Science Shows Why Drum Machines Will Never Replace Live Drummers

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by zontar, Jan 2, 2016.

  1. zontar


    Feb 19, 2014
    OldDog52 likes this.
  2. No scientist is going to tell me what I like when it comes to drummers,drum machines or anything else to do with music.
    zontar likes this.
  3. zontar


    Feb 19, 2014
    Good point--and I didn't get that anybody was telling you that--it was just saying WHY most people prefer one over the other.
  4. How do they know what most people like? Did they go around the entire planet and personally ask everybody?

    Drum machines DO replace live drummers at times....and this has been going on for decades.

    Nothing against you Zontar.
    But this is why a certain element of the scientific community rubs me the wrong way all the time.

    This element I call the Know-It-All-Dot-Connectors.

    Whenever they have a gap in history, certain mankind evolutionary phases or anything else they can't prove, they simply guess at what might have occurred between the dots and then present that as official fact.
    Once the official "guessfact" has been established...then they further embellish it.

    Like I said , nothing against you, bud.
  5. zontar


    Feb 19, 2014
    I wouldn't say everybody prefers live drums over drum machines--I mean look at all drum machines out there--but I would be willing to bet that most people do prefer live drums.

    Even those into electronic music might.

    Drum machines have their place.

    but they found something in how our brains work that explains that--

    No offense taken.

    I knew not everybody would like the story.
  6. Logic_11


    Nov 22, 2015
    Atlantic Ocean
    Hmm, The article seems kinda sketchy. The guy is a journalist
  7. j0llysnowman


    Jan 28, 2013
    I have issue with this post...

    The article doesn't make this claim, and seemingly neither do any of the mentioned studies. Regardless, one doesn't need to ask the entire population to have even extremely high confidence in polling. There's actually a formula to determine the proper sample size, given population size and desired confidence. Here is a Wikipedia article on the topic and a hands-on demonstration.

    The article acknowledges this in its first sentence.

    This is just not right. Experiments and studies are not simple guesses. Nor are the conclusions presented as fact, but rather, as results of parametrized observations. It is deathly important that researchers state the parameters of the experiment, as well as acknowledge how those parameters affected the experiment (only polled Americans? only called at dinner time? only asked bassists?). One of the nice things about the scientific method is that the test hypothesis must be falsifiable, as in, it is possible to draw a different conclusion from what was predicted, either through different experiment parameters or through different interpretation of the gathered data. These conclusions are not to be claimed as fact - maybe by the clickbait pseudo-journalist writing the article, or maybe by the editor who came up with the headline for SEO value, but certainly not by the researcher. Assuredly, this is a clear distinction in science that is known as a first principle. Generalizations are not facts, and no scientist would pretend as much.

    More on topic, here is a link to one of the actual studies referenced: The nature and perception of fluctuations in human musical rhythms — Department of Nonlinear Dynamics & Network Dynamics Group
    galonso, mongo2, gln1955 and 2 others like this.
  8. T2k5


    Feb 16, 2011
    Kerava, Finland
    Meh, when there's enough research done on this, the results will be implemented into the humanizing algorithms. Until then, producers can edit each hit manually.
  9. 5544


    Dec 1, 2015
    DJs with laptops have replaced people with talent.
  10. You can techspeak it with scientific gobbledygook all you want.

    Every public trend poll I've ever read conducted by researchers reflected findings that were counter to what I think 100%.
    So they never asked me ever. Just guessed.

    Many of these so called studies use the herd mentality to sway public opinion for their gain.

    In other words:> if they can make you believe that 94 % of people like sucking their big toe..then you will too because of the inate human desire to "fit in".

    Up here in the last two big elections (not going political...just quoting a result) the "public opinion" experts and pollsters calculated wins for certain parties based on their prevote polling of voters..
    Outcome? The exact opposite happened.

    So much for polling.....where they didn't ask everybody but based their findings on random samplings in certain areas of the country, assuming that if you ask a few people in an area what they think then that reflects the feelings of everybody around there.
    Well it doesn't and it didn't.

    A large portion of the elitist segment of the scientific community have now reached the point where transferring to the job of used car salesman would be no problem at all.
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2016
  11. j0llysnowman


    Jan 28, 2013
    I tried very hard to be neither condescending nor brazen with any technical words. I even went out of my way to provide links with more information and better explanations than what I can offer.

    Please skim the content I linked in my previous post. I'm not asking you to completely understand all the math, but at least recognize that you are using childish words to disrespect methods that are used by people far smarter than you or I will ever be.

    The original article is not the best example, but when reporting on experiments, publications are inherently obligated to state parameters, margins of error, sample sizes, assumptions, and other influencing factors as a way to acknowledge known and unknown biases from the researchers (obviously when you try to answer a question, there's a chance your predictions will influence your results). Look at the difference in writing in the Physics Today article referenced in the OP article. Keep going and look at the writing in the first reference in the Physics Today article, which is a summary provided by the institute that conducted the research. Take one more step and glance at the actual research.
    galonso, mongo2 and gln1955 like this.
  12. Just awhile back the provincial government here relaxed the liquor laws further.

    About 3 weeks ago the University of British Columbia proudly announced that, from their studies, the average British Columbian consumes 528 bottles of beer a year.

    I haven't drank 528 bottles of beer in the last 20 years combined.

    I haven't even drank 50 bottles of beer combined in the last 20 years.
    Of course they're far smarter than you and I.

    But they're full of crap.

    Linus Pauling was a famous scientist. Remember him? The man who said ingesting bucketloads of vitamin C daily was the answer for just about all your ills including cancer.
    Later on other scientists flat out debunked his claims.
    But there are thousands and thousands of people out there who still believe Pauling was right and continue to regard his work as gospel.
    Because they reason Pauling was a top rank scientist..and if he said must be true.
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2016
  13. T2k5


    Feb 16, 2011
    Kerava, Finland
    Average - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    zontar likes this.
  14. Primary

    Primary TB Assistant

    Here are some related products that TB members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to TB’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to TB discussions about these products.

    Jun 23, 2021

Share This Page