what cdp is good for vocal, jazz music please, give an advice - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-24-2010, 02:37 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post

Chris,

Just curious, what CD player are you using? It's not high end is it?

Musical Fidelity A 3.5. I guess I would consider that rather high end, though not as exorbitant of some stuff.

I didn't buy it new though. I wanted to be sure it was already broken-in to sound the best. (I'm kidding! )
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-24-2010, 02:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS1977 View Post

...When you say a cdp "may" sound different do you mean in terms of distortion, etc., or you mean in terms of sonic signature or house sound that many manufacturers have?

Distortion differences certainly will show up on the specs especially if a 3rd party conducted the testing, honestly
Sonic signatures will also show up as frequency variations.
And, from psychoacoustic research one gets a pretty good idea how much of that variation may be audible.
CharlesJ is offline  
Old 01-24-2010, 05:16 PM
Member
 
SMS1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekhd View Post

Why? Looks like you've answered it yourself.
l
V

Is that the same person who refuses to answer this question I asked?

How have I answered it myself?

Not sure who you were referring to with the link, I was actually referring to Chris's mention of gravity on p.4 of this thread
SMS1977 is offline  
Old 01-24-2010, 07:18 PM
 
geekhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS1977 View Post

How have I answered it myself?

By inadvertently pointing out the need for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS1977 View Post

what one person says constitutes proof another may not.

How would you know that? Perhaps there is a proof that confirms such speculation.

Quote:


Further, we all know that studies can show anything (i.e. studies will show that smoking does cause cancer and others show it does not).

Wouldn't that be called inconclusive?

Quote:


Look at the environmental report that was in the news right before the Denmark conference because the results had been doctored to show greater environmental problems than were true.

And it's called fraud.

Quote:


Studies can be made to show anything. If someone believes that cdp's DO make a difference than they can design a test, conduct research in a manner that will show those results.

How do you know, did you find someone who did?

Quote:


The same is true if they believe the opposite. The fact is peoples biases can affect their research, scientific reports, studies, etc.

So, the conclusion of different CDPs audibly indistinguishable originated from someone's belief and not after a test such as level matched, time synced DBT? And how do you know this?

Quote:


So really it is a matter of what you believe and what your senses tell you.

If you can answer the questions above, perhaps you are onto something since you are drawing this conclusion from the points you wrote above.

Quote:


Take an example I think someone may have referred to earlier - gravity. The fact that gravity has been scientifically proven to exist hasn't changed anything about gravity. That is, if it had never been scientifically proven to exist would you really deny its existance?

And CDP equivalent of this is?
geekhd is offline  
Old 01-24-2010, 07:29 PM
 
geekhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Musical Fidelity A 3.5.

Are you basing your conclusion about CDPs on that and another one you compared?
geekhd is offline  
Old 01-24-2010, 08:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Sonic icons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lafayette, Colorado
Posts: 358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS1977 View Post

Geekhd:

Why is "proof" so important? I put the would proof in quotes because what one person says constitutes proof another may not. Further, we all know that studies can show anything (i.e. studies will show that smoking does cause cancer and others show it does not). Look at the environmental report that was in the news right before the Denmark conference because the results had been doctored to show greater environmental problems than were true.

Studies can be made to show anything. If someone believes that cdp's DO make a difference than they can design a test, conduct research in a manner that will show those results. The same is true if they believe the opposite. The fact is peoples biases can affect their research, scientific reports, studies, etc.

So really it is a matter of what you believe and what your senses tell you. Take an example I think someone may have referred to earlier - gravity. The fact that gravity has been scientifically proven to exist hasn't changed anything about gravity. That is, if it had never been scientifically proven to exist would you really deny its existance?

Oh, you've absolutely convinced me. It's impossible for any human being, or any group of human beings working together, to obtain any general or theoretical understanding of any part of the laws that govern the behavior of any part of the physical universe. "Studies can be made to shown anything", all studies are nothing but personal bias. Proving scientifically that something exists doesn't change anything about it. In fact the words "science" and "proof" are both completely meaningless, "really it is a matter of what you believe and what your senses tell you".

Therefore, of course, it isn't possible to use our general or theoretical understanding of any part of the laws that govern the behavior of any part of the physical universe (since these words and concepts are all completely meaningless) in order to design and manufacture devices and systems that perform certain physical functions in repeatable and predictable ways - such as reproducing patterns of light and sound that people find pleasing or interesting: "recorded music", "photography", "video", "movies", and so on. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY, OR ANY SORT OF TECHNOLOGY, LISTEN TO SMS1977, IT'S ALL A FAKE.

SMS1977, I suggest that you send me all your useless, non-existent and non-functional, fake "consumer electronics". I will take good care of this gear and protect you from its unpredictable and potentially dangerous behavior.

On second thought, to communicate with me to arrange details of this transfer, you would need to use some such device as a "personal computer", "telephone", "cell phone" or "personal communications device". These don't exist. If they did exist, their behavior would be so unpredictable and unknowable that the first operation you attempted to perform (like pushing a "power on button") might instantly annihilate you and everyone else in your community. So don't even try it! Good luck, sorry won't be hearing from you again though.
Sonic icons is offline  
Old 01-24-2010, 10:01 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekhd View Post

Are you basing your conclusion about CDPs on that and another one you compared?

Most recently. But I also have compared between a sony CD changer, an NAD 521i, the MF A 3.5, the dacs in a Marantz receiver, and in my current Denon 5308, over the years.

The argument that all decent DACs and CD players sound the same is not a reasonable argument in my experience.

The current difference I can test readily is between the A3.5 and my denon 5308. The difference is not small in my testing. Further, I have on several occasions unintentionally switched between them (A/D input selection) or switched and forgotten later, and readily been able to tell that something was amiss through listening and noticing the distinctly different presentation.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 01-24-2010, 10:17 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS1977 View Post

Geekhd:

Why is "proof" so important? I put the would proof in quotes because what one person says constitutes proof another may not. Further, we all know that studies can show anything (i.e. studies will show that smoking does cause cancer and others show it does not). Look at the environmental report that was in the news right before the Denmark conference because the results had been doctored to show greater environmental problems than were true.

Studies can be made to show anything. If someone believes that cdp's DO make a difference than they can design a test, conduct research in a manner that will show those results. The same is true if they believe the opposite. The fact is peoples biases can affect their research, scientific reports, studies, etc.

That's where scientific rigor comes in, in designing a test actually capable of addressing the question. And that's where peer review comes in. The test methodology is detailed, such that others can critique it if the methodology omits important things.

In the case of most audio comparisons which are meaningless, the major error is sighted testing, which renders tests on small audible differences entirely meaningless. That means the test is completely not rigorous at all, and yields no valid results. One can say "but I heard a difference" but that result is not supported by the test.

So you can design any test you want and then say "look it proves X" but that's a ridiculous statement. It doesn't mean that the test was valid or that the conclusion can actually be supported by the test results.

It is simply not true that you can make a test to show anything. You can try to do that, but only be doing so in an unrigorous and hence meaningless way, and asserting conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.

I could throw a ball over a fence and say: "look gravity doesn't actually exist because the ball didn't come back down." Nobody looking at that test would describe it as a rigorous test of gravitational theory, and nobody would at all agree that my conclusion is supported by my test.

Quote:
So really it is a matter of what you believe and what your senses tell you.

No. Nonsense.

Quote:
Take an example I think someone may have referred to earlier - gravity. The fact that gravity has been scientifically proven to exist hasn't changed anything about gravity. That is, if it had never been scientifically proven to exist would you really deny its existance?

Let's not confuse things together. Gravity is a fact. There's nothing proven about gravity, and no need to prove it. It is an observable fact, accessible to science by direct observation. We know, factually, that a force which we've named gravity exists. That's not what science tells us. Science designs tests to understand the nature of that force, and attempt to explain what causes it. That is where science develops theories of gravity to explain what we have factually observed. And work on those theories continues to this day because we do not have a complete understanding or a complete model of physics. That doesn't throw into question whether or not gravity exists. It certainly does, factually and observably so. But we do not have a complete theory of gravity.

This distinction might be made more clear by a situation where the terminology differs between what we're observing factually and the theories we have to explain it: evolution. Evolution is not a theory. It, like gravity, is a directly observable phenomenon, a fact. We have developed theories to explain the mechanisms by which this occurs, namely natural selection. Whether we have a robust and complete theory of gravity or of natural selection doesn't impact the factual existence of the gravitational force or of evolution. Neither of those things are debatable, they are direct observations, which are as close to what a layperson could characterize as a "fact" as science can come.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 06:30 PM
 
geekhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
ldgibson76, ddgtr, Rwetmore, Waboman and Hammie, this is awesome, no?
geekhd is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 06:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 327
Quote:


Evolution is not a theory. It, like gravity, is a directly observable phenomenon, a fact.

Well, let's be precise. Evolution is indeed a scientific theory, based on observable facts (the fossil record, etc.). A scientific theory is not merely a hypothesis, however. A hypothesis has yet to be tested—it is not based on observable facts, but requires us to produce observable facts to support it.

A theory can be falsified, but only by observable facts which contradict it. We have a theory of the sensitivity of the human hearing mechanism, and breathlessly await observable facts which contradict it.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 07:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JorgeLopez11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MEXICO CITY
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Last time I visited avsforum there were some threads with questions similar to OP question: What is a good CD player for vocals.....

Any CD player is good (or bad) for any kind of music. The sonic differences between different CD players are real and measurable... but they're extreeeeeemely difficult to notice in the typical domestic audio environment.

When differences are apparent, they're usually due to differences in CD level output... When level matching is done, the differences dissapear...

Is it so difficult to understand?
JorgeLopez11 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 07:49 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Well, let's be precise. Evolution is indeed a scientific theory, based on observable facts (the fossil record, etc.). A scientific theory is not merely a hypothesis, however. A hypothesis has yet to be testedit is not based on observable facts, but requires us to produce observable facts to support it.

A theory can be falsified, but only by observable facts which contradict it. We have a theory of the sensitivity of the human hearing mechanism, and breathlessly await observable facts which contradict it.

Evolution is not a theoretical construct, because it can be observed directly, hence why it is described as fact. It, like gravity, is not a theoretical idea. It's a directly observable phenomenon. We construct theories to explain that direct observation, hence natural selection, or more broadly 'evolutionary theory.' But evolution itself isn't a theorized occurrence, it is a directly observed phenomenon. That's why it is factual. Science's attempts are to understand the methods by which this phenomenon occurs and plays out in history, much as we have theories that describe the fact of gravity.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 09:25 PM
 
geekhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post


Is it so difficult to understand?

No, but difficult to admit after spending a big chunk of money on a CDP.
geekhd is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 06:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 319 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Mr. Lopez! Where have you been?!

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
Old 01-26-2010, 07:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
commsysman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,301
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekhd View Post

ldgibson76, ddgtr, Rwetmore, Waboman and Hammie, this is awesome, no?

"awesome"...???

Somewhere in Tanzania, on the backside of an elephant, there is a flea who might take a second or two to seriously contemplate some of these ruminations.

I fear, however, that anyone with extensive experience in audio is likely to find it all rather tedious and insignificant.
commsysman is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 08:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
commsysman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,301
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Most recently. But I also have compared between a sony CD changer, an NAD 521i, the MF A 3.5, the dacs in a Marantz receiver, and in my current Denon 5308, over the years.

The argument that all decent DACs and CD players sound the same is not a reasonable argument in my experience.

The current difference I can test readily is between the A3.5 and my denon 5308. The difference is not small in my testing. Further, I have on several occasions unintentionally switched between them (A/D input selection) or switched and forgotten later, and readily been able to tell that something was amiss through listening and noticing the distinctly different presentation.

What you are saying sounds completely reasonable to me; my experiences are similar.

You realize, however, that before you can even BEGIN to get your opinions taken seriously here you will have to provide some people with extensive details on your double-blind test protocols and a list of the experts who were present, not to mention a 20-page paper complete with photographs and references detailing your room treatments!!!
commsysman is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 10:14 AM
 
geekhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

"awesome"...???

Somewhere in Tanzania, on the backside of an elephant, there is a flea who might take a second or two to seriously contemplate some of these ruminations.

I fear, however, that anyone with extensive experience in audio is likely to find it all rather tedious and insignificant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

What you are saying sounds completely reasonable to me; my experiences are similar.

You realize, however, that before you can even BEGIN to get your opinions taken seriously here you will have to provide some people with extensive details on your double-blind test protocols and a list of the experts who were present, not to mention a 20-page paper complete with photographs and references detailing your room treatments!!!

The one who claims to be an expert in this field with over 20 years of teaching classes now resorts to trolling. That's some example you are setting for the younger generation.
Sad day indeed.
geekhd is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 10:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
commsysman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,301
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekhd View Post

The one who claims to be an expert in this field with over 20 years of teaching classes now resorts to trolling. That’s some example you are setting for the younger generation.
Sad day indeed.

In my teaching days, as department chairman and professor, I had to restrain myself from poking fun at those who it was not possible to take seriously.

Now that I am retired, I no longer feel the need to be quite so circumspect.

You have NO idea how sad it makes me feel that you consider me a bad example for the young; my golf game needs some improvement, too...and my Prius needs an oil change.
commsysman is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 10:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JorgeLopez11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MEXICO CITY
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:


No, but difficult to admit after spending a big chunk of money on a CDP.

Yes Geekhd, I know it.

Quote:


Mr. Lopez! Where have you been?!

Hi Chu. Last year was very tiring for me. A lot of work abroad and few time to visit this site.
JorgeLopez11 is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 02:03 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

What you are saying sounds completely reasonable to me; my experiences are similar.

You realize, however, that before you can even BEGIN to get your opinions taken seriously here you will have to provide some people with extensive details on your double-blind test protocols and a list of the experts who were present, not to mention a 20-page paper complete with photographs and references detailing your room treatments!!!

That's quite reasonable actually.

That's the only way I feel confident in my conclusions is because I checked what I thought I heard by blind testing to verify that I was not just hearing expectation bias.

If not for that, I wouldn't forward my auditory experiences as meaningful or robust because they cannot be defended without a robust test design to support them.

Having participated in a much more robust blind test of cabling, and doing it both sighted and blinded, it really drove home the point that even with a very serious objective intent, expectation bias can be very convincing in any sighted test even for me. That's why, unless it's a blind test, it has absolutely no merit if the audible differences purportedly under test are small.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 02:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

....

Is it so difficult to understand?

Me too, but yes, for some it is most difficult as then they would have to admit being wrong all this time and change their belief system
But, science does that all the time, self correcting. Faith is not self correcting though.

Too bad you are not posting more, but at least you are working
CharlesJ is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Well, let's be precise. Evolution is indeed a scientific theory, based on observable facts (the fossil record, etc.). A scientific theory is not merely a hypothesis, however. A hypothesis has yet to be testedit is not based on observable facts, but requires us to produce observable facts to support it.

A theory can be falsified, but only by observable facts which contradict it. We have a theory of the sensitivity of the human hearing mechanism, and breathlessly await observable facts which contradict it.

Yep, in science there are laws, theories and so forth. Unfortunately some may confuse a fact as being a law perhaps but not yet there? Or, that a scientific theory is one step removed from being a law which is just not the case.
I think gravity is also a scientific theory, as is the germ theory atomic theory, etc.
CharlesJ is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 02:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Evolution is not a theoretical construct, because it can be observed directly, hence why it is described as fact. It, like gravity, is not a theoretical idea. It's a directly observable phenomenon. We construct theories to explain that direct observation, hence natural selection, or more broadly 'evolutionary theory.' But evolution itself isn't a theorized occurrence, it is a directly observed phenomenon. That's why it is factual. Science's attempts are to understand the methods by which this phenomenon occurs and plays out in history, much as we have theories that describe the fact of gravity.

I think you need to read some of these interesting pages explaining scientific theories, laws, etc.
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...scientific+law

Evolution IS a scientific theory. AND, there is a difference between a scientific theory and how the general public uses the word 'theory.'
There is not a category that is called a scientific 'fact.'
CharlesJ is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 02:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

...You realize, however, that before you can even BEGIN to get your opinions taken seriously here you will have to provide some people with extensive details on your double-blind test protocols and a list of the experts who were present, not to mention a 20-page paper complete with photographs and references detailing your room treatments!!!

That would certainly help. But, some like to argue from authority, right?
CharlesJ is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekhd View Post

The one who claims to be an expert in this field with over 20 years of teaching classes ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

In my teaching days, as department chairman and professor,....

You have NO idea how sad it makes me feel that you consider me a bad example for the young; my golf game needs some improvement, too...and my Prius needs an oil change.

Didn't know that about him.

One can see that no one has immunity from leaving their baloney detection bag at the office.
That oil change is somewhat easy, by the way. Good luck.
CharlesJ is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 03:25 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

I think you need to read some of these interesting pages explaining scientific theories, laws, etc.
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...scientific+law

Evolution IS a scientific theory. AND, there is a difference between a scientific theory and how the general public uses the word 'theory.'
There is not a category that is called a scientific 'fact.'

Evolution is the observable facts that the theory describes and attempts to understand.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 03:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 327
Quote:
Evolution is the observable facts that the theory describes and attempts to understand.

Not really. The observable fact is something like "intergenerational change in a species in response to environmental conditions." Facts like that led us to develop and confirm the theory of evolution. But the facts are not the same as the theory. Some of the facts supporting the theory might someday be proven wrong, without disproving the theory itself. And the theory itself may someday be displaced by a better theory, without disproving the facts on which it is now based.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 04:03 PM
 
geekhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Didn't know that about him.

Those were his words. Seeing what he's been posting so far, it should be taken with grain of salt.
geekhd is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 09:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekhd View Post

Those were his words. Seeing what he’s been posting so far, it should be taken with grain of salt.

Obviously. He made that abundantly clear

One reason why I posted a link to Linus Pauling's dark side. Even greats can have one

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...s/pauling.html

One should know their limits.
CharlesJ is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 10:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Most recently. But I also have compared between a sony CD changer, an NAD 521i, the MF A 3.5, the dacs in a Marantz receiver, and in my current Denon 5308, over the years.

The argument that all decent DACs and CD players sound the same is not a reasonable argument in my experience.

The current difference I can test readily is between the A3.5 and my denon 5308. The difference is not small in my testing. Further, I have on several occasions unintentionally switched between them (A/D input selection) or switched and forgotten later, and readily been able to tell that something was amiss through listening and noticing the distinctly different presentation.

LOL. So much for all those know it all 'objectivists' about a year or so ago that pretty much pooh poohed any reported audible differences between CD players.

You should resurrect that thread and post your findings. Maybe that will shut these people up once and for all on the issue.
RWetmore is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off