[pdupiano]

Quote:

I would like to further add that the above improvement cannot possibly be placebo/bias, because I HEARD it.
 
 

I'm pretty sure you missed my points in the other threads to make such a statement. And quite possible the point of this one. 
 
All that I am pointing out is that science cannot give you ultimate truth (something true for all time) and at best it can give you what is the "best possible truth for now." Now why would you want "ultimate truths?" Simply because people make decisions and comments (like those found in the threads in the science section), believing that they know something, when in fact they do not know  -how could they. There are a great deal of social, political, and economical factors that play into science (which should make you question its supposed objectivity) and science also has an even greater moral impact on our society, especially today with new fields in bio-engineering/technology.
 
**************************************Warning: The remainder of this post contains both Political and Religious Stuff, proceed with Caution***************************************************************************************
Take for example the 9/11 commision's (I forgot the actual name of the committee) stance against providing aid/care to the 9/11 rescuers who are now suffering respiratory ailments as well as several forms of cancer. They claim that there is no scientific evidence (more recently there is scientific evidence to support the connection between health problems and the 9/11 attacks) connecting their health issues with working at ground zero conditions and subsequently decided that those individuals should not be treated using government money. In this case, "science" changed in the course of 10 years (as more data was presented and collected, albeit through individuals dying and suffering through cancer without aid/care). Who knows, perhaps after another 10 years, perhaps we find out that there was another cause for cancer/respiratory problems and the committee will have to once again over turn their decision. 
 
The reason I bring this up, is because the lay men and women who appear to champion science, more so than scientists, uphold science to a level of inscrutability that was once reserved for religion (effectively making science their religion). And like old religions, it is those who practice science professionally (like priests/priestesses) who know that its all a crock. Yeah there's a bit of truth in there, but its not what you think, or at least its not as amazingly true/accurate as you think it is. And of course, just like in religion, none of these individuals get to run/control any aspect of the political environment (with exceptions to the Pope in the Vatican and high ranking scientists in National Research Labs in the US), and so things are run by lay men and women who do not fully understand. Policies today revolving around "scientific research" use science to distance the committee or individual proposing a policy away from the actual decision they make. Politicians are quite good at distancing themselves from responsibility and liability (letting science take care of it) and accepting credit when they do something good.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 
What this all amounts to is how dangerous science can be, when individuals do not understand its limitations and its claims to truth. Philosophers have brought up the problems with science for centuries, and in fact, Plato/Socrates even goes through reasons why science can never find truth in the Phaedo (at least science as we call it today). Centuries later, Hume, Kant, Fayerabend, and even scientists turned historians like Kuhn illustrated the same concerns from 2000 years ago. Did scientists ever respond to the problems? No. Do they care? No. Are they going to find the truth? People think so. 
 
The next time animals/humans or any living (screw it even inanimate) beings are experimented on or treated for supposed cures, just remember that its not 100%, in fact its not even 90% accurate. Its possible that it may just be 10% more effective than a placebo, and that is more than enough for a scientist to call it successful. 
 

 

[gregorio]

I don't know about this "science" stuff.
My stereo sounds better after I light some candles and walk in a circle backwards while chanting.

I would like to further add that the above improvement cannot possibly be placebo/bias, because I HEARD it.

So many people here don't know nothing. It's obvious that if you walk backwards you will get a reverse dopplar effect (go and look up dopplar effect). All your music will just sound like an ambulance driving past in reverse gear. You'll hear a massive improvement in SQ if instead of walking around you just jump up and down on the spot.

Also, you can't use standard shop bought candles. Ordinary candles produce smoke which causes localised variations in air density, which slows down some of sound waves passing through it. This causes all kinds of jitter issues and therefore loss of soundstage. If you are serious about listening to music what you need is audiophile grade candles. My Super Transitioning Candles (STCs) within minutes of lighting produce super transitioning smoke, creating a uniform air density which actually promotes HF propagation by eliminating atmospheric absorption (provable effect). This results in an airiness and HF extension which will astonish you. Listen to what reviewers have said:

"I switched all the lights off and then lit the Super Transitioning Candles, the difference was shocking, it really is like night and day." - Stereofile Magazine

Super Transitioning Candles - pack of six $300. Special limited time offer - 100 candles for only $4,999.99.

 

[Willakan]

@pdp
Without quoting your entire post, I fail to see how the fact science is not infallible has any bearing on my attitudes towards hi-fi.

 

[tuahogary]

 
Quote:

So many people here don't know nothing. It's obvious that if you walk backwards you will get a reverse dopplar effect (go and look up dopplar effect). All your music will just sound like an ambulance driving past in reverse gear. You'll hear a massive improvement in SQ if instead of walking around you just jump up and down on the spot.

Also, you can't use standard shop bought candles. Ordinary candles produce smoke which causes localised variations in air density, which slows down some of sound waves passing through it. This causes all kinds of jitter issues and therefore loss of soundstage. If you are serious about listening to music what you need is audiophile grade candles. My Super Transitioning Candles (STCs) within minutes of lighting produce super transitioning smoke, creating a uniform air density which actually promotes HF propagation by eliminating atmospheric absorption (provable effect). This results in an airiness and HF extension which will astonish you. Listen to what reviewers have said:

"I switched all the lights off and then lit the Super Transitioning Candles, the difference was shocking, it really is like night and day." - Stereofile Magazine

Super Transitioning Candles - pack of six $300. Special limited time offer - 100 candles for only $4,999.99.

I'm sold! Please take mah money!!! 

 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I'm sold! Please take mah money!!! 

I keep throwing money at the screen, but it's not tunneling through on a quantum level!

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

@pdp
Without quoting your entire post, I fail to see how the fact science is not infallible has any bearing on my attitudes towards hi-fi.

Quite simple really, its the only topic that's ever really discussed/debated here... cables and their "effects" and the inability of science to prove/disprove someone's claim of hearing something after changing their cables. Call it placebo or whatever you like, science still cannot prove/disprove the existence of an observation. And its more than simply questioning of the infallibility (or perceived infallibility by most) of science, but also the scope and limits of science itself.  
 
Just review any thread/mega thread on audio cables and you will find that the anti-cable folks always say... "science says..... that you snake oilers can't hear anything." But in actuality science cannot make that claim, and realizing the limits of science leads you to the realization that both sides have their own set of beliefs, and neither is grounded in science; its usually grounded on their wallet, god knows its empty enough as it is after buying a pair of high end headphones. 

 

[gregorio]

Just review any thread/mega thread on audio cables and you will find that the anti-cable folks always say... "science says..... that you snake oilers can't hear anything." But in actuality science cannot make that claim, and realizing the limits of science leads you to the realization that both sides have their own set of beliefs, and neither is grounded in science; its usually grounded on their wallet, god knows its empty enough as it is after buying a pair of high end headphones. 

If the differences between cables are an order of magnitude (or more) beyond what the human ear is capable of hearing then science can legitimately make the claim that it is inaudible. What science cannot do and probably will never be able to do is predict what any and every individual is likely to perceive. There have been many cases of audiophiles going into great detail regarding the changes they have heard in tests between cables, when in fact the cables had not been changed. In this case, science cannot measure any physical changes in the equipment because the only change has been in the perception of the audiophile. The entirely reasonable argument made by non-cable believers is that the fault is with the perception of the audiophile, not the ability of science to measure physical audible differences.

I suggest that the inability of science to measure and predict every individual's perception and limit itself to actual physical changes in matter and energy is widely known and understood. Furthermore, the main point of science is to separate the objective from the subjective and thereby provide us with a better understanding. Whether you decide to believe in science or not is your choice but you cannot claim a better understanding by ignoring or dismissing it.

G

 

[SpaceTimeMorph]

@pdp
However, the limitation in the science is understood.  As gregorio pointed out, perception is different from reality.  We can measure cables to a high degree of accuracy.  Goes in's either equal the goes out's or not.  This is true with pretty much everything within the signal chain (including headphones/speakers).  The degree of accuracy to which we can measure these (which we can quantify in this case) has been shown to be greater than our ability to physically perceive the changes in sound.  Whether or not something after our hearing system is changing what we are perceiving is a different story.  Science doesn't understand that fully yet (although we do know a good deal).
 
This is of course another order of different from the fact that someone may subjectively like something that is different from what others may or may not like.

 

[Willakan]

@ pdp
 
 
Yup, that's what I thought you meant.
It is true that science cannot "disprove" anything - it can't truly prove anything either for that matter. In fact, it is entirely impossible to disprove that the world is composed solely of cabbages, enchanted by incorporeal fairies to behave as if it is composed of a more varied mixture of matter. Taking this one step further, how do I know you exist? How do I know that I exist, aside from my consciousness? Could I be a disembodied brain floating in a jar somewhere?
 
However, rather than questioning the validity of the entirety of human knowledge (which from one perspective would be an entirely justifiable course of action), most people choose to live their lives assuming that the world is largely as it appears, relying on others to construct theories to explain its more complex aspects. As we clearly have to distinguish between "sane" things to believe in and less "sane" things, we tend to make decisions based on what we perceive to be the balance of evidence. For example, the current model to explain our physical world prominently features atoms. There have been innumerable papers written and studies conducted which seem to support current scientific thought on the matter. Of course, it is entirely possible that atoms are in fact the aforementioned cabbages disguised by the aforementioned floating creatures. However, the current models, regardless of their accuracy, seem to allow us to reliably predict how things behave - which is all we can ever ask of science.
 
When someone objects to the current scientific understanding of a given field - for example, electronics in the case of audio cables, the onus is on them, if they want to be taken seriously, to present repeatable phenomena that appear to conflict with the current model of how such things behave. If they cannot do so, we consider their beliefs unproven and very likely wrong. In the case of cables, as you used the example, their position is further weakened by the fact that the phenomena, as well as not being repeatable or appearing to have any real logic, can be explained quite happily with reference to inevitable human bias, which can create quite apparent audible differences which simply do not exist in the conventional sense.
 
So, so far we have a set of beliefs (cables and other irrational audio related things) - and that's it. There has been no attempt to construct any model, even outside science, to explain why these phenomena are in fact proof that science is wrong. As I said in another thread, there have been more papers written on the subject of telepathy than on these miraculous audio-related effects. Such papers have been discredited for the fact their results are not repeatable and their methodology flawed. In the case of audio, we don't even have such minimal attempts at explanation.
To use an example to neatly compress the above into a sentence: Say someone suggests to me that they can tell what I am thinking by looking up my nose. Being a nice person, I suggest that sounds implausible and suggest they consolidate the body of beliefs regarding nasal-based mind reading and demonstrate in what way their "mind reading" (which to the uneducated observer appears to involve staring up my left nostril and guessing what I'm thinking until they get it right) challenges science.
 
They never present any evidence at all, but they still expect me to take them seriously?
 
 
PS: This is basically a drawn out and slightly incoherent expression of the idea behind the “celestial teapot” (Google it), with a little help from Occam’s Razor.
 

 

[SpaceTimeMorph]

Hello Bertrand Russell.

 

[Willakan]

 
Quote:

Hello Bertrand Russell.

Heh, indeed.
 
 

 

[pdupiano]

 
Quote:

If the differences between cables are an order of magnitude (or more) beyond what the human ear is capable of hearing then science can legitimately make the claim that it is inaudible. What science cannot do and probably will never be able to do is predict what any and every individual is likely to perceive. There have been many cases of audiophiles going into great detail regarding the changes they have heard in tests between cables, when in fact the cables had not been changed. In this case, science cannot measure any physical changes in the equipment because the only change has been in the perception of the audiophile. The entirely reasonable argument made by non-cable believers is that the fault is with the perception of the audiophile, not the ability of science to measure physical audible differences.

I suggest that the inability of science to measure and predict every individual's perception and limit itself to actual physical changes in matter and energy is widely known and understood. Furthermore, the main point of science is to separate the objective from the subjective and thereby provide us with a better understanding. Whether you decide to believe in science or not is your choice but you cannot claim a better understanding by ignoring or dismissing it.

G

 
The last sentence of your first paragraph is actually not a reasonable conclusion. One of the main points that I've tried go carry in several other threads regarding cables, is that science cannot predict or make claims of or with regards to the existence of someone's perception. If you look at any scientific methodology or anything resembling that, science cannot question its observations using science. All methodologies accept observations then proceed to hypotheses and test the hypothesis itself. After declaring the hypothesis false or true, they cannot go back to the perception and say that it did not exist. Unfortunately its not a two way path. If you guys recall old logic text books and the idea that P implies Q but Q does not imply P thing, its akin to that. Its a one way street of information, no going backwards to the observation. Now lets say that you disagree and that you can actually call to question the existence of observation, then you are actually calling into question all of physics starting with the observations made by early natural philosophers/scientists studying nature. If their observations are false, or questionable then the very foundation of science should be called to question. 
 
Please keep in mind that what you refer to in the cable tests are the qualities that individuals perceived in cables or lack thereof. What those tests/experiments can conclude is that there is something problematic/faulty with the individual's perception of something, and that's the end of it. The second step that non-believers make is that they claim, the believers never heard anything at all, and that they were just "making it up" and (here is where it gets bad) it is supported by science. I have never questioned the first portion about using science to test the quality or extent of one's perceptions, but I do question that leap that non-believers make in stating that "hey you didn't hear anything, and I can show it scientifically." If people admit that that conclusion is not scientific, then that's all I'm after, but if you really understand what's at stake, that's no small concession. 
 
I used to agree with you with regards to separating the objectivity/subjectivity in science, unfortunately after working/studying/teaching in the field, it is far from objective. The data may be objective, but numbers in a 12dimension matrix dont' really mean much until someone interprets the results. And after meeting with many scientists, and seeing the environment of science today, I can assure you that it is far from objective. Its actually quite sad to see so many people give up on their dreams because they have made concessions to what they will pursue for financial reasons. Scientific fields (not sure if every one of them) are highly subjective due to the inherent socio-political ties between science, technology, and the world. 
 
I am also very far from dismissing science, in fact I'm certain that I probably spend more time studying the subject itself than most of the tenured professors and researchers around me. What I am trying to bring to light are the limitations of science, which I'm not too sure many people know about. For example, did you know that science cannot question its initial observations? It cannot logically reason its assumptions (it can make logical arguments after the fact, but not before conducting a particular study). Did you also know that the crux of modern science to day is on modern mathematics? If you read into the countless mathematical models and equations used to describe the world, I think you would find it hilarious to learn how these models came to be (take for example Schrodinger's Wave equation that solved the quantum dilemma -he took one of his many girlfriends out for a week end in the country and somehow gained insight into the magical equation that now describes quantum mechanics during the trip -probably fought with his gf). Additionally, you should look at the incredible amounts of cherry picked data presented in scientific studies and even cherry picked equations to create supporting theories (take for example the dismissal of negative solutions in physics problems as being unphysical and unreasonable. But in the 20th century, that all changed and people started to accept that the negative solutions were actually representations of anti-matter). 
 
 
 

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

@pdp
However, the limitation in the science is understood.  As gregorio pointed out, perception is different from reality.  We can measure cables to a high degree of accuracy.  Goes in's either equal the goes out's or not.  This is true with pretty much everything within the signal chain (including headphones/speakers).  The degree of accuracy to which we can measure these (which we can quantify in this case) has been shown to be greater than our ability to physically perceive the changes in sound.  Whether or not something after our hearing system is changing what we are perceiving is a different story.  Science doesn't understand that fully yet (although we do know a good deal).
 
This is of course another order of different from the fact that someone may subjectively like something that is different from what others may or may not like.

Please understand that I dont disagree with anything that you've stated. I agree that perception is faulty and different from reality. Plato would roll out of his grave and slap me upside the head if I ever stated that. A lot of what I am discussing boils down to the existence of perceptions (not the qualities of the perception, eg its not about how good the sound is, its about whether there is something there at all). I claim that science cannot tell you if you actually perceive something or not, as you and many concede, science may not have the ability to do this yet. I on the other hand, make the claim that science can never go above your perceptions and tell you if you perceived something or not because questioning the existence of one's observations is outside the purview of science.  
 

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

@ pdp
 
 
Yup, that's what I thought you meant.
It is true that science cannot "disprove" anything - it can't truly prove anything either for that matter. In fact, it is entirely impossible to disprove that the world is composed solely of cabbages, enchanted by incorporeal fairies to behave as if it is composed of a more varied mixture of matter. Taking this one step further, how do I know you exist? How do I know that I exist, aside from my consciousness? Could I be a disembodied brain floating in a jar somewhere?
 
However, rather than questioning the validity of the entirety of human knowledge (which from one perspective would be an entirely justifiable course of action), most people choose to live their lives assuming that the world is largely as it appears, relying on others to construct theories to explain its more complex aspects. As we clearly have to distinguish between "sane" things to believe in and less "sane" things, we tend to make decisions based on what we perceive to be the balance of evidence. For example, the current model to explain our physical world prominently features atoms. There have been innumerable papers written and studies conducted which seem to support current scientific thought on the matter. Of course, it is entirely possible that atoms are in fact the aforementioned cabbages disguised by the aforementioned floating creatures. However, the current models, regardless of their accuracy, seem to allow us to reliably predict how things behave - which is all we can ever ask of science.
 
When someone objects to the current scientific understanding of a given field - for example, electronics in the case of audio cables, the onus is on them, if they want to be taken seriously, to present repeatable phenomena that appear to conflict with the current model of how such things behave. If they cannot do so, we consider their beliefs unproven and very likely wrong. In the case of cables, as you used the example, their position is further weakened by the fact that the phenomena, as well as not being repeatable or appearing to have any real logic, can be explained quite happily with reference to inevitable human bias, which can create quite apparent audible differences which simply do not exist in the conventional sense.
 
So, so far we have a set of beliefs (cables and other irrational audio related things) - and that's it. There has been no attempt to construct any model, even outside science, to explain why these phenomena are in fact proof that science is wrong. As I said in another thread, there have been more papers written on the subject of telepathy than on these miraculous audio-related effects. Such papers have been discredited for the fact their results are not repeatable and their methodology flawed. In the case of audio, we don't even have such minimal attempts at explanation.
To use an example to neatly compress the above into a sentence: Say someone suggests to me that they can tell what I am thinking by looking up my nose. Being a nice person, I suggest that sounds implausible and suggest they consolidate the body of beliefs regarding nasal-based mind reading and demonstrate in what way their "mind reading" (which to the uneducated observer appears to involve staring up my left nostril and guessing what I'm thinking until they get it right) challenges science.
 
They never present any evidence at all, but they still expect me to take them seriously?
 
 
PS: This is basically a drawn out and slightly incoherent expression of the idea behind the “celestial teapot” (Google it), with a little help from Occam’s Razor.
 

 
Did you ever read any of Mr. Cardas's insights? (located on the right side of the page)
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights
 
You talk about what is sane and insane, so allow me to bring up modern physics in a nutshell. 
 -The universe is composed of 96% Dark Matter and Energy, and only 4% of stuff we can see. We defined Dark Matter and Energy as things that we can never see or measure but they exist in the world and we can only measure their effects. We can do this by going in cold underground caverns located in Michigan to watch blips on a computer go by at a rate of 1 possible event of dark matter/year out of countless millions and billions of dark matter passing through our test set up.
 
At this rate, Id rather believe in God because at least I would have a greater than 0% chance of observing him since his definition does not include "you will never see or perceive me, you can only feel my work in mysterious ways."
 
Additionally, science is no longer predictable, at least not in the sense that people define predictable. Science can only predict possible outcomes of a system (for example 5 possible endings to you sunbathing in a high UV zone), but science can never definitively state one possibility over another. Its not the same kind of predictability people associate with Newtonian Mechanics. And if the only science you know is up to Newtonian Mechanics, I ask that you stop learning because its all downhill from there. 
 
As far science and cables go, look into cryogenic treatment and change in physical properties of  metals. Then there is the crystalline structure of metals (look into Ohno Continuous Casting) and their associated properties dealing with conductivity and in particular signal quality transmission. The use of Eutectic solder and elimination of schott noise. Basically go through the Cardas website first, they should give you enough ideas that will cause you to look for the "science" behind cables. 
 
Lastly, just out of curiosity, why can't science prove/disprove anything. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[Currawong]

This is a good topic and one I wanted to bring up myself. The general public have some idea that scientists pull black-or-white facts out of their hats, yet this is far from the truth. If I can get permission to put it online, I will post a radio talk given by my father on science (he was a professor in the biological sciences). He explained, with clear examples, how science works and what it does and doesn't do.