How would one go about showing "proven audible differences" on sound? Also I don't think it is a matter of physics IMO.Why not? Obviously it would be a huge scientific find! It would mean new physics needs to be found to explain it.
It’s akin to the JWT finding that the current Big Bang theories are wrong
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Analysis of Paper on Measurements of RCA Cables by Kunchur (Video)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
In my branch of science, commonly three peer reviewers. I have no idea what JAES's standard is.
Peer reviewers typically don't see each others' reviews. So there is no 'formal panel'. A given review may recommend against publication, for publication, or for publication after addressing errors. The editor decides how the peer review results will be summed and 'interpreted' as one of those three options.
Hmm, I see you're new here.
Audible difference is scientifically tested by using double blind listening tests. And yes, hearing certainly is bounded by physics.
That's extraordinary.
At this point it would seem your best recourse is a letter to JAES itself (to be printed) or commentary paper , if such are allowed.
Audible differences are tested in persons/animals by means of audiometry measurements. Sound is part of the EM spectrum and thus it is Physics but listening impressions are neither dude.
A decent Uni library may also offer online access to the JAES's archive.
And this is quite insidious. He's going to stake a claim to a scientific high ground that he has no standing to claim.
Double blind test can indeed prove audible differences but can't prove inaudibility of measurable differences, It just can prove inaudibility to the persons doing the tests. Yes hearing is bounded by physics but vary much between individuals.
Those letters are called "expressions of concern". They require several independent authors to comb through the paper and point out inconsistencies, conflicts of interest or bad reasoning. There is also the "social media" Pubpeer where one can post concerns as comments to a searchable site such as Pubmed. That was quite important during the recent pandemic.
The letter of concern has to be published in the same Journal as the original publication. This is so it reaches the same audience.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #190
In the past they have printed such letters/papers. In this case though, I don't know. When the paper came out, I wrote three objections in the comment section of the paper. All three were rejected by the moderator and discarded (telling me to attend the zoom meeting with author). I tried to email that moderator using his AES email address and that bounced! So I gave up.
DonR
Major Contributor
Scandalous!
Tell it to the psychophysicists, *dude*.
You're splitting ridiculous hairs. I could split them even more finely by noting that listening impressions necessarily require neuronal activity and thus, again: physics.
And sound isn't part of the EM spectrum. It's waves of compression and expansion of air molecules.
'
The statement was not about proving inaudibility.
But even then, science never has to 'prove' something doesn't exist to the ultimate degree of certainty. Otherwise you could argue, hey man, science hasn't, like, *proved* unicorns don't live in the clouds.
Possibly the online moderator is not the person responsible for evaluating actual letters to the editor of JAES. As noted by Trudius it's also possible such a letter would need multiple authors. JAES's instructions for authors hopefully could clarify. Partnering with a noted AES member to co-author could be a way in. Perhaps JJ?
YOu might try to contact Retraction Watch or use the site Pubpeer. I don't know if that includes Engineering though.
I agree and stand corrected on the EM spectrum. However that does not take you out of the quandary that "audible differences" are testable. In the end, all human actions are dependent on physics (e.g. me typing now). But if human audible differences were to be testable then ASR is only dealing with 50% of the problem (electronics etc. but not people).
Again: tell it to the psychophysicists (subfield: psychoacoustics). You're saying their entire field -- which certainly involves testing of "human audible difference" -- is a phantasm.
It's hardly practical for ASR to conduct blind listening tests on every device. It is entirely practical for ASR to acknowledge the caveats attendant on sighted listening, and to concern itself with whether a measured difference is likely to be audible. Which it does.
It's hardly practical for ASR to conduct blind listening tests on every device. It is entirely practical for ASR to acknowledge the caveats attendant on sighted listening, and to concern itself with whether a measured difference is likely to be audible. Which it does.
Cars-N-Cans
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Indeed. "We accept any and all feedback provided it is glowingly positive!"
My hope is that Kunchur is simply mistaken. But my experience is if someone engages in malfeasances in some form of their professional capacity, it usually doesn't stop there. They just do a good job of tightening the belt when they know important people will be watching. But I will reserve judgement until more evidence becomes available.
Someone who knows him on the form said the following: "I know Milind personally from his day-job, and I'd like to say that he is an accomplished scientist ... So, here's a suggestion: Reach out to him and see what he has to say." Think he would make good on that? Would be an interesting conversation to have to hear what he has to say about his testing and commentary.
It is alway measurable, but you guys alway measure 0.0001dBv doesn't make any different. When it come to interconnect to amplifier to speaker driver coil it is different story. Just look at the power, it is different. https://www.everythingrf.com/rf-calculators/watt-to-dbm
Last edited:
True, I should have started my sentence with "But". But more fundamentally, I thought that was an odd response, like "you must be new here, audibility is proved by blind tests." First, simply because ASR never performed any blind tests, and as far as I know haven't done much promotion for scientific findings done by blind testing.
My other point is that blind tests contribution to the state of knowledge about audibility is very minimal. If anything, it can potentially can tell us if done properly that it's at least possible to hear some low noise and distortion artifacts or physical considerations, but it's more about probability and statistics. Yes probability and statistics is science, but browse around and you'll find that DBT proper rigourous papers are very few and far between. So in terms of statistics the sample size is almost negligible. A few individuals here and there, but never any large scale studies based on blind testing.
Your last comment on that is just a sophism, between the line it basically says. - "No one can prove there are no unicorn but it is not scientifically reasonable, therefore is don't exist, demonstrate that we don't need to know more to tell someone what he is hearing is impossible to hear" That is not exactly what you said, but it's what it mean. this types of shortcuts are anything but an argument based on science.
Now what science can do is not so much tell us much about audibility, At least where the current state is, but it still should be flagged like in the case of this study based on measurements, it is clear that it doesn't scientifically prove anything about audibility. And that is what Amir have done in this debunking video. And it's scientifically correct. Amir demonstrates that his arguments are flawed and that it don't demonstrate any audible difference. We should take it for what it is, it doesn't prove the lack of difference, it proves that nothing there show us audible difference, it's important to make the distinction if we want to say that what we are talking about is based on science.
Similar threads
