When does art become science?

[rbbert]

1) Try that DBT, I'll be interested to see the results since almost no DBT's have ever shown a difference between cables, amps, pre-amps, etc. Heck, they can't even show a difference between violins

2) computers are only as good as their input. Trying to emulate a natural system is useful in many ways, but since we can't measure every aspect of a natural system, the emulation will always be imperfect. For many applications that may not matter, but obviously for many others it matters a lot.

3) I'm a big fan of technology, but every scientist (and many educated non-scientists) know that our ability to gather and manipulate data far exceeds our understanding of that data. Look at the medical field, in the US at least: virtually every medical instrument is computer controlled, and most can gather and manipulate vast amounts of data. Interpreting that data and applying it to the real world lags by 10 years or more. It's essentially impossible to practice evidence-based medicine, there is just too little evidence; we are so fascinated by our toys and what they can do that few researchers are bothering to find out what the actual outcomes of using that data are. When we do, it is often apparent that the wealth of data is for the most part meaningless; either there are no correlates with the human body, health and disease, or what correlations there are are misleading and lead to worse outcomes.

 

[amirm]

1) Try that DBT, I'll be interested to see the results since almost no DBT's have ever shown a difference between cables, amps, pre-amps, etc. Heck, they can't even show a difference between violins

Don't know anything about violins . But do know about amp tests. Here is a DBT documented on our own forum: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ests-*did*-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different

And the method that I mentioned has been used in Europe in single blind tests (approximating DBT) to show that few amplifiers lack coloration when pushed. The name of the organization that performed them is LTS and is based in Sweden.

 

[Orb]

Don't know anything about violins . But do know about amp tests. Here is a DBT documented on our own forum: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ests-*did*-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different

And the method that I mentioned has been used in Europe in single blind tests (approximating DBT) to show that few amplifiers lack coloration when pushed. The name of the organization that performed them is LTS and is based in Sweden.

Problem IMO here is similar to that when you had the recent-ish hirez ABX test, remember everyone apart from you initially failed to pass even when the early conversion was at fault, only with guidance on using a very specific listening approach and shown it consistently passable did others then start to pass.
With amps I feel most would be too casual-relaxed in their approach, which IMO requires the same listening discipline-methodology as with the ABX hirez you did and others started to do themselves (those that eventually passed).
Just to add the methodology can be subtly different but the approach-concept by all that passed was very similar.

Cheers
Orb

 

[amirm]

Agreed Orb .

 

[Atmasphere]

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.

This statement is false. There are plenty of things that are facts- things that are both measurable and audible. For example its well known (since the 1930s no less) that the 7th harmonics contributes to a metallic harshness in the sound.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

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.

Like Amir, I am baffled by your assertion. Scientific knowledge comes first, then technology, which is applied science, follows later, as in the Manhattan Project. Did I read a different history of this project and its aftermath than you?

Computers may be a mystery to many, in spite of the fact that essentially all of us use them. But, if you had ever done any serious Computer and Information Technology stuff - hardware, software, digital communications, etc. - you would be aware that there is never a mystery as to how or why something works or does not. That is not to say that all questions of science and technology are simple, easy or obvious to non-professionals. They often are not.

It is also clear that many (most?) audiophiles are staunchly anti-science and technology. Did they all flunk math and science? Ignorance reigns. But, intelligent, open minded questions aimed at expanding understanding are few and far between. Instead, we appear to have a generation of science bashing audiophiles who romanticize in simplistic terms the emotional power of music down to the nitty gritty of how stuff actually reproduces sound. This is a result of many things. The egocentric, my ears tell me absolutely everything attitude of audio journalism for decades - I don't need no bloomin' science - has spread like wildfire to a whole generation.

The technology of Internet Forums today where everyone starts out with an equal say, traditional knowledge and authority are out the window, it is hard to know how much or little any poster actually knows, egos dominate, attacks rather than questions are the rule, etc. means the whole thing seldom allows meaningful discussion leading to better understanding of truth to emerge. Confusion reigns.

Sorry, but this is not all about you. It is just my rant about audiophile forums and opinions in general.

 

[microstrip]

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.

Rob,

IMHO you can not refer to DBTs in such a vague statement without creating some confusion. Many differences are know to be easily perceptible in the usual DBT tests - clipping effects and some notorious colorations. However we had great progress in sound reproduction in high-end using sighted listening and there are no detailed reports of proper formal DBTs carried with high-end electronics. Does this mean that sighted listening conditions can help to show aspects that are hidden by DBT typical practical conditions? Or just that designers have such a deep knowledge of audio science that they can overcome the usual biases? We must remember that high-end is known to be the domain of the "small differences"!

BTW, most high-end designers also use science and technology to create the products they design. IMHO they are also creating art, because their products create in our rooms sound that goes beyond the expectation of the artist and the sound recording engineers.

 

[rbbert]

Rob,

IMHO you can not refer to DBTs in such a vague statement without creating some confusion...

You are exactly right, and I admit to exaggeration to make a point. The subsequent posts suggest I did not exaggerate enough, because the ignorance (and here I apologize if it is insulting) of educated people here is astonishing and sad. As you yourself have suggested in the past, some simple self-education about science and the scientific method is clearly indicated. Perhaps some more reading about history as well as contemporary scientific philosophers would also be helpful, because I am not proposing any original ideas in my posts. However much I may have exaggerated with my comment about perceptual DBT's, if anything I understated the lagging of science behind technology.

 

[Gregadd]

It is also clear that many (most?) audiophiles are staunchly anti-science and technology. Did they all flunk math and science? Ignorance reigns. But, intelligent, open minded questions aimed at expanding understanding are few and far between. Instead, we appear to have a generation of science bashing audiophiles who romanticize in simplistic terms the emotional power of music down to the nitty gritty of how stuff actually reproduces sound. This is a result of many things. The egocentric, my ears tell me absolutely everything attitude of audio journalism for decades - I don't need no bloomin' science - has spread like wildfire to a whole generation.

It is clear to me you are unable to sustain a single one of these broad generalizations.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Try that DBT, I'll be interested to see the results since almost no DBT's have ever shown a difference between cables, amps, pre-amps, etc. Heck, they can't even show a difference between violins

If you're referring to the test I think you are, that's not really accurate. Listeners (violinists), heard a difference between the violins, but they couldn't tell which one was the Strad and which ones were the modern builds. And when they picked the one they thought was best (assuming it was the Strad), it was often something else altogether. Expectation bias isn't exclusive to the audiophile hobby, even if it is pervasive there.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Problem IMO here is similar to that when you had the recent-ish hirez ABX test, remember everyone apart from you initially failed to pass even when the early conversion was at fault, only with guidance on using a very specific listening approach and shown it consistently passable did others then start to pass.
With amps I feel most would be too casual-relaxed in their approach, which IMO requires the same listening discipline-methodology as with the ABX hirez you did and others started to do themselves (those that eventually passed).
Just to add the methodology can be subtly different but the approach-concept by all that passed was very similar.

Cheers
Orb

OTOH Orb in the beginning science proclaimed digital "Perfect." Listening by audiophiles failed to substantiate that claim. The result is we now have substantially improved digital.

 

[amirm]

Looks like we are down the the path of usual battles. If so, we will have to close the thread folks. Let's enjoy some music than sparring with each other.

 

[Gregadd]

Try that DBT, I'll be interested to see the results since almost no DBT's have ever shown a difference between cables, amps, pre-amps, etc. Heck, they can't even show a difference between violins

If you're referring to the test I think you are, that's not really accurate. Listeners (violinists), heard a difference between the violins, but they couldn't tell which one was the Strad and which ones were the modern builds. And when they picked the one they thought was best (assuming it was the Strad), it was often something else altogether. Expectation bias isn't exclusive to the audiophile hobby, even if it is pervasive there.

Tim

Agreed to a point . I don't think she asked them to pick the best. She asked them "which one they would take home." It's like putting me in a room full of pretty girls. I'll probably go home alone. But I will not necessarily pick the prettiest.

Edit:Sorry Tim while the ultimate question was what would you take home. This was a part of the test:

Can violinists tell new violins from old by their playing qualities alone? In coding the best/worst selections in the four categories, violins were given a score of +1 for “best” in a category, -1 for “worst”, and 0 for neither “best” nor “worst”. This coding allowed us to accommodate subjects who selected as many as 6 violins as “best” or “worst” (e.g., by saying “all are equally good”), or as few as none (e.g., by saying “none are bad”). As the scores range from -1 to +1, a difference of 0.50 is a huge effect, and one of 0.33 quite strong. Results are presented in Figure 2.

 

[rbbert]

OTOH Orb in the beginning science proclaimed digital "Perfect." Listening by audiophiles failed to substantiate that claim. The result is we now have substantially improved digital.

Untrue, "science" never proclaimed that. Some PR flacks and engineers did, without any data to show whether or not it was true.

 

[rbbert]

...If you're referring to the test I think you are, that's not really accurate. Listeners (violinists), heard a difference between the violins, but they couldn't tell which one was the Strad and which ones were the modern builds. And when they picked the one they thought was best (assuming it was the Strad), it was often something else altogether. Expectation bias isn't exclusive to the audiophile hobby, even if it is pervasive there.

Tim

Actually, a fair number of listeners expressed no preference, which could mean either that they couldn't tell any difference or that they felt the differences weren't important. That's not specified in the "study", just one reason that it is a fairly useless study.

 

[rbbert]

Like Amir, I am baffled by your assertion. Scientific knowledge comes first, then technology, which is applied science, follows later, as in the Manhattan Project. Did I read a different history of this project and its aftermath than you?

Apparently, or else you didn't understand what you read. No one had any real idea of what would happen when the bombs were built and then used against Japan; that's one reason that there were two quite different bombs used, with different detonation patterns. The bombs were built based on theory, not fact. And what do you think was the point of all the nuclear bomb testing over the years following WWII?? It was because none of the bombs had been studied in a scientific manner. That's how science works; observations, develop hypotheses, generate tests for hypotheses, gather data and then analyze it. Just because something can be built doesn't mean we understand it or know its capabilities and limitations.

 

[Gregadd]

Untrue, "science" never proclaimed that. Some PR flacks and engineers did, without any data to show whether or not it was true.

I did my homework some time ago.It might be a matter of who you call a "scientist. But that was the claim of those who bought digital to the market. "Perfect sound forever." Once again us audiophiles were deemed to be delusional. The fact is digital recordings and machines have progressed significantly. The observation preceded the scientific progress

 

[rbbert]

I did my homework some time ago.It might be a matter of who you call a "scientist. But that was the claim of those who bought digital to the market. "Perfect sound forever." Once again us audiophiles were deemed to be delusional. The fact is digital recordings and machines have progressed significantly. The observation preceded the scientific progress

Sorry, once again you are confusing engineering and technology with science.

 

[Gregadd]

"Subjects seemed not to distinguish between new violins and old, but rather to choose instruments whose playing qualities best fit their individual tastes. It is worth noting that these preferences were based solely on the experience of playing the instruments, meaning subjects heard them ‘under the ear’ only, and not at a distance." Abstract Claudia Fritz wdbsite


How consistent were the subjects? Of the fifteen who chose new violins more often than old in Part 1, seven later chose old violins to take home. Against this, five subjects who chose old violins more often in Part 1 later chose new violins to take home (see Supporting Information). By this measure, just nine of 21 were consistent – though this seems unsurprising, given the way preferences shifted as time was spent with individual instruments (see Supporting Information). What was consistent through Parts 1 and 2 was a preference for new violins, and a specific dislike for O1. Abstract Supra.

Final word?
It’s unlikely to be the final word. Joseph Nagyvary, a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University in College Station who studies the chemistry of violins, isn’t convinced. He says that players need to play a violin for weeks to evaluate it fully, and that the study did not take into account that Stradivariuses vary in tone. “Experts know well that the 600 or so extant Strads vary vastly in their tone quality due to their playing and preservation history,” says Nagyvary, who is also a maker of modern-day recreations of Stradivarius and Guarnerius violins.

However, Giora Schmidt, one of the musicians who took part in the study, says he doesn’t believe it was biased. “One can argue that the old instruments selected were intentionally ‘weaker’ than the new ones chosen, or that the new instruments were set up optimally versus the old, which were ‘tired’,” he says. “But I think these are elements that players face each time they walk into a violin shop.”

Fritz says some soloists were frustrated that they did not get to see the violins at the end of the study, and were surprised to learn that their favourite violins were new ones.

Journal refer

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Agreed to a point . I don't think she asked them to pick the best. She asked them "which one they would take home." It's like putting me in a room full of pretty girls. I'll probably go home alone. But I will not necessarily pick the prettiest.

Edit:Sorry Tim while the ultimate question was what would you take home. This was a part of the test:

Can violinists tell new violins from old by their playing qualities alone? In coding the best/worst selections in the four categories, violins were given a score of +1 for “best” in a category, -1 for “worst”, and 0 for neither “best” nor “worst”. This coding allowed us to accommodate subjects who selected as many as 6 violins as “best” or “worst” (e.g., by saying “all are equally good”), or as few as none (e.g., by saying “none are bad”). As the scores range from -1 to +1, a difference of 0.50 is a huge effect, and one of 0.33 quite strong. Results are presented in Figure 2.

No need to be sorry, Greg. This doesn't in any way imply that listeners couldn't tell the difference between violins.

Tim