Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist. But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent. There is a difference, you know. d OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on the motorway and you realise that you have no recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was happening then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of that time actually got stored in your memory? Were you concious at all? Lots of possibilities. So you decide to conduct an experiment. The next time this happens you will check out your conciousness and see what is happening. Only you can't because the very act of attempting to carry out this test alters your conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible. Listening to music at home during a long term test may at first be altered by you being concious that it is a test and you are listening for results. Eventually you will tire of this and forget about the test, and over a long period, say several days with the same CD player, you may be able to say something like "I don't know why, but with the Philips CD player, I just wanted to dance all the time, whereas 3 days with the Naim puts me in a really peaceful mood and classical music sounds better than on the Philips. But as soon as you start to analyse the sound system, something changes and you are back to your test scenario, invalidating the test. There is no reportable evidence here, or even any tangible evidence at all, other than the Subjective experiential evidence the scientists don't count. Gareth. OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference? It is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his back while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance knowledge of which cable he is listening to. That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects. d |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Gareth Magennis said: You are missing the most basic point of all. You believe a test and the real world environment will have exactly the same outcome. I believe that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that something in the testing process alters something in the test, by a process as yet unknown and unobserved. You're absolutely right, except that we do know what happens and why the "tests" are not valid for consumers. The difference is psychological. Different mindsets for human-style listening vs. lab-rat "tests". There's another point about the two mindsets that's not so obvious: The nerds can't separate the consumer viewpoint from the technician viewpoint. They believe the DBT protocol is inherently better for everybody. In reality it's only better for those who need it -- i.e. technicians. A low-level characteristic of a system's performance may not register in short-term listening sessions, but it can (and does) become apparent over the long term. Humans are not robots; our brains filter information for us. When we listen, we do so for pleasure, and that's what our brains report. When we become accustomed to the sound of a system, we then start to refine our impressions. We learn as we go. Robots don't do that, of course -- they're fully programmed when they're "born". The 'borgs refuse to acknowledge that using a tool the way you want to use it is its best and highest purpose. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist. But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent. This begs the question - how far do we have to look for evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that it doesn't happen? There is a difference, you know. How do you know that there is a difference in the total absence of reliable evidence? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow affect the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't. Gareth, ever hear of Occam's razor? It basically says that simple explanations are more likely to be correct. When you have to call on astronomy, quantum physics and hypothesize new scientific discoveries to explain things that you perceive, which are easy to show are just audible illusions, this should be a wake up call. I have heard of Mr Occam and his shaving device, and I am inclined to agree with you. However, I lean more towards the idea that it is quite possible we have been barking up the wrong tree all this time and the simple explanation is that everything we think we know is wrong, because one, some or all of the fundamental principles we hold so dear are wrong. The kind of things I have mentioned in previous posts like Matter arising from Mind and not the other way round, time not being at all what we think it is, reality being illusory, Britney Spears being a better singer than Christina Aguilera, Collective Conciousness meaning we are all part of some greater being like leaves are part of a tree, hell, maybe even a God exists. And of course other ideas and concepts that we just could not understand right now. See, the Quantum Mechanics thing seems to be finding little things like mind actually does affect matter and that things don't have to be near other things to affect them or even to be part of them. Maybe we have overcomplicated things enormously - maybe a paradigm leap in awareness would bring everything down to the really simple level that it actually is. Can't wait. Gareth. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:15:45 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist. But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent. This begs the question - how far do we have to look for evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that it doesn't happen? You already know the answer to that. If the event is improbable, then the only way to settle the matter is to demonstrate that it happens, waiting for it not to happen for an arbitrary length of time settles nothing. Everybody just goes home bored and still arguing. There is a difference, you know. How do you know that there is a difference in the total absence of reliable evidence? Evidence of absence vs. absence of evidence? I will stick with the good Friar William to make my choice there. d |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
What freeways do you drive on Gareth? If you're having routine blackouts
while driving, pardon me if I want to be driving some place else. You'll be OK, I only drive on Motorways on the left hand side of the road. Gareth. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist. But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent. There is a difference, you know. d OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on the motorway and you realise that you have no recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was happening then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of that time actually got stored in your memory? Were you concious at all? Lots of possibilities. So you decide to conduct an experiment. The next time this happens you will check out your conciousness and see what is happening. Only you can't because the very act of attempting to carry out this test alters your conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible. Listening to music at home during a long term test may at first be altered by you being concious that it is a test and you are listening for results. Eventually you will tire of this and forget about the test, and over a long period, say several days with the same CD player, you may be able to say something like "I don't know why, but with the Philips CD player, I just wanted to dance all the time, whereas 3 days with the Naim puts me in a really peaceful mood and classical music sounds better than on the Philips. But as soon as you start to analyse the sound system, something changes and you are back to your test scenario, invalidating the test. There is no reportable evidence here, or even any tangible evidence at all, other than the Subjective experiential evidence the scientists don't count. Gareth. OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference? It is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his back while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance knowledge of which cable he is listening to. That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects. d Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at all. There is an enormous propensity for bias, even Audiophiles must admit that, surely. But I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really talking about long term testing in their own homes. I don't think there is much in common between the two situations so you can't use one to prove or disprove the other, which I believe the scientific community is trying to do. Gareth. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:15:45 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent. This begs the question - how far do we have to look for evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that it doesn't happen? You already know the answer to that. If the event is improbable, then the only way to settle the matter is to demonstrate that it happens, waiting for it not to happen for an arbitrary length of time settles nothing. Everybody just goes home bored and still arguing. ....and that puts us exactly where we are today. ;-) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference? It is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his back while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance knowledge of which cable he is listening to. That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects. Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at all. I see no indication of short or long listening tests in Don's example. However Gareth, I see you imposing a short term test on Don's example, and then you objecting to it. I believe that the imposition is in essence lying, and the objection is a straw man argument. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:34:02 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference? It is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his back while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance knowledge of which cable he is listening to. That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects. d Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at all. There is an enormous propensity for bias, even Audiophiles must admit that, surely. But I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really talking about long term testing in their own homes. I don't think there is much in common between the two situations so you can't use one to prove or disprove the other, which I believe the scientific community is trying to do. Gareth. No, this won't wash. The "difference" man has no problem identifying his differences in brief "can you hear it?" type tests when he knows which is connected. He is also free to take just as long as he pleases when unsighted. I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough. d |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference? It is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his back while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance knowledge of which cable he is listening to. That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects. Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at all. I see no indication of short or long listening tests in Don's example. However Gareth, I see you imposing a short term test on Don's example, and then you objecting to it. I believe that the imposition is in essence lying, and the objection is a straw man argument. OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't really mean short term test. What I mean is that it is possible for a test like the above to alter the circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained previously, so it is not clear what is really being tested here. The result may not be just an indication of "audible effects" or the lack thereof. It could be showing the subject is suddenly unable to hear them during the test, for whatever reason. If I held a gun to your head and told you I would shoot you unless you clearly identified whether this was Coke or Pepsi, do you not think that would alter what is actually being tested, and your perception of what the drink tastes like, and your memories of what Pepsi and Coke taste like without these conditions? Then it would be a taste test under duress, not a normal taste test and the results may well be very different from those taken at home over seveal days. A long term test in real world conditions, I believe, tends to lose these erroneous conditions and tests whether there has been any permanent improvement or change in perceived sound, or whether it makes you dance to all your CD's or not. Gareth. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't really mean short term test. What I mean is that it is possible for a test like the above to alter the circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained previously, so it is not clear what is really being tested here. OK Gareth at this point you are backed way deep into a corner. You're persisting that your favorite cables absolutely positively do make a difference that can be easily heard by anybody with good ears and a good system, then you're clutching at straws when it comes to reasons why that doesn't happen when listener bias is controlled by any known means. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:34:02 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at all. There is an enormous propensity for bias, even Audiophiles must admit that, surely. But I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really talking about long term testing in their own homes. I don't think there is much in common between the two situations so you can't use one to prove or disprove the other, which I believe the scientific community is trying to do. Gareth. No, this won't wash. The "difference" man has no problem identifying his differences in brief "can you hear it?" type tests when he knows which is connected. He is also free to take just as long as he pleases when unsighted. I have to say, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough. I got a practical lesson in this at HE2005, in virtually every room with SET amplifiers, and many others as well. The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded great but the speakers!!!! ;-( |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote: I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough. I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences. Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct, talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded great but the speakers!!!! ;-( Speakers and pianos in the same room? What genius thought that one up? Or did they have blankets to throw over the strings while they used the speakers? d |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce wrote: I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough. I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences. I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing. Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct, talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time. I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you mind? d |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis" wrote: My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know* which cable was connected. Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to *really* trust their ears. You are missing the most basic point of all. You believe a test and the real world environment will have exactly the same outcome. I believe that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that something in the testing process alters something in the test, by a process as yet unknown and unobserved. On what grounds do you think this is not possible? It's not even totally unknown. Some work done by a group in Japan led by Oohashi ( http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content...spec=relevance ) found that short snippets of music did not allow enough time for an emotional response by the brain to build (on average, this took 1.5-2 mins.). The difference in some of their tests was the difference between "null" and "significantly different" on musical ratings. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:38:31 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce wrote: I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough. I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences. I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing. Yes, and looping a 2 sec clip is especially unhelpful, especially when it's an actual music clip. Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct, talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time. I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you mind? You mean the "idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton" quip? OK. Here it is revised: Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct, talking about what happens "in reality" like Mr. Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time. If only you'd take HIM to task for HIS rude comments. But it's your right to pull a nod and a wink to him. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:01:11 -0500, dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:38:31 +0100, Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce wrote: I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough. I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences. I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing. Yes, and looping a 2 sec clip is especially unhelpful, especially when it's an actual music clip. Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a character of its own that is wholly unrelated to the normal audio content. Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct, talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time. I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you mind? You mean the "idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton" quip? OK. Here it is revised: Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct, talking about what happens "in reality" like Mr. Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time. If only you'd take HIM to task for HIS rude comments. But it's your right to pull a nod and a wink to him. If he replies to me in this fashion, rest assured I will. d |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded great but the speakers!!!! ;-( Speakers and pianos in the same room? Yes, but the speaker demo room and the piano room were separated by a partial partition. What genius thought that one up? really! Or did they have blankets to throw over the strings while they used the speakers? none in sight, and I visited the room several times, for a hors-d'oerves check. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Gareth Magennis tries to have a human-style conversation with the Krooborg. Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at all. lying straw man OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't really mean short term test. What I mean is that it is possible for a test like the above to alter the circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained previously, so it is not clear what is really being tested here. You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a waste of time. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a waste of time. In Middius' world, everybody but his disciples, the Stereophile's staff, and himself are crazy. But, Middius wastes his time with those crazy people, by the bucketload. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:25:52 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:34:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Ever hear of a phantom switch experience? I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting. In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them. But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting. Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver. You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because the listener *heard* them as different. The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system. It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be similarly fooled. So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point of them? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
The Krooborg trashes his christian "morality" whenever it's convenient. Like now, for example. You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a waste of time. In Middius' world, everybody but his disciples, the Stereophile's staff, and himself are crazy. Well, not exactly, Arnii. There's just you, the King of Mt. Crazy. Among that impoverished group of apologists you kling to like a barnakle, there's a couple of maladjusted cranks and a passel of class warriors. But no other crazies. You could see a shrink, you know. Maybe they have meds that would help you. Unless you're afraid the psychiatrists are part of the anti-Krooger plot, of course. ;-) |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton said:
So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point of them? They glow so nice ;-) -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:48:36 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be similarly fooled. So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point of them? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Nice of you to show how your reasoning is so skewed. What I'm saying is that I could fool YOU in just the same way. I could tell you that you were listening to your own Krell and substitute an SET that you claimed was inferior and I bet you a dollar to a doughnut that you'd buy it hook, line and sinker. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:
This debate could go on forever, but has kind of digressed from my main gripes about Science versus The Rest. I still maintain that Science is trying to prove things by not taking into account the unknown. The Subjectivist has a feeling something else is going on, and has experiential evidence to prove it. The Scientist, seeing no evidence of this, is saying that the Subjectivist is mistaken. Science bases it's conclusions by assuming that current knowledge is correct, I am still saying that this may not actually be true. Actaully, science 'says' that too. However, it requires that that you demonstrate *why* it may not actually be true. For any claim of 'truth' for science, there's a line -- more likely a network -- of repeatable evidence to back up *this* explanation and not *that* one. Networks of evidence are not equally strong for *all* explanations, except in the very early stages of an investigation. Where is the network of evidence for your claims And how does it compare in strength to the network of evidence for, say, the inherent fallibility of human perception? Go back to the early Astronomers - they were not stupid people, but of similar intellect of the scientists of today. (This is thought to be so because there were many Great Thinkers in History who were obviously very smart, and there is thought and puzzlement why there are not more of these Great Thinkers today). Anyway, they deduced eventually that the moving stars were in fact planets. An amazing discovery back then. Only some planets had weird paths - at some points they would even appear to go backwards. If we were discussing this phenomena back then instead of this one now, we would be arguing about what kind of forces are making this planet go backwards. (After all, nothing can move unless a force makes it move, can it?) Are there big invisible planets causing this, is there some unknown force or God doing this? Is it the human mind causing this? Is it an optical illusion? Yadda yadda yadda. Suddenly someone works out that we had all been assuming all along that the orbits were circular, and that an elliptical orbit explains everything. No force is making it move at all. Well, that's not true -- of course there's a force 'making' them move. But by all means, emulate the scientists and provide us with reality-based evidence and testable hypotheses for your claims. So in this current argument, what vital information are we missing? Science assumes so much as initial conditions - that mind cannot affect matter, each individual is in exactly the same reality as everyone else, collective conciousness cannot change reality, a thing canot occupy more than one space at one time etc etc. How much do you think we really know on this subject? Do you not think that in 100 years time we are going to see ourselves as the Early Astronomers in this field making the first tentaive steps to undserstanding it? By all means, emulate the scientists and provide us with reality-based evidence for your 'what-ifs', and testable hypotheses. Look at Quantum mechanics - extremely weird things going on. In some instances, merely observing a situation changes it. This occurs at sub-atomic levels. At 'macro' levels it's swamped by 'noise'. You could extrapolate this to the possibility that testing something in a Lab is not the same as a long listening test in a home environment, which is what Audiophiles prefer to do. *You* could make that extrapolation from quantum physics, but it's certainly not something that an actual physicist would do. Because they understand what they're talking about. Testing, looking for results, may in some way alter the experiment. We simply do not know and do not test for it. And look at time, for instance. There is no such thing as absolute time. Take 2 clocks, one up on a tower and the other at the bottom of it, and they will run at different times, as time is a function of gravity. This is well known. Which means that time is subjective. Each person has his own personal time. Time is measured by individual clocks on individual subjects. Extrapolate this a bit and you get the possibility that the Subjectivist take on individual realities is a very valid idea. And recently a scientist has apparently been showing evidence of the same particle being in 2 different places at the same time. Get your head around that one. (I can't qualify this though, I heard it from my brother - it is apparently documented in the film "What the bleep do we know"). A film funded by, and serving a propaganda for, some rather kooky religious characters. If you take this, and books liek 'The Tao of Physics' as indicators of what the evidence actually says, then it's no wonder your ideas are so wooly. And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow affect the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't. Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy. -- -S |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
In rec.audio.opinion Arny Krueger wrote: "George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a waste of time. In Middius' world, everybody but his disciples, the Stereophile's staff, and himself are crazy. But, Middius wastes his time with those crazy people, by the bucketload. I suspect the Stereophile staff would want to distance itself as far as possible from Mr. Middius. Agreed - its a unilateral arrangement. BTW, I think we've just seen another example of that. AFAIK there has been exactly one post from Middius on the new Stereophile conferences. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... What freeways do you drive on Gareth? If you're having routine blackouts while driving, pardon me if I want to be driving some place else. You'll be OK, I only drive on Motorways on the left hand side of the road. "At least" as far as you can remember. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Sillybot is still feeling the sting. I suspect the Stereophile staff would want to distance itself as far as possible from Mr. Middius. LOL! How much do you want to bet on that, Silly? I can wait until you grow up and get a real job. ;-) |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:34:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Ever hear of a phantom switch experience? I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting. In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them. But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting. Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver. You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because the listener *heard* them as different. The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system. It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be similarly fooled. On Sept. 20, 11.25am. dave weil said It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be similarly fooled You hit the nail on the head. In fact the experiment you suggest was already performed. ( see my reply to Mr. Magennis today). In a blind comparison of four loudspeakers two of which had large dips and peaks in the frequency curve large majority of the nearly 300 panelists failed to distinguish the good from the bad. But the same majority preferred the smooth frequency speakers to the inferior ones when not bothered with trying to distinguish them. So much for these homegrown, selfnominated "scientists'" two articles of belief.: 1) "You must be able to distinguish before you can prefer" 2) " Our beloved test shows that you can not tell the amps. preamps, cables, cd players, and dacs from each other because the differences either don't exist or are very "subtle". ("subtle" means: whatever he can't hear). Ah, they say but the loudspeakers are different- any fool can tell the difference. Well, Sean Olive found well over 200 fools who could not. What I find refreshing is that in your posting you bring the argument down to earth, where it belongs. The ABX cultists just love theoretical speculations- the more abstruse the better. It does not matter that they betray (like Sullivan talking about "real" and *unreal* perceptions) their ignorance of the last three millennia of perennial philosophical argument about the relation of human perceptions to the "reality" of the material world. It is all simple to them because they read one or two undergrad textbooks What they do not like is being challenged to show one single -publishable reference to experimental validation of their beloved "test"- a test in which the verdict was: "Yes the panel distinguished the components from each other". They can not because when ABXing it all sounds the same. As they have no answer they either grow silent in a huff, or talk about "kill-files" like Mr. Sullivan, or , reach for their inner obscene hooligan as you'll know who. Ludovic Mirabel ________ |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Denis Sbragion wrote: Hello Gareth, "Gareth Magennis" wrote in : My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as ... you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed? It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system, we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away, accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction actually works. Bye, -- . I agree with you. The web exchange of off- the- top- of- the= head speculations has little to do with audio. But my reasons for saying it are diametrically different. It is not because audio is a simple physical phenomenon about which we know all that there is to be known. On the contrary we know next to zero. At least I do and I suspect that you know fractionally less because I have superficial acquaintance with neurophysiology of the brain. Do you? Quite, quite, sound means waves that enter the ear. From then on the labyrinth and the cochlea and the acoustic nerve and the acoustic brain centres in the temporal lobe cortex and the countless synapses to the frontal cortex and other connexions we have yet to learn about get to work on it.. And neither you nor I have the foggiest what the brain makes of the complex , interweaving sound waves originated by a piece of music. How does a flutist tell the difference between two flutes? There is more complexity under the heavens than your textbooks had an inkling of. Ludovic Mirabel |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded great but the speakers!!!! ;-( Speakers and pianos in the same room? What genius thought that one up? Or did they have blankets to throw over the strings while they used the speakers? d The strings shouldn't vibrate much as long as the dampers are working correctly. The cabinet on the other hand...... |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow
affect the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't. Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy. This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy. For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation with Christopher Columbus and tried to explain to him how you talked to someone on the other side of the world on your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in your face. To get him to understand you would have to start with explaining electricity and then radio. Chances are the only way he could visualise these sorts of technology would be to think of them as some kind of "magic" or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the same attitude as yourself. Try and think just a little outside the box, please. Gareth. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy. Was there ever a more backwards piece of reasoning than this? It is the scientist who not only imagines, but creates the new possible. It is the religious mindset that dogmnatically refuses to permit forward thinking beyond what it has been dragged to, kicking and screaming by the scientist. For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation with Christopher Columbus and tried to explain to him how you talked to someone on the other side of the world on your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in your face. To get him to understand you would have to start with explaining electricity and then radio. Chances are the only way he could visualise these sorts of technology would be to think of them as some kind of "magic" or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the same attitude as yourself. Try and think just a little outside the box, please. Columbus wasn't a scientist - he was a Christian. d |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy. Was there ever a more backwards piece of reasoning than this? It is the scientist who not only imagines, but creates the new possible. It is the religious mindset that dogmnatically refuses to permit forward thinking beyond what it has been dragged to, kicking and screaming by the scientist. Actually Don, you are right. I am tarring all Scientists with the same brush. What I should be saying is "People with the attitude of Mr Sullivan....... " Gareth. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a character of its own
that is wholly unrelated to the normal audio content. Yes, if you keep triggering a short vocal sample for instance, it very quickly takes on a very non-human timbre. (Dance Music uses this for effect). We never hear identical repeats in the real world. Gareth. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow affect the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't. Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy. This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Wrong. Gareth, you seem to think that particle physics is full of unknowns and speculation, and that there have been no real-world experiments at all. Read again the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy. Gareth your idea of "unquestionable logic" makes religious belief look like factual certainty. For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation with Christopher Columbus and tried to explain to him how you talked to someone on the other side of the world on your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in your face. You really just don't know about that, do you Gareth? I suspect that with a proper foundation of experiences, Columbus would accept the facts and get on with his life. He seems to have been a fairly flexible fellow. To get him to understand you would have to start with explaining electricity and then radio. Not at all. A few simple demos would suffice. Maybe we'd start out with making a cellphone call while we were face-to-face and just have the demonstrators walk further and further apart. At some point it wouldn't be a leap of faith for Columbus to believe that it was now easy to speak over long distances. Chances are the only way he could visualise these sorts of technology would be to think of them as some kind of "magic" or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the same attitude as yourself. Try and think just a little outside the box, please. I think you ought to take your own advice, Gareth. Your idea of Science seems to be trapped in a tiny little box. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message "Don Pearce" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy. Was there ever a more backwards piece of reasoning than this? It is the scientist who not only imagines, but creates the new possible. It is the religious mindset that dogmnatically refuses to permit forward thinking beyond what it has been dragged to, kicking and screaming by the scientist. Actually Don, you are right. I am tarring all Scientists with the same brush. What I should be saying is "People with the attitude of Mr Sullivan....... " Mr. Sullivan's attitude is just fine. His *problem* is that he probably has a more relevant set of educational and life's experiences than you do, Gareth. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |