Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools
There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said.
http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I wonder if the Audiophool purveyors also sell diet pills. When is a diet
pill worth $153.00? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Nobody" wrote in message ... There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said. http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here. It's just opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject. Gareth. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Gareth Magennis wrote:
"Nobody" wrote in message ... There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said. http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here. It's just opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject. Funny, that's just what an 'audiophool' might say. What part of the article was inaccurate or unreasonable? -- -S |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:13:58 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote: Gareth Magennis wrote: "Nobody" wrote in message ... There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said. http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here. Well, you wouldn't, since it didn't claim to be a study. It's just opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject. Children do indeed tend to deride things which are fashionable, but clearly ridiculous. Indeed, 'high-end' audio has often been compared to the classic Anderson tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. Remember who debunked that particular foolishness? Funny, that's just what an 'audiophool' might say. What part of the article was inaccurate or unreasonable? I think we got another live one here! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:13:58 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan wrote: Gareth Magennis wrote: "Nobody" wrote in message ... There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said. http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here. Well, you wouldn't, since it didn't claim to be a study. It's just opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject. Children do indeed tend to deride things which are fashionable, but clearly ridiculous. Indeed, 'high-end' audio has often been compared to the classic Anderson tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. Remember who debunked that particular foolishness? Funny, that's just what an 'audiophool' might say. What part of the article was inaccurate or unreasonable? I think we got another live one here! :-) Who, me or Gareth? ; I first encountered Mr. Magennis over on RAO last month when he was retailing that brand of 'open-minded', mystico-philosophical 'theory' of audio difference so tediously common among 'audiophools' (perhaps because like all mysticism it can explain *everything* yet remain gloriously immune to proof or disproof). Even if the name is different, you've seen the threadbare ideas before, I promise. -- -S |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I think we got another live one here! :-)
Who, me or Gareth? ; I first encountered Mr. Magennis over on RAO last month when he was retailing that brand of 'open-minded', mystico-philosophical 'theory' of audio difference so tediously common among 'audiophools' (perhaps because like all mysticism it can explain *everything* yet remain gloriously immune to proof or disproof). Even if the name is different, you've seen the threadbare ideas before, I promise. Actually I never said that anything can explain anything at all - in fact I am saying completely the opposite. The basis of my arguments were, and are, that at the present moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of knowledge about them. I find it ridiculous that so many people on BOTH sides of this argument seem to think they have the definitive answer to what are very tricky questions. I do not intend going into the same old arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that current "knowledge" about the universe and how it works is a hypothetical model, not undisputed fact. e.g. when observations no longer fit the theory of light being a wave or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and try and come up with something that does fit, like a superstring theory. They are NOT trying to say that light IS a superstring, they are just making a more advanced model in the knowledge that some time in the future it will almost certainly be out of date and need revising or replacing. That is how things work on this planet. Maybe it is the definition of "proof" that is at the root of this problem. I do not believe that "proof" means "true". Some people seem to need to feel that they "know" how things are, I need to feel that we don't know how things are at all. You may well call that a "mystico-philosophical theory", but both our theories are just that - theories, and by definition neither can be shown to be "true", no matter how badly you need proof that yours is correct. Gareth. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message The basis of my arguments were, and are, that at the present moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of knowledge about them. You've confused your lack of knowlege with some general lack of knowlege, Gareth. I find it ridiculous that so many people on BOTH sides of this argument seem to think they have the definitive answer to what are very tricky questions. I don't know if the answers are definitive, but many of them are reasonably simple, clear and relevant. I do not intend going into the same old arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that current "knowledge" about the universe and how it works is a hypothetical model, not undisputed fact. e.g. when observations no longer fit the theory of light being a wave or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and try and come up with something that does fit, like a superstring theory. Typical golden ear dupe double-talk. Gareth, this is about home audio, not rocket science, and not cold fusion. Gareth if you tried to lecture a bunch of Nextel Cup race car drivers or builders about how questions about the theory of relativity will profoundly affect the outcome of their next race, they'd probably laugh you back to the asylum. People who understand how audio works might be a little more charitable, or not. This sort of talk may work with your friends and customers, but in the larger context of Usenet, it just won't wash. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message The basis of my arguments were, and are, that at the present moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of knowledge about them. You've confused your lack of knowlege with some general lack of knowlege, Gareth. I find it ridiculous that so many people on BOTH sides of this argument seem to think they have the definitive answer to what are very tricky questions. I don't know if the answers are definitive, but many of them are reasonably simple, clear and relevant. I do not intend going into the same old arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that current "knowledge" about the universe and how it works is a hypothetical model, not undisputed fact. e.g. when observations no longer fit the theory of light being a wave or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and try and come up with something that does fit, like a superstring theory. Typical golden ear dupe double-talk. Gareth, this is about home audio, not rocket science, and not cold fusion. Gareth if you tried to lecture a bunch of Nextel Cup race car drivers or builders about how questions about the theory of relativity will profoundly affect the outcome of their next race, they'd probably laugh you back to the asylum. People who understand how audio works might be a little more charitable, or not. OK Arny, you just carry on believing there is nothing more to discover about audio perception if that suits you. This attitude is surprisingly common in the history of science, and don't those people look foolish now. Gareth. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/4/2005 4:58 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
I think we got another live one here! :-) Who, me or Gareth? ; I first encountered Mr. Magennis over on RAO last month when he was retailing that brand of 'open-minded', mystico-philosophical 'theory' of audio difference so tediously common among 'audiophools' (perhaps because like all mysticism it can explain *everything* yet remain gloriously immune to proof or disproof). Even if the name is different, you've seen the threadbare ideas before, I promise. Actually I never said that anything can explain anything at all - in fact I am saying completely the opposite. The basis of my arguments were, and are, that at the present moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of knowledge about them. I find it ridiculous that so many people on BOTH sides of this argument seem to think they have the definitive answer to what are very tricky questions. I do not intend going into the same old arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that current "knowledge" about the universe and how it works is a hypothetical model, not undisputed fact. e.g. when observations no longer fit the theory of light being a wave or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and try and come up with something that does fit, like a superstring theory. They are NOT trying to say that light IS a superstring, they are just making a more advanced model in the knowledge that some time in the future it will almost certainly be out of date and need revising or replacing. That is how things work on this planet. Maybe it is the definition of "proof" that is at the root of this problem. I do not believe that "proof" means "true". Some people seem to need to feel that they "know" how things are, I need to feel that we don't know how things are at all. You may well call that a "mystico-philosophical theory", but both our theories are just that - theories, and by definition neither can be shown to be "true", no matter how badly you need proof that yours is correct. Gareth. Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String Theory (also subsumes quantum). Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted radio waves based solely on mathematical proof? Dan |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String Theory (also subsumes quantum). Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted radio waves based solely on mathematical proof? Dan Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by definition. But mathematics is not reality. We can use Mathematics to describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical terms. Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who apply Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves it then". It doesn't. Gareth. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Gareth Magennis wrote: OK Arny, you just carry on believing there is nothing more to discover about audio perception if that suits you. This attitude is surprisingly common in the history of science, and don't those people look foolish now. Not anywhere near as foolish as the people championing phlogiston, perpetual motion, eugenics, green pens, magic wires, wooden hockey pucks and more. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote: OK Arny, you just carry on believing there is nothing more to discover about audio perception if that suits you. This attitude is surprisingly common in the history of science, and don't those people look foolish now. He did not of course say that, despite the constant efforts of audiphools like you to claim such. No, the situation is that we do know a tremendous amount about audio equipment, about the physiology of hearing, and about the psychology of perception. Now, if *you* wish to challenge this fund of accumulated knowledge with a new idea which goes contrary to accepted wisdom, i.e. if you wish to make an extraordinary claim, then it's up to *you* to provide some pretty strong evidence in support. That *is* how Science works. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote: Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String Theory (also subsumes quantum). Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted radio waves based solely on mathematical proof? Dan Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by definition. But mathematics is not reality. Agreed, but it can give us a veru good model of reality. Can you? We can use Mathematics to describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical terms. Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who apply Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves it then". It doesn't. The trouble is, *you* can provide no reliable and repeatable *observations* to support your flanneling. Hence, there's nothing worth investigating, you're simply flapping your gums (or fingertips, whatever). -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/4/2005 1:12 PM, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis" wrote: Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String Theory (also subsumes quantum). Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted radio waves based solely on mathematical proof? Dan Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by definition. But mathematics is not reality. Agreed, but it can give us a veru good model of reality. Can you? One can really not understand reality without trying to model it. Mathematics is the tool to use. Remember that the sun used to revolve around the earth? You seem to want to BECOME reality, which is an impossibility. Do you find your five senses useful or would you prefer not have this capability? Use the tools. We can use Mathematics to describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical terms. Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who apply Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves it then". It doesn't. The trouble is, *you* can provide no reliable and repeatable *observations* to support your flanneling. Hence, there's nothing worth investigating, you're simply flapping your gums (or fingertips, whatever). |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/4/2005 1:12 PM, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis" wrote: Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String Theory (also subsumes quantum). Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted radio waves based solely on mathematical proof? Dan Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by definition. But mathematics is not reality. I never said the only facts are mathematic. It is a fact that George Bush is the president of USA; what does this have to do with mathematics? It is a fact that hearing is one of the five human senses. Now in parallel universe GB may be dog living in the inner city and humans have 20 senses, but that certainly is not the universe I am living in. Maybe you are in that one. Agreed, but it can give us a veru good model of reality. Can you? We can use Mathematics to describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical terms. Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who apply Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves it then". It doesn't. The trouble is, *you* can provide no reliable and repeatable *observations* to support your flanneling. Hence, there's nothing worth investigating, you're simply flapping your gums (or fingertips, whatever). |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message The basis of my arguments were, and are, that at the present moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of knowledge about them. You've confused your lack of knowlege with some general lack of knowlege, Gareth. I find it ridiculous that so many people on BOTH sides of this argument seem to think they have the definitive answer to what are very tricky questions. I don't know if the answers are definitive, but many of them are reasonably simple, clear and relevant. I do not intend going into the same old arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that current "knowledge" about the universe and how it works is a hypothetical model, not undisputed fact. e.g. when observations no longer fit the theory of light being a wave or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and try and come up with something that does fit, like a superstring theory. Typical golden ear dupe double-talk. Gareth, this is about home audio, not rocket science, and not cold fusion. Gareth if you tried to lecture a bunch of Nextel Cup race car drivers or builders about how questions about the theory of relativity will profoundly affect the outcome of their next race, they'd probably laugh you back to the asylum. People who understand how audio works might be a little more charitable, or not. OK Arny, you just carry on believing there is nothing more to discover about audio perception if that suits you. Oh dear Gareth, please do spare us the sophmoric excluded-middle argument. I never said that there was nothing more to discover about audio perception, I simply and clearly said that in order to discover more about audio perception, we probably wouldn't have to invalidate the majority of what we know today. This attitude is surprisingly common in the history of science, and don't those people look foolish now. Yawn. Gareth. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Dan wrote:
On 10/4/2005 1:12 PM, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis" wrote: Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String Theory (also subsumes quantum). Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted radio waves based solely on mathematical proof? Dan Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by definition. But mathematics is not reality. I never said the only facts are mathematic. It is a fact that George Bush is the president of USA; what does this have to do with mathematics? 51% 48% ; -- -S |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:34:50 -0500, Dan wrote:
On 10/4/2005 1:12 PM, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis" wrote: Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String Theory (also subsumes quantum). Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted radio waves based solely on mathematical proof? Dan Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by definition. But mathematics is not reality. Agreed, but it can give us a very good model of reality. Can you? One can really not understand reality without trying to model it. Mathematics is the tool to use. Remember that the sun used to revolve around the earth? No, it didn't. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
We can use Mathematics to
describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical terms. Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who apply Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves it then". It doesn't. The trouble is, *you* can provide no reliable and repeatable *observations* to support your flanneling. Hence, there's nothing worth investigating, you're simply flapping your gums (or fingertips, whatever). -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering See, this is my main gripe with you guys. You say that if there is no evidence available yet, then that situation is not possible, and this means you can laugh at those who have a more open minded approach to that possibility. To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which. Now any real scientist would approach this situation a bit like this: There are at least 2 explanations for this phenomenon. 1. That the audiophile can't actually tell the difference between the cables because there isn't one. 2. In this test the audiophile can no longer hear the difference between the two cables. Now this real scientist would have to rule situation 2 out of the equation before he would even think of saying that situation 1 is definately true. Now how could he do that? Hmm, we don't really have the equipment, the experience or the knowledge to find out what happens inside the concious brain when listening to music and conducting tests, or indeed both at the same time. Bummer. We really need to do a lot more research on this first. On the other hand, Arny, Pinkerton et al take the extraordinarily unscientific approach and say "its obvious that the audiophile is mistaken because we know for an absolute fact that there cannot be any audible difference between these two cables, because nobody has yet been able to show in a test that they can tell such a difference, and we know all there is to know about the science of listening to cables. Therefore anyone who claims to be able to is an idiot and we shall call them "audiophools". Basically you are saying that a lack of evidence proves that something is true or false. Thus the fact that we have not yet been able to find evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence is proof that none exists. This is such ridiculous and unscientific reasoning and any real scientist would tell you to go right back to school and learn to do it properly, before going back to searching the universe for something they might have missed. Gareth. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message See, this is my main gripe with you guys. You say that if there is no evidence available yet, then that situation is not possible, and this means you can laugh at those who have a more open minded approach to that possibility. I've only been looking for the evidence for 30 years. Many others have been looking for other periods of time, many quite lengthy. I guess that counts for nothing. To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing his judgements on sight, not sound. Now any real scientist would approach this situation a bit like this: There are at least 2 explanations for this phenomenon. 1. That the audiophile can't actually tell the difference between the cables because there isn't one. Well, there is a difference, its just that its so small that the audiophile can't hear it. 2. In this test the audiophile can no longer hear the difference between the two cables. That's a fact. The question of whether he ever heard a difference is actually not all that interesting. That was then, this is now. Far more interesting is the question as to whether he will ever hear a difference in the future. Now this real scientist would have to rule situation 2 out of the equation before he would even think of saying that situation 1 is definately true. In science there is no such thing as a definite truth like this. All findings are provisional and might change in the future, given additional evidence and understandings. Now how could he do that? Hmm, we don't really have the equipment, the experience or the knowledge to find out what happens inside the concious brain when listening to music and conducting tests, or indeed both at the same time. Bummer. We really need to do a lot more research on this first. Not at all. We can repeat the tests done thus far, and see what happens. Do sighted and blind tests for a day (this has been done) and see what happens. We can try to think up additional ways to improve the reliability and sensitivity of our tests, and this has been done for at least 30 years. On the other hand, Arny, Pinkerton et al take the extraordinarily unscientific approach and say "its obvious that the audiophile is mistaken because we know for an absolute fact that there cannot be any audible difference between these two cables, because nobody has yet been able to show in a test that they can tell such a difference, and we know all there is to know about the science of listening to cables. This is what happens when Arny is subjected to some bozo trying to speak for him. Probably the same for Pinkerton, et al as well. Someone pulls some weird gibberish out of the back of their neck, and suddenly its what we said. :-( Therefore anyone who claims to be able to is an idiot and we shall call them "audiophools". Nahh, we look at the results of days, weeks, and years of testing under a variety of conditions and with a number of changes and improvements to the procedures. The results are always the same - remove sighted cues and the listener is reduced to random guessing. Basically you are saying that a lack of evidence proves that something is true or false. No we're saying that after centuries of looking for pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, none have been reliably found. Some lucky dudes did chase the ends of rainbows and eventually found pots of gold, but even they admit that the correlation between the rainbow chasing and the gold finding was very weak. Wanna buy the end of a rainbow? Wanna buy those fancy cables? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing his judgements on sight, not sound. I rest my case. Gareth. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing his judgements on sight, not sound. I rest my case. Gaerth bases his so-called case on on an out-of-context quote. I rest my case - Gareth is either too ignorant to understand the concept of intellectual dishonesty, or he does understand intellectual dishonesty and just doesn't care about it. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing his judgements on sight, not sound. I rest my case. Gaerth bases his so-called case on on an out-of-context quote. I rest my case - Gareth is either too ignorant to understand the concept of intellectual dishonesty, or he does understand intellectual dishonesty and just doesn't care about it. Interesting diversionary tactic, Arny. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message See, this is my main gripe with you guys. You say that if there is no evidence available yet, then that situation is not possible, and this means you can laugh at those who have a more open minded approach to that possibility. I've only been looking for the evidence for 30 years. Many others have been looking for other periods of time, many quite lengthy. I guess that counts for nothing. To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing his judgements on sight, not sound. I rest my case. Gareth. Now any real scientist would approach this situation a bit like this: There are at least 2 explanations for this phenomenon. 1. That the audiophile can't actually tell the difference between the cables because there isn't one. Well, there is a difference, its just that its so small that the audiophile can't hear it. 2. In this test the audiophile can no longer hear the difference between the two cables. That's a fact. The question of whether he ever heard a difference is actually not all that interesting. That was then, this is now. Far more interesting is the question as to whether he will ever hear a difference in the future. Now this real scientist would have to rule situation 2 out of the equation before he would even think of saying that situation 1 is definately true. In science there is no such thing as a definite truth like this. All findings are provisional and might change in the future, given additional evidence and understandings. Now how could he do that? Hmm, we don't really have the equipment, the experience or the knowledge to find out what happens inside the concious brain when listening to music and conducting tests, or indeed both at the same time. Bummer. We really need to do a lot more research on this first. Not at all. We can repeat the tests done thus far, and see what happens. Do sighted and blind tests for a day (this has been done) and see what happens. We can try to think up additional ways to improve the reliability and sensitivity of our tests, and this has been done for at least 30 years. On the other hand, Arny, Pinkerton et al take the extraordinarily unscientific approach and say "its obvious that the audiophile is mistaken because we know for an absolute fact that there cannot be any audible difference between these two cables, because nobody has yet been able to show in a test that they can tell such a difference, and we know all there is to know about the science of listening to cables. This is what happens when Arny is subjected to some bozo trying to speak for him. Probably the same for Pinkerton, et al as well. Someone pulls some weird gibberish out of the back of their neck, and suddenly its what we said. :-( Therefore anyone who claims to be able to is an idiot and we shall call them "audiophools". Nahh, we look at the results of days, weeks, and years of testing under a variety of conditions and with a number of changes and improvements to the procedures. The results are always the same - remove sighted cues and the listener is reduced to random guessing. Basically you are saying that a lack of evidence proves that something is true or false. No we're saying that after centuries of looking for pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, none have been reliably found. Some lucky dudes did chase the ends of rainbows and eventually found pots of gold, but even they admit that the correlation between the rainbow chasing and the gold finding was very weak. Wanna buy the end of a rainbow? Wanna buy those fancy cables? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... I rest my case. And since you have not made your case, the matter is dismissed. You are free to waste your money however you see fit. MrT. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... I rest my case. And since you have not made your case, the matter is dismissed. You are free to waste your money however you see fit. Agreed.. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message u... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... I rest my case. And since you have not made your case, the matter is dismissed. You are free to waste your money however you see fit. MrT. Yeah, right, typical Western attitude again. And Mr George W Bush only recently had to admit that global warming was actually happening because up to that point his administration considered there was no hard evidence to support the notion. Funny how that matter was dismissed too because of the massive vested interest he has in denying it. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message u... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... I rest my case. And since you have not made your case, the matter is dismissed. You are free to waste your money however you see fit. Yeah, right, typical Western attitude again. Darn all that rationality! And Mr George W Bush only recently had to admit that global warming was actually happening because up to that point his administration considered there was no hard evidence to support the notion. Funny how that matter was dismissed too because of the massive vested interest he has in denying it. There's no foul in saying that there's no evidence when there is no evidence, and saying that there is evidence when the evidence finally materializes. If you chase every bird that flies over your house, you won't get much else done. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message u... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... I rest my case. And since you have not made your case, the matter is dismissed. You are free to waste your money however you see fit. Yeah, right, typical Western attitude again. Darn all that rationality! And Mr George W Bush only recently had to admit that global warming was actually happening because up to that point his administration considered there was no hard evidence to support the notion. Funny how that matter was dismissed too because of the massive vested interest he has in denying it. There's no foul in saying that there's no evidence when there is no evidence, and saying that there is evidence when the evidence finally materializes. If you chase every bird that flies over your house, you won't get much else done. Not only that, but just because evidence exists that we might be in a global warming trend in no way implies that humans are causing it. The planet has gone through dramatic warming and cooling phases in the past without our help, thank you very much. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... I rest my case. And since you have not made your case, the matter is dismissed. You are free to waste your money however you see fit. Yeah, right, typical Western attitude again. And Mr George W Bush only recently had to admit that global warming was actually happening because up to that point his administration considered there was no hard evidence to support the notion. Funny how that matter was dismissed too because of the massive vested interest he has in denying it. And as soon as you put up some SCIENTIFIC evidence, we will be happy to examine it. Amazing how you try to turn things around, it is the people who support the scientific principal you are arguing with. YOU are the one doing the "George Bush"! MrT. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing his judgements on sight, not sound. I rest my case. Gaerth bases his so-called case on on an out-of-context quote. I rest my case - Gareth is either too ignorant to understand the concept of intellectual dishonesty, or he does understand intellectual dishonesty and just doesn't care about it. Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the listening experience? If you can allow for that possibility, then I suggest that isolating the sense of hearing, as in a double blind test, may prove that two components "sound" the same but has nothing to do with the listening experience as a whole. Maybe there is more to individual human perception than what controlled scientific tests can identify. I know for a fact that my car runs better after it's been washed and waxed! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"John Richards" wrote in message ... Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the listening experience? If you can allow for that possibility, then I suggest that isolating the sense of hearing, as in a double blind test, may prove that two components "sound" the same but has nothing to do with the listening experience as a whole. Maybe there is more to individual human perception than what controlled scientific tests can identify. I know for a fact that my car runs better after it's been washed and waxed! Yes, the drag coefficient is reduced when the car is waxed. But how do *YOU* pick the difference? The same can be said for audio. There may be many *minute* factors we can't account for, but do they make an *audible* difference to the vast majority of people? This is actually pretty easy to verify, despite all the hand waving of people who pretend otherwise. However if they feel they can hear a difference, nobody is stopping them making their own choices. It's just their vain attempts to justify their choices to the world, that I object to. Why do they think it is necessary anyway? Maybe they aren't so sure after all? MrT. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message ... "John Richards" wrote in message ... Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the listening experience? If you can allow for that possibility, then I suggest that isolating the sense of hearing, as in a double blind test, may prove that two components "sound" the same but has nothing to do with the listening experience as a whole. Maybe there is more to individual human perception than what controlled scientific tests can identify. I know for a fact that my car runs better after it's been washed and waxed! Yes, the drag coefficient is reduced when the car is waxed. But how do *YOU* pick the difference? The difference can be explained simply as an increased sense of wellbeing from driving a visually appealing car, not from any actual performance increase. Neither a double blind test nor a technical evaluation of the performance of the car would likely confirm my experience. The same can be said for audio. There may be many *minute* factors we can't account for, but do they make an *audible* difference to the vast majority of people? Probably not. But could these same *minute* factors influence the the total experience of a small minority? This is actually pretty easy to verify, despite all the hand waving of people who pretend otherwise. From what I have seen of this argument, most of the "subjectivists" claim that the scientific approach to evaluating audio equipment is not conclusive and absolute. They are claiming that SOME people can discern a difference in the audio experience that may not be consistent with scientific testing. However if they feel they can hear a difference, nobody is stopping them making their own choices. No, as long as they are willing to acknowledge that they are stupid. It's just their vain attempts to justify their choices to the world, that I object to. Maybe they find it annoying to be challenged as "audiophools" whenever they cite an experience that may not be consistent with the outcome of all the scientific tests. Why do they think it is necessary anyway? Maybe they like to discuss there own experiences in audio as most audiophiles do and maybe these experiences are not always consistent with current scientific "facts" as you see them. Maybe they are'nt so sure after all? Or maybe the scientific community is not so secure in their positions and feel the necessity to insult anyone who suggests that there might be more to the issue than a double blind test can demonstrate. MrT. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"John Richards" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing his judgements on sight, not sound. I rest my case. Gaerth bases his so-called case on on an out-of-context quote. I rest my case - Gareth is either too ignorant to understand the concept of intellectual dishonesty, or he does understand intellectual dishonesty and just doesn't care about it. Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the listening experience? Huh? It's almost a certainty, if not an absolute certainty. If you can allow for that possibility, then I suggest that isolating the sense of hearing, as in a double blind test, may prove that two components "sound" the same but has nothing to do with the listening experience as a whole. John, are you trying to obfuscate or what? Just to bring you up to speed with the discussion, the general context is not about the listening experience as a whole, but rather whether or not certain very specific equipment changes make audible differences. Maybe there is more to individual human perception than what controlled scientific tests can identify. Since Science is essentially the study of abstractions of reality (e.g. concepts and theories), that's always true. So you've managed to hypothesize something that is already a truism. I think that's called trivial thinking. I know for a fact that my car runs better after it's been washed and waxed! That depends a lot on how you define "runs better". If you define runs better as "makes me feel better" then thats fine and good as far as it goes, but don't try to sell that down at the race track unless it actually makes you car go faster as measured by a stop watch. BTW, clean cars do generally go faster, but its a subtle difference. Horsepower still means something. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Arny,
Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the listening experience? Huh? It's almost a certainty, if not an absolute certainty. Agreed. I noticed years ago that music sounds better when accompanied by visuals. My theory is the visuals provide a sort of distraction, so you don't notice audible or musical flaws as readily. --Ethan |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message Arny, "John Richards" wrote in message Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the listening experience? Huh? It's almost a certainty, if not an absolute certainty. Agreed. I noticed years ago that music sounds better when accompanied by visuals. My theory is the visuals provide a sort of distraction, so you don't notice audible or musical flaws as readily. IME, the ultimate in visuals that distract from just listening to the sound is called "A live performance". This leads to the common situation where a well-made recording of a live event rarely if ever sounds as satisfying as the memory of the actual event. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Somebody claimed that a waxed car runs faster due to reduced friction.
Not necessarily true, as turbulent boundary flow can actually *reduce* drag over pure laminar flow. Read this and smile, all ye autoslobs who let Mother Nature wash your cars! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Somebody claimed that a waxed car runs faster due to reduced friction. Not necessarily true, as turbulent boundary flow can actually *reduce* drag over pure laminar flow. Read this and smile, all ye autoslobs who let Mother Nature wash your cars! So is bird **** actually a gift from Nature? ; -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:36:12 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Somebody claimed that a waxed car runs faster due to reduced friction. Not necessarily true, as turbulent boundary flow can actually *reduce* drag over pure laminar flow. Read this and smile, all ye autoslobs who let Mother Nature wash your cars! So is bird **** actually a gift from Nature? ; It drops like manna from the heavens above. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Home Sweet Studio" interesting article in Sunday NY Times | Pro Audio | |||
Interesting Journal Article on filtering/differences between SACD and DVD-A | High End Audio | |||
Interesting article | Audio Opinions | |||
Interesting Pirate Article | Pro Audio | |||
Interesting article on the effect of PtP file sharing on music sales... | Pro Audio |