Originally Posted by IPodPJ
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Should I crosslink the posts with all the insults and personal attacks you made to me in the other thread for giving my impressions?
Different issue. People can read the Reference 7 thread for themselves if they care.
Originally Posted by linuxworks
I was reading up on jitter and how to detect it when I read several experts state that you don't need special test equipment to *detect* it; ie, that if its audible as a 'problem' then this problem will be seen as a delta in regular audio analysis testing (rmaa and so on).
so I submit that the tests are already there. you subtract runs and if there's a diff of *some* kind, it will show up. might be hard to explain it but at least you'd see a measurable and repeatable diff.
while I have not done this with 'power cords' I fully expect the successive runs to show identical results. I just won't waste my time chasing imaginary gains that I know are not there. if, however, someone does do a test like this and shows repeatable data, I would be interested in that.
burden of proof is on those who make wild claims. so I'd like them to spend their effort and time doing an audio analysis (their software choice) run and show that something was different, at least.
This is where I disagree with you. You were reading and you expect. As well, the "burden of proof" thing is nonsense -- this is an audio discussion forum, not a scientific forum. I think, since he has interjected into the discussion, iPodPJ will serve as a good example of one extreme, and you the entirely opposite (and I'd say I'm somewhere in the middle between the two). In his case, he seems to believe in his hearing ability and would do well to learn about how one's perceptions can be deceived or altered, such as discussed in that video recently linked to where a presentation was given by forum members on one of the big audio forums. He unfortunately fell for the "big switch that changes nothing" effect thinking a setting that had no effect on the audio circuit on his amp made an audible difference.
On the other hand, my beef with the "science is right always" crowd (including members of my own family!) is that they cannot distinguish that they are following their own belief system and, without realising it, often mis-represent science and scientific method and dismiss people's experiences entirely as rubbish. Science, since it is the invention of people
, is just as capable of error and deception through ignorance as anything else, and just as full of opinion and belief as religion. When it is used with the purpose of trying to improve our knowledge of life, it can have great benefits, and can be detrimental when people believe they have found the absolute truth and stop pushing further.
My point is not, ultimately about what is the most valid point of view or attitude, but of being knowledgeable about the possible explanations of things (science) with an awareness of one's own limitations (experience) and beliefs and be sensible when discussing these things.
To give an example: iPodPJ's grief with me at the moment is that I had a go at him for comparing two high-end DACs, neither of which he owned at the same time, based on impressions through $50 computer speakers. I think that he is unaware just how fragile one's audio memory is (let alone one's memory full-stop) and that he shouldn't have made such a comparison at all, even if there was another person who agreed the same way about one being an improvement over the other. At the very least he should have, with such knowledge, pointed out that his comments shouldn't be taken as gospel for these reasons.
An opposing example is much of the anti-power-cable posting in this thread. Rather than just "I read somewhere about some-or-other science so all this stuff is BS" attitude, since the forum is about improving our listening enjoyment, wouldn't it be more productive to consider that just because someone believes they heard a difference between two products, we at least consider that something
be happening and find out what that something is? Just dismissing it as placebo is not what I'd describe as a good scientific attitude or a good attitude full-stop. It could well be that our hearing capabilities or sensitivity is beyond what science believes and possibly beyond what a lot of equipment can measure the difference in. Wouldn't it be more useful to actually find out what's going on, rather than just have these repeated arguments? It'd certainly be more useful to people buying gear. I don't believe that the results of tests available at the moment are sufficient.
I have to run out the door, so apologies for any gross mistakes in the above, but does what I say make sense?