Comparative Listening Tests

[microstrip]

That Tesla quote unfortunately applies to a bunch of modern cosmologists and physicists, who theorize about multiverses and string theory without any connection to experimentation and observation. I don't consider such stuff real science. In my daily life as a biochemist I am confronted with experimental reality every day, which is sometimes an uplifitng but often a humbling experience, putting hypotheses to shame, as attractive as they may have seemed. I don't see why some so-called scientists should be exempt from confrontation with observed reality. After all, not just hypothesis, but constant testing of hypothesis, is what science is all about.

Tesla was a genius and a great inventor, no one has doubts on it, mostly known for his great work on electromagnetism and electromechanical devices. But, unfortunately his views on modern physics were completely outdated and his beliefs on theoretical physics were completely wrong - the quote being referred was really a very unhappy comment against the great discoveries of modern physics. Fortunately he was completely wrong - he was a firm believer in the old theories of the ether, did not believe in electrons and was against Einstein's theory of relativity.

Just to say I can not see how people can congratulate with Tesla myopic views on modern and theoretical physics, that were proved to be completely wrong, and even extrapolate based on such internet quotes.

And yes, probably the structure referred in the quote had a relation with reality - it was the reality.

Interested people can see it all at the Nikola Tesla entry in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#On_experimental_and_theoretical_physics

 

[Al M.]

Tesla was a genius and a great inventor, no one has doubts on it, mostly known for his great work on electromagnetism and electromechanical devices. But, unfortunately his views on modern physics were completely outdated and his beliefs on theoretical physics were completely wrong - the quote being referred was really a very unhappy comment against the great discoveries of modern physics. Fortunately he was completely wrong - he was a firm believer in the old theories of the ether, did not believe in electrons and was against Einstein's theory of relativity.

Just to say I can not see how people can congratulate with Tesla myopic views on modern and theoretical physics, that were proved to be completely wrong, and even extrapolate based on such internet quotes.

And yes, probably the structure referred in the quote had a relation with reality - it was the reality.

I don't see how what you say has any bearing on the great relevance of the Tesla quote for things like the multiverse and string theory which, as long as they cannot be observationally confirmed (and in the case of the multiverse, this is in principle impossible *)) are not science in the strict sense of the term, no matter what many cosmologists and physicists may claim.

___________________

*) because of the particle horizon: the maximum distance from which particles (i.e. also particles carrying information) could have traveled to the observer in the age of the universe. It represents the portion of the universe which we could have conceivably observed at the present day. Any other universe would lie outside this particle horizon.

 

[microstrip]

I don't see how what you say has any bearing on the great relevance of the quote for things like the multiverse and string theory which, as long as they cannot be observationally or experimentally confirmed (and in the case of the multiverse, this is in principle impossible) are not science in the strict sense of the term, no matter what many cosmologists and physicists may claim.

I was addressing the Tesla quote, not your comment. Considering your comment on theoretical physics subjects, a few years ago I read the debate between experts on that field with interest in Scientific American - IMHO cosmologists and physicists are better placed to debate if it not science than we are, and some seem to disagree with you http://theconversation.com/the-theory-of-parallel-universes-is-not-just-maths-it-is-science-that-can-be-tested-46497

 

[Al M.]

I was addressing the Tesla quote, not your comment. Considering your comment on theoretical physics subjects, a few years ago I read the debate between experts on that field with interest in Scientific American - IMHO cosmologists and physicists are better placed to debate if it not science than we are, and some seem to disagree with you http://theconversation.com/the-theory-of-parallel-universes-is-not-just-maths-it-is-science-that-can-be-tested-46497

That link is a typical Kool-Aid article in favor of the thing being science. I've seen it all, been there done that. There are also authoritative cosmologists like George Ellis who, in an article published in the leading magazine Science, pleaded with the scientific community to only consider science something that is observable, which also according to him the multiverse is not (see also my remark about the particle horizon that I added to my previous post while you answered). He basically considers the current situation an identity crisis of science, and I agree.

 

[microstrip]

I can neither confirm nor deny which group of scientists Tesla directed his quote toward. But it really doesn't matter to me. Because on its face the fundamentals of Tesla's quote can be extrapolated to include perhaps numerous sectors within the scientific community as well as outside the scientific community.

I interpret Tesla's quote to imply a loss or misunderstanding or mis-application of fundamental principles and purposes, a proper mindset, and/or performing due diligence. In short, I suspect Tesla's really just pointing a finger at groups of supposedly highly intelligent people lacking common sense and all too enamored with themselves and their degrees.

If so, I can now extrapolate Tesla's quote to apply to some-to-many people in some-to-many industries and sectors. Moreover, I can't help but wonder if Tesla's quote was true then how more true it may be today.

Fortunately it does not matter to you. Tesla was wrong and pointing a finger at brilliant theoretical physicists.

 

[stehno]

Fortunately it does not matter to you. Tesla was wrong and pointing a finger at brilliant theoretical physicists.

But you get your facts from wikipedia and you believe isolation to be a logical and superior vibration controlling methodology, right?

Maybe I am visually confused after all.

 

[microstrip]

But you get your facts from wikipedia and you believe isolation to be a logical and superior vibration controlling methodology, right?

Maybe I am visually confused after all.

No, I was aware of Tesla high and low points since I read about the War of Currents, long ago. But yes, sometimes Wikipedia helps a lot to refresh old memories ... And I consider that isolation is only a small part of the non understood game since I read about the Goldmund mechanical diode also long ago.

 

[microstrip]

That link is a typical Kool-Aid article in favor of the thing being science. I've seen it all, been there done that. There are also authoritative cosmologists like George Ellis who, in an article published in the leading magazine Science, pleaded with the scientific community to only consider science something that is observable, which also according to him the multiverse is not (see also my remark about the particle horizon that I added to my previous post while you answered). He basically considers the current situation an identity crisis of science, and I agree.

G. Ellis was the author of the Scientific American article I had referred and also later co-authored another one in Nature.

But other authoritative people go on debating Ellis views with strong arguments - see : http://www.space.com/32452-can-science-explain-the-multiverse.html

 

[stehno]

Hi Guys,

I've read all of the posts from Silly Goose. Yes what he said was true, but last thing I want to start is a war. I really don't care what they did because Mivera Audio was only a beta testing company anyways. Before I started Mivera Audio I knew I would be faced with these sorts of issues, because I was warned by several industry veterans. To be honest I didn't believe them about how bad things could get, which was why I started Mivera Audio as beta testing company to test the waters. But yes the products are real, and the customers who own the products are real customers. And we will continue to support them through the promised 10 year warranty period. In fact they will always get wholesale pricing on any of our OEM systems from our subsidiary company. So it's a win win all around.

To keep Mivera Audio alive, I decided to offer our products listed on the webshop in DIY kits. I figured they are such great products, it would be a shame to discontinue them. However the work burden of supporting things on a retail level just isn't feasible with how busy I am on the OEM end of things. So Mivera Audio moving forward will be DIY and custom projects only. To experience our products through other means, lookout for cutting edge products from a dealer near you!

Mike, I presume? Good looking gear. I perceive tho art a minimalist in design.

Hope the best for your products.

 

[stehno]

Yes. The Superstack is designed for the purest possible 2 channel listening experience. Just power up, and listen to music. No options to distract you from the sound. However that was a bad picture. I made a new front panel for that preamp after with chamfer on the front cutout. But was all prototypes anyways. Thank you!

You can read a review on this system here:

https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/p...ne-rig-focal-utopia-mivera-superstack.838570/

This guy has owned everything under the sun, and has no biases.

Nice write up. You're designs have a real simple beauty to them.

I didn't read the whole write-up yet but it sounded to me like your pre-amp is essentially a passive pre / without an amplified gain stage? If so, would you care to share why? I think I know why but I'd appreciate hearing your views.

 

[Steve williams]

Hi Mike and welcome back

I appreciate your decision to extend an olive branch. My only request is you be Mike and not blizzard as that name was appropriate at the time. Those days are gone so let's celebrate your growth now as Mivera Audio

BTW please ad that to your Signature Line if you are to become an active poster here

I wish you all of the best in your business venture and yes you took it on the chin at ASR but I thought you handled yourself well for which I commend you as it was IMO you who came away the victor.Perhaps rather than being an advertorial for your products I suggest directing everyone to your website which I perused and thought to be be very explanatory

 

[DaveC]

he has a clear motive behind what he's doing and I'm still not sure what it is.

"Winning"



Hi Mike!

 

[Steve williams]

Nicely said Mike.

 

[NorthStar]

Hi Mike,

It's nice reading the words above and see your boy's face in your avatar. Best of bests.

 

[Al M.]

G. Ellis was the author of the Scientific American article I had referred and also later co-authored another one in Nature.

But other authoritative people go on debating Ellis views with strong arguments - see : http://www.space.com/32452-can-science-explain-the-multiverse.html

Which Scientific American article do you refer to?

Anyway, this link at space.com does not give strong arguments against Ellis' views. They basically come up with arguments about 'indirect testing' about which I wrote elsewhere:

"Yet perhaps eventually we will arrive at a theory that is considered the correct fundamental theory of physics – it will account for all observations in cosmology and particle physics, it will be well-tested by experiment, will lead to many correct predictions, and will have a tight structure. The equations of that future theory may imply that the universe has a multiverse structure with each of the domains having physical parameters with different values. One might suggest that this may constitute a ‘theoretical proof’ that the multiverse is correct. However, in order to qualify as science in the usual sense there would still need to be observational proof that the multiverse, which is expressed in these equations as mere potentiality, is in fact actualized (confusing potentialities with actualities is a grave mistake in science). Such an observational proof is not possible.

"All in all, I therefore have to agree with George Ellis that the multiverse hypothesis is not science, but philosophy. It is philosophy dressed up in scientific language. Certainly, it may be called a hypothesis from science, but it hardly qualifies as science proper."

***

Also, in the context of discussing Smolin's hypothesis of Cosmic Natural Selection I wrote about an issue that has bearing on the arguments bought forth in your space.com link as well:

"Smolin nonetheless claims that Cosmic Natural Selection is a true scientific hypothesis since it is falsifiable, i.e. it would fail if some of its predictions do not work out – predictions that are not at all directly related to the workings of the hypothesis, such as upper limits on the mass of neutron stars. However, this is ascribing an exaggerated role to Popperian ideas about science. Yes, falsification of wrong hypotheses and lack of falsification of potentially right ones is an important part of how science progresses, and Popper was certainly right about that, but the main business of science is positive verification by observation and experiment. The theory of evolution and the theory of the Big Bang (not to speak of the atomic theory, quantum theory, general relativity etc.) are such strong scientific theories because they have successfully undergone verification by positive evidence on many levels. How else than because of all the positive lines of verification could Martin Rees come to the reasonable conclusion that he is now 99 % certain – as practically certain as it gets – that the Big Bang happened (book Just Six Numbers)? And would you seriously suggest that a cancer drug works because there is a lack of falsification that it does not – rather than positive verification that it does?

"Thus, the fact that a hypothesis is falsifiable is not enough to make it scientific. It has to be able to actually be verified, to be positively tested. I am confident that almost all scientists who like me perform positive testing by observations and experiments will agree."

 

[SoundAndMotion]

I’ll make use of that when appropriate, thanks. One question right away: do you know of a paper or website that provides an overview of sensory evaluation tests? I had copied the corresponding chapter from Meilgaard’s book but managed to lose that copy.

Hi Klaus,

I'm happy to help if I can. What is your goal? To design experiments (what kind?), or to understand and evaluate what others report? The Meilgaard book seems to focus on the chemical senses, although much of it has general applicability. The term "sensory evaluation tests", as a specific term, is new to me and seemed overly broad, but in their community it has meaning. I'm more familiar with "perceptual studies", perceptual models, and the methods for their study, such as psychophysics (e.g. psychoacoustics). These areas are discussed in the Meigaard book, along with many things with which I don't deal.

I would not know of a paper providing an overview of sensory evaluation techniques. That would seem to require a book, and I can recommend excellent books on psychophysics and experimental design.

 

[KlausR.]

Hello SAM,

What is your goal? To design experiments (what kind?), or to understand and evaluate what others report?

I don't have any intention to run such tests myself, it's more to have some background info on existing methods and how they perform statistically so that I understand better tests done by others. For audio I suppose that the book of Bech/Zacharov is the best starting point.

"Share what you know, learn what you don't."

I would not know of a paper providing an overview of sensory evaluation techniques. That would seem to require a book, and I can recommend excellent books on psychophysics and experimental design.

Blauert I have, Fastl/Zwicker is available where I work, technical university Delft is a 20 min bicycle ride and I have access to their central library, so if you give me some book titles I can check if they're available.

Klaus

 

[microstrip]

Which Scientific American article do you refer to? (...)

I was addressing this one Scientific American August 2011, Does the Multiverse Really Exist? Proof of parallel universes radically different from our own may still lie beyond the domain of science By George F. R. Ellis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-multiverse-really-exist/

Anyway, we are drifting from the objective of my post - exposing what I considered an unhappy quote of a very unhappy Tesla statement against modern physics and theoretical work.

And yes, I also have used this Multiverse question to explain why it can not be considered science according to the current scientific method - if I had to vote now I would be tempted to vote on your side. But in due time I appreciated the arguments of the other side, and I do not consider it a closed affair. Anyway, unfortunately I have too many interests now to devote more time to this fascinating subject. Thanks for your input.

 

[nc42acc]

Hey if (blizzard) Mike is coming back I guess I should too! How have you been Mike?

Hi Guys,

I've read all of the posts from Silly Goose. Yes what he said was true, but last thing I want to start is a war. I really don't care what they did because Mivera Audio was only a beta testing company anyways. Before I started Mivera Audio I knew I would be faced with these sorts of issues, because I was warned by several industry veterans. To be honest I didn't believe them about how bad things could get, which was why I started Mivera Audio as beta testing company to test the waters. But yes the products are real, and the customers who own the products are real customers. And we will continue to support them through the promised 10 year warranty period. In fact they will always get wholesale pricing on any of our OEM systems from our subsidiary company. So it's a win win all around.

To keep Mivera Audio alive, I decided to offer our products listed on the webshop in DIY kits. I figured they are such great products, it would be a shame to discontinue them. However the work burden of supporting things on a retail level just isn't feasible with how busy I am on the OEM end of things. So Mivera Audio moving forward will be DIY and custom projects only. To experience our products through other means, lookout for cutting edge products from a dealer near you!

 

[Al M.]

I was addressing this one Scientific American August 2011, Does the Multiverse Really Exist? Proof of parallel universes radically different from our own may still lie beyond the domain of science By George F. R. Ellis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-multiverse-really-exist/

Thanks.

Anyway, we are drifting from the objective of my post - exposing what I considered an unhappy quote of a very unhappy Tesla statement against modern physics and theoretical work.

Fair enough.

And yes, I also have used this Multiverse question to explain why it can not be considered science according to the current scientific method - if I had to vote now I would be tempted to vote on your side.

Glad to hear that...

But in due time I appreciated the arguments of the other side, and I do not consider it a closed affair. Anyway, unfortunately I have too many interests now to devote more time to this fascinating subject. Thanks for your input.

Thanks for the discussion.