[reano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotchaforce /img/forum/go_quote.gif http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...**+water&hl=en I posted this in general discussion but i stumbled upon this thread and it seems to fit... Look at all these perceived differences these people have when the water suddenly has a nice label on it. Its almost like theyre brains are MAKING ALL OF IT UP! Oh my-that cant be! Edit: Oh and another thing, they use words to describe the water that dont make sense! "This cable makes things sound chalky and the highs tend to be edgy and sharp like the fine tip of a knife, the mids are a bit suffocated like theyre being drowned underwater or possibly in some type of fabric of some sort... Overrall the cable tended to be crunchy!" Most cable reviews can actually be modified a bit to describe something else, like food.

Just watched it and laughing my socks off!!! I better not call names here cause I'm sure someone will go mad but if others call me names hmm thats ok loler boy they could taste the difference couldn't they (and all exactly the same water).

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif To the contrary, the burden of proof is on the positive claimant.

It seems you didn't read my explanations, but let me give some extra feedback if you are willing to read. My arguing is related to your claim above being all too categorical, as if always and in absolutely all cases the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. This I'm saying is not always the case. There are exceptions. I agree in specific contexts the burden of proof is on the claimant, in general scientific argumentation, presentation of new theories etc, it is. But in certain circumstances and contexts it is not. For instance, in a criminal court the burden of proof is always on the prosecutor (in some countries at least). The defendant can say "I am innocent", and he doesn't have the burden of proof on that positive claim. It is on the prosecutor side to support an opposing positive claim: that the defendant is guilty. Even outside courts of criminal law, not in all cases the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. For example, just because the claimant lacks interest in having his claim accepted by the challenger, then he ignores the argumentative obligation to support his claim. Let the challenger find out on his own if he cares to do so. Otherwise, the challenger might as well reject the claim, and the claimant wouldn't care, because he stopped advocating that claim for acceptance by that challenger. That was my point.

The latter situation happens even in scientific contexts. Supporters of opposing theories bring their arguments forth, the opposing arguments collide, each side attacks the opponent's arguments and premises, and some times they don't reach agreement. Each side remains seeing stronger support on their side, and remains advocating it. This happens even in papers in scientific journals over years. Two opposing (or alternative) theories remaining under consideration. Agreement is not reached, so they put on hold the argumentation, they stop trying to support their claims further, at least till more conclusive evidence is found. At least momentarily, in some way they agree to not care about the opponent not accepting their claims immediately. They stop that "obligation" to keep supporting their respective claims for the other to get convinced. If some guy out of context then meets one of those scientists and asks him for proof of his theory, that scientist might very well ignore completely the request. Let that guy on his own find out and go through all the arguments and battles that have already been held. He doesn't have to assume the responsibility to support his claims all the time for all requests that are presented to him.

So who has the burden of proof in practical terms may depend on context, motivation, circumstances, and history.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reano /img/forum/go_quote.gif RSA who are you speaking about here? Just interested to know?

Well I was being a bit too sarcastic, apologies if it was too rude. Cheers!

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reano /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who is this? hehe

I was not referring to you. Posting only in this thread doesn't put one in the category of folks I was referring to. I was referring to the died-in-the-wool thread krappers. They know who they are.

 

[dura]

Sometimes I wonder if these 'if you can't measure it it ain't there' types also haunt red wine forums.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reano /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hopefully from my thread above you can see my seriousness in willing to pay for the transport and food cost of the person (UK based of course) who can bring their cables and show me they can detect the difference using the very thing they say tells them the difference 'THEIR EARS' using the thing they know real well 'THEIR MUSIC' I am very serious and want somewhere for this to be shown. I have various cables and what to see some evidence of the discernible difference in sound. I'm not sure how I can make this more clear than saying I will pay for someone to come and demo it and I will. I want to learn from others and will pay for the privilege to see this demonstrated. Phils is this fair enough or no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by reano /img/forum/go_quote.gif So here is a challenge for those in California and here is one from me for those in the UK (train travel). The only test equipment you need to bring is your ears. Or we could look at meeting up with a portable rig of some kind. I could bring my Grace m902, and RS1's someone could bring there own CD player and music and we just have the cables as the difference. Like I said earlier if it were speakers you could tell the difference with your ears.

I've tried to make this point several times, but maybe not directly, or maybe not very well. I don't claim to be able to hear differences between cables on a Grace m902. I have never heard a Grace m902. I hear the differences on my system, using my music, under the conditions under which I listen.

I also don't claim you will hear the difference on your system with my cables, or that you will hear it on a system you have never heard before. I have no idea under what conditions you might hear differences, or whether you will hear them under any conditions.

Therefore, neither your proposed tests, and none of the others briefly described on this thread, seem likely to prove anything one way or the other. Not that they might not be fun (even just to get together), but I don't think we've yet come close to identifying a methodology that will prove anything.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotchaforce /img/forum/go_quote.gif http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...**+water&hl=en I posted this in general discussion but i stumbled upon this thread and it seems to fit... Look at all these perceived differences these people have when the water suddenly has a nice label on it. Its almost like theyre brains are MAKING ALL OF IT UP! Oh my-that cant be! Edit: Oh and another thing, they use words to describe the water that dont make sense! "This cable makes things sound chalky and the highs tend to be edgy and sharp like the fine tip of a knife, the mids are a bit suffocated like theyre being drowned underwater or possibly in some type of fabric of some sort... Overrall the cable tended to be crunchy!" I dont know how to take most cable reviews seriously when they use such silly language (although a lot of people use this type of language when theyre reviewing ANY audio product... not just cables)

Yes, people can be fooled, and people often beleive what they want to believe, and people are often duped by marketing (see, e.g., Bose), but the fact is not all water tastes the same. So you could not conclude from the fact that people were duped into thinking tapped water was bottled water or that bottled water tastes better than tap water that all water tastes the same.

Also, the voice over leads me to beleive this was a Penn & Teller deal, and those guys are a bunch of fools with a number of questionable agendas, so who even knows if the folks sitting at the table were in on it or not.

Again, not that people aren't easily duped, and there have been other similar reports of tests involving bottled water, but the analogy to cables is not a very good one -- although people are of course fooled by marketing claims with cables and other audio stuff too.

 

[gotchaforce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, people can be fooled, and people often beleive what they want to believe, and people are often duped by marketing (see, e.g., Bose), but the fact is not all water tastes the same. So you could not conclude from the fact that people were duped into thinking tapped water was bottled water or that bottled water tastes better than tap water that all water tastes the same. Also, the voice over leads me to beleive this was a Penn & Teller deal, and those guys are a bunch of idiots with a number of questionable agendas, so who even knows if the folks sitting at the table were in on it or not. Again, not that people aren't easily duped, and there have been other similar reports of tests involving bottled water, but the analogy to cables is not a very good one -- although people are of course fooled by marketing claims with cables and other audio stuff too.

did you even watch it? The guy filled all the water bottles with tap water from the hose in the back of the restaurant. The people then somehow were able to find differences in the water when there was NONE. They were sure as **** that these waters were different from one another and had their own "unique" taste.

and I dont see how penn and teller are idiots. First of all, teller does not even speak, so how you came to the conclusion that he is an idiot is obviously a false one. I would love to know why you think penn is an idiot though, also what their "questionable agendas" are.

 

[reano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've tried to make this point several times, but maybe not directly, or maybe not very well. I don't claim to be able to hear differences between cables on a Grace m902. I have never heard a Grace m902. I hear the differences on my system, using my music, under the conditions under which I listen. I also don't claim you will hear the difference on your system with my cables, or that you will hear it on a system you have never heard before. I have no idea under what conditions you might hear differences, or whether you will hear them under any conditions. Therefore, neither your proposed tests, and none of the others briefly described on this thread, seem likely to prove anything one way or the other. Not that they might not be fun (even just to get together), but I don't think we've yet come close to identifying a methodology that will prove anything.

Great so are you willing to proof this by allowing someone to come and change the cable on YOUR system and YOU tell them what the difference is with YOUR music? Under YOUR conditions? (maybe you can help contribute in this way?) and let us stop all this fuss

. Just enquiring since you can hear it right? Now remember I also said you can hear the difference on speakers and the like without some 'absolute' test just some basic changing of the speakers around, etc will do. Could it be that the cables don't make any audible difference? Thats why there is no proof? Just asking the question again. <--- And I ask it politely. Since it can be demonstrated for other audio components. If it can why not use your own conditions and let someone witness it independently? This is all I'm saying nothing more really for that level that would then add to the side that cables DO make an audible (benefical as some of the marketing would say) difference.

My question is why is it that if with a blind test of say a basic Kef speaker and say a higher end B&W nautilus I would be willing to wager that you could do a blind test with most reasonable systems with many people and they would be able to hear the difference easily. No fancy controlled experiment. Just get some one to switch the speaker cable from one to the other and ask the listener to listen to some music they know well and see if they hear the difference with their ears. Why not the same with cable? Even with price ranges that are a whole lot greater in some cases?

Or if people can hear it under their own conditions why not test it under those very same conditions independently?

 

[Kees]

@op:
As I asked before:
I keep wondering why you keep pressing and bullying people into proving things you can't even hear for yourself?
What could you possibly get out of that? An inferiority complex because you can't hear what other people can?
Why would people want to do that to you? It won't make anybody happy...

 

[reano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dura /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sometimes I wonder if these 'if you can't measure it it ain't there' types also haunt red wine forums.

Is this what you wander? Well thanks for sharing it with us. I often wander if I will win the Lottery (just thought I'd share that).

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotchaforce /img/forum/go_quote.gif did you even watch it? The guy filled all the water bottles with tap water from the hose in the back of the restaurant. .

Yes, I did watch it. The film showed a guy filling water bottles with tap water. I can show you a film that shows aliens blowing up the white house.


Quote:

Originally Posted by gotchaforce /img/forum/go_quote.gif and I dont see how penn and teller are idiots. First of all, teller does not even speak, so how you came to the conclusion that he is an idiot is obviously a false one. I would love to know why you think penn is an idiot though, also what their "questionable agendas" are.

I don't want to divert the thread, and perhaps my previous comment about them already did that. But I have watched and read a number of things that they (i.e., including Teller) have produced or have been behind, and they have a particular social and political agenda, and also some beliefs or opinions that are rather foolish and misguided. In addition, my read on many things they have done is that they wish to prove that the average person is a fool. Now I don't want to debate that point here, but I happen to have come to know how they have done at least one other project, and I don't trust their motives (they are in the entertainment business remember) and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw Penn.

But that's just my opinion. I understand others may have a different opinion of them, and that's ok.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reano /img/forum/go_quote.gif Great so are you willing to proof this by allowing someone to come and change the cable on YOUR system and YOU tell them what the difference is with YOUR music? Under YOUR conditions? (maybe you can help contribute in this way?) and let us stop all this fuss . Just enquiring since you can hear it right? Now remember I also said you can hear the difference on speakers and the like without some 'absolute' test just some basic changing of the speakers around, etc will do. Could it be that the cables don't make any audible difference? Thats why there is no proof? Just asking the question again. <--- And I ask it politely. Since it can be demonstrated for other audio components. If it can why not use your own conditions and let someone witness it independently? This is all I'm saying nothing more really for that level that would then add to the side that cables DO make an audible (benefical as some of the marketing would say) difference. My question is why is it that if with a blind test of say a basic Kef speaker and say a higher end B&W nautilus I would be willing to wager that you could do a blind test with most reasonable systems with many people and they would be able to hear the difference easily. No fancy controlled experiment. Just get some one to switch the speaker cable from one to the other and ask the listener to listen to some music they know well and see if they hear the difference with their ears. Why not the same with cable? Even with price ranges that are a whole lot greater in some cases? Or if people can hear it under their own conditions why not test it under those very same conditions independently?

No offense, but I'm having some trouble following your comments due to the structure of your sentences and paragraphs. Perhaps you could take a little more time to compose your thoughts.

As best as I can determine, you seem to be emphasizing something about speakers. My experience is with headphone systems, and I don't really do any audiophile listening through speakers.

You also seem to be upset that I don't want to do some test that you want, or you're bothered by my comments regarding the conditions under which I have heard differences in cables. I don't understand what your complaint is -- if indeed you have one. It's as if you believe I am somehow obligated (along with others) to prove something to you. Maybe I missed your point.

In terms of someone coming into my house to do a test, assuming that's what you're proposing, I am guessing that nobody would consider that a valid test. I would need time to become acclimated to the first cable, before switching to the second cable, and then switching back, etc., which would make the test impossible to conduct over a very short period of time (I don't think my wife will let someone move in) and if the person leaves between the switching, I'm sure the "skeptics" will accuse me of peeking.

 

[SoundEdit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I did watch it. The film showed a guy filling water bottles with tap water. I can show you a film that shows aliens blowing up the white house.

Are you really saying that the test was faked? I'd say that is highly unlikely since there was no need to fake it. If you are going to pick apart Penn & Teller you need to do so on a factual basis and the water show probably isn't going to be the one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't want to divert the thread, and perhaps my previous comment about them already did that. But I have watched and read a number of things that they (i.e., including Teller) have produced or have been behind, and they have a particular social and political agenda, and also some beliefs or opinions that are rather foolish and misguided. In addition, my read on many things they have done is that they wish to prove that the average person is a fool. Now I don't want to debate that point here, but I happen to have come to know how they have done at least one other project, and I don't trust their motives (they are in the entertainment business remember) and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw Penn. But that's just my opinion. I understand others may have a different opinion of them, and that's ok.

The definitely do have an agenda. There show has a Libertarian bent and they don't hide their agenda. And the point of their show is that people should think critically so they might actually approve of your not merely accepting the show on faith. However, the psychological phenomena of suggestibility is well established. We even know it has specifically been done with audio cables.

Calling Penn & Teller potentially biased is one thing but calling them "bunch of idiots" is patently false. Even making such an accusation when it is demonstrably false shows that you are no longer arguing on the merits of the specific show. They are many things but stupid is not one of them.

If they have been deceptive in the past, it does give you reason to be suspicious of them in the future--heck, magicians are professional liars--but that doesn't give you a basis for dismissing a show that is based on well established psychology.

I do have some respect for Penn & Teller but I also find their dogmatic Libertarian leaning a little suspect. If you are aware of some dodgy subterfuge on their part please PM me

 

[reano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif No offense, but I'm having some trouble following your comments due to the structure of your sentences and paragraphs. Perhaps you could take a little more time to compose your thoughts. As best as I can determine, you seem to be emphasizing something about speakers. My experience is with headphone systems, and I don't really do any audiophile listening through speakers. You also seem to be upset that I don't want to do some test that you want, or you're bothered by my comments regarding the conditions under which I have heard differences in cables. I don't understand what your complaint is -- if indeed you have one. It's as if you believe I am somehow obligated (along with others) to prove something to you. Maybe I missed your point. In terms of someone coming into my house to do a test, assuming that's what you're proposing, I am guessing that nobody would consider that a valid test. I would need time to become acclimated to the first cable, before switching to the second cable, and then switching back, etc., which would make the test impossible to conduct over a very short period of time (I don't think my wife will let someone move in) and if the person leaves between the switching, I'm sure the "skeptics" will accuse me of peeking.

LOL again and again lets go to headphones then (geez) I am telling you that there is easy tests for headphones that can demonstrate they have different audible sound and other audio components but not cables. Say whatever reasons you want for not doing the tests

Even use the age old grammar, spelling (as I mentioned before would happen) but to restate.

After a while those who can't or won't demonstrate they can hear the difference they claim (and note I am saying I am willing to demonstrate for other components and if you looked at the words, phrases, English, etc zzz (sidetrack) you would read I only state speakers as an example, <--- an example of an audio component with clear and easy difference). Just an example thats all ... eventually say

1) Oh I can't demonstrate it for x, y, z reason. I know I can hear it on my kit but I can't show you.
2) Why you ridicule me .. you mock us ..
3) Revert to name calling and just general chit chat
4) Talk about spelling, grammar (and many other off subject matters)
5) And probably most important don't deliver the proof

Your not obligated to prove anything to me, thats a fact. I'm saying I bet you can't!!! Hehe but if you can please do I will be the first to say at last conclusive proof for cables. I say again you can do this for other components in the audio chain (better not say speakers again.... so I give another EXAMPLE) like headphones you seem more comfortable with those. Here's a simple test Grado RS1 vs my sennheiser 201 (or some other headphone like this) and no need to get use to it, etc you will hear the difference. (Wow Im so convinced) I'm willing to put money (vs someone else's money) people would hear the difference.

I started the thread asking a simple question. Our ears are the best tests you say, you can hear the difference. Well use your ears to prove it. But like you say your not obligated too, no worries and neither is anyone else on this thread. I'm just asking the question.