1. Home
  2. misc-audio
  3. 196617-90040

Take it on faith: A cease-and-desist letter to those who only believe in measurements

Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith). Faith is often considered to be distinct from and even contrary to science. I argue science is based on faith. Specifically, it is faith in the belief that measurements are always correct, and they alone can reveal the world around us. However, there is no evidence that this approach will always provide a correct and complete depiction of our environment.

I am not anti-science. In fact, I am all about science. I was a science major in college. I taught high school biology and chemistry. I employ science every day in my current career. I also use it to make decisions when it comes to audio, and I can point to a scientific basis behind my equipment decisions, speaker/listener locations and room treatment. I believe John Locke’s scientific method is a wonderful boon to mankind.  But although data may rule my life, I know that science has its limitations.

The scientific method is an empirical approach and relies on our eight senses or extensions thereof to measure phenomena, enabling us to better understand and control our environment. People who embrace this approach believe if something cannot be measured, it cannot exist. They have total faith in this approach and deny the credibility of others whose senses do not or cannot yield something in units. In essence, these disciples take it on faith that measurements are the only true way to make sense of the world. However, we just may not have developed the instrument that enables us to measure the event. Early digital is a good example of our senses superseding the limitations of our understanding of the technology and hence, our measurements. Other examples of this include our past beliefs that we could destroy mass, that the earth is flat, and the universe is not expanding. And cables and amplifiers all sound the same.

Others find their senses can reveal events that are not apparent to some and may not even be measurable. Some people can smell faint odors or feel a slight breeze that others cannot.  My wife can find a Petoskey stone on a beach out of thousands of rocks; I cannot see it even when I am standing over it. Different cables, fuses, amplifier topology, or cartridge design may or may not result in the same or even any data points and may or may not sound alike. But just because you cannot hear a difference nor measure a difference does not mean there is no difference. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just as good sound may be in their ear.

Some of us have at least as much faith in our ears as we do in our REW software and associated hardware. I start room setup with acoustic theory and then confirm with measurements, but the final placement is always a result of what sounds most pleasing. I would not know how to determine speaker toe-in using a microphone.

While I will always have to trust my senses, I am not handicapped by relying solely on those that are associated with a number.

 “…not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” William Bruce Cameron, 1963

tcutter
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,055 posts
 

It is evident that orthodox teaching in physics cannot answer fundamental unsolved questions...

This does not means that Penrose a Nobel prize winner is  operating at the "fringe" of physics...( which is pejorative qualification) 

Its their theory  (ORCH model)  is speculative but the only one answering the consciousness question with a feet in neurology (microtubules) and the other feet in physics...

Anirban Bandyopadhy the first experimentalist to uncover the physics of microtubules and the first A.I. theorician to develop a non Turing  paradigm for A.I.  as not computational, which apply it as experimentalist designing the first artificial brain, does not appear to me as a "fringe" physicist at all ... Sorry...

 And Penrose theory already had some experiment confirmation beginnings other experiments  will be made...

Nothing is "fringe" here... On the contrary it is cutting edge research in a collaborative ways...

 

 And no it is not "fun" reading them, it is a deep and enlightening experience... Try it ...

I dont need fun...

I need to understand ....

i pick a Nobel Prize and an experimentalist and theoretical scientist....

No fun reading...

Transformative reading yes...

 

 

@mahgister 

The people you reference in your latest post are operating on the fringes of physics. Their viewpoints are not yet settled, accepted physics.

Of course their ideas must be fleshed out and tested by experiment. Until we have satisfied through modeling and experimentation that their ideas are valid (or invalid), they must be treated as "interesting" concepts.

It is fun to read the writings of those on the outer edges of physics. Please be aware that they are seen as informed speculation needing conformation.

jmkrajnik
47 posts
 

A lot of interesting comments.  Some extremely good.

Many dead wrong.  Mostly people who weaaay overweight the numbers and call themselves "objectivists" or other terms like that.

This is usually true of people who have never done true reseach before, or just listened to the one eyed ignorance machine (used to be just TV and media, but now the net has plenty sources to allow you to reinforce your beliefs.)

This is the main reason why it really isn't their fault.  Since science has been turned into a religion over that last 200 years or so, it is easy to latch on to the concept that science is sacrosanct.

Numbers can be wrong--very wrong.  At one time, a lot of physicists thought that what we call classical physics was nearly complete.  All that was necessary was to fine tune the numbers.

Even though observation begged to differ--blackbody radiation, why atoms are stable, even the orbit of Mercury.

Numbers are only as good as the equations that generate them.

When I was a scientist, my biggest breakthroughs were putting observations above dogmatic numbers.  The only way advancment occurs is when you something is limited or wrong.

Deming stated, "In God we trust, all others bring data."

Very wise thing I learned early on in my former career.  You need data first, then you develop your model (usually equations) based on observations.  Not use your equations and try to force the data to work.

It is experimentation, then modeling.  Not the other way around.

More correctly: run experiments, get unexpected results, form a hypothiesis, generate lots and lots of data (five years worth for my most substantial breakthrough), form conclusions and base your new model on those conclusions.

Many, if not most, in the scientific community have blind faith that what they read in textbooks (or what they did in their doctoral thesis) is sacrosanct.  This faith tends to spill into popular culture.

Forcing data to fit equations is very common in science, especially engineering.  I can't count the number of times I was told the data was wrong because it dosen't fit the equations.  There tends to be blind faith that the equations are always right.

It seems to be common in most endeavors.  An example I've given before was the guy who used to repair equipment at Audio Classics.  He was a former IBM electrical engineer.  Very competent at what he did.  Rebuilt my dad's vintage McIntosh systen to better than new.  I was talking to him about how much better this sounded than solid state.

He stated no!  then he proceded to give me a bunch of equations on why that was.  

Never stated a recording, a record, any example.

He showed blind faith in the equations.  No observations.

There is so much observational data that tubes sound better than solid state, that it is funny that people argue the opposite on this site.

The obvious answer is that the basic equations used to explain sound don't model the complexity correctly.  It is really that simple.

I've even shared some artilces on this site from experts who can explain part of the reason why tube equipment sounds better.  Yet the dogma and blind faith continues with some.

Imagine what could happen if more work was done explianing why tube equipment sounds better than solid state.

Maybe solid state could finally sound better.  I can't think of an inherent reason why. 

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,055 posts
 

Great post and i concur even if i am not a scientist with the opinion of one here...

 

To illustrate his point  i will post a google search about my Sansui Alpha 607i and a listening public test offer by Sansui as conclusion on their research about S.S. design and tube design : 

 

 

«It is true that Sansui’s goal for decades was to reproduce the sound of their best tube amplifier in a solid-state version, a task they reportedly accomplished before their bankruptcy. 

 
Sansui, a company renowned for its tube amplifiers in its early history, particularly the AU-111, transitioned to solid-state technology in the late 1960s. The engineers who designed their early solid-state amps often came from a tube design background, and the early solid-state amps were sometimes intentionally "voiced" to sound "tube-like". 
 
According to some sources, Sansui worked for over 30 years with the specific goal of exactly matching the sound of its 1965 tube masterpiece in a solid-state design, finally achieving this goal around the mid-1990s with their Alpha series, such as the AU-Alpha607 (AU-X701 in some markets). 
 
The goal was not necessarily to show that any tube amp and any solid-state amp sounded the same, but that a well-designed solid-state amp could achieve the specific, highly-regarded sonic signature of their classic tube model. This suggested that the "tube sound" was a result of specific design choices and implementation, rather than an inherent, unreplicable property of the vacuum tube technology itself. »
 
At the end Tube amplification is considered better than S.S. even by Sansui but they had demonstrated that they can produce design where the qualities of the two design meet together by incremental work and listening evaluations...
 
 Nowadays with class-d design even some tube great designer as atmasphere claim that S.S. class d can be as good as Tube design ...
 
Myself i like my Sansui alpha 607i whose headphone out  serving my AKG K340 beat in my opinion with a direct comparison in my home  the excellent tube headphone amp  Microzotl version two ( probably by lack of power to serve his complex design ) 
 
kevemaher's avatar
kevemaher
424 posts
 

@mahgister 

I did not imply that "fringe" meant bad or not to be trusted. I meant that some of these theories or conjectures have not been experimentally verified and in some cases can't be experimentally validated.. They may eventually be accepted as settled physics but may also be discarded.

Time will tell.

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,055 posts
 

i am sure you are sincere because you are polite, clear articulate and less  "reactive" than me...

 I welcome you here... I appreciate your background...

You must know i spoke French and only read science of philosophical books in English, i did not spoke it ever where i live... And i dont travel...

Once this is said i read a lot then i know the word "fringe" meaning...

 

«The word "fringe" is not inherently pejorative, but it is frequently used with a pejorative connotation, implying that a person, group, or idea is unimportant, eccentric, or outside the bounds of reasonable mainstream thought»

i reacted to this word recognized meaning....smiley

Word matter as much as intention... Sorry....

 

@mahgister 

I did not imply that "fringe" meant bad or not to be trusted. I meant that some of these theories or conjectures have not been experimentally verified and in some cases can't be experimentally validated.. They may eventually be accepted as settled physics but may also be discarded.

Time will tell.

 

 

More to discover