[John2e]

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"

 

[Shike]

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.

 

[adrift]

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.

 

[Shike]

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.

 

[adrift]

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.

 

[Shike]

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.

 

[adrift]

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.

 

[Shike]

Taken to PM. For people familiar with the normally used definitions of the words the original post made should still make sense regardless.

 

[SB]

How about this, would you classify audio as a religion?

 

[adrift]

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.

 

[Shike]

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

 

[adrift]

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.

 

[Shike]

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.

 

[HD-5000]

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.

 

[anetode]

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.