[StanD]

Agreed. But I hope you agree that all theorems start as speculation and my point is dismissing all speculation will lead science nowhere. My first example is the best, for over 20 years cosmetologists have found no proof of dark energy or matter but the current models of the universe still stand.

Not always, it can be the result of observation and possibly with some prevailing knowledge that is relevant. Thomas Edison utilized observation all too often, e.g. light bulb - lol.
To me the basics of Electrical Engineering and properties of materials such as Copper and Silver and how they are applied in Headphone cables is pretty basic. We are not talking about rocket science so if one can hear a difference, the question is why? IMO, we as humans make poor witness to our senses and are subject to subjectivity which in this topic is the source of much controversy.

 

[spook76]

That is because the cosmetologists are busy applying makeup to customers while the cosmologists are looking through the telescopes. 

Hehe nice catch. Apologies my sloth and spell check are my ruin.

 

[Mooses9]

this thread is crazy. i dont know why cant people just accept some people like copper, some people like silver. and be done with it. 

 

[spook76]

this thread is crazy. i dont know why cant people just accept some people like copper, some people like silver. and be done with it. 

AGREED!

 

[Steve Eddy]

You dismiss any claim unless supported by your understanding of audio science and belittle and intimidate the messenger.

 
What claim have I dismissed? Quote me. I'm getting rather tired of your putting beliefs in my head and words in my mouth that are not there.

 
se

 

[Steve Eddy]

  this thread is crazy. i dont know why cant people just accept some people like copper, some people like silver. and be done with it. 

 
Because some seem to need to take it over the line of the purely subjective into the objective. If it were left purely subjective, I wouldn't have had a thing to say in this thread.
 
se

 

[manbear]

There's a middle ground between subjectivist and objectivist that I think a lot of people don't understand. Basically, suppose that the objectivists are right, and that the claims of subjectivists are due entirely to placebo effect and expectation bias -- does this really invalidate the claims of subjectivists? Even if they only think they are hearing something, why does it matter as long as they clearly have their own perceptions? If someone thinks they hear something, then they might as well really be hearing it.

To make a medical analogy, suppose I feel chronically lethargic and a doctor gives me a sugar pill. Due to the placebo effect, I now feel more energized. If I really do feel more energized, then who cares if it's in my head? The sugar pill still gave me the effects I was looking for, so I'm happy. Trying to bust my bubble amounts to little more than being a busybody. You could even say that there is an objective explanation for my perceptions -- after all, the placebo effect can be measured. 

A similar principle applies to objectivists -- if you don't hear a difference, then good for you. You just saved yourself some money. There's no need to try to make sure everybody hears things the same way you do. Be content with your own perceptions and accept that other people may have different perceptions. For all you know, your scientific beliefs may be their own source of bias.

 

[Chris_Himself]

I don't like using and/or reading big words in place of more easy to read words lol.
 
You cannot challenge me to prove something as someone who sells this stuff for a living and not have it come dangerously close to crossing the line when it comes to how MOT members on Head-Fi are allowed to function. I can't sound like I'm "selling" you my particular product at all so I have to use other people's product as a baseline (but to be fair only if it's not slamming them) so regardless of if I'm telling the truth, I'm really limited by how much truth I can put down and obviously, there are two sides, someone is gonna disagree and I don't have all that much time to argue on Head-Fi when there are plenty of more productive threads.
 
I can't just wave my .."arm" around and say "oh well look how successful I am, how could cables be a sham if I have repeat clientele" because that totally does not prove anything at all so I'm not gonna do that. I respect that a lot of times, my customers
 
When it comes down to the science of it, the ones who are most fit to hash it out, cannot do it because it breaks policy, and the people trying to get it out of us all the time sometimes believe they have won the argument because we cannot straight up lay down how we feel a certain material performs.
 
Now if we got Currawong and some other bros in here to finally say what they thought and we could provide supporting arguments and start something productive, that'd be great but I'm afraid I just cannot give you guys the answers you're looking for without sounding like I'm trying to sell you something and even if I really could, I wouldn't do it just because.. well I don't want to sound like I'm trying to sell you something regardless of rules.
 
That being said, I am a patron of DHC, Q Audio, and Moon and have been for some time because they all bring something unique to the table sonically, aesthetically, and I just plain like most of my colleagues in the field. 

 

[Mooses9]

  There's a middle ground between subjectivist and objectivist that I think a lot of people don't understand. Basically, suppose that the objectivists are right, and that the claims of subjectivists are due entirely to placebo effect and expectation bias -- does this really invalidate the claims of subjectivists? Even if they only think they are hearing something, why does it matter as long as they clearly have their own perceptions? If someone thinks they hear something, then they might as well really be hearing it.

To make a medical analogy, suppose I feel chronically lethargic and a doctor gives me a sugar pill. Due to the placebo effect, I now feel more energized. If I really do feel more energized, then who cares if it's in my head? The sugar pill still gave me the effects I was looking for, so I'm happy. Trying to bust my bubble amounts to little more than being a busybody. You could even say that there is an objective explanation for my perceptions -- after all, the placebo effect can be measured. 

A similar principle applies to objectivists -- if you don't hear a difference, then good for you. You just saved yourself some money. There's no need to try to make sure everybody hears things the same way you do. Be content with your own perceptions and accept that other people may have different perceptions. For all you know, your scientific beliefs may be their own source of bias.

 
Couldnt have said it better. and i like your placebo analogy. makes sense to me.
 
i mean its the same grounds as faith, you can't prove or disprove someones faith, its what that particular person believes in. there Are people who dont have ''faith'' in cables making a difference. but you cant prove or disprove their faith in the cable considering its their perception of what is happening.
 
let's say someone pray's about something going on in their life and they put their faith in their prayers to help the situation, and lets say that the problem going on subsides itsself....they would say its their prayers, their faith. where it could have been that reguardless of faith or prayers the situation might have subsided anyway.......
 
i feel reguardless of if its subjective or objective, or if its just a placebo effect. good for the ones that are hearing something different reguardless of what the circumstance is...objective or subjective..
 
 
obviously we have established a line straight down the middle. objective and subjective people.

 

[AnakChan]

Chaps, keep the conversation here civil. If there's any personal dispute on quotations take it offline. There's no need to muscle about publicly here on the thread, not to mention it's off topic.

 

[Steve Eddy]

  There's a middle ground between subjectivist and objectivist that I think a lot of people don't understand. Basically, suppose that the objectivists are right, and that the claims of subjectivists are due entirely to placebo effect and expectation bias -- does this really invalidate the claims of subjectivists? Even if they only think they are hearing something, why does it matter as long as they clearly have their own perceptions? If someone thinks they hear something, then they might as well really be hearing it.

 
No, provided the claims made by the so-called "subjectivists" are in fact subjective. If someone simply says something sounds better/worse to them than something else, there's absolutely nothing to argue. My only problem has been with those who would call themselves "subjectivists," but go beyond that and start making objective claims. At that point, all bets are off and you are no longer covered by the subjective shield.
 
se

 

[Steve Eddy]

  You cannot challenge me to prove something as someone who sells this stuff for a living and not have it come dangerously close to crossing the line when it comes to how MOT members on Head-Fi are allowed to function.

 
I think all objective claims should be open to question and/or challenge by any member of the forum, MoT or otherwise.
 
se

 

[proton007]

   
I think all objective claims should be open to question and/or challenge by any member of the forum, MoT or otherwise.
 
se

 
+10000000
 
Saying  'I find Silver/Copper to sound so and so'   VS  'Silver/Copper sounds so and so'  makes all the difference. One is an opinion/experience, subjective, the other is a universal claim open to challenge/debate/proof.
 
To all those who extoll the virtues of cable materials, please consider that your experiences are yours alone. The only way to establish a cause and effect relationship is to have an objective observation that's repeatable with a six-sigma accuracy.
Then you can claim a material affects the sound in a particular manner, and there will be no questions asked, no challenges thrown.
 
Until then, please stop treating skeptics like 'non-believers'.   Its not that they don't want to believe, they just won't believe your subjective claims, just like so many other areas of life (UFOs, supernatural stuff, psychics etc etc).
 
A belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.
 
Its very hard to establish the truth of subjective experiences.
Pure and simple.

 

[StanD]

All cables, Copper or Silver should come with a bottle of sugar pills. Then nobody can be sure of anything. 

 Buahaha

......

 

[manbear]

  There's a middle ground between subjectivist and objectivist that I think a lot of people don't understand. Basically, suppose that the objectivists are right, and that the claims of subjectivists are due entirely to placebo effect and expectation bias -- does this really invalidate the claims of subjectivists? Even if they only think they are hearing something, why does it matter as long as they clearly have their own perceptions? If someone thinks they hear something, then they might as well really be hearing it.

  No, provided the claims made by the so-called "subjectivists" are in fact subjective. If someone simply says something sounds better/worse to them than something else, there's absolutely nothing to argue. My only problem has been with those who would call themselves "subjectivists," but go beyond that and start making objective claims. At that point, all bets are off and you are no longer covered by the subjective shield.
 
se

I suppose I should clarify that I'm talking about the subjective claims of the subjectivists. I certainly agree that objective claims about how the properties of a certain cable material affect sound require objective justification, as they are scientific claims that should be verifiable... I get the sense that you disagree with my post, but I don't think we are making incompatible statements here.