The Objectivist Audio Forum: Post #2 Definitions

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest1389 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll be going to Brown to study electrical engineering in a couple of weeks. Obviously I don't have much knowledge past high school classes, and the rest is conjecture and speculation

Another scientist, glad to have you aboard....

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest1389 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've noticed many people (at least in the other thread) talking about how the differences that some things may make (cables, etc.) are below the threshold of human hearing. If blind testing is done at many meets in a rigorous and fair manner, I would not be too surprised to see that these 'minuscule' differences were heard. I mean, how did they come up with those thresholds?

I'm not up to date with the cable threads so I'm not sure exactly what you mean. When I joined the forum, the folklore was that silver brightened things up and conversely, if you needed to tone things down, coper was the way to go. These differences were not thought of as 'minuscule' and were reported by people with less than perfect hearing.

Just as an exercise in thinking, might we say that as these folklore claims were looked at, they were found wanting, so they reached into areas near the threshold of human hearing to maintain validity?

Of course, I'm only theorizing, maybe Big Shot or some of the others will weigh in on this.

USG

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest1389 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh and people keep saying that double blind testing is necessary. I don't think DBT is even relevant, the examiner just needs to record whether the subject says 'difference' 'no difference' and if one is better than the other. Its not like a doctor examining a patient.

If the difference in cables is from its construction and materials, then why is it necessary to see it? The sonic signature should still be there whether you can see it or not.

The new forum should be interesting. Yesterday, I bought a Blue Dragon Sennheiser cable. I still haven't heard any difference with the Cardas cable, either. I plan to buy other cables and will see what happens with electrical test equipment.

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Another scientist, glad to have you aboard.... I'm not up to date with the cable threads so I'm not sure exactly what you mean. When I joined the forum, the folklore was that silver brightened things up and conversely, if you needed to tone things down, coper was the way to go. These differences were not thought of as 'minuscule' and were reported by people with less than perfect hearing. Just as an exercise in thinking, might we say that as these folklore claims were looked at, they were found wanting, so they reached into areas near the threshold of human hearing to maintain validity? Of course, I'm only theorizing, maybe Big Shot or some of the others will weigh in on this. USG

USG

Just my 2cents.

I think to make the conversation go a bit smoother that you could refrain from labeling things as "folklore claims". It's those things that seem to always get peoples hackles up and can cause topics to get off track.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JadeEast /img/forum/go_quote.gif USG Just my 2cents. I think to make the conversation go a bit smoother that you could refrain from labeling things as "folklore claims". It's those things that seem to always get peoples hackles up and can cause topics to get off track.

JadeEast, you are absolutely correct.

From my original post:

If we are the "Science-Based" segment, we need to develop a non-inflammatory terminology to refer to the group that develops, what we view as, non-verifiable prevailing views? That is the purpose of this post.

Do you have any suggestions as to how we might refer to the as of yet, unverified prevailing views? It is important that it be non-inflammatory.

USG

 

[progo]

^Use a foreign, or artificial, word. 99% of the readers won't understand it and thus it will be neutral.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by progo /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^Use a foreign, or artificial, word. 99% of the readers won't understand it and thus it will be neutral.

Like what?

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you have any suggestions as to how we might refer to the as of yet, unverified prevailing views? It is important that it be non-inflammatory. USG

Belief or opinion.

 

[malldian]

In my mind belief insinuates that it is probably not true. Stick to opinion.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif JadeEast, you are absolutely correct. From my original post: If we are the "Science-Based" segment, we need to develop a non-inflammatory terminology to refer to the group that develops, what we view as, non-verifiable prevailing views? That is the purpose of this post. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might refer to the as of yet, unverified prevailing views? It is important that it be non-inflammatory. USG

Why not call it "observations"?

 

[philodox]

I would agree that opinions and observations are both less negative sounding than beliefs.

 

[Cheers]

I think this objective idea is a great one, but I am not sure if I understand how it is going to work.

How are you going to be able to prove or disprove scientifically, if a certain pair of headphones sound different after 200 hours of burn in, compared to the same pair brand new?

Is there a device, computer or instrument out there, besides the human ear, that can make this determination?

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheers /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think this objective idea is a great one, but I am not sure if I understand how it is going to work. How are you going to be able to prove or disprove scientifically, if a certain pair of headphones sound different after 200 hours of burn in, compared to the same pair brand new? Is there a device, computer or instrument out there, besides the human ear, that can make this determination?

If you had a good dummy head, or other device that can accurately measure the frequency response and other parameters of the headphone, you could do it easily.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheers /img/forum/go_quote.gif How are you going to be able to prove or disprove scientifically, if a certain pair of headphones sound different after 200 hours of burn in, compared to the same pair brand new? Is there a device, computer or instrument out there, besides the human ear, that can make this determination?

It's not about proving or disproving using some specific equipment. It's about providing the freedom to question rationally. It isn't against the law to post a subjective impression in an objective forum either. An observation leads to a hypothesis that can then be tested. That's the process that leads to evidence which leads to proof. The key is free and open discussion.

See ya
Steve

 

[Cheers]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you had a good dummy head, or other device that can accurately measure the frequency response and other parameters of the headphone, you could do it easily.

Thanks for the answer. That is good to know.

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheers /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think this objective idea is a great one, but I am not sure if I understand how it is going to work. How are you going to be able to prove or disprove scientifically, if a certain pair of headphones sound different after 200 hours of burn in, compared to the same pair brand new? Is there a device, computer or instrument out there, besides the human ear, that can make this determination?

Get 15 or more people to listen with two different cables - one burned in and the other not. They will not know which is which. If their preference for one over the other has a pattern that significantly differs from random (ie. half prefer one and half prefer the other), then we can say that burn in likely exists. Then we should replicate a few times with different people at the next meet just to be sure.