[maverickronin]

Quote:

Why do these discussions always end up in philosophy? I actually find philosophy quite interesting, but in this context it's not hugely relevant - the point isn't whether or not an imaginary perceived difference is real - you've got to persuade people that it's imaginary first!

It ends up in philosophy because the only recourse the the crazies have is to attack the basis of science itself.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Philosophising about science.
 
Question hearing ability.
 
Crying why can't we just enjoy our cables.
 
Ignoring the evidence as presented from numerous sources.
 
Those crazies really annoy me!

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

Quote:

It'd be nice if Tyll would do some technical tests involving USB and analog cables with his rather sophisticated test equipment though.  People should pester him about doing that more, maybe it'll make him more likely to do it...or it could have the opposite effect.

 
Prolly not going to do it.    
 
I've never heard a USB cable make a difference, and while I have heard analog cables make a difference it's not really up my alley. LODs maybe, but really, three inches of good cable after the electrons have been traveling further inside consumer grade devices just doesn't make much difference.  I'm way more interested in LODs that don't break and are nice and flexible and reach cleanly where they need to go. 
 
 

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

It ends up in philosophy because the only recourse the the crazies have is to attack the basis of science itself.

You admitted yourself some pages back that science isn't perfect, that it has its limitations.
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

You admitted yourself some pages back that science isn't perfect, that it has its limitations.

That still doesn't mean there's any reason to believe whatever wild ass guess someone comes up with until they present evidence for it.

 

[Heidegger]

When seeking to acquire a good headphone system, how much science does the average consumer need to take into account? In my opinion, very little to none. Instead of obssessing over the latest ABX results, try as many headphones/amp/source combinations as you can afford and stick with the one that sounds best to you, regardless of what the latest "study" says, which may very well be superceded by next year.
 
Look at the numbers if you want, but they are never substitutes for listening for yourself. Trust the opinion of someone with lots of experience listening to and comparing lots of different equipment over many years or decades, rather than someone who just looks at the latest studies and automatically decrees what people should or should not be hearing.
 
My rule of thumb is: "Listen for yourself." Don't let a silly old ABX study determine what you listen to. ABX studies kept me from trying SACD, DVD-A, and BD for years, but when I finally switched over it was the best audio decision I ever made (aside from getting the right speakers/headphones).
 
Several people on this thread have called me crazy, but of course scientists are the ones who are repeatedly referred to as mad. (Who hasn't heard the phrase "mad scientist"?) To sane people, the Earth is our home, but from the technological/scientific point of view the Earth isn't home at all but an object, a "resource" to be used, manipulated, and exploited. This "scientific" attitude is indeed insane and will lead to disaster. It already has lead to disaster (nuclear arsenals that can destroy the world several times over, pollution, environmental degradation, the constant threat that scientists, who continue to play with fire by trying to rip the very fabric of existence apart, will blow up the entire planet), it's just that we aren't being honest with ourselves about it. Thanks to science and technology, we're well on our way to becoming the Death Star, and if that isn't insane nothing is.
 
Quote:

Philosophising about science.
 
Question hearing ability.
 
Crying why can't we just enjoy our cables.
 
Ignoring the evidence as presented from numerous sources.
 
Those crazies really annoy me!

 

 

[Heidegger]

Who said anything about believing wild guesses? Regarding audio matters, you don't need to believe anything I or anybody else tells you. My point is: listen for yourself. To which you say, I don't need to listen because the science already tells me ahead of time what I will hear. That's what I find troubling. People won't even listen to something because they already know it's bunk because science says so.
 
And if you listen for yourself and prefer one amp to another, or prefer sacd to rbcd, then you're called crazy by people who've never even listened for themselves.
 
Quote:

That still doesn't mean there's any reason to believe whatever wild ass guess someone comes up with until they present evidence for it.

 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Several people on this thread have called me crazy, but of course scientists are the ones who are repeatedly referred to as mad. (Who hasn't heard the phrase "mad scientist"?) To sane people, the Earth is our home, but from the technological/scientific point of view the Earth isn't home at all but an object, a "resource" to be used, manipulated, and exploited. This "scientific" attitude is indeed insane and will lead to disaster. It already has lead to disaster (nuclear arsenals that can destroy the world several times over, pollution, environmental degradation, the constant threat that scientists, who continue to play with fire by trying to rip the very fabric of existence apart, will blow up the entire planet), it's just that we aren't being honest with ourselves about it. Thanks to science and technology, we're well on our way to becoming the Death Star, and if that isn't insane nothing is.

You do realize that those "mad scientists" are in fact the reason why you can listen to recorded music in the privacy of your own home in addition to arguing with people who are far more grateful for the advances that the scientific method has brought us, via the internet.
 
It never stops being amusing when ever someone takes the time to compose an anti-science screed on a computer and post it to the internet.  Put your money where your mouth is and move off the grid to the middle of nowhere or stand out on the street corner in rags proclaiming doom to any who will listen.  The truth is you can't.  You're too used to modern conveniences to do it, even if you actually felt that way.  You're just the same as those middle class whiny "activists"  who make "sacrifices" for the sake of fashion that few others can afford to take.  While people like you whine about things you don't understand some people are actually working to make the world a better place to live in.
 
You might not think something silly like headphone cables has anything to do millions starving in the third world but all this woo stems from the same sources and you're contributing to it.  I'm neither a brilliant scientist or a maverick inventor who will single handedly save or improve billions of lives but I can do my best to pave the way for their advances by spreading helpful memes and smacking down harmful ones.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Who said anything about believing wild guesses? Regarding audio matters, you don't need to believe anything I or anybody else tells you. My point is: listen for yourself. To which you say, I don't need to listen because the science already tells me ahead of time what I will hear. That's what I find troubling. People won't even listen to something because they already know it's bunk because science says so.
 
And if you listen for yourself and prefer one amp to another, or prefer sacd to rbcd, then you're called crazy by people who've never even listened for themselves.

Or perhaps I understand that perceptual errors, expectation bias, and a whole host of other issues makes looking for small differences in sound very difficult and can even invent large ones out of thin air.  Combined with a limited budget, its all you need to start taking measurements and blind tests very seriously.
 
This difference steams from the fact that I and others like me are willing to admit our fallibility.  I don't trust my ears, I test them.  I look for measurements before I buy and I do my best to verify them afterwords.  I don't have much in the way of test equipment, but pink noise and a tone generator are surprisingly useful tools.  After a brief testing period I relax and just enjoy the music, knowing I don't have to worry about any metaphorical gremlins in the system.

 

[DaBomb77766]

Wow, am I hearing this right?  We actually have an anti-science advocate posting on the internet about high-end audio?
 
That said, I don't trust my ears or anyone else's.  It's not their ears, per se, as much as it's their mind though.  I strongly believe that the placebo effect is far more powerful than most people give credit to.  It can change the way we perceive the world in rather nontrivial ways.  While some may be okay with this, I am not - I guess this is basically the main divide between the "believers" and "non-believers" in the audio world.

 

[Uncle Erik]

In other words, optical illusions are real? Just perceiving something is the definition of reality?

OK, take this a step further. You listen to cable X and think it sounds "bright." Someone else thinks cable X sounds "dark."

How do you determine which is right? Or is cable X simultaneously dark and bright?

How about if 100 people listened to cable X and 80 of them found cable X dark. Would that mean that you're wrong?

People hear what they expect to hear. Which is why when you take the logo off the cable no one can hear a difference. That's the reality.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

When seeking to acquire a good headphone system, how much science does the average consumer need to take into account? In my opinion, very little to none. Instead of obssessing over the latest ABX results, try as many headphones/amp/source combinations as you can afford and stick with the one that sounds best to you, regardless of what the latest "study" says, which may very well be superceded by next year.
 
Look at the numbers if you want, but they are never substitutes for listening for yourself. Trust the opinion of someone with lots of experience listening to and comparing lots of different equipment over many years or decades, rather than someone who just looks at the latest studies and automatically decrees what people should or should not be hearing.
 
My rule of thumb is: "Listen for yourself." Don't let a silly old ABX study determine what you listen to. ABX studies kept me from trying SACD, DVD-A, and BD for years, but when I finally switched over it was the best audio decision I ever made (aside from getting the right speakers/headphones).
 
Several people on this thread have called me crazy, but of course scientists are the ones who are repeatedly referred to as mad. (Who hasn't heard the phrase "mad scientist"?) To sane people, the Earth is our home, but from the technological/scientific point of view the Earth isn't home at all but an object, a "resource" to be used, manipulated, and exploited. This "scientific" attitude is indeed insane and will lead to disaster. It already has lead to disaster (nuclear arsenals that can destroy the world several times over, pollution, environmental degradation, the constant threat that scientists, who continue to play with fire by trying to rip the very fabric of existence apart, will blow up the entire planet), it's just that we aren't being honest with ourselves about it. Thanks to science and technology, we're well on our way to becoming the Death Star, and if that isn't insane nothing is.
 


 

Can you link to the ABX studies that stopped you from buying SACD etc? I can then put them into the first post on this thread about ABX testing. I would again ask you to start your own thread on the philosophy of science and to stop trolling here.

 

[Willakan]

 
Quote:

In other words, optical illusions are real? Just perceiving something is the definition of reality?

OK, take this a step further. You listen to cable X and think it sounds "bright." Someone else thinks cable X sounds "dark."

How do you determine which is right? Or is cable X simultaneously dark and bright?

It was such a conundrum as this which persuaded me to fully embrace audio science. When I first started looking at hi-fi equipment, I was unaware of the myriad of specs involved and started reading around to gather subjective opinion on what to buy - look at forum opinions, professional and non-professional reviews ect. My first choice was looking at a DAC to get. After lengthy research I concluded the following.
 
Cambridge DACMagic<Yulong D100<Matrix Mini-i<DACMagic.
 
I then posted a thread on the sound science forums "DAC Specs vs Subjective Opinion" in an effort to get to the bottom of all the confusing crap I was reading (This DAC is bright! No, it's warm! And more detailed and less detailed than this one! See this razor-flat frequency response? It's all wrong - it's bright and hence unmusical!)
 
I started looking at numbers and never looked back.
 
But the thing is, if I, as a consumer, have to do so much research and familiarise myself with so much audio science simply to get past all the BS to buy decently designed stuff that performs well, that suggests something is incredibly misleading in the entire industry - especially when initial conclusions suggest utterly bizarre things that are wholly confusing.
 
 

 

[Heidegger]

 
Quote:

How do you determine which is right?

Fine, but listening to music isn't about being objective.
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Fine, but listening to music isn't about being objective.
 

Deciding how to spend your money should be.