In some instances,
knowing the theory allows one to make an informed prediction as to the
outcome. There are certain laws in physical
science that cannot be avoided.
Talk but not walk?
Hi Guys
This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?
You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?
I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
thanks, be polite
Michael Green
www.michaelgreenaudio.net
- ...
- 2164 posts total
michaelgreenaudio It’s not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don’t we see this happen? It’s actually very tricky to set up and conduct a truly scientific listening test. Perhaps it’s become a trivial undertaking for you, but conducting a valid test is not as easy as it might appear to the casual observer. That makes it easy for such a person to dismiss an audiophile’s experience with a wave of the hand and the instruction to "prove it in a blind test." There are also those who believe they are exempt from proving their claims because science is already on their side. That may sound absurd, but it’s a common claim, as evidenced by the post from @brf just above this post. Then there are those who believe that no listening test can possibly be scientific. While I don’t agree with them, I do think that most audiophiles have little use for scientific, blind testing. It tends to be a tedious, cumbersome and time-consuming endeavor and - when the test is complete - often fails to prove much. I don’t care for the notion expressed in the cliche of not walking the walk. Real audiophiles "walk the walk" when they make decisions about their systems. That some may not like their gait is their problem. Just because someone doesn’t do things your way does not make then a fake, as you allege. As for the myths: The world is filled with myths, and audio is not unique in the regard. |
There are also those who believe they are exempt from proving their claims because science is already on their side. That may sound absurd, but it’s a common claim, as evidenced by the post from @brf just above this post@cleeds, scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon supported by a large body of empirical data. If we have an observed phenomenon in which is supported by large body of empirical data, why do you feel the need for more validation? Perhaps you are confusing hypothesis with theory?
|
brf scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon supported by a large body of empirical data. If we have an observed phenomenon in which is supported by large body of empirical data, why do you feel the need for more validation? Perhaps you are confusing hypothesis with theory?No, I'm not confused at all. When data and scientific theory conflict, sometimes more data is needed. Science is not infallible. "Scientific theory" is just that: a theory. Perhaps you are confusing theory with fact? |
- 2164 posts total