Originally Posted by royalcrown
pdupiano - two things:
1. Is this just a testing proposal that you will do, or have you already done this?
2. When people say "science" most of the time they're referring to a scientific procedure, or specifically in this case, a scientific methodology of observance. When people say "science tells you that you can't hear x or y" what they mean is "blind testing, conducted in a scientific manner, has shown us that your unblinded anecdotes mean nothing because when conducted in a scientific manner nobody has been able to observe x or y"
1. Testing Proposal
2. right I understand what you're saying, but realize the the cruz of people's arguments (atleast within these forums) is that science tells you that you can't hear differences or that people use science to disprove your experience. And if people truly do mean as you say when they use the word "science" to describe a certain methodology rather than Science (not the process but rather a body/collective of knowledge), then here is my argument against that.
Scientific Testing requires the following
1. Proper identification of a phenomenon to be tested
2. Proper instrumentation capable of testing the phenomenon
1. Those who test for sound differences do not know what they are looking for. Yes I understand that they are looking for sound differences, but when's the last time you hear someone do a scientific test based on the wide range of possible differences (eg. headstage, frequency response, noise, distortion etc...)
2. Proper instrumentation comes from a strict understanding of what you are specifically studying. Take for example the testing or proof of the existence of the neutrino. Scientists first defined, what a neutrino was and based on understanding what the wished to find they created big vats that could detect a neutrino as it passes through the earth. This was done as well for anti matter, for the aether experiment etc... and Unfortunately, we do not know what it is about this phenomenon that would allow someone the ability to differentiate different cables. It is still difficult to isolate, particularly if we have only a handful of people in the audio world that can perceive the phenomenon, perhaps there are non audio enthusiasts who can perceive the changes on the basis that they have yet to damage their hearing
Its possible to do the testing but the real point I am striving for first is a means of getting beyond the arguments that people have regarding cables. Trust me I'm tired of those arguments as well because they're old (and don't work) so we need some new ones.
The idea that a scientific method or process can prove or disprove an experience is false and perhaps a misunderstanding at best. Science has its limits, and I'm afraid it cannot tell me that I don't hear something or feel something -it is limited to description. The scientific method, when applied to this notion of testing what you are hearing is flawed because it is missing the two criterion I posted above regarding specific testing and proper instrumentation. Using a flawed (scientific) method/process to test sonic attributes of cables resulted in useless data because what exactly were you testing? In all of these tests, people were in fact testing experiences rather than a phenomenon (hypothesized to be true or otherwise). If they were testing a specific phenomenon, then they would have used instruments designed to pick up a particular phenomenon, not a person. By using a person to detect sonic differences, they were in fact using science (scientific method) to try and prove/disprove an experience. And that, I'm afraid, is something that science cannot do, and if it can, if science can dictate to me what I feel and perceive, then science is no longer a method, procedure, or a collaboration of knowledge -it is a religion, an ideology, and perhaps a prison for my mind.