[django11]

There is a certain class of "sciensy" people who hold science as dogma, mistakenly believing that science explains everything and who become close minded (which is a very unscientific state of mind).  These people require that the world conform to their "scientific" view instead of requiring that science account for what experience produces.

A very interesting read on this subject, by a scientist, is The Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas Kuhn.

A quote that is pertinent :
"During the period of normal science, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher, contra Popper's falsifiability criterion. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science."

[Tyson]

Yes, there's a difference between a scientist's view and an engineer's view.  Scientists explore what is possible, engineers apply what's already been discovered.  The people here who claim to be "scientific" are actually basing their thinking on an engineering approach, not a scientific approach.

[dBe]

I find it funny that you use the word elitist and yet you and the title of the thread use mocking tones for people who do not agree with you.  When you say "flat earther", "witch doctors " or "snake oil salesman" it's all the same tone.

My points are that I don't profess to hold ultimate audio truth, and that I love learning new things.  I am wrong about things occasionally and will readily admit to being so.  The problem I have is with the elitist snobs that profess to hold all of the answers and everyone that does not agree with them is wrong, stupid or delusional.  I have no problem with people in disagreement as long as they have a functional basis to draw upon other than "I read it in a book."  I prefer to have discussions about a reality or possibility with those that have done their homework, that's all.  I also admit to being an audio snob.  It comes from over 45 years of doing, learning and teaching, not telling people they are wrong.

Dave

[praedet]

Yes, there's a difference between a scientist's view and an engineer's view.  Scientists explore what is possible, engineers apply what's already been discovered.  The people here who claim to be "scientific" are actually basing their thinking on an engineering approach, not a scientific approach.

Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about...

This is awesome Danny and very cool of you to do it.  I hope some of the folks who actually change there minds post up in this thread, but I doubt they will

[wushuliu]

Yes, there's a difference between a scientist's view and an engineer's view.  Scientists explore what is possible, engineers apply what's already been discovered.  The people here who claim to be "scientific" are actually basing their thinking on an engineering approach, not a scientific approach.

I understand what you're saying. There was a post on audio asylum a few months back wish i'd saved it, where someone said more or less said the same thing but at greater length and detail, it was a very interesting post - i'll have to see if i can find it. Some are bound to take it the wrong way, but the same can be said of many disciplines.

[newzooreview]

I understand what you're saying. There was a post on audio asylum a few months back wish i'd saved it, where someone said more or less said the same thing but at greater length and detail, it was a very interesting post - i'll have to see if i can find it. Some are bound to take it the wrong way, but the same can be said of many disciplines.

I posted on the topic elsewhere on AudioCircle a while back:

It's important to understand that audio engineers, like all engineers, are strongly biased towards valuing and expecting certainty: if I do X and Y then Z must result. The whole exercise of engineering is about calculating the definite. What is needed is the approach of science: embracing the unknown. Scientists are always open to understanding their limits, the boundaries of prevailing theory, the value of uncertainty and being wrong—and so human knowledge advances. Human knowledge does not advance when someone dogmatically claims that our observations must be wrong because her (or his) calculations show that it can't be true.

Clair Patterson, the geochemist who was the first person to measure the age of the Earth, published on the archeological evidence for fundamentally different brain wiring for scientific versus engineering mindsets.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-4887P6W-DF&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1994&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1465502524&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a893e127d84bdeeb782021dd58f55e4b&searchtype=a

This is not to say that everything someone feels or wants to be true is true (e.g. crystals have supernatural healing powers, astrologers can see the future in the stars, etc.). When controlled observation is applied, however, and the observational evidence is puzzling, engineers get dismissive and defensive and scientists get to work.

What we have in these discussions of measurement vs. listening experience is a thousand new data points that conflict with the rules the engineers have learned. Meanwhile, somewhere working quietly, the scientists are puzzling away to improve our knowledge so that eventually the engineers will have a new mantra and the debate will move on.

So, let's all be patient. 

[JohnR]

Elitists of every kind fall into this mindset.  They are smarter than anyone else and they attempt to prove it by humiliating, degradating and slandering anyone with an opposing POV.

It seems to me that you've just done exactly the same thing...

[JohnR]

Scientists explore what is possible, engineers apply what's already been discovered.

That simply isn't true.

[dBe]

It seems to me that you've just done exactly the same thing...

John, not really.  My point is that anyone, me included, that trys to make a blanket statement that: pick one - all caps sound the same, wire is wire, all amps sound the same, mine is bigger or smaller than yours, whatever - without having done the heavy lifting of doing structured tests to find out - is doing the discussion about the topic at hand a disservice.

I am a recovering flatearther.  I didn't believe that capacitors sounded different - that one would sound superior to another.  I had a gentleman teach me the empirical process to find out for myself, hence my journey to a more or less subjective standpoint in audio.

The problem that I have with flatearth meter readers is that 99% of them call us (subjective observers) stupid without any experience in the matter in discussion.  If a person takes the time to actually give stuff a listen and still maintains that there are no difference to him I have no problem with that.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I don't think they are stupid or delusional.  It is the person that will denigrate another, even though they have no practical experience concerning the topic, that gets my goat.

It is statements like this:  "So when we kill the chicken and spread the blood around the cables which direction sounds better, clockwise or counter?"  That has no place in a discussion and will tend to evoke reponses like mine.  I think that open, frank discussion is healthy.  Comments like that one, not so much.

A good portion of what we do as hobbyist/professional is to try to find out what sounds superior in a given application, isn't it?

Dave

[JohnR]

It is statements like this:  "So when we kill the chicken and spread the blood around the cables which direction sounds better, clockwise or counter?"  That has no place in a discussion and will tend to evoke reponses like mine.  I think that open, frank discussion is healthy.  Comments like that one, not so much.

But your tirade is completely justifiable. He did it, so you can too. You retain the moral high ground though, because "he did it first."

This seems to me a bit like one of those feuds where nobody remembers the actual reason why they are fighting. There's always an excuse to shoot back, though. Rational discussion is impossible, because the generalizations and mischaracterizations have taken the place of anything that what was actually said or argued.

[dBe]

But your tirade is completely justifiable. He did it, so you can too. You retain the moral high ground though, because "he did it first."

This seems to me a bit like one of those feuds where nobody remembers the actual reason why they are fighting. There's always an excuse to shoot back, though. Rational discussion is impossible, because the generalizations and mischaracterizations have taken the place of anything that what was actually said or argued.

John, I wonder if there really is a "moral high ground" in issues like this.  I think that discussion with a little bit of disagreement is a good thing and helps to further the understanding of any given topic.  There are too many of us around that have been the focus of character assassination by those that are unwilling to concede that there is an outside chance that we might have a valid point.  Makes old guys like me grumpy and hair triggered.

My biggest concern is when intellectual curiosity is stifled by zealots on either side of an argument.  It's like someone saying all cheese tastes the same because it is made from milk and rennin.  You end up with the Swiss pissed off and funny tasting cheesesteaks.

Later,

Dave

[JohnR]

FWIW I've only ever eaten one cheesesteak and I hope it was my last. And not just because I don't eat "steak" any more. Frankly it was disgusting. How's that for "healthy" discussion

Back on topic - is there a topic? I just feel (like I think I said) that the posturing is getting ridiculous.

[tesseract]

I think this is a great idea and hope to hear comments from all who manage to get the opportunity to listen.

I saw that this thread has been linked to over on a "science" forum, and the usual posters are pouncing all over it with the usual comments. Wish they would give it a chance, possibly even taking advantage of it to give a listen themselves before they come to a conclusion.

Oh well. Some things don't change. I'm firmly of the opinion that they sound different, I just have trouble deciding which is "best".

I linked that over there to give the "scientists" a chance to do more than beat their chest on the internet.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=19475818&postcount=118
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1279823

I bet not a single one of them steps up to the challenge.



For example, it is clear this person doesn't get it:

Sure seems like a lot of work for speakers that go for $150 or so per pair.

This is exactly the type of speaker we want to use.

[django11]

Yes, there's a difference between a scientist's view and an engineer's view.  Scientists explore what is possible, engineers apply what's already been discovered.  The people here who claim to be "scientific" are actually basing their thinking on an engineering approach, not a scientific approach.

I think that is partially true.  But what Kuhn points out is that the majority of scientists get entrenched in the dominant view and tend to just throw out any facts that are in opposition to that view.  Their's is a very Procrustean way of seeing things.

On to another angle.
That we are talking about the quality of sound gives us a kind of hybrid terrain where scientists are not altogether at home or welcome.  If we were talking about the quality of a wine we would barely care what the scientists say about it as there is nothing very meaningful (as of right now) for them to measure.  If we want advice on good wine we would get a wine tasting expert.  Someone who evaluates with his senses.    Scientists are fine with quantity but to my knowledge they don't handle quality any better than the rest of us.  In audio, there are a lot of subtleties that are just not measured.  Which ones?  I wish I knew...

[sts9fan]

My point is that anyone, me included, that trys to make a blanket statement that: pick one - all caps sound the same, wire is wire, all amps sound the same, mine is bigger or smaller than yours, whatever - without having done the heavy lifting of doing structured tests to find out - is doing the discussion about the topic at hand a disservice.

Just so everyone is clear.  This whole thing came up when a HOBBYIST posted some of his findings.  He was having fun experimenting and sharing.  He was then run out by PROFESSIONALS with finacial interests. 
Anyway is seems Danny is not going to share the speakers with anyone who may not agree with him or is not getting "the press" involved.

[HAL]

Just so everyone is clear.  This whole thing came up when a HOBBYIST posted some of his findings.  He was having fun experimenting and sharing.  He was then run out by PROFESSIONALS with finacial interests. 
Anyway is seems Danny is not going to share the speakers with anyone who may not agree with him or is not getting "the press" involved.

I guess I do not understand the last comment.  Danny is sending the speaker in post #65 to the Bay Area Audio Society for them to try.  They already have stated that it will be in their Events section of their website once they setup a time.  IIRC there are members of "the press" in the society.  I have not seen any limitation put on whom they can go to.

[Zerogravity]

Sound is SUBJECTVE! Everyone hears things differently, there is no Scientific method to change this, therefore we have to approach it as a form of Art and introduce flavours until we like what we hear! I like Picaso and am willing to spend through the teeth for it, because I think it's beautiful, and you wouldn't spend a dime on it but would rather pay for a Davinci! Yet, there are still guidelines to follow, acurate sound, frequency, timing, ect! Who are we to say that the Platnium bypass cap you installed don't  do a damn thing, if you hear a difference and think it's better, then more power to you! If I don't hear a difference, I don't have to buy it. Why is this? Well he's not wrong from hearing and improvement with the mod and either am I for not hearing it! It's what's hard wired into us as individualists!

[Danny Richie]

Just so everyone is clear.  This whole thing came up when a HOBBYIST posted some of his findings.  He was having fun experimenting and sharing.  He was then run out by PROFESSIONALS with finacial interests. 
Anyway is seems Danny is not going to share the speakers with anyone who may not agree with him or is not getting "the press" involved.

I am scratching my head a little on this one. 

Dantheman was really offered assistance in taking it again to another level, and at the same time having even more fun with it.

I don't have any real financial interest in this thing at all. I didn't even redesign anything to improve on it. I offered up several ways that they can be improved for free and showed before and after measurements on the free fix of cutting away the inside edge of the woofer opening. Anybody wanting to do what I did with the crossover can do so just as I did. I only replaced the same values for the same values, just using higher quality parts. Anyone can do that, and get the parts from anywhere. If someone wanted to buy the parts from me that would be fine, but that is not the point of this exercise. Quite the opposite is going on. I have spent considerable time and my own money for the purpose of educating.

And the speakers are NOT just being sent to people that I think will agree with me regarding the subjective differences in crossover parts. The complete opposite it true. The speakers will be sent to people that never have had a chance to listen for themselves and make their own decisions. In fact it is the whole nay sayers group that this is being offered up to. Now ANYONE can listen for themselves.

[S Clark]

Just so everyone is clear.  This whole thing came up when a HOBBYIST posted some of his findings.  He was having fun experimenting and sharing.  He was then run out by PROFESSIONALS with finacial interests. 
Anyway is seems Danny is not going to share the speakers with anyone who may not agree with him or is not getting "the press" involved.

sts9fan,
I was also a skeptic about wires, interconnects, power cables, etc.  In my case, it wasn't that I thought that no differences existed, just that I doubted it would make a difference in my room with my equipment and with my ears.  When I put a good power cable in my system, I learned that sometimes these differences are not subtle.  Cryoed outlets made even more difference.  You state that Danny won't send them out to anyone that doesn't back his conclusion- this sure seems like a personal attack without evidence. I suggest that you put yourself on the list for these speakers, and make up your own mind after having listened to them.  Simply supporting an entrenched position without listening for yourself doesn't strengthen your argument.  How can anyone argue against listening for yourself in your own room with your own system?   

[dBe]

Just so everyone is clear.  This whole thing came up when a HOBBYIST posted some of his findings.  He was having fun experimenting and sharing.  He was then run out by PROFESSIONALS with finacial interests. 
Anyway is seems Danny is not going to share the speakers with anyone who may not agree with him or is not getting "the press" involved.

I believe that this whole thing got out of hand when Dan declined to post his subjective appraisal of the speaker.  Sure they measure OK.  I say OK because from the measurements (as well as experience) I would infer that they will in fact be a little bright sounding - see the 400,000 Rule. 

It was not an industry professional that started to ask the subjective "but, how do they sound/" question.  What I saw was a couple of guys discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of "better parts".  What comprises "better" is different for almost every individual project.  I also saw some pretty snippy comments by others that was not edifying the discussion.  The discussion is/was the age old conundrum of: "can measurements alone determine audio quaility?"  A measurement system is a non-discriminatory apparatus that only cares about total energy in the system at a given point in the curve.  The ear/brain system also adds a qualifier to the quantifier.  The measurement system asks: does it sound?  The ear/brain asks: does it sound good?  Remember, the qualifier is "audio quality."

I've built speakers that were amazing in the measurement department and a total failure in terms of musicality.  That is one of the reasons that I started down this whole road to perdition of subjective qualification.  I have done literally hundreds of A/B tests to determine what are the major issues involved in building a good loudspeaker.  A lot of it hinges on the source in front of the spreaker.  Believe me, the last thing anyone needs is a ruthlessly revealing speaker reproducing some cheapo rack system's output.  We have to face it: sometimes compromised performance is just what the system ordered.

A system has to be a synergistic collection to work well.  Very high quality electronics demand very high quality speakers to be even handed in reproduction.  This does NOT mean that high quality is dependent upon price.  What it does mean is that parts have to be chosen for the application, that's all.

I've heard the Behringer speakers.  There are quite a few of them in studios here in Albuquerque.  For ~$150.00 they don't suck.  They are probably just the ticket for a low end CD player and receiver.  I wouldn't own them without tweaking them, though.  First thing I would do is work on the box. Then the caps, then........

Dave

JohnR - a cheesesteak is ALL about the grease