Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 8

Originally Posted by jax 

 

I don't think we agree totally - I think it is absolutely, entirely irrelevant whether they realize what you suggest or not.  What is important is if they enjoy what they ultimately choose.  Why they choose it and enjoy it may not be something you nor I could grasp, but we can certainly empathize with the concept of "enjoyment". 

 

...

 

It comes down to the age old subjective / objective argument for which there will never be any winner or right answer. 

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man 

Jax, I do not subscribe to the God and faith analogy. I also think that people should know the facts, or at least all of the 'facts' that are available, so that they can make a properly considered judgment.

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man 

I do not know. I will try and find info on what it is made of. I would assume it is the same stuff speaker grills are covered with.  Apparently What Hifi also use some sort of screen for their blind tests. In any case, so long all of the speakers are played through it, they are on a level playing field.

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man 

Jax, I do not subscribe to the God and faith analogy. I also think that people should know the facts, or at least all of the 'facts' that are available, so that they can make a properly considered judgment.

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man 

Krav and jax, to get back on topic, I provided all of the evidence that I can find on the internet relating to blind testing and what that has to say about audiophile myths. I have read many a thread on audiophile forums where religion, perception, semantics and philosophical meanderings have been the the counter to science. Can you now bring some actual science to this thread? For example, links to an actual study with regards to sound quality and perception.

Originally Posted by jax 

The point I'm trying to make is that using "science" as a benchmark for human perception of the universe is simply a less than reliable resource. 

 

Then what is a reliable resource?

 

Actually, science has proven to be a very transient resource throughout our brief history in establishing so called "facts".

 

That's what makes it so much better than adamant beliefs. But, you can't just throw facts down the drain because you think they're wrong. You have to prove they are. Which you aren't doing.

 

Science once told us that the world was flat and that blood-letting cured diseases.

 

Really? These were proven using the scientific method and extensive research, testing, and observation? Do you have proof of this claim?

 

I have no source, but I recall reading that the whole flat world thing is nothing but a joke of sorts. Even ancient people knew the world was a sphere. It was just some silly group of cultists or whatever in the middle ages who pushed the flat world thing.

 

As advanced as science has become it remains transient.

 

I'd rather rely on current facts that may be later proven false than on pure faith.

 

Today's discoveries are proved to be dated and antiquated faster than ever, or quite slowly in some cases.

 

That's those discoveries. Prog's research isn't antiquated yet. Antiquate Prog's research on audiophile myths, yourself or with links to research like he asked. Until you do, you have no weighty point.

 

As far as explaining things like the human mind, human perceptions, and our place in this vast universe, I don't believe it really begins to tell the whole story - thus the obvious connection to faith as some attempt to explain it.

 

So, science has part of the story. And faith makes the whole story up. It's like an unfinished research paper vs. fiction. You expect us to believe the fiction first?

 

Science has it's own theories.  Neither can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

But at least science tries, instead of just whining about how it's impossible and we should just follow our hearts.

 

The thing that always comes to mind in this tired discussion is that we are not machines and do not experience the world as such....

 

Of course we're machines. Biological ones. We just go by what the chemical and electrical reactions in our mind tell us. That's why hallucinogens do what they do, and that's why modern medicine works (for the most part). Unless you want to convince us that we have souls etc., but that's a discussion for a very different sub-forum.

 

so what, I ask you, is the point?

 

There is no point/spoon.

 

Meanderings aside, I'll just add a good book to suggest as being very much on point: "This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession"

 

I'm not buying a book just to humor your argument. Cite it, quote it, something.

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man 

Blind testing audio is a scientific means of measuring peoples perception of sound quality. Can people perceive a difference between cables etc? The answer is usually no.

 

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

 

The point I'm trying to make is that using "science" as a benchmark for human perception of the universe is simply a less than reliable resource. 

 

Then what is a reliable resource?

 

The point I'm trying to make is that it simply doesn't matter whatever you believe a reliable resource might be - you cannot reliably predict how everyone will respond to a given stimulus.  Put the human in the picture and resources be damned. 

 

Actually, science has proven to be a very transient resource throughout our brief history in establishing so called "facts".

 

That's what makes it so much better than adamant beliefs. But, you can't just throw facts down the drain because you think they're wrong. You have to prove they are. Which you aren't doing.

 

How does that make either one better.  Neither can prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt.  "Proof" still does not take human perception into account. Again, there is the "fact" of chocolate ice cream - how do you "prove" anything about the way that tastes to an individual at specific moment in time?

 

Science once told us that the world was flat and that blood-letting cured diseases.

 

Really? These were proven using the scientific method and extensive research, testing, and observation? Do you have proof of this claim?

 

I have no source, but I recall reading that the whole flat world thing is nothing but a joke of sorts. Even ancient people knew the world was a sphere. It was just some silly group of cultists or whatever in the middle ages who pushed the flat world thing.

 

Since we seem to be relying upon internet resources, here you go.

 

Here's blood letting.  There have been all matter of things understood by the most learned of people as fact that were later dis-proven or revised in the name of science. 

 

As advanced as science has become it remains transient.

 

I'd rather rely on current facts that may be later proven false than on pure faith.

 

Have at it.  No one is stopping you.

 

Today's discoveries are proved to be dated and antiquated faster than ever, or quite slowly in some cases.

 

That's those discoveries. Prog's research isn't antiquated yet. Antiquate Prog's research on audiophile myths, yourself or with links to research like he asked. Until you do, you have no weighty point.

 

As I indicated in a recent response, my own experiences have been different and that's all I have to go on.  Whether my point is "weighty" or not, matters not one wit to me - I'm just sharing my own personal experience and take on this stuff.

 

As far as explaining things like the human mind, human perceptions, and our place in this vast universe, I don't believe it really begins to tell the whole story - thus the obvious connection to faith as some attempt to explain it.

 

So, science has part of the story. And faith makes the whole story up. It's like an unfinished research paper vs. fiction. You expect us to believe the fiction first?

 

I don't expect you to believe anything at all.  I expect you'll choose what you want to believe.  I don't want to dictate what you believe - just sharing my own experience in a discussion.  I don't think either can explain why we're here and the vastness of the universe.  I think what we don't know is so far in excess of what what we do as a grain of sand on huge beach.

 

Science has it's own theories.  Neither can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

But at least science tries, instead of just whining about how it's impossible and we should just follow our hearts.

 

In part, our unquenchable thirst for knowledge and proof and control over nature will eventually, probably sooner than later, end our existence on this planet and destroy most of its natural resources.  It's happening at an alarming rate, as we all can plainly see. 

 

The thing that always comes to mind in this tired discussion is that we are not machines and do not experience the world as such....

 

Of course we're machines. Biological ones. We just go by what the chemical and electrical reactions in our mind tell us. That's why hallucinogens do what they do, and that's why modern medicine works (for the most part). Unless you want to convince us that we have souls etc., but that's a discussion for a very different sub-forum.

 

We disagree entirely here.  I will not try to convince you of anything at all. 

 

EDIT: I guess we don't disagree entirely - I simply don't believe that whether or not we might be a "biological machine", that we can reliably predict the response of every or any given individual to a given stimulus.  As far as souls go, indeed, not appropriate here...in that we are in complete agreement.

 

so what, I ask you, is the point?

 

There is no point/spoon.

 

Meanderings aside, I'll just add a good book to suggest as being very much on point: "This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession"

 

I'm not buying a book just to humor your argument. Cite it, quote it, something.

 

That's too bad.  It's a very good book.  I didn't mean it as "part of my argument", but as suggested reading that people interested in this topic might enjoy.  It neither supports not disputes my positions here, as I recall - if anything it may support your own point of humans being a biological machine I suppose, though whether or not we have a full grasp of how it works is not made clear.  I'm sorry you won't be reading it.  What can I say?

 

Responses in bold, if you haven't guessed.

Originally Posted by jax 

The point I'm trying to make is that using "science" as a benchmark for human perception of the universe is simply a less than reliable resource. 

 

Then what is a reliable resource?

 

The point I'm trying to make is that it simply doesn't matter whatever you believe a reliable resource might be - you cannot reliably predict how everyone will respond to a given stimulus.  Put the human in the picture and resources be damned. 

 

You don't need to predict how everyone will respond. You only need to predict what causes their responses. That's psychology. Psychology deals directly with human motivation and perception. Yet if you want to get anywhere with psychological research, you need resources and facts. You can't just go in and claim something is true without research just because the human mind is tricky.

 

Actually, science has proven to be a very transient resource throughout our brief history in establishing so called "facts".

 

That's what makes it so much better than adamant beliefs. But, you can't just throw facts down the drain because you think they're wrong. You have to prove they are. Which you aren't doing.

 

How does that make either one better.  Neither can prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt.  "Proof" still does not take human perception into account. Again, there is the "fact" of chocolate ice cream - how do you "prove" anything about the way that tastes to an individual at specific moment in time?

 

Easy. Measure the reactions of the brain. We can do that now, thanks to science, though it's incomplete. We perceive things a certain way for concrete physical reasons. Even psychological reasons like placebo are caused by physical reactions in the brain. So they can still be measured and calculated.

 

But again, it doesn't matter. Your perceptions are your own. Thus you can't share them. Thus they mean nothing to anyone else, research included. Research only cares about what causes your perceptions. Green could be "red" to you, but if you still call it green then we're on the same page.

 

Science once told us that the world was flat and that blood-letting cured diseases.

 

Really? These were proven using the scientific method and extensive research, testing, and observation? Do you have proof of this claim?

 

I have no source, but I recall reading that the whole flat world thing is nothing but a joke of sorts. Even ancient people knew the world was a sphere. It was just some silly group of cultists or whatever in the middle ages who pushed the flat world thing.

 

Since we seem to be relying upon internet resources, here you go.

 

Here's blood letting.  There have been all matter of things understood by the most learned of people as fact that were later dis-proven or revised in the name of science. 

 

No, silly! I'm talking about research into the effects of bloodletting and flat worlds. I know people believed it at some point. But people believe in God and I don't. Nor has he been proven by any research. Just because people thought it did something didn't mean it was scientifically valid at any point in time.

 

You used these points to prove that the scientific method was flawed. Show me how these theories were proven with the scientific method. I see bloodletting more akin to cables. Doctors back then who weren't the most scientific and didn't make use of the Method developed since believed in leeches. Then with the Method leeches were debunked. They never had real scientific merit. Cables never had real scientific merit but big-time "audiophiles" believe in them. Now science is finally being applied to them and calling them a sham.

 

As advanced as science has become it remains transient.

 

I'd rather rely on current facts that may be later proven false than on pure faith.

 

Have at it.  No one is stopping you.

 

Thank God. Wouldn't want to be oppressed.

 

Today's discoveries are proved to be dated and antiquated faster than ever, or quite slowly in some cases.

 

That's those discoveries. Prog's research isn't antiquated yet. Antiquate Prog's research on audiophile myths, yourself or with links to research like he asked. Until you do, you have no weighty point.

 

As I indicated in a recent response, my own experiences have been different and that's all I have to go on.  Whether my point is "weighty" or not, matters not one wit to me - I'm just sharing my own personal experience and take on this stuff.

 

And that's exactly what we don't want! If you want to get through with us, or even begin to argue against what Prog is doing here, you have to match him with your own research and proof. Personal experience is not proof. No one else can experience it. And it's a proven fact that the mind plays tricks on people.

 

As far as explaining things like the human mind, human perceptions, and our place in this vast universe, I don't believe it really begins to tell the whole story - thus the obvious connection to faith as some attempt to explain it.

 

So, science has part of the story. And faith makes the whole story up. It's like an unfinished research paper vs. fiction. You expect us to believe the fiction first?

 

I don't expect you to believe anything at all.  I expect you'll choose what you want to believe.  I don't want to dictate what you believe - just sharing my own experience in a discussion.  I don't think either can explain why we're here and the vastness of the universe.  I think what we don't know is so far in excess of what what we do as a grain of sand on huge beach.

 

This isn't a discussion of experiences. This is science. Your posts really don't belong here if all you're posting are beliefs. They're quite welcome in other discussions in other sub-forums. If the Cables forum is allowed a No DBT tag, I think the Science forum deserves a No Subjectivism banner.

 

Science has it's own theories.  Neither can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

But at least science tries, instead of just whining about how it's impossible and we should just follow our hearts.

 

In part, our unquenchable thirst for knowledge and proof and control over nature will eventually, probably sooner than later, end our existence on this planet and destroy most of its natural resources.  It's happening at an alarming rate, as we all can plainly see. 

 

Who cares? We're just one of billions of planets. Rather quest for knowledge than stagnate in comfortable ignorance. But that's just me. And besides, science has been turning towards environmentalism for some time now. If we stopped science in the 1800s we'd have probably destroyed the planet already, and if we didn't we would soon.

 

The thing that always comes to mind in this tired discussion is that we are not machines and do not experience the world as such....

 

Of course we're machines. Biological ones. We just go by what the chemical and electrical reactions in our mind tell us. That's why hallucinogens do what they do, and that's why modern medicine works (for the most part). Unless you want to convince us that we have souls etc., but that's a discussion for a very different sub-forum.

 

We disagree entirely here.  I will not try to convince you of anything at all.

 

Good. I don't think my fragile programming could take it.

 

so what, I ask you, is the point?

 

There is no point/spoon.

 

Meanderings aside, I'll just add a good book to suggest as being very much on point: "This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession"

 

I'm not buying a book just to humor your argument. Cite it, quote it, something.

 

That's too bad.  It's a very good book.  I didn't mean it as "part of my argument", but as suggested reading that people interested in this topic might enjoy.  It neither supports not disputes my positions here, as I recall - if anything it may support your own point of humans being a biological machine I suppose, though whether or not we have a full grasp of how it works is not made clear.  I'm sorry you won't be reading it.  What can I say?

I'll check the library, though I'm not hopeful.

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man 

Krav and jax, to get back on topic, I provided all of the evidence that I can find on the internet relating to blind testing and what that has to say about audiophile myths. I have read many a thread on audiophile forums where religion, perception, semantics and philosophical meanderings have been the the counter to science. Can you now bring some actual science to this thread? For example, links to an actual study with regards to sound quality and perception.

Originally Posted by jax 

Krav - yes, I got it the first time, and appreciate the addendum.  Very interesting points.  The domain of perceptions that directly trigger such profound emotions as music is capable of is far too diverse and complex to attach numbers and graphs to, and really, what exactly is the point?  I guess I just don't share in the burning passion to "prove" everything, and to ferret out the "truth" in order to be satisfied.  In that respect, Headinjury is quite right - my input does not belong in this forum.