[Heidegger]

Quote:

 

1. you did not mention you had been messing about with gain settings, had you done so I would have mentioned the influence of volume levels which I did  once you mentioned the gain settings changes. You witheld vital data. . . . I am not psychic
 
2. How can I solve a problem without all the required data
 

 

1. It's news to you that amps may have gain settings and/or that they may be adjusted by the user? You didn't consider it even as a remote possibility?
 
2. Well, that's just it. You don't always know whether you have all the required data. You might come to a certain conclusion with the data you do have and totally fail to see that you did not have some crucial bit of data that would change the results. How often are we told about studies that conclude such and such a thing only for the conclusion to be totally reversed a few years later? The scientific method is accurate and rigorous, but if it turns out that one or more of your premises is faulty or that crucial data was missing, then the possibility for error becomes great.  Also, seemingly irrefutable statements, even those based on established laws of physics, can be wrong. There was a time when scientists believed that everything in the universe -- everything material at any rate-- was explainable through Newton's laws of motion. Today of course we know that that is not the case. Finally, it behooves everyone to remember that not everything can be measured -- lest hubris infect us.

 

[rroseperry]

Quote:

2. Well, that's just it. You don't always know whether you have all the required data. You might come to a certain conclusion with the data you do have and totally fail to see that you did not have some crucial bit of data that would change the results. How often are we told about studies that conclude such and such a thing only for the conclusion to be totally reversed a few years later? The scientific method is accurate and rigorous, but if it turns out that one or more of your premises is faulty or that crucial data was missing, then the possibility for error becomes great.  Also, seemingly irrefutable statements, even those based on established laws of physics, can be wrong. There was a time when scientists believed that everything in the universe -- everything material at any rate-- was explainable through Newton's laws of motion. Today of course we know that that is not the case. Finally, it behooves everyone to remember that not everything can be measured -- lest hubris infect us.

Ok, stop right here. Newton's laws of motion are wrong, they were incomplete. They are still good for particular frames of reference. And they never "explained" everything, just the movement of physical objects.
 
(added edit) I realized that it wasn't clear why I was harping on this little point in the whole long discussion. But Heidegger, you don't seem to have a good grasp of the science that you're dismissing. Generally research results add to what's known, it doesn't completely overturn it.  I think you might be working with a fuzzy understanding of Kuhn's notion of paradigm shifts. 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heidegger /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
A healthy amount of skepticism is good; but when you start believing that the senses can never be trusted and that they always deceive you, and that moreover every little thing has to be scientifically proven before it can be accepted -- such a degree of skepticism is excessive and becomes counterproductive.
 

Such skepticism is the epistemological basis of the scientific method.

 
Terriblepaulz is right.  If our senses were 100% reliable and told us everything we needed to know about the world then we wouldn't need science at all.  The fact that we do should tell you something about the reliability of our senses.  Our senses are imperfect and have evolved for very specific purposes.  They send our brain much more data than we can process either consciously or unconsciously.  Our cognitive machinery take very large shortcuts that usually work and discard immense amounts of data that usually isn't needed.  This leaves us vulnerable to all sorts of misperceptions which can only be rectified through applying reason to evidence, i.e. the scientific method.
 
Quote:

 Also, seemingly irrefutable statements, even those based on established laws of physics, can be wrong. There was a time when scientists believed that everything in the universe -- everything material at any rate-- was explainable through Newton's laws of motion. Today of course we know that that is not the case. Finally, it behooves everyone to remember that not everything can be measured -- lest hubris infect us.

 
Scientists never actually believed that.  For example the orbit of mercury was know to be different from what was predicted by Newton's laws of motion.  Scientists knew it was wrong, but kept using those laws anyway, because it worked so well for everything else.  The mystery of mercury's orbit was solved when Einstein developed his general theory of relativity.
 
Science is always tentative.  Science never claims 100% certainty.  The only people who say it does are people like you who don't actually understand it.  All we are saying is that your claims are unlikely to be true since every time they have been properly tested they have failed.  If you believe them to be true then test them yourself.  Prove us wrong.  We are not dogmatically stating you are wrong and could not possibly be right.  We are stating that there is no evidence that you are correct and that we won't believe you until you show us evidence.
 
Also, anything that exists can be measured given the right equipment.  If, even in principle it cannot be measured then how can you even claim it exists?  If something doesn't have to be measured before it can be claimed to exist then how can anyone disprove you?  If I need no evidence to claim that something exists then what stops me from claiming whatever I want and what stops you from believing it?
 
Even if you say that its ok to believe in things which are undetectable you don't actually believe it yourself.  If you did you'd end up believing anything that anyone ever told you.

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

Quote:

2. Well, that's just it. You don't always know whether you have all the required data. You might come to a certain conclusion with the data you do have and totally fail to see that you did not have some crucial bit of data that would change the results. How often are we told about studies that conclude such and such a thing only for the conclusion to be totally reversed a few years later? The scientific method is accurate and rigorous, but if it turns out that one or more of your premises is faulty or that crucial data was missing, then the possibility for error becomes great.  Also, seemingly irrefutable statements, even those based on established laws of physics, can be wrong. There was a time when scientists believed that everything in the universe -- everything material at any rate-- was explainable through Newton's laws of motion. Today of course we know that that is not the case. Finally, it behooves everyone to remember that not everything can be measured -- lest hubris infect us.

Ok, stop right here. Newton's laws of motion are wrong, they were incomplete. They are still good for particular frames of reference. And they never "explained" everything, just the movement of physical objects.
 
(added edit) I realized that it wasn't clear why I was harping on this little point in the whole long discussion. But Heidegger, you don't seem to have a good grasp of the science that you're dismissing. Generally research results add to what's known, it doesn't completely overturn it.  I think you might be working with a fuzzy understanding of Kuhn's notion of paradigm shifts. 

I'm not dismissing science. I'm saying its not infallible. I also didn't claim that everything would be overturned, only that certain totally objective statements made in the past would have been proved wrong in light of quantum mechanics. Nothing can travel faster than light -- until of course something that travels faster than light is discovered.

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

If our senses were 100% reliable and told us everything we needed to know about the world then we wouldn't need science at all.  The fact that we do should tell you something about the reliability of our senses. 
 
Quote:

 Also, seemingly irrefutable statements, even those based on established laws of physics, can be wrong. There was a time when scientists believed that everything in the universe -- everything material at any rate-- was explainable through Newton's laws of motion. Today of course we know that that is not the case. Finally, it behooves everyone to remember that not everything can be measured -- lest hubris infect us.

 
1. Scientists never actually believed that. 
 
2. Science is always tentative.  Science never claims 100% certainty.  The only people who say it does are people like you who don't actually understand it. 
 
3. All we are saying is that your claims are unlikely to be true since every time they have been properly tested they have failed.  If you believe them to be true then test them yourself.  Prove us wrong.  We are not dogmatically stating you are wrong and could not possibly be right.  We are stating that there is no evidence that you are correct and that we won't believe you until you show us evidence.
 
4. Also, anything that exists can be measured given the right equipment.  If, even in principle it cannot be measured then how can you even claim it exists?  If something doesn't have to be measured before it can be claimed to exist then how can anyone disprove you?  If I need no evidence to claim that something exists then what stops me from claiming whatever I want and what stops you from believing it? Even if you say that its ok to believe in things which are undetectable you don't actually believe it yourself.  If you did you'd end up believing anything that anyone ever told you.

1. They believed the Newtonian laws governed more than the latter can be applied to.
 
2. Of course I don't believe that science claims 100% certainty. My problem is only with people who act as if it does and completely dismiss the experience of others when it does not seem to conform to what they believe is or isn't possible.
 
3.  And what are my claims? A) My Cardas headphone cable sounds different than the stock cable. It does. Anybody who has actually heard it can tell you that, no matter what any measurements say. If your measurements say there is no difference in how they sound, then your measurements are wrong and you better figure out where you went wrong. B) That my new amp sounds different than my old amp, which again it does. C) Gain settings change the way the amp sounds, which they do. All my statements are correct. If your measurements contradict them, then your measurements are wrong. You're obviously forgetting to take something into account. Otherwise, the measurements would account for the real difference in sound. But of course as far as I know nobody here has actually measured the Cardas vis a vis the stock Sennheiser cable, so, without any measurements at all, you're up a tree. What are you basing your statements on?
 
4. Sorry, not everything can be measured. The study of what cannot be measured is called phenomenology. For instance, suppose I am wearing contact lenses and go to a museum to look at one of my favorite paintings. While I am studying the painting it is closer to me than the contact lenses which I forgot I was even wearing. When I have a conversation with you, you are closer to me than the contact lenses. But to somebody who has objectified everything and comes limping along with his/her tape measure, the kind of closeness I am talking about makes no sense. S/he will always tell me that the contact lenses are closer to me than the painting or than the person I am intimately talking to. Of course, to the person with the tape measure perpetually lodged in their heads, "me" equals "body." They have no conception of how something farther away from my body can still be closer to me. When I say that the painting is closer to me, I'm not talking about my body at all. The kind of distance and closeness I'm talking about can't be measured. Another example: suppose you are walking down the street and spot a friend of yours who is a few yards away. That friend is closer to you than the stranger walking right behind you who you never noticed was ever there. Another thing that can't be measured is context. Things aren't just bare objects but exist in a context. Like signs, things perpetually point to and indicate each other. The presence of shoes indicates the existence of a shoemaker and of the animal who provided the leather for the shoe, and so forth. This is called the referential contex, which cannot be measured with any equipment.
 

 

[rroseperry]

Quote:

I'm not dismissing science. I'm saying its not infallible. I also didn't claim that everything would be overturned, only that certain totally objective statements made in the past would have been proved wrong in light of quantum mechanics. Nothing can travel faster than light -- until of course something that travels faster than light is discovered.

 
Whoa, didn't you read what I wrote? Newton's not wrong. Furthermore, he was concerned with celestial mechanics which only has the word mechanics in common with quantum mechanics.
 
I love science fiction as much as though next person, but there are real reasons why light speed is an upper limit,
 

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

 
 
I love science fiction as much as though next person, but there are real reasons why light speed is an upper limit,
 

And good reasons they are until better reasons come along for why they are not.
 

 

[rroseperry]

Clearly you didn't bother to read the article. Ok, I'm done.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

1. They believed the Newtonian laws governed more than the latter can be applied to.
 
2. Of course I don't believe that science claims 100% certainty. My problem is only with people who act as if it does and completely dismiss the experience of others when it does not seem to conform to what they believe is or isn't possible.
 
3.  And what are my claims? A) My Cardas headphone cable sounds different than the stock cable. It does. Anybody who has actually heard it can tell you that, no matter what any measurements say. If your measurements say there is no difference in how they sound, then your measurements are wrong and you better figure out where you went wrong. B) That my new amp sounds different than my old amp, which again it does. C) Gain settings change the way the amp sounds, which they do. All my statements are correct. If your measurements contradict them, then your measurements are wrong. You're obviously forgetting to take something into account. Otherwise, the measurements would account for the real difference in sound. But of course as far as I know nobody here has actually measured the Cardas vis a vis the stock Sennheiser cable, so, without any measurements at all, you're up a tree. What are you basing your statements on?
 
4. Sorry, not everything can be measured. The study of what cannot be measured is called phenomenology. For instance, suppose I am wearing contact lenses and go to a museum to look at one of my favorite paintings. While I am studying the painting it is closer to me than the contact lenses which I forgot I was even wearing. When I have a conversation with you, you are closer to me than the contact lenses. But to somebody who has objectified everything and comes limping along with his/her tape measure, the kind of closeness I am talking about makes no sense. S/he will always tell me that the contact lenses are closer to me than the painting or than the person I am intimately talking to. Of course, to the person with the tape measure perpetually lodged in their heads, "me" equals "body." They have no conception of how something farther away from my body can still be closer to me. When I say that the painting is closer to me, I'm not talking about my body at all. The kind of distance and closeness I'm talking about can't be measured. Another example: suppose you are walking down the street and spot a friend of yours who is a few yards away. That friend is closer to you than the stranger walking right behind you who you never noticed was ever there. Another thing that can't be measured is context. Things aren't just bare objects but exist in a context. Like signs, things perpetually point to and indicate each other. The presence of shoes indicates the existence of a shoemaker and of the animal who provided the leather for the shoe, and so forth. This is called the referential contex, which cannot be measured with any equipment.
 

1. No, it was know to be imperfect form the start.
 
2. You are the only one claiming that anyone actually does claim "science" is infallible.
 
3. Who said the measurement has to be taken by a machine?  If your magic cable de jour really does sound different then you should be able to identify it in a blind test.
 
4. Stop glorying in your equivocation and make an actual point.
 
Let me try and make this a little clearer.  In order to know that something exists you have to be able to measure it in some fashion.  You can measure it with a machine or with your own senses after suitable blinding and replication.  Perfect accuracy or precision is not necessary, but the phenomena must manifest in some way.  Things that do not manifest are not measurable and even though such things may exist we cannot know anything about them because we cannot interact with them in any way and they can have no effect on our reality.  If there is no manifestation to measure then you can have no actual information about the phenomena and are essentially making stuff up.

 

[nick_charles]

 
Quote:

Quote:

 

1. It's news to you that amps may have gain settings and/or that they may be adjusted by the user? You didn't consider it even as a remote possibility?
 
I do know about gain switches, my M^3 has one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, i.e trusting that you had not allowed a confounding variable to enter the equation, you were as I recall the one who suggested not questioning absolutely everything ?

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

 
I do know about gain switches, my M^3 has one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, i.e trusting that you had not allowed a confounding variable to enter the equation, you were as I recall the one who suggested not questioning absolutely everything ?

Hi Nick
 
I wanted to ask you a couple of things. 
 
First, which opamps do you have in your M^3?  (I have one with 8065s and another with 637/627s)
 
In your experience do different opamps sound differently in your M^3? 
 
And last, what is the official 'Sound Science' position on the effect of the gain switch? 
 
Just to be clear, can we to assume that once volume balanced, low gain sounds exactly like hi gain? 
 
USG

 

[nick_charles]

 
Quote:

Quote:

 
I do know about gain switches, my M^3 has one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, i.e trusting that you had not allowed a confounding variable to enter the equation, you were as I recall the one who suggested not questioning absolutely everything ?

Hi Nick
 
I wanted to ask you a couple of things. 
 
First, which opamps do you have in your M^3?  (I have one with 8065s and another with 637/627s)
 
I chose to have the AD843 in mine
 
In your experience do different opamps sound differently in your M^3? 
 
I have not rolled opamps - I went for the AD843 as I had a different amp with AD843 and liked it so did not see the reason to change
 
 
And last, what is the official 'Sound Science' position on the effect of the gain switch? 
 
There is no such official position I am aware of
 
 Just to be clear, can we to assume that once volume balanced, low gain sounds exactly like hi gain? 
 
Thanks for asking, it made me think about the issue. That would be my personal working assumption until better educated - for the m^3 the switch just allows for headphones of differing impedances, one of the designers (for the M^3) however suggested that you only use the gain you need i,.e use low gain with low impedance headphones as the lower the volume control setting the more noise you get, anecdotally I've never found noise to be an issue regardless of gain setting, as for other amps I suppose one would have to ask the designers, though I would not see any point in making a gain switch that also acted as any form of EQ. The M^3 has an optional bass boost, I chose not to have one installed.
 
USG

 

[Uncle Erik]

Heidigger, are you saying that because quantum mechanics aren't fully understood that some fly-by-night company working out of a garage can violate known physics?

Not likely.

The cable manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Not one tests their cables because that isn't possible. If it is possible, please reference the test results.

Otherwise, you're just handing cash over to someone who has no idea what they're doing.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Heidigger, are you saying that because quantum mechanics aren't fully understood that some fly-by-night company working out of a garage can violate known physics?

Not likely.

The cable manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Not one tests their cables because that isn't possible. If it is possible, please reference the test results.

Otherwise, you're just handing cash over to someone who has no idea what they're doing.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Quote:

 
 Just to be clear, can we to assume that once volume balanced, low gain sounds exactly like hi gain? 
 
Thanks for asking, it made me think about the issue. That would be my personal working assumption until better educated - for the m^3 the switch just allows for headphones of differing impedances, one of the designers (for the M^3) however suggested that you only use the gain you need i,.e use low gain with low impedance headphones as the lower the volume control setting the more noise you get, anecdotally I've never found noise to be an issue regardless of gain setting, as for other amps I suppose one would have to ask the designers, though I would not see any point in making a gain switch that also acted as any form of EQ. The M^3 has an optional bass boost, I chose not to have one installed.
 
USG

I was under the impression that the gain switches were also used to allow the more stable center range of the volume pot to be used. 
 
I normally listen at low levels, so even with my 600 ohm T-1s,  the low gain setting on my GS-1 allows me to move the volume pot past 9 o'clock.
 
Btw, I also have never found noise to be an issue with the M^3 either.
 
And so it seems, we might be arriving at an official 'Sound Science' position on the effect of the gain switch.  It simply raises or lowers the volume without affecting the sound signature of the amp.
 
USG