Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:jS%lb.14523$HS4.54816@attbi_s01... "Dennis Well no. But you should put it in context. For example the most 'moving' rendition of "Tonight's The Night" (Shirelles) I've ever heard was in the back seat of a '53 chevy with a factory radio. Does that make me want to use that audio system as a reference? Or make me want to emulate the sound? So I can both relish/believe my 'experience' and also be aware of what psychoacoustics tell us about likey causes of differences in perceived "sound." Well this doesn't surprise me. Those '53 Chevy's had tube radios in them. Dennis |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
Dennis Moore wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message news:IHWlb.4739$275.10158@attbi_s53... I think trying to use 'emotional response' as a criterion for sound is pretty much a dead end; it's just too multifactorial a phenomenon, to draw conclusions from. -- -S. I don't think it is a dead end. I, and others, have had the experience of changing some component resulting in a different long term emotional response than with the previous component. You might keep it months. But with the same collection of music on the shelf to choose from you notice you just aren't much interested in listening as before the component change. Sometimes you swap back to the other component, and your interest in listening is back at a higher level. Yep, a multi-factorial situation. Messy as heck to figure out. But if you change the component and it gets better, pretty hard not to feel that had something to do with it. Pretty hard not to feel that way, perhaps, but *because* of the multifactorial nature of the response, quite possibly pretty wrong to feel that way too, too. You just don't know for sure, regardless of what you *believe*. Is it because it sounded different, because you liked the use of it better, or what? Hard to say, but also hard to dismiss and say the component swap had nothing to do with it. I didn't say the *swap* had nothing to do with the feeling. It probably had very much to do with it. Research has shown that lots of factors that aren't sound-related can affect a *qualitative* evaluation of a component -- including the way a component looks, what it cost, what the listener has heard/read about it previously. That's one reason Sean Olive et al built their speaker-swapper at Harman. What's questionable is whether there was any real change in *sound* responsible for the 'feeling'. So do you believe your experience, or just right it off to bias and ignore it? I'd realize that it could be due to any number of factors instead of, or in addition to, a difference in sound. So I'd be careful about claiming that the emotional response was due to the *sound* of the component. -- -S. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
The "fatigue" errors (tonal balance and distortion) are immediately apparent
with systems that lack transparency or dynamic capability. While it is true that, if boderline, they may take an hour to be described as fatiquing,but they are apparent at first listen with well-chosen program material. I'm not sure how that is even possible. What is fatiguing for one person may be quite the opposite for another. There are people who are anything but fatigued by the sound oft a loud nightclub PA or the sound that must surely be unbearable to all of us comming from the car you can hear well before you can see. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:10:02 +0000, Nousaine wrote:
Tom Stated: I disagree strongly. A half hour will cause fatique in systems where the tonal balance errors promotes same. Indeed that's one of the bogus complaints about controlled listening; it's too stressful. ________________________________________________ ___________ s888Wheel stated: I'm not sure a half an hour is all that short a term especially when quick switching was being discussed. However, I have found several systems that were not fatiguing in a half hour that were fatiguing in a couple hours. No doubt some systems are so bad that they are fatiguing in minutes. The "fatigue" errors (tonal balance and distortion) are immediately apparent with systems that lack transparency or dynamic capability. While it is true that, if boderline, they may take an hour to be described as fatiquing,but they are apparent at first listen with well-chosen program material. __________________________________________________ ________ Ref: Immediately apparent distortion..etc. I think there are far too many "absolutes" here..I, along with many others have noted certain unpleasant aspects in the audio presentation after a longer period than an hour. It is difficult to speak for the many that put systems together and how long it will take to discover unpleasant little audio glitches that tend to appear. One has to accept the fact that others do discover these things only after weeks, etc. Perhaps it best we live with that fact! Leonard... |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
"Nousaine" wrote in message news:cTdmb.19015$e01.
So do you believe your experience, or just right it off to bias and ignore it? I'd realize that it could be due to any number of factors instead of, or in addition to, a difference in sound. So I'd be careful about claiming that the emotional response was due to the *sound* of the component. This situation is often the stuff of which Audio Urban Legends are built. One day I have a heightened response to some music, or the little lady says "gee, that sounds great today, what did you do?" even when nothing at all in the system was changed. Scratching my head I wonder WHAT could have caused this? Oh yeah it must be that spare change on the top of the left speaker. Wait a minute; maybe my 2 year old amplifier has finally finished breaking in? Maybe washing the throw rug was responsible. It could never be inadvertant self-bias. It could never be the component change could it? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:09:45 +0000, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:07:04 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: This situation is often the stuff of which Audio Urban Legends are built. One day I have a heightened response to some music, or the little lady says "gee, that sounds great today, what did you do?" even when nothing at all in the system was changed. Scratching my head I wonder WHAT could have caused this? Oh yeah it must be that spare change on the top of the left speaker. Wait a minute; maybe my 2 year old amplifier has finally finished breaking in? Maybe washing the throw rug was responsible. ref: the efforts above at humor-ridicule...the rug scenario might well be an issue...if it was a large throw rug and flat with dirt, maybe a washing would fluff it up and have an effect on the room acoustics. Do I detect bitterness here..pity! As to the change on the left speaker..one must define the coin denominations to determine the audio effects. Note also, the inside bottom of the 2 year old amplifier was painted with "mil-spec" grey paint..it delays the break-in every time! Ain't this a strange hobby? And now on to the "world-beater" referred to as "Self-Bias". It could never be inadvertant self-bias. __________________________________________________ _______ Kalman wrote: Ha! I spent many months tweaking the design of a crossover network back in the days when I was so obsessed. After a while, I started charting the changes since I got the impression they were somewhat cyclic. Indeed, there was a correlation between whether I had had a beer or glass of wine before auditioning and whether I increased the low end of the tweeter output. The little bit of alcohol was enough to cut, transiently, about 2dB from my auditory responses (later confirmed by audiological test). If we must control the auditioning situation, we must begin with ourselves. (With acknowledgement to Pogo.) Kal __________________________________________________ ________ Leonard wrote: ...It could never be inadvertant self-bias?...as per Nousaine ... could it ever be hardware as per Dennis?... ...we must begin with ourselves..from Kalman. Your point is well taken Kalman...we must start with ourselves. As I have mentioned before..this is a two-sided issue here. The hardware takes precedence over all, in one groups philosophy. It becomes the dominant factor to that particular "mind-set". Somehow they do not realize we are all flying blind once the sound leaves the speaker!! One cannot lay all the blame for all negative things in the Audio domain to the Subjective "ear-mind" construct. There are variables in the Hardware..in cables..in room structures..air density..ad infinitum. These monkey around with the audio signal prior to its arrival in the unstructured and relatively unknown mental processes. Then to complicate that even more, that data is passed on to a "decision-process" that renders decisions about correctness and good and bad. This audio image presented to our mind is the reason for all of this discourse on the Audio Domain. Perhaps some day we will be able to view everything from Hardware to the Mental-processes as a well thought our continuum..we are not there yet! This excludes the effect of chemical imbalances in the brain. Drat...Is it any wonder that we flounder about trying to get a handle on what we are talking about? Enough..I flounder about! Leonard... |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
"Nousaine" wrote in message news:
Amen; but we also need to relialize that this cannot simply be done with a statement of willpower. IOW you can't just personally "check your bias at the door" because: 1) much personal bias may be held at the subconscious level 2) some forms of human behavior and bias are simply a part of being human and being alive. Such as: the tendency to report "differences" in quality when given 2 identical sound stimuli and the propensity to interpret small changes in level as changes in quality. Not all hard to believe #2 above. That humans have a tendency to report a difference when none exist. Which is why is seems 2 alternative forced choice tests would be better than ABX. In 2afc there is a difference in the two alternatives presented. The question is whether or not they are significantly audible. In the ABX method the tendency to report differences when they don't exist would seem to muddy the waters unnecessarily. Dennis |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:04:21 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Amen; but we also need to relialize that this cannot simply be done with a statement of willpower. IOW you can't just personally "check your bias at the door" because: 1) much personal bias may be held at the subconscious level 2) some forms of human behavior and bias are simply a part of being human and being alive. Such as: the tendency to report "differences" in quality when given 2 identical sound stimuli and the propensity to interpret small changes in level as changes in quality. Or the bias to deny a difference if it does not fit into ones world-view. How broadly do you want to define this? Is it right to say that statisticians are 'biased' against the idea of lucky numbers, when they discount their existence? -- -S. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
Is it right to say that statisticians are
'biased' against the idea of lucky numbers, when they discount their existence? Nope. That wouldn't be a bias. It would be a known mathematical fact. There is no perception involved in such a position. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:04:21 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Amen; but we also need to relialize that this cannot simply be done with a statement of willpower. IOW you can't just personally "check your bias at the door" because: 1) much personal bias may be held at the subconscious level 2) some forms of human behavior and bias are simply a part of being human and being alive. Such as: the tendency to report "differences" in quality when given 2 identical sound stimuli and the propensity to interpret small changes in level as changes in quality. Or the bias to deny a difference if it does not fit into ones world-view. Kal Such a bias is often ascribed to folks like me, Arny Krueger, David Clark and Julian Hirsch. But that's exactly the reason I use bias controls when and whereever practical to sort through this kind of thing. Also although I've given people who report differences that I do not perceive acoustically every practical opportunity to demonstrate this. But none has ever been able to demonstrate an ability to hear nominally competent amplifiers or cables or outboard DACs or modern cd players when even the most elementary bias controls are implemented. But, quite frankly, more often than not my personal experience fits with common human traits. If you think of it why would one ever need to "ignore" real differences? But the point about such a bias would be more useful if one would find an acoustical source behind 'debateable' differences. I also employ other technqiues, such as a compilation of programs so that listening sessions can be accomplished with the same source material in roughly equivalent order as well, to assist in leveling the playing field between products. On the other hand, many of the reports I see declaring difference that haven't been confirmed by others to have acoustical basis seldom appear to have even have a basic template to emulate the same listening conditions/routine from product to product. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
S888Wheel wrote:
Is it right to say that statisticians are 'biased' against the idea of lucky numbers, when they discount their existence? Nope. That wouldn't be a bias. It would be a known mathematical fact. There is no perception involved in such a position. Of course there is. After all, statisticians can't *prove* there is no such thing as a lucky number, can they? Isn't it *possible* that such things exist, but we just haven't discovered it yet? -- -S. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:35:51 +0000, Nousaine wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote: When I'm having a good time I can often enjoy a good program spit out of a horse **** sounding audio system .... We all can. That's not the point. Then what is? snip Regarding "that swing." IMO the Swing is in the program (music and performance) not the playback equipment. It is true that a superior sound system may bring the Swing in a more accurate or realistic manner but the musical qualities are not "produced" by the playback system. The playback system is only a transmission medium. It has no musical or human qualities; no rhythm and pace or other mystical characteristics that take weeks to develop or appreciate. It's either a transparent medium or its not. If not, the deficiencies can be discovered in a couple hours with a practical, systematic, analytical listening regimen. Agreed - the system is allowing the composer's and the music's *intent* to come through. Not all communicate it that well, regardless of their *transparency*. If the system is transparent .... adds/subtracts nothing ..... how can it improve or diminish the 'intent' of the artist, songwriter, producer or production staff? If it's NOT initially transparent then it can ONLY subtract from the production intent. That's the missing link in the subjectivist viewpoint. What good is an evaluation if it misses out on whether the system is enjoyable and musical? You might as well just read the equipment specs. Regards, Mike If the system transports the original program with sufficient transparency then it has to be as 'enjoyable, exciting, fullfilling, thought-provoking or irritating' as the production/artist team intended. Anything added at the far end is only a single party-end user preference. For example in enjoy-mode I never listen to 2-channel programs without using one of the Lexicon Logic 7 modes because it adds a sense of envelopment and spatial stability and 'realism' that is not contained in the original program. Just because I 'like' it and it's more enjoyable doesn't subtract from my reference systems' ability to deliver the original as intended. My 'preference' is a personal choice. __________________________________________________ ___ Ref: personal single-listerner issues... Leonard wrote: As those of us with a differing view have been saying for a long time...however, the inability of speaker systems, acoustic surroundings and other odd elements in the mix can detract from those "reference systems" that are dry, irritating and harsh on the ears. They are not something one can listen to for extended periods of time. They are there for a particular "mindset" that requires this "reference" or "standard" sitting there. If they are happy...so be it. However, the real world generally requires some digital mellowing to satify the practical side of our Personal choice. Not a thing wrong with this action...it is an action to satisfy desires of the analysis by the "ear-brain" construct. But then, some do not recognize "personal choice"...and relate it to "bias" and other buzz words that have no value in this audio domain in the first place. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
Steven said
Is it right to say that statisticians are 'biased' against the idea of lucky numbers, when they discount their existence? I said Nope. That wouldn't be a bias. It would be a known mathematical fact. There is no perception involved in such a position. Steven said Of course there is. After all, statisticians can't *prove* there is no such thing as a lucky number, can they? Isn't it *possible* that such things exist, but we just haven't discovered it yet? Have you ever wondered why your club of audiophiles who think they have all the right answers is so small? Charm is one factor IMO. If the data is accurate statisticians can prove that there is or is not any lucky numbers in a given situation. If they find lucky numbers then one could examine the situation and find a cause for the lucky numbers. IOW there can be lucky numbers in given situations but they aren't really lucky, they are simply better for physical reasons. Of course none of this has anything to do with audio. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said Is it right to say that statisticians are 'biased' against the idea of lucky numbers, when they discount their existence? I said Nope. That wouldn't be a bias. It would be a known mathematical fact. There is no perception involved in such a position. Steven said Of course there is. After all, statisticians can't *prove* there is no such thing as a lucky number, can they? Isn't it *possible* that such things exist, but we just haven't discovered it yet? Have you ever wondered why your club of audiophiles who think they have all the right answers is so small? Charm is one factor IMO. Hmm.. seems to me there's plenty of 'charm' to go around in both 'clubs'. Your 'club' hasn't exactly impressed me with its affability. Do you think the club of statisticians has all the right answers lucky numbers? If the data is accurate statisticians can prove that there is or is not any lucky numbers in a given situation. Ah. But they can never test all situations, can they? I mean, you never know FOR SURE, right? So let's keep an open mind. There may be stuff that statisticians don't know about yet. If they find lucky numbers then one could examine the situation and find a cause for the lucky numbers. IOW there can be lucky numbers in given situations but they aren't really lucky, they are simply better for physical reasons. Of course none of this has anything to do with audio. Of course it does -- since obviously I'm parodying arguments that you (and your 'club') have used when scientific explanations are offered. But thank you for making the points about accurate data and causality. I can now apply them to the question of whether it's 'bias' to discount the accuracy of a claim of audible difference. It isn't 'bias' to suspect bias as a cause for a report of audible difference, if that report contains no 'checks for accuracy'....that is, no controls, no measurements, no prior reason to believe there should be difference. Skepticism based on reasoning based on well-documented cause/effect chains (e.g., the one demonstrating the operation of bias on perception of audible difference)... should that be called 'bias'? -- -S. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
Steven said
Is it right to say that statisticians are 'biased' against the idea of lucky numbers, when they discount their existence? I said Nope. That wouldn't be a bias. It would be a known mathematical fact. There is no perception involved in such a position Steven said Of course there is. After all, statisticians can't *prove* there is no such thing as a lucky number, can they? Isn't it *possible* that such things exist, but we just haven't discovered it yet? I said Have you ever wondered why your club of audiophiles who think they have all the right answers is so small? Charm is one factor IMO. Steven said Hmm.. seems to me there's plenty of 'charm' to go around in both 'clubs'. Both clubs? There are two clubs and two clubs only? Every audiophile outside of the handful of folks I am refering to on RAHE are all in one other club? That is one huge club. It must have some appeal. Steven said Your 'club' hasn't exactly impressed me with its affability. I didn't know I belonged to such a popular club. Steven said Do you think the club of statisticians has all the right answers lucky numbers? I think statistitions can find all the right answers regarding lucky numbers. I thought I answered this already. It still has nothing to do with audio. I said If the data is accurate statisticians can prove that there is or is not any lucky numbers in a given situation. Steven said Ah. But they can never test all situations, can they? I mean, you never know FOR SURE, right? So let's keep an open mind. There may be stuff that statisticians don't know about yet. I you trying to prove anything other than my comment on charm was dead on? I see, statititions don't have all the data in the universe so everything sounds the same or one is simply gullible. There is a reason why the club is so small. I said If they find lucky numbers then one could examine the situation and find a cause for the lucky numbers. IOW there can be lucky numbers in given situations but they aren't really lucky, they are simply better for physical reasons. Of course none of this has anything to do with audio. Steven said Of course it does - No it doesn't. It's just another attempt to coatail cetain beliefs on better established and proven conventions such as statistical analysis. Lucky numbers have no bearing on audio. Bad anologies prove nothing. Steven said since obviously I'm parodying arguments that you (and your 'club') have used when scientific explanations are offered. What is the scientific explination for why the Hallograph cannot make a difference in the sound of playback in a given room? The club offers a lot of sarcasm but little in the way of good scientific explinations for their positions. Steven said But thank you for making the points about accurate data and causality. I can now apply them to the question of whether it's 'bias' to discount the accuracy of a claim of audible difference. It isn't 'bias' to suspect bias as a cause for a report of audible difference, if that report contains no 'checks for accuracy'....that is, no controls, no measurements, no prior reason to believe there should be difference. Indeed this is another reason why the club is so small. do you tell others they don't really know what their favorite restaurant is if they haven't done bias controled taste tests? *Do you do bias controled tests to substantiate every subjective qualitative opinion you have on everything?* If not, why the double standard? Steven said Skepticism based on reasoning based on well-documented cause/effect chains (e.g., the one demonstrating the operation of bias on perception of audible difference)... should that be called 'bias'? Calling everything snake oil from every manufacturer whose advertising you don't like is hardly reasoned skepticism. It is paranoia IMO. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:13:35 +0000, Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: But thank you for making the points about accurate data and causality. I can now apply them to the question of whether it's 'bias' to discount the accuracy of a claim of audible difference. It isn't 'bias' to suspect bias as a cause for a report of audible difference, if that report contains no 'checks for accuracy'....that is, no controls, no measurements, no prior reason to believe there should be difference. Skepticism based on reasoning based on well-documented cause/effect chains (e.g., the one demonstrating the operation of bias on perception of audible difference)... should that be called 'bias'? ____________________________________________ Mkuller wrote: I attended a pharmacist's conference over the weekend, where the keynote speaker, a reknowned widely published Professor spoke about the limitations of scientific *truth*. We can never know for sure that a scientific *fact* is true - because the body of knowledge known as "science" is constantly changing. One of the more interesting quotes he used to illustrate has a lot of relevance he "Lack of proof is not proof of absence." D. Hume Regards, Mike ________________________________________________ Leonard wrote: Excellent little blurb Mike..I wrote a "short-book" here a month or so ago on just this problem of research and discovery moving so fast that what is a "given" today is discarded by new evidence tomorrow. I had read an interesting paper from an old "IBM fellow" on this issue and how it makes taking a hard line stance on any given issue a rather anacronistic process, particularly in the scientific realm. Naturally the group with the "hard-line" agendas began lining up and shouting and waving their arms. But, this is an issue that has slid right by the hard-line evangelists. I was accused of "starwars" thinking...not related to any issue being discussed. None could make the connections of what is happening now and their hard line stances! The quote by D. Hume: "The lack of proof is not proof of absence" is classic! Anyway...sharp, penetrating comments Mike. Leonard... |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
(Mkuller) wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: But thank you for making the points about accurate data and causality. I can now apply them to the question of whether it's 'bias' to discount the accuracy of a claim of audible difference. It isn't 'bias' to suspect bias as a cause for a report of audible difference, if that report contains no 'checks for accuracy'....that is, no controls, no measurements, no prior reason to believe there should be difference. Skepticism based on reasoning based on well-documented cause/effect chains (e.g., the one demonstrating the operation of bias on perception of audible difference)... should that be called 'bias'? I attended a pharmacist's conference over the weekend, where the keynote speaker, a reknowned widely published Professor spoke about the limitations of scientific *truth*. We can never know for sure that a scientific *fact* is true - because the body of knowledge known as "science" is constantly changing. One of the more interesting quotes he used to illustrate has a lot of relevance he "Lack of proof is not proof of absence." D. Hume Of course; but currently no one has superceded the established thresholds of human audibility which have been developed over the past century or so. IOW no one has yet to show any plausible evidence that nominally competent cables have ever been shown to be "audible" under anything except open uncontrolled situations. Science may be always in development but none-the-less just because someone or a group of individuals make a 'claim', especially one that should be easily demonstrated, doesn't mean that it should be accepted without confirming evidence. We can 'debate' for as long as we want; but those who have conducted bias-controlled experiments to confirm cable/amp sound with scientific investigation in mind haven't been able to confirm same. On the other side, we have a group who wishes to decry the extant experiments while still being unable to conduct replicable experiments that confirm those "sounds" when bias controls are implemented. My analogy is that when someone says "I can run a 2 minute mile; but I can't do it if anybody is watching with a stopwatch" I think that all of us would dismiss the claim until the claimant would demonstrate the ability. With these "debate-able" constructs the proponents are quick to criticize any attempt that fails to confirm the prior-held constructs; yet, they cannot supply any contrary evidence that passes the simple test of not-having the answers available before taking the test. Regards, Mike Absence of evidence is not proof of absence; but neither is absence of positive evidence PROOF of anything either. I'm surprised that folks that ardently want/need to believe in cable sound simply don't just prove that those, sometimes called "pretty amazing", differences are really there. It should be so easy. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: But thank you for making the points about accurate data and causality. I can now apply them to the question of whether it's 'bias' to discount the accuracy of a claim of audible difference. It isn't 'bias' to suspect bias as a cause for a report of audible difference, if that report contains no 'checks for accuracy'....that is, no controls, no measurements, no prior reason to believe there should be difference. Skepticism based on reasoning based on well-documented cause/effect chains (e.g., the one demonstrating the operation of bias on perception of audible difference)... should that be called 'bias'? I attended a pharmacist's conference over the weekend, where the keynote speaker, a reknowned widely published Professor spoke about the limitations of scientific *truth*. We can never know for sure that a scientific *fact* is true - because the body of knowledge known as "science" is constantly changing. Scientific facts are not not absolutes, but are necessarily contingent upon the available data. I've said as much several times right here on RAHE, as have other objectivists. One of the more interesting quotes he used to illustrate has a lot of relevance he "Lack of proof is not proof of absence." D. Hume More commonly cited as 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' It's been cited here by objectivists as well as subjectivists. Absence of evidence *alone* is not evidence of absence. But your Professor would probably agree that *presence* of evidence stands for something too. Scientists routinely infer the 'absence' of Thing X from the absence of evidence for it, PLUS the presence of evidence for competing Thing Y. See for example, the roles of 'aether' in physics, or of Lamarckian inheritance in biology, or the Earth-centric view of the solar system. Really, if scientific facts were such wispy things, science wouldn't have accomplished much by now, would it? Could it be that the contingent nature of scientific fact is actually a strength, in that repeated testing of models must eventually weed out the wrong ones? -- -S. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
(Nousaine) wrote in message
Absence of evidence is not proof of absence; but neither is absence of positive evidence PROOF of anything either. I'm surprised that folks that ardently want/need to believe in cable sound simply don't just prove that those, sometimes called "pretty amazing", differences are really there. It should be so easy. Note: I just dropped in while taking a break from a large number of home-improvement projects. Tom, your problem is that you think that all audio enthusiasts are at their respective cores just like you. When you want to know if something is truly "true" (for example, that a set of wires or an amp does or does not color the sound in either a good or bad way) you do something that allows you to be able to solidly validate that truth. For you, "truth" is an objective concept that has to be based upon a reality outside of the individual. That way, other individuals can validate that same truth by using similar scientific techniques (DBT, bench checks, etc.), and once that is done enough times it is no longer just "truth" but moves on to become: TRUTH! Well, maybe not quite that extreme, but the discovered truth about wires or amps, CD/DVD players, or exotic sound-improving accessories certainly undermines the various points of view regarding monumental or profound advantages to certain wire, amplifier, or player brands. However, to some people "truth" is a very different thing. For them, some (but certainly not all) "truths" are fully subjective and have little to do with hard-core concepts, procedures, or scientific rigor. Well, for many of them this is not quite the case, at least with many everyday products and procedures - particularly if they are job related. Most people at least want solid truths when it comes to their jobs, and most want solid truths when it comes to stuff like their health and medical situations - or their investment portfolios. However, many people (no matter how hard-headed they may be in certain mundane areas) still want a bit of mystery and speculation inserted into some aspect of their lives, and so they embrace existential forms of truth here and there. For example, people go to church on Sunday not because they have extracted truths about "god" from rigorous research, but because they crave a bit of the sublime and ineffable. For them, this still is "truth," because in this particular case "truth" delivers a sense of well being and fulfillment. Digging too deep would shatter the subjective perfection of those advantages. For a lot of people (men, mostly), audio delivers a similar (but admittedly, or at least hopefully, much smaller scaled) sense of well being and fulfillment. Many enthusiasts enjoy the subjective kick they get out of just thinking about how good their expensive amp or expensive wires sound. They also gain a certain sense of self esteem by realizing that they have something that many other people do not have. They do not want that dream shattered. They need a certain amount of romanticism in the hobby, and scientific number crunching wrecks the party. Admittedly, the joke is ultimately on them, because they may have spent to excess (robbing their record-purchasing fund in order to buy expensive hardware that works no better than cheaper stuff) and they may have also purchased products (certain low-powered SET amps, for instance) that deliver sub-par fidelity. However, a lot of them do not care at all about this, because for them the "truth" exists in the aura surrounding the products themselves and not in what those products actually can do. Note: anyone who writes me at my old address will probably get a "mail-box-full" message. Something is screwed up in my computer (virus?), and so until I get a new computer in a couple of months (this will be part of the same huge lifestyle upgrade that is allowing for the major home-improvement work) I am using my alternate Yahoo email. Howard Ferstler |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
(Mkuller) wrote in message news:v1Vlb.11349$HS4.48351@attbi_s01...
(Mkuller) wrote Sorry, Tom, but I disagree with you. Since reproducing music is the goal and music has an 'emotional' component to it, you cannot ignore the 'enjoyment factor'. Some call it 'musicality'. If a piece of equipment scores high but you don't enjoy listening to it - isn't that pretty meaningless? (Buster Mudd) Does the music really have an emotional component to it...or is there an emotional component to the act of listening to music? I.e., is the emotion in the recording/performance, or is it in the listener? If it's the latter, no meaningful evaluation of audio equipment can even address this issue without losing its objectivity. And if it's the former ..prove it. Have you been to a live performance of music lately? Did it involve you emotionally? Now listen to a recorded version of the same performance - did it make you feel the same? If not, what were the differences? Was it the music or the music reproduced through your equipment tha failed to stir you? The emotional content is in the music - the composer/musician's intent which is what music is all about and how it differs from random chords. If the emotional content were "in the music" then A) both of the experiences you describe above (listening to a live performance, & listening to a recorded performance of the same piece) should ellicit the same emotional response. After all, the emotion is "in the music" and it's the same piece of music in both situations, yes? And B) every listener would have the same reaction to a piece of music...because the "emotional content is in the music" as you say. So if (to oversimplify) Barber's "Adagio for Strings" is chock full of Melencholy, then every single listener who hears that piece of music, regardless if it's a live performance or a recording, should feel Melancholy, right? Because the "emotional content is in the music". Unless it isn't... |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:07:48 GMT, lcw999 wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:13:35 +0000, Mkuller wrote: I attended a pharmacist's conference over the weekend, where the keynote speaker, a reknowned widely published Professor spoke about the limitations of scientific *truth*. We can never know for sure that a scientific *fact* is true - because the body of knowledge known as "science" is constantly changing. We do however continue to abide by current theories until conflicting *evidence* is demonstrated. One of the more interesting quotes he used to illustrate has a lot of relevance he "Lack of proof is not proof of absence." D. Hume Regards, Mike _______________________________________________ _ Leonard wrote: Excellent little blurb Mike..I wrote a "short-book" here a month or so ago on just this problem of research and discovery moving so fast that what is a "given" today is discarded by new evidence tomorrow. However, 2+2 stubbornly remains 4. I had read an interesting paper from an old "IBM fellow" on this issue and how it makes taking a hard line stance on any given issue a rather anacronistic process, particularly in the scientific realm. Naturally the group with the "hard-line" agendas began lining up and shouting and waving their arms. But, this is an issue that has slid right by the hard-line evangelists. Not if you can actually read, it hasn't....... I was accused of "starwars" thinking...not related to any issue being discussed. None could make the connections of what is happening now and their hard line stances! The quote by D. Hume: "The lack of proof is not proof of absence" is classic! Actually, the original quote is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It is always trotted out by those who appear to believe that all cables sound different, and that the far side of the Moon might very well be made of green cheese, because we can't *prove* that it isn't. Most of us who live in the real world prefer Occam's Razor - when choosing among alternative explanations, the simplest is most probably the truth. Real scientists are aware that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. IOW, the far side of the Moon is made of the same rock as the near side, and all cables really do sound the same. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
(Buster Mudd) wrote:
If the emotional content were "in the music" then A) both of the experiences you describe above (listening to a live performance, & listening to a recorded performance of the same piece) should ellicit the same emotional response. After all, the emotion is "in the music" and it's the same piece of music in both situations, yes? Live vs recorded would elicit the same emotional response - if everything else were the same. You, your mood, the context, the performance, your experience, etc. but it's not and never is. So you focus on the music reproduction to determine if there is something missing in the recording that was present in the live to account for the difference in emotional response. And B) every listener would have the same reaction to a piece of music...because the "emotional content is in the music" as you say. So if (to oversimplify) Barber's "Adagio for Strings" is chock full of Melencholy, then every single listener who hears that piece of music, regardless if it's a live performance or a recording, should feel Melancholy, right? Because the "emotional content is in the music". Unless it isn't... Everyone is different and has different things that elicit different emotions in them. Melancholy music is a good example. I suspect that most people will feel melancholy while listening to it. It is the conditioned stimulus/response that the behaviorists have been harping about for a century or so. It is in the music - stimulus - and then elicits the emotional response in the individual - response. Do you have the response without a stimulus? If not, then it must be in the music. Regards, Mike |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
Howard said
Tom, your problem is that you think that all audio enthusiasts are at their respective cores just like you. When you want to know if something is truly "true" (for example, that a set of wires or an amp does or does not color the sound in either a good or bad way) you do something that allows you to be able to solidly validate that truth. For you, "truth" is an objective concept that has to be based upon a reality outside of the individual. That way, other individuals can validate that same truth by using similar scientific techniques (DBT, bench checks, etc.), and once that is done enough times it is no longer just "truth" but moves on to become: TRUTH! Well, maybe not quite that extreme, but the discovered truth about wires or amps, CD/DVD players, or exotic sound-improving accessories certainly undermines the various points of view regarding monumental or profound advantages to certain wire, amplifier, or player brands. However, to some people "truth" is a very different thing. For them, some (but certainly not all) "truths" are fully subjective and have little to do with hard-core concepts, procedures, or scientific rigor. Well, for many of them this is not quite the case, at least with many everyday products and procedures - particularly if they are job related. Most people at least want solid truths when it comes to their jobs, and most want solid truths when it comes to stuff like their health and medical situations - or their investment portfolios. However, many people (no matter how hard-headed they may be in certain mundane areas) still want a bit of mystery and speculation inserted into some aspect of their lives, and so they embrace existential forms of truth here and there. For example, people go to church on Sunday not because they have extracted truths about "god" from rigorous research, but because they crave a bit of the sublime and ineffable. For them, this still is "truth," because in this particular case "truth" delivers a sense of well being and fulfillment. Digging too deep would shatter the subjective perfection of those advantages. For a lot of people (men, mostly), audio delivers a similar (but admittedly, or at least hopefully, much smaller scaled) sense of well being and fulfillment. Many enthusiasts enjoy the subjective kick they get out of just thinking about how good their expensive amp or expensive wires sound. They also gain a certain sense of self esteem by realizing that they have something that many other people do not have. They do not want that dream shattered. They need a certain amount of romanticism in the hobby, and scientific number crunching wrecks the party. Admittedly, the joke is ultimately on them, because they may have spent to excess (robbing their record-purchasing fund in order to buy expensive hardware that works no better than cheaper stuff) and they may have also purchased products (certain low-powered SET amps, for instance) that deliver sub-par fidelity. However, a lot of them do not care at all about this, because for them the "truth" exists in the aura surrounding the products themselves and not in what those products actually can do. Howard, it seems you are speaking for others who simply don't hold the same views on audio that you do. Have any of these audiophiles ever expressly told you that they buy expensive equipment becuase they like mystery? Who has ever told you that they buy expensive gear becuase they "enjoy the subjective kick they get out of just thinking about how good their expensive amp or expensive wires sound" but really think they make no real physical difference? Why do you harp on "expensive" when many audiophiles you seem to believe arte intrigued by "mystery" often don't buy amps that cost as much as Stewart Pinkerton's amp? What audiophile has specifically told you that they gain self esteem out of ownership of equipment many other people do not own? What audiophile has told you that they "need a certain romanticism in the hobby?" Unless these are your own views or these views have been expressly stated by other audiophiles it would appear that you have built a massive strawman. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
Mkuller writes:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: Most of us who live in the real world prefer Occam's Razor - when choosing among alternative explanations, the simplest is most probably the truth. Funny you mention this because it was discussed at the conference, too. But you've suited it to your bias. It should be: Occam's Razor - when choosing among alternative explanations, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the simplest is most probably the truth. All things are not usually equal, as you know. This is a misstatement of Occam's razor. The razor says nothing about probability, and it says nothing about all things being equal. What it says is "you shall not multiply explanations unnecessarily". This means that when you have a multiplicity of explanations, choose the one that makes the fewest assumptions about things that aren't in evidence. This philosophical principle doesn't rely on the simplest explanation being more probable than the others. Andrew. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Long term comparisons-meaningless
On 9 Dec 2003 16:16:07 GMT, wrote:
Mkuller writes: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: Most of us who live in the real world prefer Occam's Razor - when choosing among alternative explanations, the simplest is most probably the truth. Funny you mention this because it was discussed at the conference, too. But you've suited it to your bias. It should be: Occam's Razor - when choosing among alternative explanations, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the simplest is most probably the truth. All things are not usually equal, as you know. This is a misstatement of Occam's razor. The razor says nothing about probability, and it says nothing about all things being equal. What it says is "you shall not multiply explanations unnecessarily". This means that when you have a multiplicity of explanations, choose the one that makes the fewest assumptions about things that aren't in evidence. That's actually your *interpretation* of the original statement which you correctly quoted. This philosophical principle doesn't rely on the simplest explanation being more probable than the others. But the more usual modern interpretation does............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How long do CD-Burners last . . . . . . . | Audio Opinions | |||
long ground back to battery | Car Audio | |||
???? Best Long Lasing Air Fresheners ?? | Car Audio |