[The Pieman]

I have now been an active Head-fi member for about fourteen months and have and am still enjoying the forum greatly. But we all have peeves.
Probably my greatest peeve with this forum is what I call the "absoluteness" of some members. They generally use science as the absolute definer of all things audio, regardless if they have heard something or not. They leave very little room for others to have an opinion.

I don't believe that science can explain everything. If that was the case we wouldn't need scientists. I was always under the impression that scientists spent a lot of their time investigating the unknown. yes unknown.

I don't think that sound is any different. There are still lots of unknowns.To use physics and science as the basis for your listening experience, to me is rather sad. What is wrong with your ears?? I am aware that is a lot of snake oil in the world of audio, but at the same time not all is.

Why is it the same people continually talking others listening experiences down by using "science" as the basis for their opinions rather than using a listening experience, and often using somewhat insulting language to do the talking down. These same do not seem to be interested in healthy debate/discussion, but rather shutting down anybody with a different opinion to their own. Head-Fi is meant to be about fun, or have some forgotten how to have fun.

Maybe a few people could take a chill pill, and remember that an audio experience is not a life or death event.

Yes, once again I have been sucked in by the Cables, tweaks etc Sub-forum. Oh well..........

Rant complete.

Cheers
Simon

 

[Trippytiger]

Enjoying an audio experience doesn't preclude wanting to understand how it happens. Face it, equipment is a big part of this hobby, and it all operates on physical principles, not fairy dust.

Frankly, you wouldn't have your audio experience if it weren't for the engineers using, yes, science to design your headphones, your amps, your sources, and your cables. It's important! And while it may not matter to you how things work, there are those of us who do like to know how our equipment functions and why it produces sounds the way it does. What's wrong with that?

Also, I really don't get your point about not needing scientists if science could explain everything. Scientists use scientific principles to better understand the world around us. We wouldn't know nearly as much as we do now if it weren't for curious people looking for explanations about how things work. Just because something is unknown now doesn't mean it will always be.

 

[blessingx]

Hmmm, is your issue science or bad science or amateur scientists? Certainly the history of science and shown there is progress towards understanding the unknown and revision. And the openness of debate is far more healthy in science than elsewhere - religion, but one example where it's almost non-existent.

As for Head-fi, I agree science is touted in arguments against lossless v. lossy files or cable comparisons, etc. but I'd trust science as a measure far more than faith or perception or feeling or 'fun.' I just suspect the listening tests and the conclusions made are often flawed, but that doesn't mean a test isn't the best way of settle a debate. In fact I as often question the response to the science... which is often emotional.

Science can certainly endow the speaker with false security/confidence, but again that's not science. I also find it strange to say others should take a 'chill pill' inside a self-labeled rant.

 

[The Pieman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trippytiger /img/forum/go_quote.gif Enjoying an audio experience doesn't preclude wanting to understand how it happens. Face it, equipment is a big part of this hobby, and it all operates on physical principles, not fairy dust. Frankly, you wouldn't have your audio experience if it weren't for the engineers using, yes, science to design your headphones, your amps, your sources, and your cables. It's important! And while it may not matter to you how things work, there are those of us who do like to know how our equipment functions and why it produces sounds the way it does. What's wrong with that? Also, I really don't get your point about not needing scientists if science could explain everything. Scientists use scientific principles to better understand the world around us. We wouldn't know nearly as much as we do now if it weren't for curious people looking for explanations about how things work.

I actually don't disagree with what you are saying. How I view the design work is engineers using known scientific ideas and principles to design most of the gear. Are most of these people stepping into the absolute unknown? I doubt it. If you read again what I wrote I have inferred that scientists, to me, are people that spend a lot of their time investigating the unknown.

The point I am trying to make is that there are some that try to use known science to try to explain everything. They cannot and will not accept that maybe there are things that cannot be explained by science.

cheers
Simon

 

[MatsudaMan]

Scientists/engineers don't know anything about music.

 

[The Pieman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif I also find it strange to say others should take a 'chill pill' inside a self-labeled rant.

LoL, I'll wear that one!

cheers
Simon

 

[Trippytiger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsudaMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Scientists/engineers don't know anything about music.

They know lots about music reproduction, though.

 

[Wmcmanus]

No, science can't explain all things we are able to hear. Even if I can't prove that scientifically, I know that it's true. In fact, the fact that I can't use science to prove scientifically that not everything is provable scientifically is all the proof that I need that a lot of people use the science argument when they can't understand something that is beyond them.

I share your frustration with the absoluteness of some members. No matter what you might say or do to "prove" you hear what you hear, they will persist with their arguments for the sake of argument that what you think you're hearing (even if anyone sitting where you're sitting could easily hear the same things) can't possibly be heard. That's what they think, but of course they've never bothered to listen for themselves.

 

[monolith]

Audio reproduction the way we're talking about it has two parts. The reproduction and the listening. Science can and should be used to explain and understand everything that happens up to your ear drum, at which point you can decide if you like what you hear.

This shouldn't be confused with trusting what you hear all the time. Certainly there are phenomena like thinking you hear things that don't exist (and can be shown not to exist scientifically).

It's also important to say that this isn't really a matter of opinion. Given a piece of source material (a CD or LP), everything up to your opinion on it can be explained scientifically by virtue of the fact that there are simple physical processes going on. Even if a given part of that process hasn't been explained thusfar, it theoretically can be, and should be investigated. Of course, science can, after a certain level of fidelity, only account for differences in sound reproduction. Judging whether these are improvements is up to the listener.


For example, to compare two things back and forth "normally" and say "A sounds better than B" is, technically, meaningless. It's meaningful in cases where the difference in sound is so obvious as to not have to question its existence. Otherwise, one should decide scientifically whether a difference exists, before deciding which option is better. Cases for which this isn't possible obviously include headphones, since you can't compare them rigorously (not to mention the other things that come into play like comfort, appearance, etc). The classic examples are obviously magic cables or isolation devices, where people claim (universally so far as I've seen) improvements without even verifying that differences exist.

Again, this isn't a matter of "you haven't heard them so you can't comment on it". All you have to do is think about the situation. This isn't some mystical physical singularity where an as-yet undiscovered grand unified field theory is required to explain something science can't currently explain.

The great catch of course is that some people don't care if they actually hear differences or not, so long as they think they do (and I think we all suffer from this to some extent). It's for this reason that I'm considering getting into the high end cable and isolation business.

 

[Trippytiger]

Well said!

 

[The Pieman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by monolith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Audio reproduction the way we're talking about it has two parts. The reproduction and the listening. Science can and should be used to explain and understand everything that happens up to your ear drum, at which point you can decide if you like what you hear. This shouldn't be confused with trusting what you hear all the time. Certainly there are phenomena like thinking you hear things that don't exist (and can be shown not to exist scientifically). It's also important to say that this isn't really a matter of opinion. Given a piece of source material (a CD or LP), everything up to your opinion on it can be explained scientifically by virtue of the fact that there are simple physical processes going on. Even if a given part of that process hasn't been explained thusfar, it theoretically can be, and should be investigated. Of course, science can, after a certain level of fidelity, only account for differences in sound reproduction. Judging whether these are improvements is up to the listener.

Is all of this absolute??

cheers
Simon

 

[monolith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pieman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is all of this absolute?? cheers Simon

Care to clarify?

 

[dura]

Since science will learn a lot tomorrow it doesn't know or can't explain everything today.
Putting complete trust in not yet complete science doesn't seem very scientific to me.

 

[shigzeo]

i think that science is just much too overlooked at headfi. we do like the experience of music and after that, we like opinions. the two never match with science and that is why there are so many especially in certain forums who reject any analytic of equipment.

if someone is to say: this is better, it usually means just in her opinion, it sounds better. the truth of the matter may be that another player may have scientifically better measurements and perform better but to all of that users experience or perhaps the human brain, more distortion or higher noise in the signal is better sounding.

personally, i am frustrated with all the bashing that is done in headfi. it seems pointless and especially when coming just from an opinion led gang. it is much easier and broader road to say, 'that sucks' than to do some homework and explain why you really don't like it but that others may indeed enjoy the sound, not because they suck but because it fits a different taste.

it is nice when someone can show a scientific approach to the sound of a product as well as an opinion as basically, there is too much needless bashing here at headfi - much more than i have experienced at any other 'serious' audio site.

 

[Marados]

Science explains all. It explains every mechanism in action of the actual, physical production of the noise, and it strives to explain all the chemical reactions that occur within your brain, which end up producing what you hear, and your emotional disposition towards it.