Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
It doesn't matter. Do you understand that point? So, the truth doesn't matter to you. Understood. Surely you're not so naive as to believe that science is about 'truth'? It's certainly not. It's about predictive power and repeatability. This is elementary philosophy of science. The rest of your post is irrelevant, and if you believe that science is about truth that means we can no longer continue this discussion. Science provides 'instrumental knowledge', not 'truth'. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Oct 2005 22:27:19 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: It doesn't matter. Do you understand that point? So, the truth doesn't matter to you. Understood. Surely you're not so naive as to believe that science is about 'truth'? It would be naive to think otherwise. It's certainly not. It's about predictive power and repeatability. This is elementary philosophy of science. Quite so - it's about establishing what is true, and what is mere speculation. This is highly relevant to this newsgroup. [ Moderator's note: It may be relevant, but it is likely to be boring to others unless it includes actual audio themes, so please return to an audio discussion. -- deb ] The rest of your post is irrelevant, and if you believe that science is about truth that means we can no longer continue this discussion. Science provides 'instrumental knowledge', not 'truth'. It tells what is most likely to be true. The truth about 'truth' is that in any inductive generalization, all you can achieve is a high degree of probability. But, each iteration is wholly unrelated to the others. Flipping a fair coin 1000 times may yield 1000 heads in a row, without influencing the next flip. What science can accomplish is never more than 'appoximate truth'. If two hypotheses are equally accurrate in predicting outcomes (at least within a certain domain), they are both equally true. In non-relativistic situations, the accuracy of Newtonian and Eisteinian physics are quite equal. Only at near light-speed does Newtonian physics fail. If, in my experience, the cables show a high degree of correlation with a percieved sonic difference, whereas Optrix does not (when handled in a similar fashion) the probability is greater that the audible difference is in the product than 'in my head'. In other qords, $100 Monster Cable is actually better than $50 Monster Cable, but Optrix is worthless. This is so self-evident that it defies belief that you would contradict it. Your account is simply insufficient. Claiming 'bias' simply won't work, because you need another layer of explanation to explain why the 'bias' works sometimes and sometimes does not...reminds me of wheels within wheels within wheels.... [ Moderator's note: Speaking of "wheels within wheels", this subthread has become extremely circular and repetitive. No more posts will be accepted for it unless something rather different is posted. -- deb ] |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 6 Oct 2005 02:38:23 GMT, wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I heard the difference. He cannot do that. He denies you heard a real difference. He doesn't deny that you *think* you heard a difference. Proof? He is correct, that is my position. Since you refuse to do a blind test, you have no way of knowing which is true. It doesn't matter. Do you understand that point? But *physically*, not at all necessarily equivalent. Not all beliefs are true. But in this case it does not matter. If it is IN PRINCIPLE impossible to distinguish between: A) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the listener B) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the cable what difference does it make? The observed phenomena are the same. Rather than being impossible, it is in fact very easy to make such a distinction - you remove from the listener only the *knowledge* of which cable is connected. If they remain distinguishable, then it's something in the cable. Consider the computer in 2001, HAL. Let's say HAL predicts a component failure. Dave goes out to replace the component and finds that it is, in fact, defective. Is HAL right or not? Let's say HAL does this with a 100% success rate. Later, we find out that HAl had no way of knowing that the component would fail. Does that make HAL wrong? It does not matter! If the correlation is 100%, that's all that matters in science! No, that is not where the answer lies, because things *other than* the actual sound can still highly influence the 'perception' -- enough so that one can still come to the 100% wrong conclusion about whether the sound is different or not. Read my lips: It does not matter. Perhaps not to you as part of a buying decision, but when you insist on claiming - as you have done - that it's due to some audible property of the cable, then you come unstuck. I'm claiming that if the perceived difference correlates exactly with the presence of the cable in my system over a period of many trials, and that similarly-conducted trials of other products have shown NO differences at all for some products, that there is nothing wrong with the method per se. I have repeatedly stated that I have found no sonic differences at all with a spray-on cleaner whose producer made extravagent claims for it. I tried this product in exactly the same manner as the cable, and founfd it utterly worthless. So, now you have to explain how 'my head' not only can make differences in cable that appear only when the cable is in my system, but also refrain from doing so when the CD's are cleaned with the wonder-cleaner Optrix. The simpler explanation is that the products are responsible for what I hear or don't hear. Optrix made no difference whatsoever. The cables did. http://www.amusicdirect.com/products...sp?sku=AOPTRIX Do you understand how this presents a problem for your hypothesis? It's Occam's razor time! There are only 2 possibile ways changing cables can make an audible change, that I'm aware of. 1. The termianls were not clean and the changing of them removed oxidation that was incrfeasing resistance. This would likely only change the sound when the new cables were first installed. 2. One pair of cables is so different in gauge that its resistance causes an audible change, but it would have to at least a 20% difference IIRC. If the cables you are discussing do not fall into one of those 2 categories, then any change you percieve is perception and nothing but you wanting it to be that way. The only way to be sure is do a blind comparison. where you don't know which cable is which. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Product comparisons
wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: That is the precise question I ask myself. That why I wrote "do the different SOUNDS produce different experiences?" By the way, you use the word "error". If listening to the same thing twice produces different subjective impressions, I don't conclude that necessarily there has been an "error" in perception. I suggest that context affects perception. You are of course free to suggest anything you wish, which seems to be the way you go about things, but if the sound is the same and is percieved differently on separate listenings, then at least one of your perceptions is in error. There is no logical reason to design audio equipment that senses your mood in order to perceive it in accordance with your mood. Of course it might be possible to design an audio component (probably a preamp) that uses bio feedback, but I predict a very tiny niche market for such gear. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Free Ipods | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Nothing but 100% Pure Audiogon Customer Satisfaction | Marketplace | |||
FS: AMPS $25 SPEAKERS $19 PAIR - FREE SHIPPING | Pro Audio | |||
Market Your Product? | Audio Opinions | |||
Yet another DBT post | High End Audio |