"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
chris wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:rhS%a.171115$Ho3.21266@sccrnsc03...
chris wrote:
I had tended not to believe in such for SS amps but I have heard
some
changes by using a platform (I know anacdoteal evidance only, but as
I'm
not
going for a nobel prize, I didnt look at collecting any quantifiable
data)
my ears were enough for me to know something was happening.

I see this statement *a lot* on audiophile forums. It seems to speak
of some sort of logical conflict within subjectivist. On the one hand,
they
acknowledge implicitly that the best-quality, most reliable
determination of audible difference -- presumably the one used by
'Nobel prizewinners' -- involves controls for bias. On the other
hand they insist that their ears are enough to 'know' that something
was happening.

Here we go again: nit-picking over selected parts of a general
statement.
but I will answer this point. I was given the opertuninty to question a
manufacture over a peice of their kit (the platform) and they accepted
my
chalange and offered to prove their claim or disprove my view. At the
time I
heard this I did not have a single piece of test equipment with me, save
for
a binural spectrum analizer linked to a megaflop parallel processing
computer but as it didnt have a chart recorder nor a display unit
connected
so no perminant record was possible except for my memory noteing a
differance. But differances were noted, therfore something was
happening - -
Not subjectivist nor in conflict, nor bigoted. just a subjective
observation. As an engineer I tend to beleive in things that work !!

** snip **
If I translate this correctly, you're saying that a difference you believe
you heard, also manifested itself in a spectrum analysis of the outputs of
two different units?

No The "manifestation was on one unit only an amplifier, in 2 senario's 1
with and 1 without a platform in as simple AB test that was repeated 2 with
platform, without platform, with platform, without platform, and returned to
the orignal config with platform, with each change their was a difference,
this difference was confirmed in the tests to be with and without platform,
although the difference was subtle it was persevable.

And of course, a difference in a spectrum analysis may or may not be
audible.
The results were audible - do you have a problem with my english in the
original statement.

wether
they fit with the considered view (which is often not of science but
"scientific fashon" of the day) My view is: if i can here a differance
then
it should be measurable as well, and to increase our understanding where
posible it should be measured and recorded by what ever means.

That's my view as well. But there was nothing about that in the psot I
quoted,
where you made the common audiophile claim that your ears (in a sighted
comparison) are enough for you
to *know* there was a difference.

Nor am I so arrogant to asume that cos I lernt xyz at college, zxy is
wrong,
or that I have all the answers, (because in 95+% of fits of; "I know
best",
I usually get proven WRONG). Like most things they teach its to get you
through the exams and if it teaches you to think independantly as well -
that's an extra. After all the still teach electricians that the charge
carrier is the electon. probably because the plumbers doing the
conversion
course could not get thier heads around E-M field theory.


There's no 'independent thinking' involved in saying 'if I think I heard
something, it's real'.
It's a *very* common, albeit poorly supported, belief among audiophiles.

What do you mean by this statement.
The purpose of buying Hi-Fi and of high-end is in order to create an
illusion that what you hear from your speakers is an representation of the
orignial sound image that was played by the musisian (asuming the rec-eng
did his job properly). therefore it (Hi-Fi) IS A SUBJECTIVE issue at the end
of the day, else we might as well all sell our equipment and buy an Amstrad
or Realistic box from rat shack, as, (being an objectivist) I can't see any
difference on my scope or millivoltmeter between those and a Mark Levinson,
therfore as my instruments are not incorrect (being an objectivist) ,I must
be suffering from a severe case of selfdelusion. et all.

But my illusionany atempt at reproduction of the orignal material gives me
pleasure, it my hobby, not some curesade to justify exhustive imperical
analysis for no other reason than you can.
If you wish to do this that's fine go ahead, I would not dream of diswaiding
you, I might even co-operate and assist in an investigation, if my desire
was to do so.

I perviosly wrote
Before spending any money on isolation why dont you try a little
experiment
yourself. Since your in the bedroom, put the amp on a piece of wood
or
MDF
and put a pillow between it and the shelf. if you dont hear a
differance
then dont waste your money.

Of course, if he 'knows' he heard a difference, but it's only based
on this test, then it's quite likely he still wasted his money.

Now picking apart a simple turn of phrase - - did you fail your bar
qualifcation ? or are you just being supersilious ?

"Steven Sullivan" also wrote
Actually, the assertion that one 'knows' they heard a difference,
versus assertion using more qualifired language, is at the heart
of all 'objectivsit vs. subjectivist' debates. Whether you really
*know* what you think you *know*; whether the reason for what you
heard , is the *true* reason: these are all the same question.

one 'knows' they heard a difference is a subjective FACT.

Whether you really *know* what you think you *know*; whether the reason
for what you
heard ,
I think you maybe a liitle confused here; if you mean whether you know the
reason for what you you heard? this does NOT diminsh that FACT that "it
WAS" heard, whether you know or understand what you heard or not, is
irrelevant! the fact still remains, a change was observed. And only some
form of futher investigation would then need to be conducted to verify the
observerd phemomina and convert it to a quantifiable FACT.
in the real world, if nothing is observerd then there is a tendancy not to
measure it.

this test : does his amp need a isolation platform ? what other test
was
under discussion here? or do you have a bank of them he should apply,
before doing anything else. And who should then verify the results.
thats
what I meant by not going for the nobel prize or are you volunteering to
make a room and furnish it the same as his just to make sure that no
possible voodoo is being done. and publish the results in AES or other.

At the end of the day I was just trying to help this guy out with my
thoughts - - this was what I thought fora were about or is RAHE
something
else?

Pointing out the possible flaws in the logic of someone's 'help',
in this case could save the original poster some money. Pointing out
how often people claim to 'know' they heard stuff, and pointing
out the caveats that shoudl accompany this claim, could help the
original poster make sense of the torrents of advice he could
get via the INternet.

What possible flaw is there in my logic.
The poster (who's name seems now to have disappeaed of the forum, to him im
sorry that I have forgotten your name), asked a question?
I gave a reply in the form of: my (qualified) opinon and the effects I had
observed, and "a" posible simple test to acertain if: possibly somthing
simular, just might apply to his setup.
where is the floor in that logic ??

in this case could save the original poster some money
as well as a suggestion of (one) possibly much cheaper solution that an
expensive isolation platform that has been based appon some experiments I
carried out on isolation using "noise killer" and other alternatives. I was
NOT compelling this or any member to spend ANY MONEY in any direction. and
if it didnt "make a hapenth of difference" then he would'nt waste his time
as well.
- - So I conclude that I met this objective.

I think that you have backed yourself into a corner and are just trying to
create arguments out of some very thin air.