What part of "empirical" evidence, from a scientific standpoint, requires controlled listening tests, not ad-hoc listening tests hence anecdotal evidence is hard for the kids in the back to understand??
If you stream music from the internet, I can't recommend this more highly
I had been using a Roon Nucleus to stream Qobuz, with my Chord Qutest directly connected to the Nucleus. I thought I was getting pretty decent sound quality. And then I got a marketing email from Small Green Computer touting some of their optical gear. The basic idea is that normal cables and connections used to stream from the internet pick up noise of one kind or another (radio frequencies and electromagnetic something or other). But fiber optic cables and their connections/interfaces do not. I don’t know anything about anything, but it made theoretical sense to me, it wasn’t a huge amount of money ($1,400), and with a 30 day return policy I figured I could always return it if I didn’t hear any improvement. Well, I didn’t just hear a slight improvement; it was like turning on the lights in a dark room. Much greater clarity and detail, much better micro and macro dynamics, better timbre to acoustic instruments -- overall just more lifelike. Two quick examples: I’ve listened to some of Steely Dan’s top songs 100s of times over the course of my life, and this is the first time I’d ever noticed a particular and very subtle sound characteristic of Fagen’s keyboard in Babylon Sister. It’s hard to describe, but it’s like there’s a slight sound of air being exhaled by it. The other example: the specific timbre of whatever percussive instrument is used at the beginning of Copeland’s "Fanfare for the Common Man" (a recording by the Minnesota Orchestra). There’s more of a metallic sound than a drum skin sound to it that I didn’t know was there before. The metallic sound starts in the center and then projects out and to the sides, like a wave washing over you. Anyway, I’m just thrilled about having stumbled upon the whole "optical" thing and felt obligated to let others know about it. If you stream music over the internet, I highly recommend giving it a try. (The product I got was the opticalRendu, with the linear power supply option, and the Fiber Ethernet Converter Bundle option.)
- ...
- 156 posts total
@audio2design
What part of "empirical" evidence, from a scientific standpoint, requires controlled listening tests, not ad-hoc listening tests hence anecdotal evidence is hard for the kids in the back to understand??The answer is "none." Empirical simply means "verifiable by observation or experience." Whether the observation or experience results from an orderly, documented, scientific, study, or simply a few dudes sitting around smoking a doob and listening to their favorite tunes....the difference is simply methodology - both are examples of obtaining "empirical evidence." An empirical study can be performed to verify a theory, and empirical evidence can also be obtained to verify a correlation with measurements, but you can have measurements and/or a theory without empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is obtained every time you listen to your system. I think you are all sort of making the same point. |
Empirical evidence can also be anecdotal evidence and persons postulating on how much difference a cable makes in the sound coming from their speakers is empirical and anecdotal evidence. From this evidence we build hypotheses is the difference because of the cable or some other factor? Now we can begin to form experiments to understand why this person hears differences between cables or we can just take their word for it only one of these will further our knowledge of cables and human perception and it isn't the latter. |
Copied this from a website, but ... Breaking Down the Evidence The main concern with empirical research is the collection of unbiased evidence. Researchers must carefully design the research while minimizing exposure to potential errors. In the scientific world, it is common that several scientists or researchers gather evidence simultaneously through the replication of the same study. In addition, a peer review is a primary tool in science that is used to validate the evidence provided in a study or research. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/empirical-evidence/ Stolen from Wikipedia. These methods yield only probabilities. Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer. Following the previous example, observer A might truthfully report that a room is warm, while observer B might truthfully report that the same room is cool, though both observe the same reading on the thermometer. The use of empirical evidence negates this effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience or time. What this means is the answer to "do you like A better than B" could be considered non-empirical evidence. Being able to tell A and B apart would be empirical evidence. However, if B was a modified version of A, then it could be empirical depending on how the question was worded. I do feel this paragraph is a bit strict in its definition. From bennpar.com Anecdotal evidence is using your personal experiences and stories to illustrate your point. Empirical evidence is measured, unbiased, and replicable.
From study.com Today's topic, anecdotal evidence, can be defined as testimony that something is true, false, related, or unrelated based on isolated examples of someone's personal experience. Anecdotal evidence is very popular in the advertising world. Every time you see a claim about a product's effectiveness based on a person's personal experience, the company is using anecdotal evidence to encourage sales. Again, like almost every single uncontrolled listening test reported on Audiogon. From yourdictionary.com Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis. Again, like almost every reported listening test here. Oxford English Dictionary:
So yes, I am quite confident in classifying almost all the reported listening experiences on this site as anecdotal. |
@djones, Empirical evidence can also be anecdotal evidence and persons postulating on how much difference a cable makes in the sound coming from their speakers is empirical and anecdotal evidence.@audio2design gave an excellent overview, according to which these are non-empirical evidences, as an empirical evidence reflects objective reality. @audio2design has in fact justified that the most of the arguments here are based on non-empirical, i.e., anecdotic evidences. And empirical evidences are somehow related with a theory. For instance, by observing the temperature (an empirical evidence) we rely on the theory based on which thermomiters were designed. Even anecdotic evidences here rely on theory. E.g., when one judges about sonic properties of a DAC, he relies on the theory on which this dac was built (e.g. Fourier transformation used in sampling/unsampling process or whatever theoretical assumption supporting the architecture of that unit). From this evidence we build hypotheses is the difference because of the cable or some other factor? Now we can begin to form experiments to understand why this person hears differences between cables or we can just take their word for it only one of these will further our knowledge of cables and human perception and it isn't the latter. Indeed, these are subjective realities. Perhaps, thus guy smoke marijuana and every cable, including the tested one, sounds wonderful for him or he was encouraged by the seller or whatever. An empirical evidence based on theory is reliable but unlikely that may occur in these threads. |
- 156 posts total