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 14

post #196 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by hempcamp View Post
I love when the cable threads meander into the realm of law and epistemology! (My grad school focus.)

The statement "I can hear a difference, therefore a difference exists" is not a sound argument, only a valid one. There are several reasons why the statement "I can hear a difference" may be true: you may perceive a difference through expectancy bias, for example. But you would need to prove that "a difference exists" independent of the statement "I can hear a difference" in order for the argument to be sound ("a factual argument").

I'm not claiming that "so-and-so can not hear a difference." Maybe so-and-so can. But for you to come to a sound conclusion that "a difference exists" requires a bit more legwork than merely asserting the truthfulness of your premise.

The test-that-shall-not-be-named is the only accepted way that I know of, outside of audiophilia, to determine the truthfulness of the conclusion "a difference exists."

--Chris
Once again you ignore the dual meaning of "a difference" in this context. It is either a difference in perception of sound or it is a difference of sound-independent-of-listener. In the former meaning if one perceives a difference then a difference "exists." This is not an argument. It is a tautology. In the latter sense it only is proved to "exist", i.e., to be fact, if either a reliable instrument shows the difference or a valid listening experiment (like a DBT) produces significant evidence of it.

The time honored question "If a tree falls in the woods where there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?" plays upon the same ambiguity of meaning/reference. If you insist that only the second meaning of "sound", a vibration of the ambient medium between 20Hz and 20kHz, is correct, then you need another term for what is heard, since we all know that there are other factors making the vibration and what is heard often not tightly correlated. However, I contend that as audiophiles it makes more sense to use "sound" for what is heard and to call the vibrations the "source" or "signal" produced by the system.

While these discussions are usually pointless because of polarized positions and ulterior motives, they are always meaningless without keeping these distinctions and terminologies clear.
post #197 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by yotacowboy View Post
So lemme get this straight: You think SH wasted his money on Rat Shack cables because his CDP sounds better (to him) with them in the signal chain? Or do you think SH is ignorant because he spent $5000 on a CDP? And specifically what "spec" should his CDP perform to?
No. I think he is advising people to follow advice that he doesn't follow himself (ie: using badly colored cables to correct for out of spec equipment.)

See ya
Steve
post #198 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomjtx View Post
Eminently sensible advice, you must not be an audiophile
I'm a music lover.

See ya
Steve
post #199 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riboge View Post
Once again you ignore the dual meaning of "a difference" in this context. It is either a difference in perception of sound or it is a difference of sound-independent-of-listener.
Discussing one's subjective perception on an internet chat board is a solipsist exercise at best. If you want your experiences to have relevance to other people, actual "sound-independent-of-listener" reports are MUCH more useful.

See ya
Steve
post #200 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Discussing one's subjective perception on an internet chat board is a solipsist exercise at best. If you want your experiences to have relevance to other people, actual "sound-independent-of-listener" reports are MUCH more useful.

See ya
Steve
I respectfully disagree; I think its otherwise.
post #201 of 411
Let's all crawl into chesebert's head and hear what he hears! I'll bring the pretzels. You bring the beer.

See ya
Steve
post #202 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Discussing one's subjective perception on an internet chat board is a solipsist exercise at best. If you want your experiences to have relevance to other people, actual "sound-independent-of-listener" reports are MUCH more useful.

See ya
Steve
Yet you have never done this. You know why? Because you cannot. You only have what you hear. And you can only report words you put to that. Otherwise, you are talking ideas ABOUT sound, not sound itself--unless you post in the form of sound/music files. Or you are reporting what someone else measured or wrote about, which can be useful indeed but is a far different thing than talking about what you hear, which I much more often find useful from others. They may be misled by salesmen or other psychological influences some of the time but they are not always and often droning the same doctrine about how it is impossible to hear this or that based on impervious personal conviction.
post #203 of 411
There are specific words used to describe sounds. There are also non-specific, subjective words that lead to a million different interpretations. It's always best to depend on objective testing and specific terms, rather than subjective and metaphysical impressions. The specific words used to describe aspects of sound aren't perfect, but in an internet chat board, I'm afraid they're all we've got.

See ya
Steve
post #204 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
There are specific words used to describe sounds. There are also non-specific, subjective words that lead to a million different interpretations. It's always best to depend on objective testing and specific terms, rather than subjective and metaphysical impressions. The specific words used to describe aspects of sound aren't perfect, but in an internet chat board, I'm afraid they're all we've got.

See ya
Steve
Just in case you think this responds to what I wrote, let me say that it in no way does. You like others fudge which meaning of "sound" you intend in "describe sounds". Words to describe sounds-independent-of-listener are of a different realm than those that describe sound=what you hear. Either kind can be subjective or objective, specific or not. Audiophiles are directly interested in what they hear and only indirectly in the other sound, i.e., what you measure and quantify with instruments. One could standardize a nomenclature for verbalizing about what is heard just a much as what is instrumented. De facto there is some uniformity at headfi about this if you read reviews here. On the other hand, people describe oscilloscope patterns as "choppy", "wavey", "staccato", etc, which are just as metaphorical (which is what I think you meant not "metaphysical") as listeners words. Yes, specific words and tested results are more reliable, but that applies to both meanings equally. In contrast, metaphorical descriptions are often more communicative about more phenomena in a shorter time, which sometimes is the only practical way to go, as in a chat board.
post #205 of 411
Sit quietly in a lotus position in the corner of a still room permeated with the scent of magnolias and envision the expanding universe extending out like spokes in a wheel from your head. Then... and ONLY then, will you understand exactly what a Somy CD-320xl transport and a Precision Diamond DAC sounds like through a Technotronic VBR tube amp and Dinglehoffer HD-2001 woody modded cans.

Me?... I'll just download peedeeeffs of the dope sheets.

See ya
Steve
post #206 of 411
You crack me up bigshot! This is hilarious!



Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Sit quietly in a lotus position in the corner of a still room permeated with the scent of magnolias and envision the expanding universe extending out like spokes in a wheel from your head. Then... and ONLY then, will you understand exactly what a Somy CD-320xl transport and a Precision Diamond DAC sounds like through a Technotronic VBR tube amp and Dinglehoffer HD-2001 woody modded cans.

Me?... I'll just download peedeeeffs of the dope sheets.

See ya
Steve
post #207 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Me?... dope
That's about all I see when you post in the cable forum nowadays.
post #208 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by furball View Post
You crack me up bigshot! This is hilarious!
And for a new member here, you're not off to a great start. Don't close your mind to the audio products that will one day blow your mind. I did too when I was new here and it was unfortunate to be so ignorant, for if I wasn't I could have gotten farther faster.

You ever see the movie "A Christmas Story" ? Remember how the bulley always walked around with his little pipsqueek sidekick? Well that's the visual I get when I see posts from you and Bigshot. I'm sure you can figure out who's who.
post #209 of 411
Sorry to be so blunt, but you are not being very nice.

And no, I don't think a fancy garden hose will make one bit of difference in the ability of a copper wire to conduct electricity. If anything, all that hot glue will actually degrade a copper wire's capacity to conduct electricity.



Quote:
Originally Posted by IPodPJ View Post
And for a new member here, you're not off to a great start. Don't close your mind to the audio products that will one day blow your mind. I did too when I was new here and it was unfortunate to be so ignorant, for if I wasn't I could have gotten farther faster.

You ever see the movie "A Christmas Story" ? Remember how the bulley always walked around with his little pipsqueek sidekick? Well that's the visual I get when I see posts from you and Bigshot. I'm sure you can figure out who's who.
post #210 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by IPodPJ View Post
I was...so ignorant
Thats all I see when you post around here these days.
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?