. I don't investigate or challenge, or construct alternate theories of operation to test. This constant need to validate is really a waste of time, and is a bit of a fever-dream way of approaching life.

 

[BDWoody]

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Whilst I think most of the points made are more than valid, I still believe more testing is a good thing. Validating what you already know is not a waste of time.

You don't need university facilities to perform controlled tests.

Those with seemingly the most to gain from this type of controlled subjective testing are those most rabidly opposed to them, as they also have the most to lose.

 

[MAB]

You don't need university facilities to perform controlled tests.

Those with seemingly the most to gain from this type of controlled subjective testing are those most rabidly opposed to them, as they also have the most to lose.

Great point. For instance:

Four Speaker Blind Listening Test Results (Kef, JBL, Revel, OSD)

After finishing @Floyd Toole 's The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms, I became interested in conducting a blind listening test. With the help of a similarly minded friend, we put together a test and ran 12 people through it. I’ll describe our procedures and the results...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Speaker Blind Listening Test Part 2 Planning

@Inverse_Laplace and I will be conducting a second blind listening test. If you missed the original results you can read about the blind listening test here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/four-speaker-blind-listening-test-results-kef-jbl-revel-osd.25818/ We are...

www.audiosciencereview.com

You don't even have to be a scientist, although you do need to have an understanding of sample statistics. This is the most galling part, the people promoting the FUD that these fundamentals somehow are untrue or need to be re-validated are completely capable of finding out for themselves.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Why don't some DAC/Amplifier manufacturers conduct controlled and repeatable listening tests that stand up to scientific rigor to demonstrate their product's superiority? Unless...no.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

You don't need university facilities to perform controlled tests.

You’re right. It does carry more weight, though.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I'd say that's as close as a definition of waste of time I can imagine but each to his own.

Well, the scientific community does it all the time, but I’m sure you’re probably right.

Would you like me to have a word with them on your behalf?

 

[Ron Texas]

The availability of grants drives university research. The topics of these grants descend from priorities which are imbedded in government and the academic community. I bet right now it's very easy to get a grant to study battery chemistry.

 

[terryforsythe]

I don’t get it.

It would appear that there are universities across the globe with testing facilities. We’ve all seen academic papers posted here measuring the limits of human hearing, etc., etc.

One has to ask, what are they doing the rest of the time?

As an example, how long would it take to do a proper, double-blind, controlled test on a handful of DACs with varying degrees of SNR, THD+N, jitter, etc.?

How long would it take to test amps with varying degrees of audible measurements?

It’s not as if universities have a shortage of young people with good hearing.

So many audio-world myths could be put to bed so quickly.

And if you had a few places set up to handle these across the world, whilst not everyone would be able to access them, there’s be enough people close enough who could (and gladly would) bring in their gear, and themselves, for free, reducing the cost.

Probably a lack of grant money to perform the research. Money drives research.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Well, the scientific community does it all the time, but I’m sure you’re probably right.

Would you like me to have a word with them on your behalf?

Yes if you please. I'll PM my mail if they have any questions.
I should not have to point out that what I write is my personal opinion. -Right? I also disagree with other authorities and especially politicians from time to time. Am I right or are they?

I think I am.

 

[krabapple]

I don’t get it.

It would appear that there are universities across the globe with testing facilities. We’ve all seen academic papers posted here measuring the limits of human hearing, etc., etc.

'Universities', on their own, don't offer much funding from their own money. They depend on their researchers to get grants.

Research costs money. That money comes usually from funding agencies, typically governmental. To get that money you have to write a grant proposal to justify the importance of the research to your peers. Who are also competing for that money. And then to get any career credit for it, you have to get the results published in a peer-reviewed journal. Assuming you get any interesting results at all.

Or you have to convince a deep-pockets rich guy to fund it, or a company to hire you to do that research. Or create a startup and get investors to fund your research.

And there are very few rich scientists funding their own research.

One has to ask, what are they doing the rest of the time?

Being amused or offended by naive questions like this takes up some small fraction of it.

 

[MAB]

Well, the scientific community does it all the time, but I’m sure you’re probably right.

Can you give examples of the scientific community wasting time, with comparisons to other communities' time-wasting?
Specifically test this:
(amount of time wasted by science community) - (amount of time wasted by other communities) = 0
Please do this test and report back your findings. I see no way of moving forward without this data.

This seems to be a common approach to all things we don't trust or understand. I ask this since you seem to have this idea that scientists have lots of free time to investigate trivia, and funding is available for this, and people are interested in validation rather than discovery, and seem to not be able to trust past results.

 

[Chr1]

Personally I wish there was more research into psychoacoustics.
I would love to know why I like the sound of my valve amplified Tannoys as much as the sound of my Neumann KH310s.

 

[krabapple]

Can you give examples of the scientific community wasting time, with comparisons to other communities' time-wasting?

I think he was referring to 're-searching things that are already "known"'.

Which happens when there is a reason to do it. E.g, some important lacuna in the model, or a nagging datum that keeps not fitting into it.

Otherwise, it's just re-inventing the wheel.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

I don’t feel comparing a couple (or more) DACs or amps would be prolonged or expensive.

Don't think that "Hifi", is a degree course, is it?

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Can you give examples of the scientific community wasting time, with comparisons to other communities' time-wasting?
Specifically test this:
(amount of time wasted by science community) - (amount of time wasted by other communities) = 0
Please do this test and report back your findings. I see no way of moving forward without this data.

This seems to be a common approach to all things we don't trust or understand. I ask this since you seem to have this idea that scientists have lots of free time to investigate trivia, and funding is available for this, and people are interested in validation rather than discovery, and seem to not be able to trust past results.

Yes, I can. DEET was invented in the ‘50s, and scientists regularly repeat studies into its safety and efficacy.

Would you like me to provide links?

 

[radix]

Maybe it could be done in a methodology / stats unit in an undergrad class as part of the curriculum. Just like physics students re-measure gravity or push carts around on ramps, or confirm (hopefully) newton's laws.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Don't think that "Hifi", is a degree course, is it?

Electrical engineering is.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

The availability of grants drives university research. The topics of these grants descend from priorities which are imbedded in government and the academic community. I bet right now it's very easy to get a grant to study battery chemistry.

I completely agree with that.

Right now I’d think there was a fortune in WiiM, Topping, Fosi Audio and SMSL pricing that cheap doesn’t mean it doesn’t sound good.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Massively surprised at the extremely hostile response from forum members at Audio Science Review, set up and run by a man who’s an expert in audio electrical engineering, and who regularly posts reviews and links to articles on the importance of scientifically validating claims, crutch is ding audio companies by not backing up their figures.

Why so antagonistic?

 

[RayDunzl]

So many audio-world myths could be put to bed so quickly.

Uh huh.