[theborg7of7]

'It can be done by all lonely, creepy audiophiles sitting in dark rooms.'


Do you have data for this conclusion or is this just anecdotal?

Any word from any of the audio studios your way? Someone must be willing to chat for a while. Keep us tuned.

 

[CruelInventions]

... Instead of the moving target response, how 'bout doubling back and specifically addressing the points raised in response to your request to view the video link you provided?


TIA

 

[WilliamZX11]



Quote:
When the results were announced, the organizers said that I'd gotten 5 of 5 identifications correct. My editor at Stereophile, John Atkinson, got 4 of 5 correct.

I have read this story before. You realize they turned in there picks, AFTER the results had been announced. What a load of bs.

 

[jpjibberjabber]



Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 /forum/post/18878814


I have read this story before. You realize they turned in there picks, AFTER the results had been announced. What a load of bs.

People like you will never accept the truth. Anything that goes against cushy accepted theory and moves you out of your comfort zone is BS or improper. Give me a break.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray /forum/post/18878000


It has always been literal, its amuzing to me that you constantly want to sweep science under the carpet like Audio does not need it.

Spelling "amusing" like you did is amusing.


Science needs to get its head out of its ass on this topic. Standing pat on old science without looking to improving understanding is, although somewhat expected, amusing.


To me, while physicists jerk around with wondering whether our memories would survive an encounter with a black hole, studying advanced audio theory in this category would be more interesting, and relevant to everyday life.

Quote:
If you do not like the idea of science being in involved with audio then go somewhere elease.

Please. Take your arrogance elsewhere. It's quasi-players like you that make me chuckle when you say things like that to industry vets.

Quote:
Religion has NO PLACE in audio discussions, none at all!!

But it's OK to compare people that think cables make a substantive change to religious folks, right? Backhanded comparisons that are also designed to roll religions into the same camp as new-age, tarot-reading types? Right?


Apparently this talk is OK for the guys here that like to pretend they're scientists. All you have to do is show your secularist ID at the door for admittance.

 

[jpjibberjabber]



Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18878669


I guess the bottom line of all of this, and the saving grace of objectivists who try so hard to ignore the senses of so many, is that 'people don't know what they hear.' Plain and simple. It always comes back to that. It doesn't matter that any number of people can clearly hear a difference between different power cords, that is the quick reply. That's why I said this discussion was an seemingly easy victory for the objectivists. All they have to reply to someone who has heard a positive or 'negative' difference, even consistently over days of cable swapping is 'no 'ya didn't!' 'Did not!' And, also bring up homeopathy, faith, magic just for a few self-fulfilling belly chuckles.


What is truly amazing is that objectivists tend to avoid at all costs experimenting with power cords. 'I know it won't work,' is the usual reason. That, in other words, is called 'I'd better not ever go there just in case it does sound different. But then I could just convince myself that I was hearing things.'


As for listening tests, here is a clip from a diyaudio forum -


In the early nineties I challenged an audio writer who claimed that all amplifiers that measure the same sound the same to set up a double blind test that I would take. I guaranteed him that I'd be able to hear differences among the amplifiers. So he organized a double blind test at an AES convention (Audio Engineering Society) in Los Angeles.

I took the test, along with dozens of others attending, many of them recording engineers. When the results were announced, the organizers said that I'd gotten 5 of 5 identifications correct. My editor at Stereophile, John Atkinson, got 4 of 5 correct. But the overall result was statistically insignificant. Most test takers could not distinguish among the amplifiers. Guess what? I was declared a "lucky coin" and my result was "thrown out"!


Take the test and pass and they find a way to discredit you. When I relate this story on "objectivist" websites the response is always, "Not enough samples!" Well, I didn't design the test, I just took it. I jumped through their hoop and I guarantee you had I been 0 for 5 it would have been deemed a very well designed test.


...not statistically significant. Right. The scientific method has to be universally determined, not just by a few. The hook here is 'did YOU take a DBT?' The answer, most likely to 'yes I have,' would be 'well, you are also statistically insignificant.' The request for a DBT her is a pure scam. You can predict the comebacks from a mile away. Personally, I would take a DBT if I couldn't readily notice the difference between power cords, both postive and negative. I can also tell the difference between sardines and pizza.


It has been mentioned in this forum that even with a DBT, there would also be required measured results to back it up. A DBT is not enough. So yes, being an objectivist seems to include its own fluffy pillow. First, discredit any listening, discredit DBT tests that do not 'conform' as being lucky coins, and if DBT tests yield positive results, say they are useless unless data is also provided to back those results. I would suppose, after all of these have been met, the final smirk would be 'well, the data doesn't prove that these differences are audible.. so there! I win!' Great game.

Bravo sir.

 

[scientest]



Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18878669


I guess the bottom line of all of this, and the saving grace of objectivists who try so hard to ignore the senses of so many, is that 'people don't know what they hear.' Plain and simple.

It's not like the "objectivists" have ever set out with this as a goal. This conclusion is the result of some very carefully performed scientific research. You may not like it, but it's not really surprising, and it's not unique to the audio realm. Consider for a moment the well known (lack of) reliability of police witnesses...

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18878669


It doesn't matter that any number of people can clearly hear a difference between different power cords, that is the quick reply.

Um, no. It's sometimes easy to hear differences between power cords. In some of the cases that I know of one of the items in the comparison bordered on being electrically dangerous. The problem comes when people start "hearing" differences in various power cords but, for some reason are unwilling to back this up via a double blind ABX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18878669


What is truly amazing is that objectivists tend to avoid at all costs experimenting with power cords.

That's a false assumption. Lots of real scientific research has been done in this area. Unfortunately, most of it is not by the people hawking the high end audiophile devices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18878669


As for listening tests, here is a clip from a diyaudio forum

Um, yeah great, another anecdotal story with no evidence of it being true. However, the basic objection, that there is no way 5 runs is statistically significant for either a positive or negative finding is definitely true. You need to run closer to 30 trials for any evidence to emerge either way. I have taken part in a fair number of DBT's, and it is sometimes (maybe even, often) evident after 10 or 15 trials if a result is going to be significant and often we've just shut down the testing at that point. No way that would ever happen with 5 trials. Five trials isn't even worth performing, it's nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18878669


It has been mentioned in this forum that even with a DBT, there would also be required measured results to back it up. A DBT is not enough.

Really? Where? The fact is, if you do get a statistically significant result from a DBT it's usually pretty easy to find a set of measurements that will explain the result, so the two do tend to go hand in hand. However, the more usual procedure is to discover a set of measurements and then go about determining if they have statistically significant correlations as audio phenomena. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. This is a standard process in much of the audio world and forms the basis for much of what everyone, subjectivist and objectivist, takes for gospel: Fletcher Munson and more modern relatives, the relevance of harmonic distortion, the frequency dependent ability to determine position, etc. have all been validated by this method.


This isn't a case of "winning" anything. My reason for participating here isn't because I have any "objectivist" agenda to push. It's purely for the love of a hobby that I have enjoyed learning the instric details of over the last 30 years. If you don't wish to share a real understanding of what construes a valid listening experiment that's fine. However, if that's the case you've got to understand that your current line of reasoning forms a circular argument at best (as you've essentially pointed out) and at worse is just a bunch words put together for no other reason than to prove the fact that you to can use the Internet....

 

[WilliamZX11]



Quote:
People like you will never accept the truth. Anything that goes against cushy accepted theory and moves you out of your comfort zone is BS or improper. Give me a break.

I'm more than willing to accept the truth, I'm just not willing to believe anything like you are. I certainly never believe liars. They didn't actually participate in the test, they wrote their results on a napkin, and handed them in later, after the results were announced.


Maybe he should podst a link to the thread, instead of just quoting the part he wants us to read.

 

[jpjibberjabber]



Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j /forum/post/18877070


haha, kind of the response one would expect from an idiot.

And yet, your post follows. Ironic. Clearly you found enough merit to respond.

Quote:
If they measured the same they would sound the same.

A common fallacy, debunked eons ago. "You lot" also think that way about amplifiers, CDP, et al.

Quote:
Ohhh, sorry. We did not measure the right thing. Is that what you meant to say?? Ok cool. So if we measure the right thing, and are different, then it could be that they sound different no??


So why do you write the rubbish you do?? If they measure the same they WILL sound the same. (ps, that-evidently-was the whole point of the video I was made to wade thru, that they finally did find different measurements)

I don't think cable makers nor the debunkers know precisely what to evaluate yet. I don't think that's a deal-breaker either. That was the point of the video. Point is, some are willing to explore further to find out what we're missing. The fact that a company with a vested interest in capitalizing on these findings is expected and unsurprising. Who else would bother?

Quote:
You and borg need to get your stories the same. He wants us to now know we can measure differences, you don't want us to,....look I am too confused to work you lot out.

I don't think you possess the reading comprehension (while sober anyway) to make that determination. We don't need to tell the same story. My perspective might be a little different than his, but we both want the study and the art to move forward. Not sure why you and others are so against it. Odd irrational fear of something...


Now place the "idiot" comments aside, before you're permanently placed in the debating time-out corner.


I'm starting to think there are people here with a vested interest in the cable-impossible movement. Why? I've only seen such insulting venom on political sites. The idea that these things are completely impossible is of course an odd thought, as though it's the only thing totally settled by science. My feeling is that the "scientists" here don't know enough about science or the spirit behind the scientific method to know the difference between pseudo-science and simple exploration. Given the responses here and comparisons between other fringe-science elements, I think that's a very strong possibility in fact. Such defensiveness typically comes from an unstable position, otherwise nary a word need be said. Creating absolutist arguments that some of us "believe anything", or that we're "easily fooled", etc; it's all a way to categorize a group of people, placing them in a comfortable box in order to create a comfort zone for those with tenuous positions.


I still think it's a little sad that the ultimate basis for the anti-cable movement here has to do with capitalism and price points. It's this little undercurrent that seems to be ignored by many, but I find interesting. If the high-end was at a lower price point, this debate would end tomorrow. People need to get over the fact that effective luxury items cost money, just like anything else they can't afford.

 

[scientest]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18879398


My feeling is that the "scientists" here don't know enough about science or the spirit behind the scientific method to know the difference between pseudo-science and simple exploration. Given the responses here and comparisons between other fringe-science elements, I think that's a very strong possibility in fact.

Problem is that there really isn't some easily defined difference. You seem to want allowance to explore anything and everything in the name of science and consider everything equally valid until proven otherwise. Science doesn't work that way, it's the exact opposite. Nothing is considered valid until proven. As such, the onus isn't on the scientists here to accept any theory no matter how wild or rationale it may appear. Rather, the onus is on those who would challenge the existing body of scientific knowledge to prove that they have a legitimate proof of some new phenomena. Until that happens, there's really no point in crying about not being allowed to play with the big boys...

 

[scientest]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18879479


A common fallacy, debunked eons ago. "You lot" also think that way about amplifiers, CDP, et al.

Debunked where and how? References, links, any evidence at all of this being true please? Exactly what components do you think sound different for which no measurement can be found to explain the difference?

 

[diomania]



Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18879527


Exactly what components do you think sound different for which no measurement can be found to explain the difference?

He said cables and I was anxious to read about it. But no explanation so far.

 

[scientest]



Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania /forum/post/18879647


He said cables and I was anxious to read about it. But no explanation so far.

He also seemed to imply amplifiers. Either way, I'd like to know which ones sound different from which other ones...

 

[terry j]



Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18877861


If so, we've got the A to D section of the PC involved here as a complete unknown, but they ignore that, so let us also ignore that.

I think they did emphasise that even unknown, it was a constant.

Quote:
4) We now look at the difference between the modified CD player and the same PC reference signal. This time the difference between the two signals is much smaller; "about half" according to the video. Now comes the surprising conclusion: this is touted as being a good thing! We have taken the analogue output of a high end CD player and made it look more like the analogue signal as recreated in the noisy electrical environment of a PC!

I took something slightly different from it. They kept reminding us these were new, groundbreaking and preliminary measurements.


So new in fact, that how could they know already what was good or what was bad? Something that was different was oohed and aahed at. Ok. How significant was it??


Didn't matter, it somehow backed up everything they had ever heard (which according to borg is completely obvious anyway). Which everyone there would have heard if they had done a demo. Oops. hahaa. (also typical demo routine..'you will hear the better bass, the highs over here'...yad yada. Coaching before e demo. Yawwn.)


Except NO demo haha, so it switched from 'you will hear..' to 'you would have heard..'. Same patter.


The biggest irony of all?? We have been saying 'if there is an audible difference, there WILL be a measured difference', AND we have ofetn given diffmaker as an example of what type of technique to use. (look it up, the program is called diffmaker)


Now looky here, what technique are these guys using??

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18878669


I guess the bottom line of all of this, and the saving grace of objectivists who try so hard to ignore the senses of so many, is that 'people don't know what they hear.' Plain and simple. It always comes back to that. It doesn't matter that any number of people can clearly hear a difference between different power cords, that is the quick reply. That's why I said this discussion was an seemingly easy victory for the objectivists. All they have to reply to someone who has heard a positive or 'negative' difference, even consistently over days of cable swapping is 'no 'ya didn't!' 'Did not!' And, also bring up homeopathy, faith, magic just for a few self-fulfilling belly chuckles.

No, the bottom line is you kept asking us to watch the video you obviously creamed your jeans over, and we did, made our thoughts known and then you just ignore all that??


How about addressing the points raised from us watching the video you were gushing over???

Quote:
What is truly amazing is that objectivists tend to avoid at all costs experimenting with power cords. 'I know it won't work,' is the usual reason. That, in other words, is called 'I'd better not ever go there just in case it does sound different. But then I could just convince myself that I was hearing things.'

Who said we have not done any testing?? I WILL admit I have not done testing on exotic aftermarket power cords, but that just happens to be your personal thing. The next guy might be mingpo discs or whatever.


But I have done testing (blind of course) on interconnects and cables.


Oh, BTW, can you please answer me on how much those improvements in the graphs cost?? The power cord, their aftermarket stand and the quantum purifier.


Ohh, have YOU found out what the group delay of YOUR speakers are yet?? That is after all the cause of the HUGE improvements you hear with power cords. Would you not want more improvements by tackling those things in your speakers??

Quote:
As for listening tests, here is a clip from a diyaudio forum -


SNIP

Ahh yes. Michael Fremer. What a lovely character he is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 /forum/post/18878814


I have read this story before. You realize they turned in there picks, AFTER the results had been announced. What a load of bs.

Know, I did not know that at all. Could you explain further what you mean?


In any case, if Fremers story is true as he described, I have a lot of sympathy with him. At the very least, he and his mate John Atkinson (who could only pick four out of five..a bit worrying surely given how big these differences are??) should have been selected out and put into the second round of more in depth testing. If the true goal was learning about amp differences detectable via DBT. Which it wasn't.


That it was only five tests not being statisically significant cuts both ways. NO conclusion one way or the other should have been drawn.


I feel it likely that it was simply to show that under blinded conditions these huge obvious differences no longer exist. Dunno. As the conditions were not anything approaching what is needed to do a proper test.


And the editor of stereophile himself could not pick them all???

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18879479


And yet, your post follows. Ironic. Clearly you found enough merit to respond.

haha, merit?? Interesting choice of word. Merit, hahaha.

Quote:
A common fallacy, debunked eons ago. "You lot" also think that way about amplifiers, CDP, et al.

Cool. How so debunked. Show us.


I can just imagine jibberjabber jibber jabbering at the demo at rocky mountain fest..'You fools with your power cords, trying to show us that measurements help point out audible differences. Fools. That is a common fallacy debunked aeons ago by us subjectivists, how dare YOU subjectivists come in and undermine us all'.


Nope. You would have been panting and surreptitiously rubbing your 'inner thighs'.

Quote:
Point is, some are willing to explore further to find out what we're missing.

Now THIS is the point that you and borg keep missing. You keep telling us there are some willing to investigate, and *we* are not. That is your essential complaint is it not?


Investigate...WHAT?


You have NOT shown there is anything to investigate. THAT is the problem. IF it had been shown that there was a phenomenon to be investigated, then it would have been investigated by now.


But every time one of you guys show us these huge obvious differences exist (that if we cannot hear them should find a different hobby, they are SO obvious)...and you have no idea of which is which...then you simply cannot do so.


Why the flying **** should we investigate that??


If either of you had any balls you would put your hand up and be willing, for the sake of the advancement of the knowledge you are so passionate about, to show us that you DO in fact audibly hear these differences.


Hmm, I wonder if that will be responded to??

Quote:
People need to get over the fact that effective luxury items cost money, just like anything else they can't afford.

Ahh. You think that is the problem. See, we have a different definition of effective it seems.


You gonna man up and show us that these are effective?? Excellent.


I'd advise you do it on your system, that will be the one you are most intimate with and have the best chance of being successful.


Should we start a new thread on the protocol or just continue in this one??


Maybe a common thread, that way we can work out borgs at the same time.


After all, neither of you are just being keyboard warriors are you??

 

[CharlesJ]



Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18876445


..., including which areas of the brain are involved in processing real vs. non-real phenomena.

WOW, I didn't know this tidbit, or perhaps a large bit

If this is infallible trait, then it would be easy to test all those 'golden ears' granted not cheap, not as cheap as a good DBT.

 

[jpjibberjabber]



Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j /forum/post/18880257


haha, merit?? Interesting choice of word. Merit, hahaha.

Interesting response. Meaningless like the rest of your posts, but interesting nonetheless.

Quote:
Nope. You would have been panting and surreptitiously rubbing your 'inner thighs'.

Listening and wondering why there wasn't a demo, actually.

Quote:
Now THIS is the point that you and borg keep missing. You keep telling us there are some willing to investigate, and *we* are not. That is your essential complaint is it not?


Investigate...WHAT?

This is an interesting thing you and someone else said. The fact that you think there is nothing left is more telling than the fact that I haven't provided a list of things to look at. Clearly, Nordost and others feel there is more to see, interesting since logic might say that they're doing OK without further investigation.

Quote:
You have NOT shown there is anything to investigate. THAT is the problem.

The whole audio world is waiting on me to tell them what to look for? Wow, didn't know that...

Quote:
IF it had been shown that there was a phenomenon to be investigated, then it would have been investigated by now.

I love this specious logic that scientists are so infallible as to know everything out of the chute. Many things haven't been properly investigated by science. We discover new plant and animal life daily it seems. Should we forget about those, since science hadn't studied it prior to learning about it? Stupid argument you're making there, but it's par for the course.

Quote:
If either of you had any balls you would put your hand up and be willing, for the sake of the advancement of the knowledge you are so passionate about, to show us that you DO in fact audibly hear these differences.


Hmm, I wonder if that will be responded to??

I do, and have, heard those differences. From players to cables and everything in between. That isn't to say that all pricey gear is worth it, but the well-designed product tends to show why it's lauded.

Quote:
Ahh. You think that is the problem. See, we have a different definition of effective it seems.


You gonna man up and show us that these are effective?? Excellent.

Do people use things en masse if they don't work? Go ahead with the healing crystal and ouiji board comments, waiting...


We don't have regular users of these products running around telling everyone that they're bunk. What they do (and should do) is say that specific items aren't that effective, but that is true among nearly any consumer category.

Quote:
I'd advise you do it on your system, that will be the one you are most intimate with and have the best chance of being successful.

Already do.

Quote:
After all, neither of you are just being keyboard warriors are you??

Anyone that bothers playing with you children already has a pretty solid understanding of their position. I'm sure not to many here are defending products and solutions that they feel don't work, and are smart enough to understand the difference. But according to your and your buddies here, nobody that uses anything like what we're discussing is anything but delusional. All of us. Even those of us that understand both sides, and are selective about what we do and don't use in our own systems. Yes, most of us put our money where our mouths are. Some of use have gear capable of small changes having a larger effect.

 

[jpjibberjabber]



Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18879527


Debunked where and how? References, links, any evidence at all of this being true please? Exactly what components do you think sound different for which no measurement can be found to explain the difference?

This forum has been around for 15 years. Search is your friend.


I find it interesting that you place the "sound" before the "measurement" part, as if people like you don't look at measurements and decide beforehand based on that what things sound like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18879488


Problem is that there really isn't some easily defined difference. You seem to want allowance to explore anything and everything in the name of science and consider everything equally valid until proven otherwise.

Not without considerable observation as to possible validity. You act as though we're looking at two or three examples and hollering for a fair trial.

Quote:
Science doesn't work that way, it's the exact opposite. Nothing is considered valid until proven.

Right. Science usually waits until something forces them to investigate something, after it's slapped them it in the face repeatedly. Usually isn't too hard to prove something observed on a regular basis.

Quote:
As such, the onus isn't on the scientists here to accept any theory no matter how wild or rationale it may appear. Rather, the onus is on those who would challenge the existing body of scientific knowledge to prove that they have a legitimate proof of some new phenomena.

Like I said, it sits on its fat ass until someone or something else forces them to get off of it.

Quote:
Until that happens, there's really no point in crying about not being allowed to play with the big boys...

Not sure who the "big boys" are, other than a bunch of smug types that repeatedly got picked last.

 

[terry j]

I have an interesting proposition.


Jibber, do you want to discuss 'this' (to be defined later I guess) stuff properly?


I know that you will take that the wrong way. I also mean I discuss it properly.


In other words, WE discuss it properly. It may just end up you and I, or it may expand a bit to mean 'all sides' if you follow.


No crap, no cheap debating points. Courteous HONEST discussion.


You ask me something directly, then I answer it honestly. I ask you something directly, then you answer it honestly.


We start on common ground, again to be defined I spose. Like, what exactly is 'this' argument?? Where and on what can we agree, where or on what do we start to diverge. Then try and find out why that might be. Once we know that type of stuff, then maybe we can work out how to mend fences or find propositions we can test that move it forward from those impasses.


All too often there are unspoken assumptions that are at the bottom, things we have never thought about.


For this to work, then what is required is a desire to know more about this phenomenon, rather than taking tribal stances. It seems you do want to know, I am very curious about all this, can we party?


We'd have to start a new thread, but we need to be serious about how we conduct the debate. Else it will simply not work.


All very idealistic and touchy feely I know, but what the heck, worth a try no?

 

[jpjibberjabber]



Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j /forum/post/18880680


I have an interesting proposition.


Jibber, do you want to discuss 'this' (to be defined later I guess) stuff properly?


I know that you will take that the wrong way. I also mean I discuss it properly.


In other words, WE discuss it properly. It may just end up you and I, or it may expand a bit to mean 'all sides' if you follow.


No crap, no cheap debating points. Courteous HONEST discussion.


You ask me something directly, then I answer it honestly. I ask you something directly, then you answer it honestly.


We start on common ground, again to be defined I spose. Like, what exactly is 'this' argument?? Where and on what can we agree, where or on what do we start to diverge. Then try and find out why that might be. Once we know that type of stuff, then maybe we can work out how to mend fences or find propositions we can test that move it forward from those impasses.


All too often there are unspoken assumptions that are at the bottom, things we have never thought about.


For this to work, then what is required is a desire to know more about this phenomenon, rather than taking tribal stances. It seems you do want to know, I am very curious about all this, can we party?


We'd have to start a new thread, but we need to be serious about how we conduct the debate. Else it will simply not work.


All very idealistic and touchy feely I know, but what the heck, worth a try no?

I think it would be a unique experience on this topic on this forum. Of course, we can't restrict everyone and their interesting POVs, but it sounds fine.

 

[scientest]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18880570


This forum has been around for 15 years. Search is your friend.

I'm not the one making the claims here, if you want anyone to take any of your claims or complaints seriously you're going to have to back them up. I'll repeat: exactly what components do you think sound different for which no measurement can be found to explain the difference? If you already know these results can be found by searching these forums you should have no problem digging up an example for me. I you can't provide any such results then you really need to stop wasting our time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18880570


I find it interesting that you place the "sound" before the "measurement" part, as if people like you don't look at measurements and decide beforehand based on that what things sound like.

Exactly what is "people like you" supposed to mean? You seem to be making some huge presumptions here, but attacking the messenger does seem a big part of your MO. I suppose given the lack of any real contribution to the question at hand it is all you have to offer? FWIW, I grew up in the audiophile world, but ended up working in medical research; over the years I've learned to navigate both worlds. As such, I really don't care whether you want to put sound or measurement first; contrary to what you imply, the endpoint will always be the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18880570


Science usually waits until something forces them to investigate something, after it's slapped them it in the face repeatedly.

Have you ever spent even one moment in a lab or talking with a real scientist? This statement is so absurd as to border on the lunatic. These are the most inquisitive people on earth that you are referring to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18880570


Usually isn't too hard to prove something observed on a regular basis.

Which is exactly why I've asked you for some evidence to back up your claims that there are audible phenomena for which no corresponding measurements exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18880570


Like I said, it sits on its fat ass until someone or something else forces them to get off of it.

Exactly who do you suppose comes up with new science? One of the labs on campus here was the 1st in the world to explain how the transition from mechanical impulse to electro-chemical signal occurs within the ear. Who do you suppose made that happen? It certainly wasn't a bunch of non-scientists....

 

[diomania]



Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18881301


exactly what components do you think sound different for which no measurement can be found to explain the difference?

What he meant was, heavy ga. vs. very light ga. speaker cables both measuring same 10 ft. length can sound different.



You owe me one for saving your arse, jp-er.