Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Is it time to boycott cable companies?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is it time to boycott cable companies? - Page 12

post #166 of 411
The question of "can I hear a difference" or "did he hear a difference" is a factual question and is not open to interpretation about 'whether its a fact or not'.

When you talk about placebo and other effects, the question is then "whether this fact was 'caused by' the placebo or another effect"; but whether that the person can or cannot hear a difference is still a factual question. And ofcourse the answer to a factual inquiry is a fact.

We must not confuse causation with fact.
post #167 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by chesebert View Post
we need to move beyond the notion and terminology of 'believer' and 'nonbeliever'. Instead, we need to ask ourselves can we hear it. Its fundamentally a question of can you hear it or can't you; it's a matter of fact, a factual question, and not an ideal, fantasy, or metaphysical notion.

I can hear the difference, and that is a fact; I can support this fact with affidavits and it will be accepted so as a fact.
The only "fact" that you will have proven with that affidavit is that you think you hear a difference. That doesn't prove that you actually do.

Imagine a situation where there is an auto accident. Two witnesses submit affidavits. One affiant swears that the light was red. The other swears that it was green. Both take lie detector tests; neither is lying. Yet at least one is wrong.
post #168 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by chesebert View Post
The question of "can I hear a difference" or "did he hear a difference" is a factual question and is not open to interpretation about 'whether its a fact or not'.

When you talk about placebo and other effects, the question is then "whether this fact was 'caused by' the placebo or another effect"; but whether that the person can or cannot hear a difference is still a factual question. And ofcourse the answer to a factual inquiry is a fact.

We must not confuse causation with fact.
ummm, cheesebert, that is close to what I said , but thank you for restating it :-)

actually if someone says they hear a dif the only "fact" that then exists is that they "said" they heard a dif. After all, they could be lying :-)


And that is really the point of all the arguments: what is the cause operating when someone says they hear a difference. The only way to rule out placebo is through a blind test. Of course there are many other variables that come into play: state of mind of the listener, aural experience etc.

And of course the results of any listening test can only say that x listeners did, did not hear a dif in this particular situation.

Anyway, the point of all of this for me is that if 2 pieces of gear cost about the same I am not concerned with placebo in deciding.

If there is a big price dif I do want to rule out placebo as much as possible before parting with big bucks if the difs I hear are subtle.
post #169 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
It was not evasive. I told you that big names like that are like celebrities who do endorsements in return for money or product. When every decent cable sounds the same, why not get some high end cable company to foot the bill for all the cabling your studio when all you have to say is that you use their product and it sounds great? Besides, the top guy at the studio isn't going to have much of anything to do with the wires in the walls. They have whole crews working for them dealing with details like that.

What you read on fan sites isn't the same as what you hear when you are sitting in the studio with the engineer. Do you really think all those sports celebrities who were on the commercials saying, "I'm going to Disneyland!" actually went?

See ya
Steve
No, your answer was avasive .... and you continue to be. I dont care about hypothetical reasons why he might endorse a cable.

Once again ....
I have read comments by Steve Hoffman that he believes that cabling makes a difference. So, Steve Hoffman has EXPLICITLY expressed he believes cables sound different.

So is Steve Hoffman ignorant? Yes or no Steve; skip the double talk for once.
post #170 of 411
So what if A sees green and B sees red and there is no other alternative way of proving either, yet both passed the lie detector? then what? Is the fact that A saw green not a fact? Is the fact that B saw red not a fact? So the logical follow up questions would be what casused A to see green and what caused B to see red.
But at least both are facts as in both are concerete, and not metaphysical or fantastical.

But this, atlest, moves us beyond the terminology of 'believer' and 'nonbeliever' which is associated with non-facts or religion dare I say so - and that is simply not the fact.
post #171 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
The only "fact" that you will have proven with that affidavit is that you think you hear a difference. That doesn't prove that you actually do.

Imagine a situation where there is an auto accident. Two witnesses submit affidavits. One affiant swears that the light was red. The other swears that it was green. Both take lie detector tests; neither is lying. Yet at least one is wrong.
I believe that Chesebert is correct here and that you, Febs, are just messing with words. In the accident example what people could be swearing to is that they saw red or saw green, not that it was green, i.e, in a sense independent of the perceiver. If each passes a lie detector test, then one has misperceived the actual light. If you honestly hear a difference, you hear a difference, and that's a fact. You actually do! It is a different fact from whether there is to someone else or some instrument a difference. And it is a still different fact what processes or influences might explain any discrepancies among these. To say you think you hear a difference is to express uncertainty about what was heard. Otherwise, it is redundant or non-grammatical since perceiving is a kind of thinking.
post #172 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by chesebert View Post
So what if A sees green and B sees red and there is no other alternative way of proving either, yet both passed the lie detector? then what? Is the fact that A saw green not a fact? Is the fact that B saw red not a fact? So the logical follow up questions would be what casused A to see green and what caused B to see red.
But at least both are facts as in both are concerete, and not metaphysical or fantastical.

But this, atlest, moves us beyond the terminology of 'believer' and 'nonbeliever' which is associated with non-facts or religion dare I say so - and that is simply not the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riboge View Post
I believe that Chesebert is correct here and that you, Febs, are just messing with words. In the accident example what people could be swearing to is that they saw red or saw green, not that it was green, i.e, in a sense independent of the perceiver. If each passes a lie detector test, then one has misperceived the actual light. If you honestly hear a difference, you hear a difference, and that's a fact. You actually do! It is a different fact from whether there is to someone else or some instrument a difference. And it is a still different fact what processes or influences might explain any discrepancies among these. To say you think you hear a difference is to express uncertainty about what was heard. Otherwise, it is redundant or non-grammatical since perceiving is a kind of thinking.
I don't think that I have any real disagreement with the way that each of you has each expressed this concept in the posts I quote above. My issue with chesebert's original post was that (as I read his post), he suggested that the the assertion, "I can hear the difference" could be proven as a fact. That is a much different assertion than, "I heard a difference." The only fact asserted in the first statement is with respect to the listener's perception, while the latter statement asserts a "fact" with respect to whether there is an objective difference at all by assuming that such a difference exists.
post #173 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
I don't think that I have any real disagreement with the way that each of you has each expressed this concept in the posts I quote above. My issue with chesebert's original post was that (as I read his post), he suggested that the the assertion, "I can hear the difference" could be proven as a fact. That is a much different assertion than, "I heard a difference." The only fact asserted in the first statement is with respect to the listener's perception, while the latter statement asserts a "fact" with respect to whether there is an objective difference at all by assuming that such a difference exists.
very well put, Febs
post #174 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacd lover View Post
I have read comments by Steve Hoffman that he believes that cabling makes a difference. So, Steve Hoffman has EXPLICITLY expressed he believes cables sound different.
Where, when, and how?

You'd help your argument greatly if you provided some direct quotations with verifiable links to what Hoffman actually said, so that his statements can be viewed in their proper context.
post #175 of 411
fact = Knowledge or information based on real occurrences (copied from dictionary)

'I can hear a difference' is based on a knowledge, which is 'I can hear'; and on a real occurrence, which is 'a difference'.

Unless you like to dispute 'I can hear a difference' is not real or not an occurrences or lack of knowledge, then its necessarily true that 'I can hear a difference' is a fact
post #176 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
I don't think that I have any real disagreement with the way that each of you has each expressed this concept in the posts I quote above. My issue with chesebert's original post was that (as I read his post), he suggested that the the assertion, "I can hear the difference" could be proven as a fact. That is a much different assertion than, "I heard a difference." The only fact asserted in the first statement is with respect to the listener's perception, while the latter statement asserts a "fact" with respect to whether there is an objective difference at all by assuming that such a difference exists.
The semantics as well as conceptualization of all this is very tricky. The two quoted statements don't mean what you say, as far as I'm concerned. "I can hear the difference.", if either, is the one that suggests something aside from perception since it refers to the difference as something he but perhaps not others is able to hear. "I heard a difference." speaks only of a perception, i.e., something heard. The speaking of the latter is all the proof necessary of the fact of it. The former claims an ability implying it is doable repeatedly as in saying "I can hear the heart murmur", and it is falsifiable since one can challenge the speaker to listen to the chest of someone with the murmur and say whether a murmur is heard.

The problem is that "difference" has two, alternative referents, namely, the contrast of two vibrations of air or the contrast of two perceptions of same. We would best choose a convention about which is intended and use a different form for the other.
post #177 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riboge View Post
The semantics as well as conceptualization of all this is very tricky. The two quoted statements don't mean what you say, as far as I'm concerned. "I can hear the difference.", if either, is the one that suggests something aside from perception since it refers to the difference as something he but perhaps not others is able to hear. "I heard a difference." speaks only of a perception, i.e., something heard.
You're absolutely right. I was typing my response literally as I was on my way out the door and inadvertently transposed the two examples. I would edit my post, but since there have already been replies, that would create more confusion than it would solve. Sorry! This is what I meant to write:

Quote:
My issue with chesebert's original post was that (as I read his post), he suggested that the the assertion, "I can hear the difference" could be proven as a fact. That is a much different assertion than, "I heard a difference." The only fact asserted in the latter statement is with respect to the listener's perception, while the former statement asserts a "fact" with respect to whether there is an objective difference at all by assuming that such a difference exists.
post #178 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by sejarzo View Post
Where, when, and how?

You'd help your argument greatly if you provided some direct quotations with verifiable links to what Hoffman actually said, so that his statements can be viewed in their proper context.
He has a forum...Google Steve Hoffman
post #179 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by 883dave View Post
He has a forum...Google Steve Hoffman
If one wants to make a point, that person should provide the reference. So far, what sacdlover has posted is what amounts to hearsay in a courtroom....and it's rejected in legal arguments for a reason.
post #180 of 411
real or not, if I buy my ALO Supercotton dock and THINK I hear a difference, you can call it "psychoacoustics". OK, it's all in my head. No scientific proof. So what?? I'm happy. I can listen to my stuff with my imaginary-improved sound system and I'm happy, fat and content.

So be it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Is it time to boycott cable companies?