|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: "If anyone is going to do a test it should be the manufacturer." Hmm... posted by clarkjohnsen on December 28, 2005 at 08:06:57:
but maybe not your cynicism. Still, to the points:You said: "As with pharmaceuticals?
But you know already how *that's* going to turn out."Why shouldn't we expect manufacturers to do some testing of their own? We don't always know how they will turn out but that isn't the issue so much as complete and honest reporting of test results which is what we need to ensure that tests aren't used to support claims that aren't supported by the test results as a whole. Full and accurate reporting of test results is the issue, and that needs to include all test results in the manufacturer's possession.
And there is a good parrallel to be drawn with pharmaceuticals: interactions. No drug manufacturer can test their latest creation for interactions with all of the other drugs out there—there are simply far too many. Testing would never end and nothing new would ever come to market. It's the same with audio systems when one considers the number of choices the customer has for each particular sort of component. A manufacturer can't show that a given product will necessarily satisfy everyone, regardless of the system it is used in, but they can be expected to show that it does what is claimed in a specified system.
You said: "Federal supervision of audio tests? To keep them "honest"? Say no!"
Yes, I will say no, even though we are in different countries and it's a different 'Federal' we're talking about. I do think a special case can be made with pharmaceuticals because they can and do kill or maim on occasion but in general I'm not in favour of governmental intervention in testing. I do think there should be laws mandating full and honest reporting of tests, but then any less than that effectively amounts to false advertising.
You said: "You write, "The customer gets enough information to know what to listen for in order to satisfy themselves about the claim and no-one is going to get involved in arguing too much about the claims made for how it works." Sorry, but I have to laugh. Out loud. Rolling on the floor too. But perhaps you missed the bandwidth eaten by detractors of the Intelligent Chip? Who moreover had never listened to it?"
And how much of that bandwidth was taken up by comments that the claims for how it worked were problematical? More than a bit, and I still think those claims are problematical. As I said, problematical claims in that area always generate scepticism about associated claims for changes in sound. The manufacturers drew much of the criticism on themselves. I still haven't tried the chip and I have no idea whether its use results in a change in perceived sound or not. I'm deliberately witholding judgement and I wish a lot of the naysayers would too because what they think is evidence for their opinion simply isn't evidence for that at all. But frankly, I think a manufacturer's explanation for how something works should be accompanied by some sort of test results that show it works that way—how can they know that it works the way they claim unless they've tested that? The chip's manufacturer's claim the problem is caused by a displacement in the digital data. That should be demonstrable by a comparison between the original master tapes and the released CD. Where are the comparisons? Why has no-one else noticed such a displacement? I'm prepared to accept that if the chip does something, it does something that not eveyone hears or that is not apparent on all systems—individual differences do, after all, exist—and showing what people "hear" is difficult. But they did make claims for how and why it works and they should be showing some sort of evidence for those claims. They aren't and that's a problem.
You said: "The problem we have here is that you get a bunch of ugly customers (who aren't customers at all actually but let it pass, let it pass) who challenge one's very *right* to offer an opinion on sonics, if it doesn't fit into their severely blinkered worldview."I agree with you totally about the sort of opinions which many people who haven't tried the chip passed on whether or not it produces an audible effect. I wouldn't mind seeing a lot more open-mindedness myself, but I do think there are grounds for strong scepticism when the claims for how it works are implausible and unsupported (and scepticism can coexist with an open mind—an open mind doesn't mean believing that all things are equally possible). I know I find the manufacturer's claims for how the chip works implausible and I definitely have seen no support for them. I might find them less implausible if there were some kind of support offered but there hasn't been and the decision to make the claims that were made and to not offer support were the manufacturer's decisions. I think the outcome they got as a result was quite predictable. They'd have been a lot better off simply making claims for the changes in perceived sound it is supposed to produce but even those would produce incredulity given the fact that there is no obvious way that it can actually do something (note that "no obvious way" is not the same as "no way").
What annoys me is not that there was a strong reaction against the chip. That was simply unavoidable given the approach the manufacturer took. What annoys me is the fact that so much of what was said by those who reacted against it didn't follow as a logical result of the reasons that were given for those views. The manufacturer's claims may be bad science, but the science that was supposedly being used to discredit those claims was often of no higher quality than the original claims. And the really sad thing is that all of the crap things that were said against it have simply reinforced the poor and inaccurate ideas that many people have about what really does constitute scientific proof. When virtually all that many people see is invalidly argued and unsound attacks, how are they ever going to learn how to recognise a validly argued and sound account when they see one? That's where the real loss from the chip debacle is to found in my view and I think that a lot of the blame for that loss can be laid at the manufacturer's door. They chose to make the claims they did, they chose not to offer any support at all for them, and the kind of reaction those claims and their lack of supporting evidence would generate was, in my view, totally predictable. I think they've done the whole industry a big disservice, whether or not the chip actually does something.
David Aiken
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Clark, I'll disagree with some of your points… - David Aiken 14:25:07 12/28/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
