I just could not find any constructive way to make any comments in this thread without controversy or creating animosity, even though it has fascinated me to no end!!
However, as to Randy's audiophile assertion requirements...I double majored undergrad engineering and biology (with my senior thesis on nearfield and Fairfield sound underwater), got a masters and PhD in Neurophysiology and Neuropharmacology( with Neru means lots and lots of electronics, computers, sensation analysis etc and a Doctoral thesis on psychoactive and autonomic effects of the Tetrohydrocannabinols), and a MD and residency with research training in Anesthesiology, so all boxes ticked, AND I still consider myself a very novice audiophile compared to many here who spend their lives in direct, daily, continuing contact with state of the art products, new processes and evolving mediums. I believe in most cases that is more important, given a at least a basic understanding of the science, rather than a deep understanding that I have, without daily immersion in audio.
And I guess I do have to add to this thread there is a reason that most scientific studies involving humans and responses are double blinded! AND INCLUDE A PLACEBO TO ASCERTAIN THAT EFFECT.. BG...
Thanks |
Lai, 100% agree. I really really do.Many are the physicians who have prescribed sugar pills to great patient benefit. If it works for you obviously keep it!
But...But beware of situations in audio somewhat analogous to Münchhausen's Syndrome, in that the audiophile unwittingly HAS to try solutions, that are proven scientifically impossibly unable to improve sound, because of an intrinsic need. If it is inexpensive enough, generally really no harm(and I guess this would be wallet dependent), but if carried to extreme, it would represent a detrimental "syndrome". Often coupled with dogmatic defense in the face of valid criticism, this situation would be less than ideal. I believe all of us have seen this behavior amongst the audiophile population. However, if one really believes anything makes the sound better, bearing in mind the previous cautionary imperative, more power to you!!
Any study, including double blind, nearly measures response numbers. Almost never are they anywhere near 100%, the reason for statistics and probability. The two standard deviations or "95%" probability of the result not being due to chance Never, ever states it is the correct result absolutely, just that it is the statistically correct chance of being the result. We scientifically accept that, but never deny that it might be incorrect. Many audiophile fringe issues seem like this. The real issue is absolutely 100% we all do not hear the same and this, perhaps more than anything, answers the variance in audio perceived benefits.
stfoth, yep but kinda dropped psychotropic studies, shifted to anesthetic agents, which when you think of it, are the ultimate big gun--knocking you out, rather than fine tuning sensations, so kind of boring in comparison.
|
Geoffkait, your responses are why, as I first noted, I really did not want to comment in this fascinating thread. To a degree you are correct, however, the straw man argument is really not that but rather revealing my intrinsic scientific skepticism concerning the topic of this thread( and many others as well). However, the experiment here is simple and the null hypothesis, something like "crystal when( pick your single thing, placement of crystals, number of crystals, size, etc, but only when as the variable tested) do not improve the sound of song a. Experimental protocol like:
First determine minimum number of observations required for significance. Then provide experimental setup...
1. A given audio setup, hidden from view.
2. A random sample of participants(and here randomness might be a questionable variable post experiment)
3. Someone who queries the participantsas to ( and here it can be a continuous result, I.e improvement on a 1-10,1-5, etc scale or discontinuous improvement yes/no)
4. Someone who behind the hidden setup varies the experimental audio setup by Only changing the test variable (crystal change, as noted above).
5. Collect results
6. Analyze the results by determining whether or not the results support the null hypothesis.
7. Discuss as to how the results may have occurred.
simple
Now obviously no one is likely to expend the effort to do this for the countless audio situations, products, and perturbations existent in the known universe BG .
As to scientifically impossible, that is accepted practice. If existing dogma and the preponderance of data, gathered through countless experiments, supports a given conclusion, then yes, right now based on all existing evidence it IS scientifically impossible. However if you are saying that such a conclusion is open to and should be challenged you are correct (also see one of the great books of recent science philosophy written by one of my professors, T S Kuhn,
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Any good acoustic scientist should always be open minded.
i never determined "how much someone should spend" and intentionally noted "wallet dependent".
As to your other statements, I do not understand what you are critical of, however, I never wished to be offensive in any way to anyone, and I am very sorry if you took it that way. |
BTW! Geoffkai, I missed your double blinded and most scientific studies snarky response. Are you anti science or just be difficult. Hard to be an audiophile and anti science at the same time. The former is entirely contingent on the latter in our world. |
It's all good folks, nobody understands difficult like I do, and if you think audiophiles have disagreements, try scientists when a controversial paper is presented. I really really enjoy such discourse.
In addition, as I noted I am in no way an expert audiophile, and many many will be able to identify real, subtle changes I never could. That's why the real bottom line is if you like it, keep it, and maybe try and explain to others why. Bg |
It's all good folks, nobody understands difficult like I do, and if you think audiophiles have disagreements, try scientists when a controversial paper is presented. I really really enjoy such discourse.
In addition, as I noted I am in no way an expert audiophile, and many many will be able to identify real, subtle changes I never could. That's why the real bottom line is if you like it, keep it, and maybe try and explain to others why. Bg
|
Geoff, never said crystals do not work.
I believe I believe and that always has kept tinker bell alive for me.
just suggested maybe just really test them as to real effect, which as we all noted is extremely difficult to impossible bg!
As to scientific, that would require testing, which we do not have, so until proven false(the rationale for utilizing a null hypothesis in the scientific method), they must work......huh??
and please stop denigrating science as a whole, you would not have audio, save live performances, without science!! |
Many salutes, dissolved substances, are in a medium familiar to us all. In that medium they frequently spontaneously, or after some induction process, form crystals such as calcium phosphate, calcium oxalate, hippuric acid, ammonium bifurcate, and many others. I would suggest that medium be put to good use and applied extensively and regularly to all audio equipment to get the crystalline improvement effect The medium is urine. BG BBG
|
Maybe, as much of the public assumes based on the price of audiophile components, WE REALLY ARE CERTIFIABLY INSANE!! |
