I have my Sim Audio Amp located on the bottom shelf of my audio rack.
The unit has good ventalation, and is not that heavy, so the shelf
accomadates it. Will an amp stand add a significant upgrade to the
sound?

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:00:29 GMT, (bill lytle)
wrote:

I have my Sim Audio Amp located on the bottom shelf of my audio rack.
The unit has good ventalation, and is not that heavy, so the shelf
accomadates it. Will an amp stand add a significant upgrade to the
sound?

Only if your amp is unbelievably microphonic, such as some SET
designs. Why the heck *would* a stand affect amplifier sound?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

This is a question that arouse controversy. If you read audiophile
magazines the answer is YES, there will be some upgrade. ("Significant"?
Always hard to define, given the tendency for hyperbole in magazines). If
you read RAHE posts the answer will often be as you read from Stewart
Pinkerton. NO.
Even if the stand helps the questions a
1. Will your bedroom system play loud enough to benefit from a stand?
2. Will any improvement be worth the considerable cost of the highly rated
stands?

That's why so many people experiment with home made solutions like inner
tube suspension, sandbags on top of components, etc.
I have no experience with stands, nor even anecdotal reports from others.
Good luck.
Wylie Williams

The problem is that a bedroo system "bill lytle" wrote
in message news:hi7_a.128010$uu5.18550@sccrnsc04...
I have my Sim Audio Amp located on the bottom shelf of my audio rack.
The unit has good ventalation, and is not that heavy, so the shelf
accomadates it. Will an amp stand add a significant upgrade to the
sound?

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

This is a question that arouse controversy. If you read audiophile
magazines the answer is YES, there will be some upgrade. ("Significant"?
Always hard to define, given the tendency for hyperbole in magazines). If
you read RAHE posts the answer will often be as you read from Stewart
Pinkerton. NO.
Even if the stand helps the questions a
1. Will your bedroom system play loud enough to benefit from a stand?
2. Will any improvement be worth the considerable cost of the highly rated
stands?

That's why so many people experiment with home made solutions like inner
tube suspension, sandbags on top of components, etc.
I have no experience with stands, nor even anecdotal reports from others.
Good luck.
Wylie Williams

In 1994 i conducted a bias controlled listening test of speaker stands. I
obtained 4 Snell speakers that I confirmed met there ).5 dB sample to sample
tolerance.

One pair were mounted on metal stands with spikes to the floor and to the
bottom of the speakers and loaded with 25 pounds of lead shot.

The other pair was mounted on the stamped steel stands that came with Bose 901s
which were duct-taped to empty cardboard 12-inch speaker cartons and height
matched with loose paperback books.

Listening was done in multiple sessions with the speaker sets rotated so that
every speaker/stand combination was rotated through every possible combination.
Blindness was accomodated with an acoustically transparent black cloth (swim
suit material) draped oveer the speakers.

Listeners had A/B switching control over every pair matching and were able to
retest anything at request.

In multiple sessions it was apparent that listeners 'prefered" a given
loudspeaker location BUT it didn't matter what the support method was employed.

IOW the speaker locations were important but the support method was not.

So forget your worries about stands. Use those that get the speakers to the
right location.

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:J2v_a.136388$o%2.58696@sccrnsc02...
This is a question that arouse controversy. If you read audiophile
magazines the answer is YES, there will be some upgrade. ("Significant"?
Always hard to define, given the tendency for hyperbole in magazines). If
you read RAHE posts the answer will often be as you read from Stewart
Pinkerton. NO.
Even if the stand helps the questions a
1. Will your bedroom system play loud enough to benefit from a stand?
2. Will any improvement be worth the considerable cost of the highly rated
stands?

That's why so many people experiment with home made solutions like inner
tube suspension, sandbags on top of components, etc.
I have no experience with stands, nor even anecdotal reports from others.
Good luck.
Wylie Williams

The problem is that a bedroo system "bill lytle"
wrote
in message news:hi7_a.128010$uu5.18550@sccrnsc04...
I have my Sim Audio Amp located on the bottom shelf of my audio rack.
The unit has good ventalation, and is not that heavy, so the shelf
accomadates it. Will an amp stand add a significant upgrade to the
sound?


Amp stands -well there's a nice controversey to start everyone going !!
As I remember most of this started when peeps started to rediscover Tube
amps and paid a lot of money for them: unlike previous times when because
tubes are teribly microphonic people would put them in specally built
cabinets, usally on a concrete slab or other, to ensure the they were
isolated as best as possible from the sound in the room.
However NOW they wanted to show off their mega-buck'd light bulbs, so they
had a problem, isolation platforms and bottle guards (sleeves, etc) were
"invented" and guess what, they worked - - nothing new here.
However the ritual treatment process was born.
Hence, some tried it with solidstate amps and it was found (by some) to make
a difference, probably due to a simular reason, (now solidstate devices
should not be microphonic therorectically speaking) but due to practical
phyical constuction & design of the components & amps themselves coupled
with the need to produce a device with a limited cost factor -the perfect
world does not exist, so microphony can creap in.
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.

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.
If you do you coud still save loads of $ by making your own as most work in
a contrained layer principle:- get another piece of MDF and sandwich the two
with 1/16 to 1/8 layer of PVA, ( bits of old nylon stockings can help in
building up the layers (an old trick from "valves, the first time around" +
beats "Noise Killer" anyday) ).

Good luck, let the forum know the results.

"chris" wrote in message
. net...
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:J2v_a.136388$o%2.58696@sccrnsc02...
This is a question that arouse controversy. If you read audiophile
magazines the answer is YES, there will be some upgrade. ("Significant"?
Always hard to define, given the tendency for hyperbole in magazines).
If
you read RAHE posts the answer will often be as you read from Stewart
Pinkerton. NO.
Even if the stand helps the questions a
1. Will your bedroom system play loud enough to benefit from a stand?
2. Will any improvement be worth the considerable cost of the highly
rated
stands?

That's why so many people experiment with home made solutions like inner
tube suspension, sandbags on top of components, etc.
I have no experience with stands, nor even anecdotal reports from
others.
Good luck.
Wylie Williams

The problem is that a bedroo system "bill lytle"
wrote
in message news:hi7_a.128010$uu5.18550@sccrnsc04...
I have my Sim Audio Amp located on the bottom shelf of my audio rack.
The unit has good ventalation, and is not that heavy, so the shelf
accomadates it. Will an amp stand add a significant upgrade to the
sound?


Amp stands -well there's a nice controversey to start everyone going !!
As I remember most of this started when peeps started to rediscover Tube
amps and paid a lot of money for them: unlike previous times when because
tubes are teribly microphonic people would put them in specally built
cabinets, usally on a concrete slab or other, to ensure the they were
isolated as best as possible from the sound in the room.
However NOW they wanted to show off their mega-buck'd light bulbs, so they
had a problem, isolation platforms and bottle guards (sleeves, etc) were
"invented" and guess what, they worked - - nothing new here.
However the ritual treatment process was born.
Hence, some tried it with solidstate amps and it was found (by some) to
make
a difference, probably due to a simular reason, (now solidstate devices
should not be microphonic therorectically speaking) but due to practical
phyical constuction & design of the components & amps themselves coupled
with the need to produce a device with a limited cost factor -the perfect
world does not exist, so microphony can creap in.
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.

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.
If you do you coud still save loads of $ by making your own as most work
in
a contrained layer principle:- get another piece of MDF and sandwich the
two
with 1/16 to 1/8 layer of PVA, ( bits of old nylon stockings can help in
building up the layers (an old trick from "valves, the first time around"
+
beats "Noise Killer" anyday) ).

Good luck, let the forum know the results.


Another good insolator is 1-1.5" thick cut pile carpet, two layers with the
top inverted. Then a slap on top of that. It works, itis cheap, and it
doesn't need inflation.

"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 !! 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.
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.

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 ?

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?

But getting slagged off, for "IMHO thoughts" seems to be what RAHE is all
about.
All it does is to stifle discussion (by scaring people away who don't want
to go head to head with someone over nearly every posting) and fails to
improve knowledge and understanding of the members, or its membership.

If someone doesn't know or is misguided then HELP THEM:
DON'T slag them, or tease something from their words that was not intended
or mis-put, most of us are only human.

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 !!


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?

This is, of course , a *far* cry from what you wrote in the first paragraph
quoted above, where *no* evidence other than subjective, was reported.
And of course, a difference in a spectrum analysis may or may not be audible.


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.


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 ?


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.


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?

But getting slagged off, for "IMHO thoughts" seems to be what RAHE is all
about.
All it does is to stifle discussion (by scaring people away who don't want
to go head to head with someone over nearly every posting) and fails to
improve knowledge and understanding of the members, or its membership.

If someone doesn't know or is misguided then HELP THEM:
DON'T slag them, or tease something from their words that was not intended
or mis-put, most of us are only human.

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.




--
-S.

"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.

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.