chris wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
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.

Er...I'm still not sure I can parse this as English, but I can at least
focus on the 'confirmed part:
It was confirmed *how*?


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.

Yes.

Saying you heard a difference does not necessarily mean that the difference was
really audible. I'm asking what other evidence, if any, was available to
support the perception of audibile difference. You mentioned a spectrum analysis
somewhere back there, that could be a starting point.

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.

Possibly, you are. Still, I wouldn;t conclude that as being a certainty,
without some good controlled listening comparison reports from you.

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.


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.

Are you familiar at all with the idea of a 'false positive'?

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.

There's no confusion on my end. What you claim to have heard, or observed,
did not necessarily happen. The 'change' was one of perception.

Surely you are familiar with optical illusions, where an image can be
'observed' to change depending
on how long you look at it...in fact the image doesn't change at all.
Only the *perception* changed.

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.

Well, yes, that's what I'm saying: it's true that you *thought* you heard
a difference -- I preseume sincerity on the part of such reporters --
but that's not by itself
always reliable evidence for making claims about the real world. Perceptual
biases exist; the data for *their* existence is quite extensive.
If you've got some other supporting evidence that *couldn't* have been affected by the
typical perceptual biases, then you;re on much better ground for rational
belief in the difference you thought you heard.

in the real world, if nothing is observerd then there is a tendancy not to
measure it.

That does seem to save time.


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 ??

Where indeed is the floor.

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.

I'll leave that for any reader who isn't utterly exhausted or bemused at this
point, to decide.



--
-S.