HUG - here for all audio enthusiasts

The Harbeth User Group is the primary channel for public communication with Harbeth's HQ. If you have a 'scientific mind' and are curious about how the ear works, how it can lead us to make the right - and wrong - audio equipment decisions, and about the technical ins and outs of audio equipment, how it's designed and what choices the designer makes, then the factual Science of Audio sub-forum area of HUG is your place. The objective methods of comparing audio equipment under controlled conditions has been thoroughly examined here on HUG and elsewhere and should be accessible to non-experts and able to be tried-out at home without deep technical knowledge. From a design perspective, today's award winning Harbeths could not have been designed any other way.

Alternatively, if you just like chatting about audio and subjectivity rules for you, then the Subjective Soundings area is you. If you are quite set in your subjectivity, then HUG is likely to be a bit too fact based for you, as many of the contributors have maximised their pleasure in home music reproduction by allowing their head to rule their heart. If upon examination we think that Posts are better suited to one sub-forum than than the other, they will be redirected during Moderation, which is applied throughout the site.

Questions and Posts about, for example, 'does amplifier A sounds better than amplifier B' or 'which speaker stands or cables are best' are suitable for the Subjective Soundings area only, although HUG is really not the best place to have these sort of purely subjective airings.

The Moderators' decision is final in all matters and Harbeth does not necessarily agree with the contents of any member contributions, especially in the Subjective Soundings area, and has no control over external content.

That's it! Enjoy!

{Updated Oct. 2017}
See more
See less

"Evidence-based journalism" - WikiTribune

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Evidence-based journalism" - WikiTribune

    Fingers crossed for Jimmy Wales. It's desperately needed in this confused world. Wouldn't it be great if they ran an audiophile section....


    "What do we mean by evidenced-based journalism?"

    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  • #2
    Journalists are paid per word not per truth. Scientists today have to " publish or perish". (The original article on "A Structure For Desoxyribose Nucleic Acid" by Watson &Crick, Nature 171, April 1953, didn't exceed the length of our weekly shopping list.) Clickbaiting is ubiquitous in audio online magazines and the print issues. But once you have decided to solve your problems in a way that provides validity, reability and inter-observer reproducibility you'll never want to abandon the advantages of scientific methods. Our luck that A.S. and Harbeth are sticking for this way, but to ask customers to make their purchase choices similar to a loudspeaker production process would be excessivly demanding. And there are only few ways to reconstitute cognitive consonance after buying a very expensive amplifier and being not shure whether it was worth it. One of them is to believe in the improvement.


    • #3
      Originally posted by honestguv
      Chortle. That is Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia. The place where statements are required to be citable rather than true. ...
      "True" is not such an easy thing to establish, whether you're Wikipedia or anyone else. While I don't discount your experience, I do recall there was a study some years ago that determined that Wikipedia, on the whole, was as accurate as the Encylopedia Britannica:

      It's true that the "open source" principle of Wikipedia does allow nonsense to creep in at times, but the hope is that others will correct this, and this is usually (though not always) what happens. I suspect that your experience was reflective of the large amount of apparently credible nonsense that is published about audio matters generally - it's a lot of work (for anyone) to separate the wheat from the chaff.

      However, I don't think that this invalidates what they are trying to do with journalism, which I think makes eminent good sense and puts more power into the hands of the individual member of the public.


      • #4
        Originally posted by honestguv
        Everybody is taught the scientific method at school and it is remarkably effective at sorting out what may be considered true for matters covered by science.
        Yes indeed, but an encyclopedist is not a scientist, nor is realistic to think that he/she should be one. It may be that there are some subjects that are too complex to be dealt with in an generalist, open-source (and free!) online encyclopedia, but to give up the endeavour altogether seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

        In any event, my original point was that, whatever the flaws and imperfections of Wikipedia, it seems to me that those do not provide a rational basis for denigrating (as you did) a professed attempt to do journalism in a new and better way, by giving the public access to the full context of a story, and background information that is usually hidden. Those are two different things, and the new effort should be judged on its own merits. Cynicism about Wikipedia - justified or not - does not logically invalidate an attempt to find a better way to conduct journalism, does it?