[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 06:48:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message


Some of the audible differences in
capacitors, for example, are clearly due to things we
can easily measure.

No, all of them.

Rather a sweeping generalization, the sweepingness of
which gets to the heart of the philosophy of science, and its
fundamental difference from religion.

Prove me wrong with a working example.

More specifically, no such statement can be made in
science, but is often made in religion.

No, it is not a sweeping generalization in the context that it is stated.

Science is *not* a method of hammering down loose nails;
it's a process for discovering which nails might be loose.

That's true, but how is it relevant to the discussion at hand?

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:16:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Some of the audible differences in
capacitors, for example, are clearly due to things we
can easily measure.

No, all of them.

Rather a sweeping generalization, the sweepingness of
which gets to the heart of the philosophy of science, and its
fundamental difference from religion.

Prove me wrong with a working example.

A reasonable demand if confined to our contemporary understanding.
But science *must* exceed our current understanding, by definition
a temporary thing. Our current understanding must be considered as
nothing more than the best model available to us, and *not* as a
revealed truth. Instead, our current model of _anything and
everything_ is properly thought of as temporarily useful, but
ultimately incorrect.

You're demanding, in effect, a self-contradiction from within your own
model. I'm demanding that you consider your model to be fundamentally
incomplete. We have different religions. That's life.


More specifically, no such statement can be made in
science, but is often made in religion.

No, it is not a sweeping generalization in the context that it is stated.

That context is within your model of reality. I only suggest
that our models, yours and mine and those of folks who'll come
after us, will *always* be wrong or at least mostly wrong.
That's science.

To insist that our personal, or even a well documented and
generally accepted, model has an objective reality is religion.


Science is *not* a method of hammering down loose nails;
it's a process for discovering which nails might be loose.

That's true, but how is it relevant to the discussion at hand?

A good question. The word "wire" in the title does seem to bring
out the wacky philosopher in *some* of us. Hey! I resemble that
remark!

Let me try one last time, and I'll bow out of this thread:

Science insists that we consider our models to be fundamentally,
finally *wrong*, in ways that we don't yet appreciate. We're a
modelling species - couldn't take a step without it - and have
a compelling need to believe our models. But it's an illusion.
Reality is forever beyond our grasp and reserved for the gods
and goddesses.

Belief in our models, belief in gods and goddesses... both
deep, deep within us, but not science.


Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Richard Crowley]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote ...
Science insists that we consider our models to be fundamentally,
finally *wrong*, in ways that we don't yet appreciate. We're a
modelling species - couldn't take a step without it - and have
a compelling need to believe our models. But it's an illusion.
Reality is forever beyond our grasp and reserved for the gods
and goddesses.

Belief in our models, belief in gods and goddesses... both
deep, deep within us, but not science.

And "science" presupposes a consistent and predictable
environment/universe. There would be no point to modeling
or even studying a random universe. One where petty gods
and godesses ruled at their whim.

[[email protected]]

In rec.audio.pro Richard Crowley wrote:
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote ...
Science insists that we consider our models to be fundamentally,
finally *wrong*, in ways that we don't yet appreciate. We're a
modelling species - couldn't take a step without it - and have
a compelling need to believe our models. But it's an illusion.
Reality is forever beyond our grasp and reserved for the gods
and goddesses.

Belief in our models, belief in gods and goddesses... both
deep, deep within us, but not science.

And "science" presupposes a consistent and predictable
environment/universe. There would be no point to modeling
or even studying a random universe. One where petty gods
and godesses ruled at their whim.

The Riemann Hypothesis has not been proven to be true. ;-)

[Ian Iveson]

Chris Hornbeck
...
But science *must* exceed our current understanding, by
definition
a temporary thing. Our current understanding must be
considered as
nothing more than the best model available to us, and
*not* as a
revealed truth. Instead, our current model of _anything
and
everything_ is properly thought of as temporarily useful,
but
ultimately incorrect.
...
Science insists that we consider our models to be
fundamentally,
finally *wrong*, in ways that we don't yet appreciate.
We're a
modelling species - couldn't take a step without it - and
have
a compelling need to believe our models. But it's an
illusion.
Reality is forever beyond our grasp and reserved for the
gods
and goddesses.

Belief in our models, belief in gods and goddesses...
both
deep, deep within us, but not science.

Is this the dominant view of science in America?

I blame that lying cheating scoundrel, Popper.

It was not always so. There was a time, Bacon springs to
mind, when it was thought that science is different because
we can use it to change the world, and everytime it is
useful in that way, we know more. God doesn't make
capacitors, that's the big difference.

It is quite possible that science will redefine itself again
sometime. Maybe it already has but we don't know yet. It is
also quite possible IMO that science might be over, in that
we now know nearly all the science there can be...barring
the sifting through details. Arny could be right that all
audible differences in capacitors can be measured by
science, and it may be true that science can show that,
since everything is accounted for, there is nothing left for
it to measure.
It may also be true that those audible differences could be
understood more completely using some method currently
outside the scope of science as you or I define it.

Science alone doesn't make good musical instruments or
domestic audio systems, and neither does god. It is more
reasonable IMO to suggest that science will never fully
explain wire, in that when science as we currently define it
has fully informed itself about wire, there will yet be more
to know.

Some time in the future, some new formal method for the
pursuit of knowledge will reveal what it was that those
domestic audio systems were *for*. That may shed more light
on the wire thing.

Ian

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:17:37 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

something beautifully Joyceian but inapplicable

"Yes, I said. Yes, I will, yes."

But no, no connection to the scientific philosophy which
is our only hope. The ages of beauty are over; if we're
to think our way out of the scary ages of horror on the
horizon, only a rationalist, deeply, deeply, scientific
viewpoint will sustain us.

Good ****ing luck.

And now, I'm rilly, rilly outta the thread. I'll start a
new one in rec.audio.philosophy .

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:16:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Some of the audible differences in
capacitors, for example, are clearly due to things we
can easily measure.

No, all of them.

Rather a sweeping generalization, the sweepingness of
which gets to the heart of the philosophy of science,
and its fundamental difference from religion.

Prove me wrong with a working example.

snip paragraph after paragraph of personal philosophy, which has one clear
real-world meaning - Chris can't meet a simple practical scientific
challenge.

In the end Chris, this is all about microphones, not someone's elaborate
philosoply of the meaning of life. I don't buy engineer's life's philosophy,
I buy the microphones that he designs because they sound good. If the guy is
an atheist or Buddhist or Mormon, and his mics are what I'm in the market
for, then we've got a deal!

[Ian Iveson]

Arny Krueger wrote

In the end Chris, this is all about microphones, not
someone's elaborate philosoply of the meaning of life. I
don't buy engineer's life's philosophy, I buy the
microphones that he designs because they sound good. If
the guy is an atheist or Buddhist or Mormon, and his mics
are what I'm in the market for, then we've got a deal!

No logic Arny, I'm afraid. You could equally say that you
don't care if the microphone is made of green cheese, as
long as it sounds good. Point being that it wouldn't. Have
you checked that Buddhists, Mormons and atheists do actually
all make good microphones?

If you wanted an innovative microphone, one that would
embody more than received wisdom and common practice, I
suggest the atheist would be your best bet.

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Iveson" wrote in
message
.uk

Arny Krueger wrote

In the end Chris, this is all about microphones, not
someone's elaborate philosoply of the meaning of life. I
don't buy engineer's life's philosophy, I buy the
microphones that he designs because they sound good. If
the guy is an atheist or Buddhist or Mormon, and his mics
are what I'm in the market for, then we've got a deal!

No logic Arny, I'm afraid.

I repeat, when I acquire equipment I buy a piece of equipment, not the
life's philosophy of the guy who designed or built it. To do otherwise puts
you on the slippery slope of religious/cultural/racial prejudice.

You could equally say that you
don't care if the microphone is made of green cheese, as
long as it sounds good.

That's excluded middle illogic.

Point being that it wouldn't. Have
you checked that Buddhists, Mormons and atheists do
actually all make good microphones?

I believe so. And this isn't because I tried to find out what the religous
preferences of the designers were, itn is just that I have stumbled over
some incidental knowlege, and I have met a few people in the industry.

If you wanted an innovative microphone, one that would
embody more than received wisdom and common practice, I
suggest the atheist would be your best bet.

Stereotyping and religious prejudice noted.

If you say that as a rule that atheists make the best microphone designers,
its really about the same as saying that people who belong to certain racial
or cultural group(s) aren't all that bright. If that's your life's
philosophy, then you have my regrets.

[Ian Iveson]

Arny Krueger wrote

In the end Chris, this is all about microphones, not
someone's elaborate philosoply of the meaning of life.
I
don't buy engineer's life's philosophy, I buy the
microphones that he designs because they sound good. If
the guy is an atheist or Buddhist or Mormon, and his
mics
are what I'm in the market for, then we've got a deal!

No logic Arny, I'm afraid.

I repeat, when I acquire equipment I buy a piece of
equipment, not the life's philosophy of the guy who
designed or built it. To do otherwise puts you on the
slippery slope of religious/cultural/racial prejudice.

You could equally say that you
don't care if the microphone is made of green cheese, as
long as it sounds good.

That's excluded middle illogic.

Point being that it wouldn't. Have
you checked that Buddhists, Mormons and atheists do
actually all make good microphones?

I believe so. And this isn't because I tried to find out
what the religous preferences of the designers were, itn
is just that I have stumbled over some incidental
knowlege, and I have met a few people in the industry.

OK, but some kind of objective survey would be
required...blind testing perhaps.

If you wanted an innovative microphone, one that would
embody more than received wisdom and common practice, I
suggest the atheist would be your best bet.

Stereotyping and religious prejudice noted.

Not prejudice. It's my summary judgement based on experience
and analysis. Could change.

If you say that as a rule that atheists make the best
microphone designers, its really about the same as saying
that people who belong to certain racial or cultural
group(s) aren't all that bright. If that's your life's
philosophy, then you have my regrets.

Nonsense, no-one is born with a belief in god. Neither did I
suggest that theists aren't bright, whatever bright means.
It's just that I would be more inclined to trust a designer
whose beliefs are based entirely on direct evidence, and
whose devotion is not divided. The problem would be how to
spot a real theist...lots of religious people just pretend.
Were I ever to require the services of a microphone
designer, I would ask for a statement of beliefs, and how
they are related to microphone design. I would be wary of
any who believe that god will help in the design work,
because I suspect He won't show up.

cheers, Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Iveson" wrote in
message
. uk

If you say that as a rule that atheists make the best
microphone designers, its really about the same as saying
that people who belong to certain racial or cultural
group(s) aren't all that bright. If that's your life's
philosophy, then you have my regrets.

Nonsense, no-one is born with a belief in god.

Nobody is born as a fully-fledged member of any cultural group. Take a baby
at birth, move him to a different cultural group, and raise him there.

Racial lines very blurred, genetically speaking. For example, was Hitler a
jew?

Neither did I suggest that theists aren't bright, whatever bright
means.

Really? You as much as said that theists can't as a rule design mics as well
as atheists.

It's just that I would be more inclined to trust a
designer whose beliefs are based entirely on direct
evidence, and whose devotion is not divided.

But atheism is no guarantee of undivided devotion. Contrary to popular
belief, it doesn't take a lot of brights to be an atheist.

The problem
would be how to spot a real theist...lots of religious
people just pretend.

Agreed that this is an additional problem with your implicit praise based
solely on being a professing atheist.

Were I ever to require the services
of a microphone designer, I would ask for a statement of
beliefs, and how they are related to microphone design.

Call me foolish, but I would be very much more interested in things like
sound quality, durabilty, and price.

I would be wary of any who believe that god will help in
the design work, because I suspect He won't show up.

I would be suspect of anybody who said: "Buy mics from me because I'm [fill
in your choice of ideologies].

cheers, Ian

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:16:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Some of the audible differences in
capacitors, for example, are clearly due to things we
can easily measure.

No, all of them.

Rather a sweeping generalization, the sweepingness of
which gets to the heart of the philosophy of science,
and its fundamental difference from religion.

Prove me wrong with a working example.

snip paragraph after paragraph of personal philosophy, which has one clear
real-world meaning - Chris can't meet a simple practical scientific
challenge.

Arny, you are truly full of **** right up to your forehead.

Amen.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Paul Stamler wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip

I don't believe in magic, and when confronted by
pseudoscience my bull**** detector goes off loudly. But I
also don't believe that *all* phenomena reported by audio
professionals without an axe to grind are imaginary,
simply because we don't *yet* have a scientific
explanation for them.

We're not talking about calling all phenomena reported by audio
professionals without an axe to grind imaginary, we're talking about
a goodly collection of audio phenomina for which there is no known
scientific explanation.

Sure, but there's a tendency among some folks to say that because there's no
known scientific explanation, the anecdotal reports must therefore be wrong
(or stronger words). Probably some of them are. But I'll wager that some are
not, and the scientific explanations -- like those for the nature of dark
matter -- await discovery.


Expectation effects, placebo effects, etc are known scientific explanations.

The problem with the anecdotal reports isn't that they require new
scientific explanations; it's that they fail to rule out the ones already
available.




___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Mogens V.]

Eeyore wrote:

Geoff wrote:


Ty Ford wrote:

oops! Snneezed and hit the send.

Guitar cords.

Check Louis out at http://www,gothamaudiousa.com

Weirder yet, I don't see the pre-sneeze post....

Anyway. We heard differences when comparing the house belden with
Gotham GAC-3 and EMT 2220 a few years ago. Subtle, but it was there.

Maybe you moved your head, furniture, or listening position a few inches,
or yawned. That should totally swamp any cable differences.


Or had a slight cold etc etc.

One's hearing is an utterly unreliable benchmark and readily enhanced with drugs
too. Things sound SO much nicer after some cannabis for example.

Though way way back, AFAIR it just made for a more.. retracted sound.
A Bit like smoking cigarettes impairs night vision - which might make
the opposite sex look better, being less cabable of depicting details..

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Iracord]

Originally Posted by Arny Krueger

Yet another forgery from the buzzardnews forger.

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
I just uncovered a copy of Recording magazine from Oct 2001, and the
theme for this issue was mastering. They interviewed Doug Sax, and
when asked about what wire he used at the Mastering Lab, here's what
he said:

"We have done extensive listening to wire.We use Alpha
1775C.

Doug Sax is a washed-up has been. Probably still using tape machines
instead
of high performance digital PCs. I've found that most of these ex-sound
engineers that have a hit or two usually then try to make money by whoring
themselves as experts for sound equipment manufacturers. That's how
Monster
Cable started, because in my extensive listening this junk is about the
worst product available.

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894
(310) 237-6511

Hey Bob,

I am a Recording Engineer/Composer in LA and have worked with Doug Sax on Many projects! He is a BRILLIANT, Dedicated, Honest, and Funny Mastering Engineer who has credits with Pink Floyd, Neil Young, James Taylor, and a zillion other top artists who TRUST his Ears and Knowledge!
So...he's "washed up"???!!! What the F*#K have YOU done!?
You probably never even...Started!!!

Please, Bobby...do NOT talk about such things that you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are babbling about!!!

MOST sincerely,

Ira