On 3 Oct 2005 04:20:53 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
You miss the point. The current model holds that any difference in what
you should be calling "perception of musical beauty" can only be the
result of differences that are audible in standard DBTs. It does not
matter that current experimental standards can't detect something that
can't happen.
Actually, *you* miss the point. A test which cannot detect musical
beauty would not be able to validate your claim.
First, for the THIRD time, you are not talking about "musical beauty."
You are talking about *perceptions of musical beauty.* That perception
is no different from any subjective impression of what one
hears--preference, harshness, smoothness, etc. [insert desired
subjectivist buzzword here]. The question is, are there unknown audible
differences between, say, cables, that cannot be detected in
traditional DBTs but can differently affect our subjective impressions
of what we hear?
I assume that the word "audible" could be removed from the question
without loss (except, possibly, of its making the answer "no"
tautological), because the real work is being done by "can differently
affect ... what we hear." Yes? (If not, why not?)
Your assumption is incorrect. There are easily *measured* differences
among cables, the whole point is whether these differences are
*audible*. Unless the measured differences are gross, i.e. they lead
to differences of 10% or so in the voltage at the speaker terminals,
then the answer is that they are *not* audible.
And the answer is no, there are no such unknown
audible differences, and therefore there cannot be any unknown audible
differences that can affect subjective impressions. That's the theory,
as it stands today.
OK. I know that you think that the answer is no (taking out the word
"audible," OK?),
Well yes, you could take out the word 'audible' here, as there are no
*unknown* differences among cables - despite the claims of the
manufacturers for 'Golden Section stranding' and other such nonsense.
and that science tells us that the answer is no. And
for all I know, you're right about that. For what it's worth, I, and
maybe others, would like to know how you or anyone *knows* that the
answer is no.
Better to say that there is no reason to suppose that the anser is
yes.
Or what you think it takes to *establish* that the
answer is no.
A century or two of scientific investigation would seem to suffice.
But since we've been over this ground so much before, I
say this more to point out what I think is at issue than from a real
belief that it's going to get resolved.
To crack this, you have to tell us what that mystery difference is, or
you have to demonstrate through some sort of listening test that such a
difference exists. To argue, as you do, that our tests are not adequate
to detect something that we have no evidence for the existence of is to
engage is a pseudoscientific parlor game.
The claim, I think, is (more or less) that nothing assures us that the
tests can detect *all* "differences that can affect subjective
impressions."
Actually, I am perfectly assured in this regard. You are simply
playing pseudoscientific parlour games, as you have offered no valid
reason for anyone to investigate any of your claims.
Would you say that we are assured of this because none
of the evidence we have gathered through those tests points to a
difference that the test cannot detect? Surely that would be circular.
No, we are assured of this because, once you level-match to a couple
of percent, and once you remove *knowledge* of which cable is
connected, not one single poerson has *ever* been able to demonstrate
that they *do* perceive a difference. Note that the above covers
quick-switched ABX *and* long-term monadic testing. Come back when you
can show evidence of *anyone* finding *any* perceptual difference in
*any* test, given only the above provisos of blindness and rough
level-matching.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering