10 Biggest Lies in Audio
post-6298000
Post #106 of 278

John2e

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
236
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Posts
2,066
Likes
236
Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Yes, I have tried - and owned - a number of cables. I had the Blue Dragon and the Cardas on my HD-600 and HD-650.

I'm not going to get into personal finances, but let's say that I'm comfortable.

But humans never try to make money off the gullible, do they?




Erik,

It really irks me when I read something like this. When I purchased my Sen HD850 and tried to sell them a day latter at my cost to avoid returning them to Todd and him reselling as b stock, you low balled me. When I respectfully rejected your "offer" you persisted saying "You know Todds going to have to take a loss on these". You were trying to work me and "make money off the gullible" fortunately I did not bite

Now you boast about how well off you are. Rich


But the real kicker is you keep expensive cables because they "look good"
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298007
Post #107 of 278

Shike

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
70
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Posts
1,888
Likes
70
Quote:

Originally Posted by Aynjell /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is off topic and based on bioligy and/or theory. Leave it outside of a technical discussion. We're talking about headphone "myths", not penis enlargement.


We're also talking about the effectiveness of placebo, hence it's a valid example.

Quote:

The only person who's blindly accepting anything is you. Have you tried using variable cables with a Sennheiser HD650? You've answered this question once with a clear and conclusive "no". You're arguing against the idea with zero evidence for your point, or to the contrary for that matter.


I've tried various interconnects once again. Who cares if it was a bloody HD650? As for zero evidence, generally cables have been tested time and time again showing nothing that would be audible. This doesn't rule out all cables, but here's the question for you: where are the results that DO show an audible difference?

Quote:

You've not tested back and forth, so you have no basis to claim this other than your own religion, as you so elegantly put it.


Religion is based on faith, not scientific principals. Furthermore the burden of proof is on the believers. If you're telling me there is a difference I expect you to prove it, but instead you try recruiting members.

Quote:

As was already stated, the stock cable wasn't sufficient for the headphone


Proof?

Quote:

I'm neither for or against cables


Didn't you just say the stock cable was not sufficient? I'd say you've pretty much showed a "for" position right there. Nice try, but you certainly aren't unbiased here.

Quote:

I just don't see a point in bashing the idea prior to even try it.


This argument never works. Once again unless you're willing to try EVERYTHING even though it's largely been shown that there has yet to be a difference then it's hypocritical of you to take such a position.

Quote:

No science supported a round world years ago, but look where we are now. Stop being a witch burner, kthx.


Actually there was plenty of evidence the world was round.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aristos_achaion
Seriously, we're talking about music here. Part of music is enjoyment, and enjoyment is psychological. If somebody can hear an audible difference between two cables, that's not "interference".


Way to take it out of context. We're talking about testing of the cables, not the "enjoyment" section. Letting someone know what they're listening to would interfere with a DBT right? That was the point.

Quote:

Excellent. Of course I'll believe you, then. However, I suppose you wouldn't mind providing me with a citation first? A detailed description of the methodologies used, sample sizes, and potential sources of error?


I already see where this is going. You're going to discount the results because they don't jive with how *you* think they should have been done.

If that's the case, go do your own DBT.

Quote:

Seriously, when a proper DBT is done with a statistically valid sample size (and not just grilling some poor soul for a few minutes) and rigorous, unbiased methodologies, I'll believe you. I have yet to see a single citation from the "scientific" DBT crowd...there's massive selection bias and a fanatical worship of anything labelled "DBT", whether or not it's in any way valid.


Yep, just what I thought. Obviously you're not going to be happy with anything provided, so please go feel free to setup a DBT with the parameters you believe work, have them published, and come back to us.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298083
Post #108 of 278

adrift

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
580
Reaction score
12
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
580
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Religion is based on faith, not scientific principals.


There's a sort of misunderstanding here, I think, of what exactly faith is. Without meaning to get into a religious debate (because this does not necessarily have to be about religion) Faith isn't blind acceptance without evidential support... Faith often requires (broad) evidential support, at least, any faith worth hanging one's hat on. Think of the word faith as something akin to "trust" or "confidence" based upon past experience. I can think of a number of scientific principals that may fit this description.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298102
Post #109 of 278

Shike

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
70
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Posts
1,888
Likes
70
Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There's a sort of misunderstanding here, I think, of what exactly faith is. Without meaning to get into a religious debate (because this does not necessarily have to be about religion) Faith isn't blind acceptance without evidential support... Faith often requires (broad) evidential support, at least, any faith worth hanging one's hat on. Think of the word faith as something akin to "trust" or "confidence" based upon past experience. I can think of a number of scientific principals that may fit this description.


There's multiple definitions of faith. The one pertaining to religion has no seed in evidence.

Hence, in the context used it's perfectly acceptable.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298193
Post #110 of 278

adrift

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
580
Reaction score
12
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
580
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There's multiple definitions of faith. The one pertaining to religion has no seed in evidence.

Hence, in the context used it's perfectly acceptable.



That's simply not true. Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of religious beliefs, main tenants in fact, that require/required evidence to be believed... historical, cosmological, direct, circumstantial, experiential, witness testimony, mathematical, philosophical, etc., etc.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298304
Post #111 of 278

Shike

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
70
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Posts
1,888
Likes
70
Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That's simply not true. Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of religious beliefs, main tenants in fact, that require/required evidence to be believed... historical, cosmological, direct, circumstantial, experiential, witness testimony, mathematical, philosophical, etc., etc.


Once again though, that's based on trust mostly without true evidence unless you list specific religions. I can think of numerous "religions" that aren't actual religions, but are grouped under it anyway for simplicity. Much of Buddhism for example isn't really a religion in any sense.

Faith is a matter of trust, regardless of the (lack of) evidence. Faith does not require evidence by definition. If religion requires evidence (and not evidence it provides that can't be proved), then it really can't be said to be a matter of faith unless you trust their word regardless of the evidence standing. If there was no evidence you'd have to trust them anyway for faith to apply.


This is getting beyond the point though. If you want I'll preface my point with "faith in a deity" and call it a day so we can clarify which definition of faith and religion is being used.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298329
Post #112 of 278

adrift

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
580
Reaction score
12
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
580
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Once again though, that's based on trust mostly without true evidence unless you list specific religions. I can think of numerous "religions" that aren't actual religions, but are grouped under it anyway for simplicity. Much of Buddhism for example isn't really a religion in any sense.


Really? I think a lot of Buddhists who believe in reincarnation and karma would find that they practice a religion. I can think of a handful of religions that base much of their faith on evidence though. Faith, evidence, trust... None of these need exclude the other.


Quote:

Faith is a matter of trust, regardless of the (lack of) evidence.


Again, this is simply not true. If you want details PM me.

Quote:

Faith does not require evidence by definition.


Neither does it exclude it. That's the point.

Quote:

If religion requires evidence (and not evidence it provides that can't be proved), then it really can't be said to be a matter of faith unless you trust their word regardless of the evidence standing.


Who taught you that? PM me. I'll give you a number of circumstances where evidence leads some to religious belief. And what is "not evidence it provides that can't be proved"? I don't know what that means.

Quote:

If there was no evidence you'd have to trust them anyway for faith to apply.


Again, I'm not sure where you're getting that. PM me and we'll discuss it in private so we don't break any rules.


Quote:

This is getting beyond the point though. If you want I'll preface my point with "faith in a deity" and call it a day so we can clarify which definition of faith and religion is being used.


Missed this portion. Must have edited while I was posting. I contend that one can have faith in a deity and have evidence to back it.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298360
Post #113 of 278

Shike

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
70
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Posts
1,888
Likes
70
Taken to PM. For people familiar with the normally used definitions of the words the original post made should still make sense regardless.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298413
Post #114 of 278

SB

Guest
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
130
Reaction score
14
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Posts
130
Likes
14
How about this, would you classify audio as a religion?
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298417
Post #115 of 278

adrift

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
580
Reaction score
12
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
580
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Taken to PM. For people familiar with the normally used definitions of the words the original post made should still make sense regardless.


The normally defined definition of faith does not exclude evidence.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298499
Post #116 of 278

Shike

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
70
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Posts
1,888
Likes
70
Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The normally defined definition of faith does not exclude evidence.


And as I said, it's irrelevant to it which is the point.

I already sent you a PM. Deal with it there if you must cling onto this
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298521
Post #117 of 278

adrift

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
580
Reaction score
12
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
580
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif
And as I said, it's irrelevant to it which is the point.

I already sent you a PM. Deal with it there if you must cling onto this



PM replied to. Faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive. This started because you inferred that they were.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298626
Post #118 of 278

Shike

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
70
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Posts
1,888
Likes
70
Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif
PM replied to. Faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive. This started because you inferred that they were.


No, it's because you assumed they were linked when it's irrelevant. Of course if you really want a definition that even makes mention of it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
faith (fāth)
n.
. . .

2.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.


. . .



At this rate I'm ready to just block you, because it's obvious you have nothing to add to the actual topic at hand here. Bring it up in this thread one more time and it's done. If you must discuss this leave it to PM. Last time I say it.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298663
Post #119 of 278

HD-5000

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 16, 2001
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
10
Joined
Sep 16, 2001
Posts
1,400
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by SB /img/forum/go_quote.gif
How about this, would you classify audio as a religion?


More of a faith on head-fi.org and audioasylum, at least.

Now if you go to AVS forum or audioholics, you will find that the members there do not tolerate unsubstantiated claims for the most part.

Audio is a faith on head-fi, a science on AVS. Admittedly, that is putting it very broadly.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6298707
Post #120 of 278

anetode

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
2,050
Reaction score
311
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Posts
2,050
Likes
311
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Here's a question for you though. Do you get a trial for "male enhancement", even though it's a well known fact by the medical community that they don't work?

Have you traveled around the world to make sure it's round?

Do you spend days deriving constants in math to make sure they never change?

To take science and math at face value in other areas, but to blatantly ignore it in others is . . . meh.



 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top