When does art become science?

[amirm]

I don't agree with your premise. It does not have to be rigged, just inconclusive as this one is.

As with a rigged test, you would have to explain how that outcome was forced. And how you can run the blind test differently to generate different results. Mere criticism that something is sales oriented means nothing without that. Every new drug is a sales opportunity. By your definition the blind testing can be cooked to always deliver on that goal. For our own health, let's hope the world of blind testing is not remotely that corrupt .

 

[Groucho]

As with a rigged test, you would have to explain how that outcome was forced. And how you can run the blind test differently to generate different results. Mere criticism that something is sales oriented means nothing without that. Every new drug is a sales opportunity. By your definition the blind testing can be cooked to always deliver on that goal. For our own health, let's hope the world of blind testing is not remotely that corrupt .

I see a big difference between objective testing (measuring temperatures, blood counts etc.) and asking a subject which musical sound they (think they) prefer.

 

[Atmasphere]

The science is understanding how we hear and how to build audio systems.

The art is understanding how we hear and then applying that to building audio systems.

The two are not the same.

 

[Whatmore]

http://artofsci.princeton.edu/2014-gallery/

 

[amirm]

 

[Orb]

Or at a simpler level when thinking of the bridge between art and science... pictures and designs that rely upon mathematical principles/tesselation/etc; brings us to mathematical beauty.
And this can also translate in some ways to music, especially using the piano.
A classic example of art influencing science is that from George Antheil (composer-pianist) and Hedy Lamarr (actress) and their work with Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum
Cheers
Orb

 

[Gregadd]

As with a rigged test, you would have to explain how that outcome was forced. And how you can run the blind test differently to generate different results. Mere criticism that something is sales oriented means nothing without that. Every new drug is a sales opportunity. By your definition the blind testing can be cooked to always deliver on that goal. For our own health, let's hope the world of blind testing is not remotely that corrupt .

Let's suppose you work for Coca Cola and you were getting trounced by Pepsi.You wanted to take down Pepsi. What would you rather have to prove? That Coke was netter than Pepsi? Or would you prefer to prove Pepsi was not as good as everyone thought?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The art is in the performance and creation of the music and the recording. Any audio hobbyist or designer that thinks it extends beyond that flatters himself. I'll leave the disputed areas of engineering and science to those on that side the line.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

"The procedure so far accepted as satisfactory is breaking the works up into component sections: those of science and art. Take a pictorial composition, for example. One can evaluate how good the drawing of the items in the pictures is; this is essentially science. The colors, how pleasant or communicative? This is essentially...[art]"

Well, if you are talking about photo realism, and judging how accurate a recreation of the reality the drawing is, I suppose that might fit some definition of science, but that would also apply to the colors.

As has been pointed out before certain musicians swear by certain brands of musical instruments. They appear to be the same but they swear they have a unique sound. the construction is science but their appears to be a difference(art) that cannot be reverse engineered, or so it appears.

Musical instruments are rarely made to reproduce the sound of other musical instruments, so the analogy is flawed. The sound of "brands" or even individual instruments is unique, especially when they are hand made. And the goal of designing and building a musical instrument is to create that sound. So there is, perhaps, an element of art involved. The goal of audio reproduction equipment is to reproduce. The flaw in your analogy gets deeper.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That was excellent. Now we can debate the quality of the subwoofer. Heck, I'm just grateful that they used real drums.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Let's suppose you work for Coca Cola and you were getting trounced by Pepsi.You wanted to take down Pepsi. What would you rather have to prove? That Coke was netter than Pepsi? Or would you prefer to prove Pepsi was not as good as everyone thought?

I see no answer in this response, only a very obvious question.

 

[rbbert]

if one wants to think in more general terms, this is why audio reproduction in general and high-end audio in particular has no true scientific basis either for or against. Tim's "signature", [In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts], is a tautology, because in high-end audio there really aren't any "facts". There is virtually nothing which can be objectively measured and then tested (which is what is needed to establish a "fact" in science terms) that bears more than a passing relevance to what we hear when we listen to a musical (or sound) reproduction system. If instead we try to rely on perceptual studies, we get results like this, unless people here are prepared to argue that different pianos, guitars, violins, etc. all sound the same (which is what one should be prepared to argue if DBT's of perception are used as a gold standard).

 

[Gregadd]

I see no answer in this response, only a very obvious question.[/QUOTE

If the question obvious the answer is obvious. There is no wrong answer.

 

[amirm]

Let's suppose you work for Coca Cola and you were getting trounced by Pepsi.You wanted to take down Pepsi. What would you rather have to prove? That Coke was netter than Pepsi? Or would you prefer to prove Pepsi was not as good as everyone thought?

The former for sure if the facts were on my side.

Let me give you a more direct answer Greg: appearance of bias, is not bias. You cannot dismiss the results of a test because there was a motivation toward that outcome by the people who conducted the test. You must, must demonstrate with real data that the test was not a fair one. The mere implication has no value whatsoever.

If we throw that rule out we should also throw out everyone who says the audio equipment they own is the best. Or any other positive attribute for that matter. After all, they are biased to to defend what they own.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in law. I was once called to be a jury. While in the waiting room, the said the next case was a high-profile case with the person accused of a ton of bad things (I forget the details). Due to that reason, instead of going through 20 or so jurors to pick the 12, they were going through something like 120! Our group was brought in last. I go to the courtroom. I see a ton of lawyers, all dressed up in their suits as always. Then there is the defendant. A black gentleman, dressed like he is walking the dark streets of the city, sitting in his chair with no care in the world and zero respect for the system. If you wanted a case where "guilty was written all over it," this was it. Here is the remarkable part though: not one person on either side, nor the judge seemed to care one bit about that. They were conducting themselves as if they had the most upstanding citizen sitting in that chair. Appearance of guilt had not changed how they went about their work. They presumed innocence and took no action on appearance of facts.

The above gave me hope that heaven forbid, if I am ever sitting in that chair, I would likely receive a fair trial than a lynching based on appearance. Likewise here Greg. I don't care if the person conducted the test had a motive for an outcome. That simply is not material to me. What is material is that you study and understand the test so well that you point out the flaws in it that caused that outcome. Everything else is appealing to lay emotions as opposed to having a discussion of science.

And oh, for nearly a decade, we were in a fight in streaming media that was exactly like coke and pepsi as we were the two leading companies. Showing better fidelity in audio/video compression was the ticket to superiority. They would hire a company to run tests to show they were better. Immediately I would get call from press. I had to give a real reason as to why they were not better. No way could I just say, "well, they are our competitors so of course they did this test to claim they are better." One answer by the way was new data in the form of us hiring another company to run the same test and showing different results because we could discover what they had done to advantage themselves. This is what you do, you fight things with facts.

I can't stop you for judging the book by its cover. But please don't tell me to do the same. It is core to who I am and I will not go there. I hope you understand .

 

[amirm]

if one wants to think in more general terms, this is why audio reproduction in general and high-end audio in particular has no true scientific basis either for or against.

Some parts of it definitely does. One aspect of high-end is lack of price sensitivity on behalf of its customers. This gives immense freedom to designers to build superior products.

Take a high-end amplifier. Many high-end amps have such powerful output stage that can overcome a virtual short. You can tie them to a loudspeaker that has a phase angle that puts current and voltage out of cycle and hence, presents a dead short at those frequencies. A consumer amp would shut down or distort with dynamic protection. Their power supply has enough juice to destroy their output stage when presented with a short. Not so with a high-end amplifier with tons of output transistors in parallel. If you put in enough heat dissipation and power handling there, you can have them drive dead shorts forever. This hugely increases the cost but what is $300 extra cost for a $25,000 amplifier? Without dynamic protection, you have now removed a source of coloration in peak transients. Score one for the high-end versus mass market .

What I just described is both science and engineering. And is in favor of high-end whether one is talking about an amplifier, turntable, DAC or loudspeaker.

 

[rbbert]

...Without dynamic protection, you have now removed a source of coloration in peak transients...

But how do you convincingly demonstrate that this is true? Not that there isn't measurably less change in how peak transients "look" and measure, but whether it is audible?

 

[amirm]

But how do you convincingly demonstrate that this is true? Not that there isn't measurably less change in how peak transients "look" and measure, but whether it is audible?

Oh, it is definitely measurable. And audible. Not with the simplistic audio tests we routinely use, but with better ones designed for the task. On the listening part, you compare the input to output with the output level taken all the way down to the input. Then crank up the volume . And compare the input to output. The colorations will easily stand out this way.

Trying to do an AB test without pushing the amps will not do that of course and on that front, you are very much correct.

Here are a few static measurements I had on a couple of AVRs on what happens when they clip (input was sine wave):

Compare that to this unit:

Momentary excursions into these peaks will definitely produce different colorations.

 

[rbbert]

How do you establish its audibility? With a DBT?

In many areas of our lives technology has far outstripped scientific knowledge. This has been true since the Manhattan project and has increased exponentially since the virtually omnipresence of computers (i.e., microprocessors with firmware) in our lives.

 

[amirm]

How do you establish its audibility? With a DBT?

Sure. With the setup I mentioned, it is pretty easy to do that.

In many areas of our lives technology has far outstripped scientific knowledge. This has been true since the Manhattan project and has increased exponentially since the virtually omnipresence of computers (i.e., microprocessors with firmware) in our lives.

I have been a programmer and operating system engineer for 30+ years. Everything in there is explainable by computer/engineering science. Am I missing your point there?

 

[Orb]

How do you establish its audibility? With a DBT?

In many areas of our lives technology has far outstripped scientific knowledge. This has been true since the Manhattan project and has increased exponentially since the virtually omnipresence of computers (i.e., microprocessors with firmware) in our lives.

Well without technology/engineering it is very difficult to further scientific knowledge, otherwise one is mostly stuck with theoretical science.
But the two are very closely linked, a lot of our higher technology has a strong foundation initially from scientific knowledge-study; look at superconductors as an example, which have great use in very modern technology today and in the near future.

Cheers
Orb