AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims.

I truly appreciate the essential honesty of this statement. Maybe
it's time for all the subjectivists out there to just admit that: 1)
they can't prove that their beliefs are true; and 2) they don't
care that they can't prove that their beliefs are true. They just
believe them.

Once you're past that, you can start all the threads you want talking
about what amps and cables sound like to you, and which ones you bought
and why. Chung, Stewart, Sully and I will leave you alone. Just leave
out the part where you try to explain WHY things sound the way they
sound to you. If you don't want to do science, stop playing at it.

You obviously don't get it. We are not 'doing science', but chosing
(and evaluating) equipment.

And then making public statements about said equipment based on those
evaluations. Which apparently you expect to be
accepted either with universal agreement, approval, or polite silence,
here.

That is not to say that we believe that
what we hear is imaginary.

Though it might be. Why can't you say that? It's a reasonable
possibility.

In other words, we don't think that what we
claim VIOLATES any scientific principles or even the principle of
parsimony.

Well, I'm afraid some here may disagree. Especially if you make an
explicit claim ABOUT your claim, like this.

We believe that there are differences in the products
themselves, however subtle they may be. Speaking for myself, I don't
care what causes those differences,

Apparently you do, given your claim above about them not being
imaginary. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't be so definite
about that.

but so long as they correlate with
the presence of the product in my system, my money is bet on the
difference being located in the product. (If we were 'doing science',
we would be involved in that investigation. But we're not 'doing
science'.)

But you just categorically ruled out a possible cause of difference, above.
Based on a simply perceiving a difference. You're right, that's not science.
It's not good reasoning, either. It's more akin to blind faith.

It strains anyone's credulity to believe that my brain can create,
flawlessly and conistently, a whole panorama of sonic differences among
seven amplifiers.

That's called an argument from incredulity, btw. One of several
classical modes of faulty reasoning.

To insist that these things are 'all in my head' is
therefore to be dismissed without even the merest consideration. It's
absurd. You don't have a detailed case for 'all in my head' and you
know it.

I'm afraid the scientific literature.... which you claim isn't relevant
to the discussion anyway....contradicts you there.

--

-S