Pew Science

[yeky83]

Debunking a waveform or other published number seems pretty self explanatory, no? Provide theoretical or empirical evidence suggesting the data he has published is biased, incorrect, or implausible.

No, it’s not self explanatory.

FWIW his misuse of well known and defined acoustics terms like far-field and free-field strikes me as someone not familiar with the art.

And… I just saw that with paid membership you can influence the PEW test plan development, wtf? Sorry but P EW that kinda stinks, *insert doge meme* wow so independent, so science.

I dunno man, the more I look into it the more I don’t really like it.

 

[ckt3]

No, it’s not self explanatory.

FWIW his misuse of well known and defined acoustics terms like far-field and free-field strikes me as someone not familiar with the art.

And… I just saw that with paid membership you can influence the PEW test plan development, wtf? Sorry but P EW that kinda stinks, *insert doge meme* wow so independent, so science.

I dunno man, the more I look into it the more I don’t really like it.

Do you have any critiques about the quantitative data or test setup? You seem familiar with the field.

My main point in this thread is responding to the accusation of a lack of transparency, which seems unfounded given the large amount of published data for each suppressor review.

It is also that transparency which enables you to critique the data itself if you are knowledgeable enough to do so. One could use theory to question quantitative claims or generate one’s own data using a similar setup that disagrees with the claims. In general, this can be done for all sorts of quantitative data (points, time series, distributions, etc.. waveforms are not uniquely difficult to refute).

I haven’t seen such concrete, quantitative critiques. Are the waveforms implausible? Do the dB numbers seem biased? Is the test setup flawed? I think everyone here would be happy to see such data or theory refuting Pew’s reports, as it would move us closer to the truth (not due to a personal bias against Pew).