There is life after the Soundcheck TT mods..

[RonM]

In Soviet Russia, you do not apply the tweak, the tweak applies you.

Of course, "Soviet Russia" should be referred to in the past tense, not the present. Or maybe it's all a matter of perception.

R.

[rgro]

If you don't expect a tweak to make a change, you're not very likely to apply the tweak.

I wholeheartedly disagree, sir. Science of all kinds, including the empiricism we all adore here, would be in sad shape if this was one of its core principles.

[totoro]

In Soviet Russia, you do not apply the tweak, the tweak applies you.

And in Moronia, you're a wise man. Here you're just a troll.

[TheOctavist]

If you don't expect a tweak to make a change, you're not very likely to apply the tweak. Since you didn't apply the tweak in the first place, the change you didn't hear didn't exist either, so you'll most likely be correct in concluding that there is no significant change.

And in such a case, I can't see that there's anything to study. Or ... is it?

"The study of what's not there" ... hm, there should be a name for that. Oh right, there is. And as it happens, the human species has produced tons of books on the subject. So if you're interested, all you need to do is go to the nearest library and knock yourself out.

there is already a book on audiophile tweaks.

http://www.amazon.com/On-Bullshit-Ha.../dp/0691122946

[NoRoDa]

I know. But theoretically there is no chance that making changes on SBT could result in measurably audible differences. Or let me put it this way: we haven't seen any metrics that would corroborate such a hypothesis. So you claiming to be able to hear those differences can only raise eyebrows. Even if it's raised eyebrows with closed eyes.

You have to read more
Phil Leigh has already shown that TT3.0 "all-out" does change the output measureably.

[Soulkeeper]

I wholeheartedly disagree, sir. Science of all kinds, including the empiricism we all adore here, would be in sad shape if this was one of its core principles.

Audiophilia can be many things, but science it is not. You rarely see acoustic engineers bothering to call themselves audiophiles, and you can't honestly call the majority of audiophools acoustic engineers.

Conflating audiophilia with science is like conflating homeopathy or cryptozoology with science ... wait a minute, I saw a great comic today by the way, via Phil Plait's blog. One should give credit where credit is due.

[rgro]

Well, on that point, you'll get no argument!

But the notion that, because you don't expect something to elicit a change---good or bad, you refuse to try it, runs contrary to scientific inquiry. The audiophile/phool demanding that a :"scientific" double double blind test be the gold standard of accepting as to whether a change is heard and then refusing to conduct the same "scientific" test simply because he/she doesn't *expect* anything to happen is, to put it mildy, just a little inconsistent.

Audiophilia can be many things, but science it is not. You rarely see acoustic engineers bothering to call themselves audiophiles, and you can't honestly call the majority of audiophools acoustic engineers.

Conflating audiophilia with science is like conflating homeopathy or cryptozoology with science ... wait a minute, I saw a great comic today by the way, via Phil Plait's blog. One should give credit where credit is due.

[Soulkeeper]

But the notion that, because you don't expect something to elicit a change---good or bad, you refuse to try it, runs contrary to scientific inquiry.

I'm not a scientist, but I like to think that I know a thing or two about the process and standards of science, so here goes:

Some homeopaths seem to demand that genuine medicine researchers spend all their time trying to support the homeopaths claims about homeopathy. But the vast majority of medicine researchers are not interested in doing that, because they feel homeopathy has had its chance, and failed, and they've got better things to spend their time on.

Is it reasonable to say that this means that the vast majority of medicine researchers are being unscientific? I don't think so. Scientific inquiry doesn't require you to follow all leads. Only those who seem worthwhile.

What seems worthwhile to me may not seem worthwhile to you, and vice versa. But if you think it is worthwhile, then it's up to you to come up with some objective studies that can convince me to use my time to confirm or refute your findings. Unsubstantiated claims like "this quantum pebble placed on my speakers magically made the sound 1000 times better" are simply not convincing. (I won't go into details about the reasons why it is not convincing, that is, unless you insist.)

Not being convinced by specious claims is simply not unscientific, and I think claiming the opposite represents a straw man version of the standards of science.

The audiophile/phool demanding that a :"scientific" double double blind test be the gold standard of accepting as to whether a change is heard and then refusing to conduct the same "scientific" test simply because he/she doesn't *expect* anything to happen is, to put it mildy, just a little inconsistent.

Not unless a convincingly executed double blind tests says there is a difference. Then it would be inconsistent to refuse to (provisionally) accept the results without conducting your own double blind test of equal or better quality.

But if the original claim is not backed up by a double blind test to begin with, refusing to spend time on doing your own double blind test would not be inconsistent. And if you think it is, you should probably read up on the concept of burden of proof. (The Wikipedia article is short, but the Internet is big.)

[rgro]

When the inquiry is in response to someone else's claim, I would mostly, but not totally, agree. Sometimes a claim, even if it may sound odd or spurious, can stimulate someone to a path of inquiry that ultimately ends in new discovery. And, as I know has been brought up previoiusly, to blanket-apply an arbritrary rule that says, essentially, if you don't meet whatever I (or somebody else) define as the "burden of proof", we will all deem your idea as moronic and unworthy would seem, at least in a historical context, to have precluded some of the great scientific lines of inquiry. But I certainly see your point.

Indeed, science does not require one to follow all leads---vetting what one believes is reasonable, vs. what is not, is appropriate---if for nothing else but time management. But, the *original* (which is what I really should have emphasized, in my first reply) researcher, working in his/her lab, isn't necessarily responding to someone else's need to convince him that something is or is not "worthwhile" to pursue, nor is he attempting to prove or disprove someone else's theory(s). So, in that case, the burden of proof is not in the decision as to whether or not to pursue the inquiry, but in the proving of the results of the inquiry, itself. At that point, it most certainly is matter of others verifying and replicating your results. But--again, at the origin of an idea, to simply not try an experiment because you have an unfounded expectation that it won't work does, potentially, cut off what might otherwise have been a productive line of inquiry.

I'm not a scientist, but I like to think that I know a thing or two about the process and standards of science, so here goes:

Some homeopaths seem to demand that genuine medicine researchers spend all their time trying to support the homeopaths claims about homeopathy. But the vast majority of medicine researchers are not interested in doing that, because they feel homeopathy has had its chance, and failed, and they've got better things to spend their time on.

Is it reasonable to say that this means that the vast majority of medicine researchers are being unscientific? I don't think so. Scientific inquiry doesn't require you to follow all leads. Only those who seem worthwhile.

What seems worthwhile to me may not seem worthwhile to you, and vice versa. But if you think it is worthwhile, then it's up to you to come up with some objective studies that can convince me to use my time to confirm or refute your findings. Unsubstantiated claims like "this quantum pebble placed on my speakers magically made the sound 1000 times better" are simply not convincing. (I won't go into details about the reasons why it is not convincing, that is, unless you insist.)

Not being convinced by specious claims is simply not unscientific, and I think claiming the opposite represents a straw man version of the standards of science.



Not unless a convincingly executed double blind tests says there is a difference. Then it would be inconsistent to refuse to (provisionally) accept the results without conducting your own double blind test of equal or better quality.

But if the original claim is not backed up by a double blind test to begin with, refusing to spend time on doing your own double blind test would not be inconsistent. And if you think it is, you should probably read up on the concept of burden of proof. (The Wikipedia article is short, but the Internet is big.)

[Mnyb]

When the inquiry is in response to someone else's claim, I would mostly, but not totally, agree. Sometimes a claim, even if it may sound odd or spurious, can stimulate someone to a path of inquiry that ultimately ends in new discovery. And, as I know has been brought up previoiusly, to blanket-apply an arbritrary rule that says, essentially, if you don't meet whatever I (or somebody else) define as the "burden of proof", we will all deem your idea as moronic and unworthy would seem, at least in a historical context, to have precluded some of the great scientific lines of inquiry. But I certainly see your point.

Indeed, science does not require one to follow all leads---vetting what one believes is reasonable, vs. what is not, is appropriate---if for nothing else but time management. But, the *original* (which is what I really should have emphasized, in my first reply) researcher, working in his/her lab, isn't necessarily responding to someone else's need to convince him that something is or is not "worthwhile" to pursue, nor is he attempting to prove or disprove someone else's theory(s). So, in that case, the burden of proof is not in the decision as to whether or not to pursue the inquiry, but in the proving of the results of the inquiry, itself. At that point, it most certainly is matter of others verifying and replicating your results. But--again, at the origin of an idea, to simply not try an experiment because you have an unfounded expectation that it won't work does, potentially, cut off what might otherwise have been a productive line of inquiry.

"unfounded expectation" well I'm with soulkeeper here .

For example the sugested server tweaks is an waste of time to test because that's not how things work . or the fixed volume tweak .

* Also there is afaik very little evidence that any human can distinguish between *any* reasonable good digital transport (it does not have to be super high end ) into a decent DAC .
* There is also not clear that you always can tell the difference between two reasonably good DAC's if they are level matched and have flat frequency response and low noise and low distorsion (if these criteria are not fullfilled the device is rubbish, as sadly some audiophile contraptions called DAC's are seems like some are going to great lengths to be "different" :-/ )

So there are already 2 layers of "unlikelyness" before we even consider the tweaks imo. But all things are not equal as science is not used much in audiophilia products that are "different" are all to abundant , so it's not always so unlikely as it should be.

Also consider the psychoacoustic knowledge base on human hearing ?

Some of the tweaks may make small differences for better or worse, but on a level that can be measured but not heard . here science could help ! A small free improvement (even inaudible in isolation) is not wrong they all add up somewhere.
But thats not how things are done here ?

"Productive line of inquiry" the whole method of tweak and listen sighted with full bias on and no assistance from measurement or other science IS going to yield completely random results, in such mess there is no way differ between fail or sucesses you just can't know, that's perhaps what control my expectations people who develop these tweaks use very flawed methodology and are very unlikely to suceed whatever they propose because the "work method" is not suited to the task and proven soo in other fields of science.
It's not impossible to stumble upon things by chance and find stuff to , in such cases I'm happy to wait until more curious people with more spare time have provided more positive indications (not more anecdotes they don't count ).

Or from other realms of audiophilia difference in sound between AC wall outlets or between silver and copper ohm is ohm, such things should have been noticed in the rest of the EE or scientific world if there where anything to them.
So you can always save time and not try things that have to break the laws of physics as we know them in order to perform the claimed effect .
If someone discovers a new principle of physics they are not going to design a cone to place under your Hi-Fi with such knowledge

Consider that the high end business is very cynical and exploit these beliefs fully .

A favourite example that some people accept without question is Lavardin (an amp manufacturer ) that discovered "memory distorsion" that *ofcourse* could not be measured by conventional means ,but Lavardin coincidentally had a solution to this "problem" in their amps, how nice of them

So when a typical audiophile claims something extraordinary ( as they usually do ) that counter the wast majority of known science , I'm simply not going to try if it can be debunked from principle alone (if you are right science is wrong )