[castleofargh]

Quote:

  Probably the largest disparity I have seen in discussions here has been the level of evidence required to be called "proof".   Most heated debates come down to what is acceptable evidence and how much of it is needed to be accepted as "proof" rather than theory.     If I can't hear a difference, that isn't sufficient to say one doesn't exist.   If digital equipment doesn't record a difference, some accept that as proof, others still argue the margin of error is high enough that this is insufficient.     Philosophy courses will point out that it is basically impossible to "prove" anything and that what we have are at best evidence supported suppositions.  What we really need to do is standardize on an amount and type of evidence that must be presented before we (collectively) are willing to accept any theory as true. 

 
the evidence leads you to the conclusion! not the other way around. if the guy comes with a claim and then struggles to prove it. it only goes to show that he should have kept his mouth shut from the start . there really is no way to sugar coat this.
obviously the wildest the claim, the hardest it is to prove. the solution is simple, be more prudent with what I'm saying.
I think I heard a difference but I didn't pass any blind test, what I can say about this is "I think I heard it", "I feel like I heard it". anything that in the end isn't a claim.
if I passed an abx, then my claim should be that " I could pass an abx under this and those conditions!". and not some fancy oversimplified generalizations.
 
it's really a matter of keeping what we know in relation to what we say. basic honesty should induce this self control. sadly this is internet and people like to talk big and make universal rules out of one half baked experience. oh I heard a cable that made a weird sound once, "hey guys, cables sound different!" that's something we're reading way to often.
the legitimate right to ask for someone to back up his claim is a practical tool against those people who bite more than they can chew. and for us all, a way to know more about the matter at hand by getting some evidence and a precise context.
 
 
 

 

   
the burden of proof is obviously there for any claim. there is no such thing as a free pass

 
Strict experimentalism needs to be subject to constraints for it to have any value.
 
There are some claims that are obviously true because they're an extension of facts that have been shown to be true many times in the past. As the old wisecrack goes, it's easy to find two cables that sound different, just cut the wires in one of them. Once you are told that one of them has been cut there's no point going through an ABX test, since we know cut wires don't conduct electricity.

 the more constraints the more specific the conclusion and the more chances to claim something right. so yes, I'm all for constraints!
removing as many bias as possible is really doing that.
 
 
and about having to prove something that has reached a consensus, well if everybody agrees, there shouldn't be too much challenge. except if you have a 5year old kid, then "why?"  will be heard quite a few times ^_^.
 
 

  Furthermore, we need to distinguish burden of proof from the concept of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is founded on the idea that complex systems typically have a high entropy, i.e. they can adopt a large number of different states and switch between them in seemingly random fashion (in other words, the interaction of a large number of processes and variables makes it effectively impossible to predict the state it will be in). An experiment is a process in which we make an intervention in such a system to see whether we can cause it to tend to adopt a smaller number of states. In other words, we're trying to see whether we can decrease the entropy of the system. Now, I don't need to do an experiment to prove that entropy doesn't decrease spontaneously. The second law of thermodynamics is quite clear - everything tends towards the equlibrium in which entropy is maximised. That's why the null hypothesis, that everything is at equilibrium and there are no differences, doesn't need to be proved - it's a starting point which you can only seek to disprove.

 
I agree, and it's nicely said. but we're struggling everyday with people who don't get why they should take responsibility for what they said, and you want them to get the implications of entropy?

I'm afraid you will have to lower your expectations.

 

[spruce music]

Another way to paraphrase it is the old Sagan quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
 
Claiming wires sound different is extraordinary. 
 
Claiming amps sound different is less extraordinary.
 
Claiming speakers sound different is quite ordinary even expected. 
 
So when you claim something really far out the claimant may not be burdened with proof, but he might expect unless he provides some good evidence he will not be believed.  He also should expect others won't be interested in investigating his claim if it is far enough out to seem basically impossible. 

 

[sonitus mirus]

  Another way to paraphrase it is the old Sagan quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
 
Claiming wires sound different is extraordinary. 
 
Claiming amps sound different is less extraordinary.
 
Claiming speakers sound different is quite ordinary even expected. 
 
So when you claim something really far out the claimant may not be burdened with proof, but he might expect unless he provides some good evidence he will not be believed.  He also should expect others won't be interested in investigating his claim if it is far enough out to seem basically impossible. 

 
I agree with your statement, but a good number of folks that frequent this site apparently are not aware of what constitutes an outlandish claim from a reasonable one based on even fundamental aspects of the science behind it all.  I've seen Mr. Eddy show through math and measurement readings how insignificant the various properties of audio cables could have on the impact of an audio signal with regards to the commonly accepted limits of human hearing.  The retort from deniers is the usual fare, that something must be causing the difference they only believe they are hearing, so they attribute the supposed differences to mysterious and yet-to-be-measured unknown factors.  This conclusion is far from rational, but I see it over and over again.

 

[castleofargh]

good point, maybe even before the burden of proof, there is a problem with how to come to a conclusion.  most audiophiles, will hear something, and from the conclusion that is "I heard this", will try to reverse engineer logic to find a cause.
but of course without much objectivity, without testing variables one by one and each time using a control to see if that variable was even relevant at all.
 
#mylife
I always thought that the soundstage on the sansa clip wasn't great, yet it measured pretty well all over. so I was looking for a reason to justify the poor soundstage I thought I was hearing. one day I read measurements somewhere and see crappy crosstalk values on the clip into 16ohm.
 crosstalk impacts stereo separation, stereo is space and imaging, so 1+1=2 and I'm done. poor crosstalk values = bad soundstage.  it never even occurred to me to doubt that, test it, or ask about the magnitude needed. I had another DAP with a better soundstage and coincidentally better crosstalk, that's all I needed to create my own fact. I mean it's so obvious!
for years I must have run my mouth about this.
then in a DSP bundle that I downloaded for something else, there was a crosstalk plug in. I tried it without thinking much of it. wow the impact was soooooo ..... small. I looked for other ways, even made my own tracks with different levels thinking the DSP didn't work(that's how amazing the effect was^_^) and it was the same. crosstalk almost doesn't matter as long as it's not super loud.
I've been wrong while 150% sure of myself for several years with a half truth. all because I turned a reasoning that seemed ok for me into a fact without actually making sure of anything. but worse, I stuck the first cause I could find to the consequence I already had. when of course things should go the other way around, we should try stuff and look at the results instead of cherry picking the cause that fits our own ideas.
 
someone calling me out on this and asking me to prove my claim that average crosstalk ruined the soundstage, would have forced me to test it a lot sooner and learn something. that's why I would never see the burden of proof as a dismissive tool or a way to tell people to shut up. it's often a necessary tool to find out what's really going on, and  a legitimate double check IMO.
 
 
 
 
 
now if you excuse me, I have to go explain how I demonstrated myself to be wrong about the tape mod on the IE80's topic ^_^

 

[proton007]

I've grown tired of these claims.
 
Hearing a difference can be just a difference in hearing.
 
Hearing a difference can be your state of mind, your mood at that moment.
 
Hearing a difference can be a neuron 'misfiring'...maybe an indication of some other bigger issue to be faced in the future, who knows?
 
Hearing a difference can just be that enthusiasm to post a review on Head-Fi.
 
 
Point is, I've found it's kind of a dual player game. What we 'feel' and what's actually going on is shaped by a lot of our cultural knowledge, prevailing philosophies as well as the intention of doing what we do, which depends on the first two factors.
 
If hearing a difference helps someone have a good time, and they think it's worthwhile, well then I can't object. But claiming I will also have the same experience is b.s. in my humble opinion, because the physiology and psychology of every individual is unique.
 
So, while listening is a process involving this being sitting behind these two eyes and in between these two ears, proving that something exists for everyone can only be done by externalizing this observation through a common, third device.
This defeats the purpose.
Add to this the fact that this being is dynamic, its physiology and psychology changes everyday as opposed to being an unchanging point of reference. Like looking at a landscape from a moving train. Small, subtle changes creep in every moment, some obvious, others not so obvious.
 
In conclusion, I just take the route of measurements to guide me through the market, and save myself from humdrum and bad purchases, but measurements can only go so far in guiding me towards the best purchase, because then the answer leads to all sorts of weird places, without any common point of agreement.

 

[RRod]

  In conclusion, I just take the route of measurements to guide me through the market, and save myself from humdrum and bad purchases, but measurements can only go so far in guiding me towards the best purchase, because then the answer leads to all sorts of weird places, without any common point of agreement.

 
But how far measurement goes depends very much on what you're buying. With headphones there are certain measurements that will tend to match up with consensus opinions (really weak bass, for instance), but once you get to cans that "check all the boxes", things really do come down to subjectivity because no one has the same ears, and few have the time to get HRIR/BRIRs measured. For DACs, on the other hand, there is an actual, theoretically perfect waveform that it should generate from any given set of samples, so we have a much firmer grip on objectively assessing them. That's why when someone says "these two headphones sound different" no one, even on this subforum, bats an eye. But when someone says DACs sound different, we ask for evidence, especially if their measurements speak to transparency.

 

[spruce music]

  good point, maybe even before the burden of proof, there is a problem with how to come to a conclusion.  most audiophiles, will hear something, and from the conclusion that is "I heard this", will try to reverse engineer logic to find a cause.
but of course without much objectivity, without testing variables one by one and each time using a control to see if that variable was even relevant at all.
 
#mylife
I always thought that the soundstage on the sansa clip wasn't great, yet it measured pretty well all over. so I was looking for a reason to justify the poor soundstage I thought I was hearing. one day I read measurements somewhere and see crappy crosstalk values on the clip into 16ohm.
 crosstalk impacts stereo separation, stereo is space and imaging, so 1+1=2 and I'm done. poor crosstalk values = bad soundstage.  it never even occurred to me to doubt that, test it, or ask about the magnitude needed. I had another DAP with a better soundstage and coincidentally better crosstalk, that's all I needed to create my own fact. I mean it's so obvious!
for years I must have run my mouth about this.
then in a DSP bundle that I downloaded for something else, there was a crosstalk plug in. I tried it without thinking much of it. wow the impact was soooooo ..... small. I looked for other ways, even made my own tracks with different levels thinking the DSP didn't work(that's how amazing the effect was^_^) and it was the same. crosstalk almost doesn't matter as long as it's not super loud.
I've been wrong while 150% sure of myself for several years with a half truth. all because I turned a reasoning that seemed ok for me into a fact without actually making sure of anything. but worse, I stuck the first cause I could find to the consequence I already had. when of course things should go the other way around, we should try stuff and look at the results instead of cherry picking the cause that fits our own ideas.
 
someone calling me out on this and asking me to prove my claim that average crosstalk ruined the soundstage, would have forced me to test it a lot sooner and learn something. that's why I would never see the burden of proof as a dismissive tool or a way to tell people to shut up. it's often a necessary tool to find out what's really going on, and  a legitimate double check IMO.
 
 
 
 
 
now if you excuse me, I have to go explain how I demonstrated myself to be wrong about the tape mod on the IE80's topic ^_^

So what you needed to know was that something like 15 db difference in channels causes a sound to be furthest right or left it can possibly sound.  If you are listening to a studio produced album, it likely is all done with panning channels anyway, and that is about all they do.    A few simple example signals could demonstrate this to anyone not believing it.  So when one headphone amp has -60 db crosstalk and another has -90db you will know while nice to have better specs it won't account for a difference in soundstage.
 
I do believe your description of how this idea became an observed fact to you is exactly what most people do.  It is so easy, especially if influenced by others to think that way.  It simply becomes a painless way to reduce ambiguity in your mind. Doesn't matter it is wrong if you don't know why or how or that it is.

 

[castleofargh]

you're spot on. it's easy because we don't even need to use a wrong reasoning to come up with the wrong conclusion. just not using all the elements at hand is enough. but of course how could anybody know if he's missing something, or if he's ignorant of something? it's really a school case of why science methods and protocols exist.

 

[MacedonianHero]

  Castle of A posted:
 
3/ burden of proof:
The person making a claim is sole responsible for trying to prove it.
If I say that I've been abducted by aliens in a pink flying saucer, I can't possibly demand to people doubting my claim, to prove I wasn't abducted. As the one making the claim, it falls on me to prove the reality of it. And if I can't, well then it's only natural that nobody would take me seriously.
Anybody trying to get away from that responsibility is usually doing what is called appeal to ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
 
I've heard this argument for years, used it myself, but I've come to really dislike the semantics of it.
 
If I listen to two cables and I claim that they don't sound the same, I am asked to prove it.
 
If I listen to two amps and I claim that they don't sound different I get a pass.
 
The burden of proof has to apply to both sides of the argument equally.
 
All claims have to be bound by the same standard of proof.
 
No more cop-outs.
 

 
Hey Eric: I totally agree with you here! The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the one making the positive claim. Otherwise, that dragon in my garage that you have to disprove becomes a silly venture. 

 (An other gem from Dr. Sagan.) Happy Holidays!!!

 

[castleofargh]

  Hey Eric: I totally agree with you here! The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the one making the positive claim. Otherwise, that dragon in my garage that you have to disprove becomes a silly venture. 

 (An other gem from Dr. Sagan.) Happy Holidays!!!

I'm confused. I agree with what you said, but you also say you agree with upstateguy quoting my post to say he doesn't like the burden of proof.
so does that mean I disagree with myself? ^_^  or that we didn't interpret his post the same way? (just in case the blue stuff is a quote from my post).

 

[MacedonianHero]

  I'm confused. I agree with what you said, but you also say you agree with upstateguy quoting my post to say he doesn't like the burden of proof.
so does that mean I disagree with myself? ^_^  or that we didn't interpret his post the same way? (just in case the blue stuff is a quote from my post).

 
I agree with the comments in blue to confirm. Only the positive assertion requires proof...otherwise it's the Null position (for the reasons I gave). Sorry it wasn't more clear.

 

[BlindInOneEar]

Is this whole thread based on a false analogy?
 
The OP said:
 
"I've heard this argument for years, used it myself, but I've come to really dislike the semantics of it.
 
If I listen to two cables and I claim that they don't sound the same, I am asked to prove it.
 
If I listen to two amps and I claim that they don't sound different I get a pass.
 
The burden of proof has to apply to both sides of the argument equally."
 
I would submit that cables and amps are two completely different types of components and as such are subject to two completely different levels of proof.
 
Cables are passive components.  They are only expected to move an output signal to a different place where it then becomes an input signal.  The expectation for a speaker cable is that it will remain neutral and so transmit, unchanged, the output from the amplifier to the input of the speaker.  Certainly, as between competently designed speaker cables, there will be infinitesimal differences, but the likelihood of these rising into the realm of audibility should approach nil.  It is when the speaker cable becomes discernibly audible that it becomes extraordinary.  At that point we start looking for answers as to why it is audible.
 
On the contrary, amplifiers are active components.  They are expected to modify signals passing through them.  This modification does not happen by magic, but by passing the signal through actual, physical devices.  As any EE will tell you, it is fantasy to expect these physical devices to be identical and to have no effect on their particular circuits.  There will always be unit to unit variation.   While extraordinary efforts are spent trying to minimize the variations these devices have on the signal while it is being changed, it is completely unsurprising if changes do occur. 
 
The OP is pulling your leg by asking you to apply the same standards to amplifiers as is applied to cables.
 
I note that the OP does not bring up the subject of speakers.  Talk about variability!   Now we aren't just talking about passing along a signal, or amplifying a signal, but actually moving a signal through crossover components to multiple transducers in an idiosyncratic enclosure to transform that signal into air pressure in a room.
 
Does the OP seriously think that speaker to speaker variance is more surprising than cable to cable variance, and that they should be held to the same standard?

 

[castleofargh]

 that would work well if people in an argument knew all about the gear, but it's never the case. most of the time in here, people claim stuff they know nothing about, so you can't reason with them based on the device's technology. if they knew anything about it, they wouldn't have made the false claim in the first place. ^_^
so while your point is rational and could be simplified as "with more variables, the chances for differences increases", in practice it doesn't help much to sort out our everyday debates based on ignorance. as actual knowledge of the devices is what's missing the most.
the burden of proof require for people making the claim that they bring the knowledge they have, showing how they came to a conclusion, or how they have nothing to show. in both cases, it helps the debate, helps showing who's taking liberties with the argument, and helps other people reading it in making a decision on who they shouldn't trust.
 
OP came with the idea that there was some unfair treatment using the burden of proof where objectivists had made up their own rule to favor their point of view. I think that's really what annoys him, more than the actual burden of proof.
and in some ways it could look like that sometimes, as the objectivist assumes like MacedonianHero mentioned, that it would be a waste of time to claim or try and prove the absence of difference. people unfamiliar with the reasons why it would be a waste of time could feel like only their claims about a difference has to be proved and that it's unfair. except in practice it's usually not claim of difference vs claim of no difference. more like claim of difference vs "prove it".
and again people misinterpret that. when we ask for evidence of a claim following the burden of proof rule, it does not mean that we claim the opposite of the claim. that's some subjective crap, "he's not with me so he's against me". but we aren't, we just ask claims to be demonstrated, just like when in a movie the girl is taken hostage, you ask for proof that she's still alive.
it's what the clever guy does before going further into discussing the modalities. because if phase one isn't cleared, then there is no more point in having a talk.
and it's something simple enough so that everybody can understand when he messed up. I'm afraid many people don't have enough knowledge to even tell the difference between passive and active components, and many just like my lovely mother, really couldn't care less. that's why we try to stick to the basics with the burden of proof ^_^.

 

[upstateguy]

  I can't hear a difference between hi-res and Redbook of the same master. How would I prove that to you? A failed ABX? That's basically the issue: I can fail the test if I want. Answering "A" for 10 guesses has an extremely low probability that I'll randomly pass. So where does that leave us? Well, we'd need a different test, but then I can probably fail that if I want.

 
I didn't have a chance to read through all the posts but to clarify a bit.......
 
The 'issue' as you call it, is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm tired of guys gaming the system with the can't prove a negative cop out.
 
It  has been said that the person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. But this is not true in our electronic hobby.  Nonexistence can be proven.
 
When you claim that you can't hear a difference between hi-res and Redbook of the same master, what you're really claiming is that there is no audible difference between the two.
 
And if you claim that you can hear a difference between hi-res and Redbook of the same master, what you're really claiming is that there is an audible difference between the two.
 
In either case a claim has been made with an accompanying a burden of proof.
 
I'll leave the type and validity of the proof to the claim makers.
 
So, for instance, and to provide something of an example, whether you hear a difference between 'your claim here' or not, record the output of each and null it in Audacity or the DiffMaker and post the results.
 
 

 

[RRod]

   
I didn't have a chance to read through all the posts but to clarify a bit.......
 
The 'issue' as you call it, is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm tired of guys gaming the system with the can't prove a negative cop out.
 
It  has been said that the person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. But this is not true in our electronic hobby.  Nonexistence can be proven.
 
When you claim that you can't hear a difference between hi-res and Redbook of the same master, what you're really claiming is that there is no audible difference between the two.
 
And if you claim that you can hear a difference between hi-res and Redbook of the same master, what you're really claiming is that there is an audible difference between the two.
 
In either case a claim has been made with an accompanying a burden of proof.
 
I'll leave the type and validity of the proof to the claim makers.
 
So, for instance, and to provide something of an example, whether you hear a difference between 'your claim here' or not, record the output of each and null it in Audacity or the DiffMaker and post the results.
 
 

 
My point I guess was more about the realities of doing statistical tests and how you get meaningful results out of them. In a world where everyone puts his 100% honest-to-gawd effort into any test, then I'd agree with you to an extent. But that's not our world.