|
General Asylum: Are Established Scientific Methods Too Simplistic for the Complex Nature of Sound and Audio? by Todd Krieger General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
For Sale Ads |
129.239.26.4
In Reply to: Re: Why do most present-day audiophiles hate science? posted by Timbo in Oz on January 28, 2003 at 19:23:17:
"alot of objectivists are not really as csientific asvthey think they are."After thinking about this for several minutes, I cannot necessarily agree with this generalization... BUT...
I do think the objectivists try to apply "established scientific methods" that are too simplistic for an utterly-complex process known as sound reproduction. And use those hard but oversimplified "scientific methods" to discredit "scientific speculation" based on its possible correlation to improved perceived sonic qualities. Simply because it **is** speculation, and speculation should *always* be trumped by the hard theories and methods. (This is why nobody has been able to come up with the "evidence" the objectivists so-often demand- The evidence they're looking for are hard theories behind the speculation.)
An example of this is "time smear" in Redbook digital playback. I personally hear a "loss of resolution" in typical Redbook CD playback. And I see the ringing in typical CD players' impulse response... I then listen to a player with a time-resolute impulse response, and I perceive a more-natural, more resolute presentation compared to typical CD players.... I then speculate (admittedly) that "time smear" correlates to the ringing in the impulse response, and believe that time-resolute filter algorithms should be the way to go in Redbook digital playback.... But the objectivist comes back saying that such an algorithm would be a step backwards because it violates Nyquist's and Shannon's theorems, and can also compromise frequency response.... There has yet to come-forth a hard scientific theory that covers time-response that would supersede the Nyquist or Shannon theorem. But in my opinion, sticking within the limits of established scientific methods of Nyquist and Shannon, without looking outside the box with not-so-established "time response" applications, **compromises** the potential performance of Redbook digital playback.
The problem is in my humble opinion, the established hard scientific methods and theorems are just too simplistic for the complex nature of sound and reproduction. And living on such methods alone IMO limits the potential of the sonic performance of an audio design. And limits the performance potential of an audio system.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Why do most present-day audiophiles hate science? - middleground 19:50:13 01/27/03 ( 102)
- Re: Why do audiophiles love detail - The Real Question - Audio Audacity 04:35:45 01/30/03 ( 0)
I hate science because it left a stain on my carpet. You, however, can go over to Prop Head <nt& - Bosh 20:58:04 01/28/03 ( 1)
- Just send 'em to the Ghetto, eh? - jj 21:38:03 01/28/03 ( 0)
Re: Why do most present-day audiophiles hate science? - Timbo in Oz 19:23:17 01/28/03 ( 8)
- Are Established Scientific Methods Too Simplistic for the Complex Nature of Sound and Audio? - Todd Krieger 01/29/03 08:20:16 01/29/03 ( 3)
- Re: Not necessarily, but - Dave-A 17:31:08 01/31/03 ( 0)
- Hmmm. - jj 18:28:49 01/29/03 ( 0)
Re: Are Established Scientific Methods Too Simplistic for the Complex Nature of Sound and Audio? - middleground 13:10:42 01/29/03 ( 0)
Re: Why do most present-day audiophiles hate science? - john curl 20:39:20 01/28/03 ( 0)
Really now? "type 2 error"??? - jj 20:37:01 01/28/03 ( 2)
- Re: Really now? "type 2 error"??? - john curl 16:26:07 01/30/03 ( 1)
- No, John, I don't know better and obviously you don't either. - jj 18:23:43 01/30/03 ( 0)
The scientific facts that explain gravity are .... (NT) - Quantum 18:28:27 01/28/03 ( 0)
Because who believes in that black art of using mathematics to explain everything. - Da'v 13:41:58 01/28/03 ( 0)
Many don't......but we don't necessarily worship them as ......... - newbee 11:08:40 01/28/03 ( 1)
- Pet Peeve..... - dado5 11:32:56 01/28/03 ( 0)
Science has NOTHING to do with high end audio, - and - Sordidman 10:41:45 01/28/03 ( 8)
- Re: Science has NOTHING to do with high end audio, - and - Audio Audacity 10:34:35 01/30/03 ( 0)
Re: Science has NOTHING to do with high end audio, - and - C.B. 11:02:46 01/28/03 ( 6)
- Dramatic effect..... - Sordidman 11:19:26 01/28/03 ( 5)
- Re: Dramatic effect..... - C.B. 12:09:26 01/28/03 ( 3)
- I have nothing but the highest respect for Engineers!! - Sordidman 12:47:40 01/28/03 ( 2)
- Re: I have nothing but the highest respect for Engineers!! - C.B. 13:54:26 01/28/03 ( 1)
- Very nice point. You're right, especially in reference - Sordidman 15:15:26 01/28/03 ( 0)
- Exactly - dado5 11:44:18 01/28/03 ( 0)
Could it be because of Thomas Dolby? ... - Jim Smith 09:50:54 01/28/03 ( 1)
- Still love that album. <nt> - Bosh 20:45:18 01/28/03 ( 0)
A poor premise - Gregg 09:36:42 01/28/03 ( 1)
- "Many of us are scientists and engineers, or are science-oriented." - Maiello 10:29:00 01/28/03 ( 0)
Re: Why do most present-day audiophiles hate science? - ka7niq 09:08:11 01/28/03 ( 1)
- Re: Why do most present-day audiophiles hate science? - john curl 20:44:07 01/28/03 ( 0)
If I may jump in at the tail end of this discussion.... - C.B. 09:02:05 01/28/03 ( 1)
- Re: If I may jump in at the tail end of this discussion.... - middleground 13:10:28 01/28/03 ( 0)
You're proceeding from a false premise - Rob Doorack 07:27:40 01/28/03 ( 2)
- Man, Logic. This is what I really hate! ; ) nt - dvb 08:47:50 01/28/03 ( 0)
:-) - Sam M 08:01:21 01/28/03 ( 0)
Not exactly - BillH 07:17:04 01/28/03 ( 0)
Re: Why do most present-day audiophiles hate sighing? - Muzikmike 06:49:53 01/28/03 ( 0)
Measurement, audible differences, and preferences. - Pat D 06:47:04 01/28/03 ( 3)
- Not a straw man at all. - dado5 07:50:28 01/28/03 ( 2)
- Every and some (universal and particular) - Pat D 16:22:55 01/28/03 ( 1)
- Cross purposes... - dado5 10:20:45 01/29/03 ( 0)
Is music science? It's not so simple... - Darryl 06:29:19 01/28/03 ( 5)
- "Should all wines be scientifically measured?" - Maiello 06:50:43 01/28/03 ( 0)
Re: Is music science? It's not so simple... - middleground 06:48:45 01/28/03 ( 3)
- The wine as analogous to music theory is relevant because .. - jeffrt 08:52:42 01/28/03 ( 1)
- Re: The wine as analogous to music theory is relevant because .. - middleground 12:49:08 01/28/03 ( 0)
Re: Is music science? It's not so simple... - Maiello 06:55:19 01/28/03 ( 0)
Perhaps because music is about art. (nt) - Langdell 06:01:04 01/28/03 ( 0)
Lots of good responses.... - dado5 05:28:56 01/28/03 ( 0)
because most have no - chiggy 23:06:11 01/27/03 ( 0)
Re: Why do most present-day audiophiles hate science? - Tuckers 22:36:09 01/27/03 ( 0)
Re: Why do most present-day audiophiles hate science? - Steve L. 21:56:34 01/27/03 ( 1)
- Re: Now you're talking... - Dave-A 22:04:47 01/27/03 ( 0)
Re: It's not the science per se.. - Dave-A 21:50:03 01/27/03 ( 0)
Re: Why do most present-day audiophiles hate science? - David Spear 21:29:25 01/27/03 ( 0)
Why Are Oranges Round?? - Todd Krieger 21:15:02 01/27/03 ( 5)
- Re: Why Are Oranges Round?? - middleground 05:01:58 01/28/03 ( 4)
- Nice Admission... - Todd Krieger 07:30:51 01/28/03 ( 3)
- Re: Nice Admission... - MadJack 10:56:44 01/28/03 ( 2)
- you postmodernist. - dado5 11:18:04 01/28/03 ( 1)
- Should that be dada instead of dado? - MadJack 13:27:39 01/28/03 ( 0)
from a scientist.... - Sam M 21:13:43 01/27/03 ( 15)
- Re: from a scientist.... - middleground 05:46:20 01/28/03 ( 2)
- you missed the point. - Sam M 07:59:55 01/28/03 ( 0)
- Short answer, no. - dado5 06:22:06 01/28/03 ( 0)
Fetishistic science - Genji 05:35:27 01/28/03 ( 3)
- egg nogg - Maiello 08:19:50 01/28/03 ( 1)
- You Are Quite Right... - Genji 08:48:38 01/28/03 ( 0)
Very good post. - dado5 05:54:40 01/28/03 ( 0)
Absolutely true, but... - old geezer 21:48:20 01/27/03 ( 7)
- Re: Absolutely true, but... - Steve L. 22:03:09 01/27/03 ( 3)
- No argument there - old geezer 22:22:38 01/27/03 ( 2)
- Re: No argument there - Steve L. 22:48:55 01/27/03 ( 1)
- Re: No argument there - middleground 05:57:21 01/28/03 ( 0)
Re: I agree, but... - Dave-A 22:00:10 01/27/03 ( 2)
- Re: I agree, but... - middleground 06:09:39 01/28/03 ( 1)
- Re: Whoa big fella. - Dave-A 11:49:23 01/28/03 ( 0)
It's not just audiophiles - old geezer 20:42:52 01/27/03 ( 3)
- Boy, I'm really getting old... I'll try again - old geezer 20:51:04 01/27/03 ( 2)
- Re: Boy, I'm really getting old... I'll try again - middleground 06:17:43 01/28/03 ( 0)
- Plus it's a lot easier impressing... - R. Hertz 21:11:40 01/27/03 ( 0)
what science? - TA 20:37:38 01/27/03 ( 2)
- Re: what science? - middleground 06:29:20 01/28/03 ( 1)
- okay - TA 08:41:04 01/28/03 ( 0)
sucking the fun out - Rodney Gold 20:27:39 01/27/03 ( 1)
- Re: sucking the fun out - middleground 06:33:02 01/28/03 ( 0)
Ivan and R. Hertz say what needs to be said. nt - Norm 20:15:45 01/27/03 ( 7)
- I'll try not to take that personally :) [nt] - Ted Smith 20:33:00 01/27/03 ( 6)
- Ivan is right. - Norm 05:45:15 01/28/03 ( 1)
- I understand on both counts :) [nt] - Ted Smith 09:57:37 01/28/03 ( 0)
- Re: I'll try not to take that personally :) [nt] - Ivan303 20:40:18 01/27/03 ( 3)
- I was kidding, I hope he agrees with me :) [nt] - Ted Smith 20:46:19 01/27/03 ( 2)
- Re: I was kidding, I hope he agrees with me :) [nt] - Dave-A 21:31:28 01/27/03 ( 1)
- Re: I was kidding, I hope he agrees with me :) [nt] - middleground 06:35:16 01/28/03 ( 0)
I wouldn't put it that way - Ted Smith 20:14:24 01/27/03 ( 0)
It's not Science that we dislike... - Ivan303 20:12:58 01/27/03 ( 4)
- Daniel von Recklinghausen is the source of the remark. (nt) - Eli Duttman 00:09:17 01/28/03 ( 3)
- Re: Daniel von Recklinghausen is the source of the remark. (nt) - Ivan303 06:17:59 01/28/03 ( 2)
- Re: Daniel von Recklinghausen is the source of the remark. (nt) - Eli Duttman 17:31:06 01/28/03 ( 1)
- Re: Daniel von Recklinghausen is the source of the remark. (nt) - Ivan303 06:06:54 01/29/03 ( 0)
It's too hard to make science fit. - R. Hertz 20:04:53 01/27/03 ( 0)