whatsnext
Naimless
Why is it important to you to have science? You "of course" hear it makes a difference you say so there seems no need for you.
Is there any science to back up these little feet
- Thread starter Lee T
- Start date
Why is it important to you to have science? You "of course" hear it makes a difference you say so there seems no need for you.
droodzilla
pfm Member
It's been found. What's your point?
I'm a physics student and I can assure you that none of the lecturers and researchers I've come across think they know everything - or even *like* to think we know everything (where's the fun in that?). Equally, none of them would give the ridiculous claims of the average audiophile a second thought - there's simply too much real science to do, and real science is hard work and extremely resource intensive.
I think most people on this forum would be staggered by the lengths scientists go to to eliminate noise and potential sources of errors from their experiments. In the case of the dark matter experiment I'm working on this entails locating a detector over a mile underground, constructing it from the most radioactively pure titanium ever sourced and countless other measures designed to eliminate false positives.
It's a humbling experience, which makes it all the more ironic that members who defend established science against the unsupported claims of the audio industry are described as arrogant. True arrogance is thinking your own subjective impressions carry more weight than the accumulated painstaking efforts of thousands and thousands of researchers, and the theories they have tested countless times.
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
Dismissing subjective findings out of hand is arrogant.
I'd like to think that most researchers have better things to do than even think about our hobby.
Sibbers
Earthling
I don't think it's arrogance to perceive something and then defend it when you're told otherwise because someone else who claims to be more intelligent than has a theory. I don't think that science is considered bad by anyone (a very few perhaps), it's just when the occasional bad theory doesn't sit right - very clever people have been wrong and models for physics are often iterated on.
Bob Carver is a clever guy and he says all amps sound the same. That's a clanger that gets repeated lots and ruined my listening experience for a few years.
Btw the stuff you're talking about sounds very interesting!
Bob Carver is a clever guy and he says all amps sound the same. That's a clanger that gets repeated lots and ruined my listening experience for a few years.
Btw the stuff you're talking about sounds very interesting!
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
You are like a dog with a bone for keeping bringing up something that happened over six years ago.
Indeed, the devil makes work...
Getting stuck into the footnotes may be ultimately more rewarding.
Oh believe me your current room has issues, unless you have defied physics.
To claim otherwise further discredits your credibility.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
The footnotes are OK; it's things like remembering whether or not to include a space after a p. for page number that does for me. And the bibliography is worse. The format is usually 'Location: publisher, date', but then was it a first edition, or a later re-print? If the latter, you need to give details of both the first edition and the edition you actually used. Fortunately we have a professional proofreader in the house who can spot these things a mile away. I'm more of a broad-brush person meself.
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
It's the black and white thinking again. Of course it has 'issues' but they are not as critical as your extreme example and therefore don't really matter as much as what actually emerges from the speakers.
droodzilla
pfm Member
The point is they're not dismissed out of hand. They're dismissed because they're contrary to extremely well understood science that has been demonstrated (almost literally) countless times. Also, given our dependence on technology, almost every moment of our waking life is a vindication of the science concerned. In this context, subjectivity is a form of arrogance.
Research is a diverse ecosystem with many niches available to motivated and resourceful scientists, so research into audio reproduction is not necessarily ruled out. Further, if some of the things audiophiles claim really were true, it would force a rethink of some fundamental physical theories. I don't know a single scientist who wouldn't want to be the first to make that discovery. The truth is that no physicist takes these claims seriously (for good reason), and any funding body would laugh if they received a proposal to investigate such claims.
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
And I bet these rules have changed over the years.
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
Subjectivity is not arrogant. It is what we actually perceive. Nobody makes any choices about what they hear if they are honest.
Any funding body would laugh because it would be a misuse of resources for something so trivial.
I don't know why armchair 'scientists' (or any real scientists) get so het up about audio and "wild claims" because this is just a hobby enjoyed by a relatively small number of folk. I think some people just get off on pissing on our chips out of the comfortable belief that they occupy the rational high ground despite the fact that they completely lack any sense of perspective.
There are bigger fish to fry for scientists so the wannabes should just leave us audiophools alone to our trial and error.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Engineers look for answers to questions. They do so by exploring the options not excluding them or thinking in black and white terms.
The only people around here doing so are the raving subjectivists who do things like dismiss respected and knowledgeable people in the field such as floyd tool.
Also by saying "I hear it therefore it is" and ignoring the fallibility of the human auditory system and the psychological aspects of sighted comparisons.
Proven physics is not black and white thinking. Your room has deleterious acoustic modes which have several orders more audibility than the daft plastic clips in your stand.
You are just in denial and it's pretty embarrassing
droodzilla
pfm Member
Thanks Sibbers, it is very interesting. I've been fascinated by fundamental physics (essentially the question, "what are we made of?") since I was a young boy. The experiment I'm working on over the Summer is one of many that are searching for dark matter. And I'm just one of several hundred researchers involved in this experiment. It's an epic endeavour with all these scientists, engineers, project managers etc. working for years on something that might, at the end of the day (around 2020), produce a null result, albeit a highly informative one. That's why I mentioned humility in my earlier post.
Anyway, if you're interested, this article is a good overview of the field:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130718-in-the-hunt-for-dark-matter-promises-to-keep/
The image at the beginning is the detector that will be used in the experiment I'm working on.
Yep, just finished moving my oppo between its mdf shelf, solid wooden floor and carpet with underlay.
Not one single difference in the sound.
Perhaps you have a problem with your player?
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
See my signature.
To deny well proven physics in place of your own pet theories is, if a conscious choice embarrassing, otherwise it's just delusional.
Sorry Steven , I just don't hear a difference. Next you'll be saying I have a hearing problem............and no I don't, it Has been measured.....hahahahahahahs
