Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?

@ted_denney  “Because you cannot ascertain by looking at a spreadsheet which of two amplifiers you will prefer. The only way to know what anything sounds like is to listen to it....”


Very nicely put!

@pauly “Why some "engineers" (roll eyes) on this forum think they know everything about human hearing and the measurement of sound and electricity is beyond me.”

Yes, I know. I have worked most of my career very closely with dozens and dozens electrical engineers from all over the country in high tech companies... amusingly that make components for high end audio...Burr-Brown Corp and Texas Instruments. I will say as a group they are pretty argumentative and egotistical (think they know it all)... also curious and very intelligent. But they have all read Jules Vernes’ Mysterious Island a couple times too many. Not all are closed minded to realizing they may not know it all... but as a group they are pretty ridged. These are the rolling eyes guys. They really have a hard time admitting they don’t know it all.

.

I have an old colleague that I worked with for 20 years that had written me suspiciously when I said I had an all tube system. He is coming down later this year... I will have him listen to my system and it will quickly convince him of my point of view... he is very open minded for an electrical engineer. 

@petg60 “Nature itself is stronger than science, though with the later we try to comprehend the former. Most likely one of the reasons we create art is the necessity to complement science.”

I would put it a little differently. Nature is very complex and science is the tool to unravel it layer by layer. We work from the big close problems... Apple falls, Earth is round, coefficient of friction... layer by layer to more complex and detailed problems.. We are limited by time. The first stage of investigation of a new layer is observation and characterization with none mathematical prediction (try a bunch of different capacitors, see how each sounds). Draw broad generalizations... then test new stuff for conformance. It is this part we are doing to be successful with this pursuit.. It is just an earlier stage of science... like Darwin sailing around the world making observations and drawing preliminary conclusions. I think that is what I enjoy about it. I have learned enough to be able to navigate and buy the right components to get the sound I want with my own models mapped to my tastes.

I was trained and worked as a scientist for over ten years... but never stopped being one. When it came to high end audio, I learned about a few of the important technical aspects and I then quickly realized what a small part of the whole picture they painted. Thereafter I did not waste a lot time on trying to dig down deeper into layer after layer of variables. Over the ensuing forty years I have thought about this quite a lot, and of similar problems. I was also a a professional "inventor" (mechanical / electrical engineer) soon after college. I learned the same thing. Variables quickly add up to be an insurmountable obstical to using science to analyze and use as predictor. You would end up doing a PhD thesis after thesis and never get anything accomplished. There are too many variables to determine what a system will sound like or what components to put together to get the sound like. No doubt Transparent (the company that makes high end cables) has engineers using science and material experiments to create their cables and interconnects. But in the end it probably still comes down to pragmatically trying stuff at some point. It certainly does in component design.

.

Consider also the music you are listening to and trying to evaluate. It is not a single tone. If you were to listen to a single tone and compare systems that would be one thing. But music is dynamic... if you listen to a recurring drum beat...it is influenced by other instruments... also your minds eye (ear) bounced around. So even one note has arrival, decay, tone. There are harmonics influencing. This is why just listening to the music for an extended time to determine how much you like a piece of equipment is usually the best way for normal humans to decide. Flitting from sound to sound only gets you a sample and just compares some gross differences... unless you are a very talented and experienced professional reviewer.

.

Consider a system... multiple components, each influencing each other... and that includes cables influenced by magnetic fields induced by currents. Each component is composed of dozens of subcomponents and each brand of capacitor sounds different. The designer of one of the most expensive and prestigious high end electronic companies said, that he can make a component sound exactly like he wants... if he wants it warm... he uses these capacitors and these resistors and if he wants it this way...this brand... same capacity and resistance... different materials and construction. It is simply in the real world with this many variables it is not worth the time for people in companies and enthusiasts to spend the time and resources on developing incredibly complex models to encompass everything in assessing and predicting based on hundreds of interacting variables. I am sure as time goes on more and more understanding occurs. But for now. Everyone uses some basic variables and then rely on what they hear to develop and pragmatic working understanding of the electronics and what stuff sounds like.

.

Sorry to have composed this so quickly... but it is getting late. This is a topic one could do a PhD thesis on.

@perkri. “Which is why I added Nelson Pass. You don't think he listens to his amps for the final tuning?

From  Stereophile in 2017:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/nelson-pass-circuit-topology-and-end-science... “

Exactly. I have heard this from many high end audio designers and have personally experienced it in auditioning equipment continuously over the last fifty year. I learned within a couple years. It is obvious to experienced high end audio users, designers and sales folks. 

@millercarbon. +1

I was trained as a scientist and practiced professionally as one for ten years. I have used the methods and approaches for my entire life in all aspects of my career and life. Science is the starting point and it is like peeling the layers of an onion… you learn about one layer after another, towards full knowledge at greater levels of detail.


If high end audio had a large multidisciplinary group of scientists that were not working for profit and we’re publishing their results for the last fifty years we would have research documenting all component characteristic and be able predict several levels below where general knowledge is today. Many companies have drilled down many layers.. typically in the design processes and material science. But they do not make it public knowledge for obvious reasons.