[Phronesis]

I care about what is true and what isn't, I care about limiting or avoiding the spread of misinformation. you care about being cool to the nice guy. we have different concerns.

No, I don't have a personal relationship with Rob. It has nothing to do with being cool or nice. We're talking about accurately representing and interpreting the evidence Rob presented. He didn't make a claim about what's true, he presented his personal conclusion and the basis for it. It's not a small difference.

 

[castleofargh]

fine, he didn't claim he could hear -200dB. he stated clearly and repeatedly that he could hear differences in soundstage when changing stuff at -200dB and much much lower. happy? probably not.

 

[Phronesis]

fine, he didn't claim he could hear -200dB. he stated clearly and repeatedly that he could hear differences in soundstage when changing stuff at -200dB and much much lower. happy? probably not.

Yes, that sounds fair. IF there's truth to what he's saying in terms of the sound difference, perhaps what's being changed at -200 dB and below is only a proxy to something else which does have a real effect, as he himself speculates. Or maybe there's no sound difference. I don't know, and Rob doesn't claim he knows for sure either. We can't eliminate uncertainty, and science is about improving our models of reality using a variety of methods, without an expectation that we can find a final and complete "truth" (I wish we could, but I gave up on that dream long ago). I've always loved science, and use it every day for my job, but am wary of drifting into scientism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism.

 

[bigshot]

Rob himself is saying that the claim doesn't make theoretical or rational sense. He only says that he personally hears a difference, and admits that he could be wrong in what he's hearing.

He clearly is wrong.

 

[Phronesis]

He clearly is wrong.

That kind of certainty, based on a presumably theoretical argument, is not scientific. We're talking about the operation of a complex technological device, not a simple application of circuit theory.

 

[castleofargh]

Yes, that sounds fair. IF there's truth to what he's saying in terms of the sound difference, perhaps what's being changed at -200 dB and below is only a proxy to something else which does have a real effect, as he himself speculates. Or maybe there's no sound difference. I don't know, and Rob doesn't claim he knows for sure either. We can't eliminate uncertainty, and science is about improving our models of reality using a variety of methods, without an expectation that we can find a final and complete "truth" (I wish we could, but I gave up on that dream long ago). I've always loved science, and use it every day for my job, but am wary of drifting into scientism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism.

oh I said it somewhere, the possibilities are fairly straightforward:
- the change has an impact at much much higher amplitude in the music and he didn't bother looking for it very hard.
- he didn't conduct a blind test. which seems to be the case.
- it's marketing.

the truth is here somewhere or as a mix of those.

 

[Phronesis]

oh I said it somewhere, the possibilities are fairly straightforward:
- the change has an impact at much much higher amplitude in the music and he didn't bother looking for it very hard.
- he didn't conduct a blind test. which seems to be the case.
- it's marketing.

the truth is here somewhere or as a mix of those.

I generally agree.

I have no dispute with the point that something which we can be quite sure to be inaudible, based on a straightforward empirical test and/or application of theory, will actually be inaudible. I'm not suggesting that everything is uncertain! Rob doesn't seem to dispute that point either. Maybe he needed to be clearer, or ideally someone would have challenged his post (which was itself elicited by a challenge) so that he could clarify.

 

[colonelkernel8]

That kind of certainty, based on a presumably theoretical argument, is not scientific. We're talking about the operation of a complex technological device, not a simple application of circuit theory.

It's about as scientific as making a completely unfalsifiable claim like the following:

"...perhaps what's being changed at -200 dB and below is only a proxy to something else which does have a real effect, as he himself speculates. Or maybe there's no sound difference. I don't know, and Rob doesn't claim he knows for sure either."

He is essentially saying this: Maybe there's something going on here, but I'll cover my bases by making sure I account for the possibility of nothing actually happens. In the meantime, I'll sell you something that claims to solve a problem I can't prove exists. What?

 

[Phronesis]

It's about as scientific as making a completely unfalsifiable claim like the following:

"...perhaps what's being changed at -200 dB and below is only a proxy to something else which does have a real effect, as he himself speculates. Or maybe there's no sound difference. I don't know, and Rob doesn't claim he knows for sure either."

He is essentially saying this: Maybe there's something going on here, but I'll cover my bases by making sure I account for the possibility of nothing actually happens. In the meantime, I'll sell you something that claims to solve a problem I can't prove exists. What?

But engineering and technology aren't science. Chord isn't doing science, they're developing products. The products need to appeal to customers, and part of that appeal would be better sound. If the products deliver better sound, but Chord doesn't really know how they achieved that (could be by trial and error, despite using flawed models), that's OK. The real question is whether the sound is better, not why it's better (if it's actually better). As an end user myself, that's what I ultimately care about.

Rob's claim that he heard a difference isn't falsifiable, and doesn't need to be, it's an anecdotal report. The claim that he can consistently hear a difference would be reasonably falsifiable if he did proper testing using blinding, etc., but he admits that he didn't do such testing, so readers can judge for themselves how much weight to give to his anecdotal report. Again, I think he's being plenty transparent, and it's the readers fault if they think he's claiming more than he is. The limitations of his claim are crystal clear to me, so I don't feel mislead at all.

 

[gregorio]

That kind of certainty, based on a presumably theoretical argument, is not scientific.

Rob Watts actually claims he can hear differences down to -350dB in the post castleofargh linked. Do you honestly think a speaker or headphone transducer can even register a difference equivalent to two hydrogen atoms colliding? No, they can't, not even close, that level of sound would be swamped by thermal noise, it would be swamped by the thermal noise from just one resistor. You'd have to get rid of that thermal noise to even stand a chance of driver reproducing a difference at that level, IE. Break the known laws of physics. However, at -350dB we're talking about a sound level almost 100 Billion times lower than two hydrogen atoms colliding, that's 100 Billion times beyond what is already complete fantasy land! How could it be any more certain that Rob Watts is wrong??!!

G

 

[Phronesis]

Rob Watts actually claims he can hear differences down to -350dB in the post castleofargh linked. Do you honestly think a speaker or headphone transducer can even register a difference equivalent to two hydrogen atoms colliding? No, they can't, not even close, that level of sound would be swamped by thermal noise, it would be swamped by the thermal noise from just one resistor. You'd have to get rid of that thermal noise to even stand a chance of driver reproducing a difference at that level, IE. Break the known laws of physics. However, at -350dB we're talking about a sound level almost 100 Billion times lower than two hydrogen atoms colliding, that's 100 Billion times beyond what is already complete fantasy land! How could it be any more certain that Rob Watts is wrong??!!

G

If we're talking about the same post, that's not what I read.

 

[bigshot]

That kind of certainty, based on a presumably theoretical argument, is not scientific.

Then prove I'm wrong scientifically for saying that. There's absolutely no reason to believe that he could hear something at -350dB, yet he claimed he could. He didn't bother to do a more controlled test to verify his impression. He offered no explanation that made any sense. He made up something to explain it that reeked of sales pitch. I call that being wrong.

Personally, I can understand total snake oil salesmen. It's fine. They are what they are. I can put them in context and just enjoy the silliness. But snake oil salesmen who slip lies in with truth to try to put it past people get no respect from me. They aren't better because some of the things they say are true. To me, they are worse because of that.

 

[gregorio]

If we're talking about the same post, that's not what I read.

Rob Watts: "continuing this process on I ended up with 350 dB performance (and I could still hear improvements from 330 to 350)."!

G

EDIT: You questioned "that kind of certainty". Now answer my question: He's claiming something which is 100 Billion times beyond the laws of physics, how much more certain does it get, what "kind of certainty" are you looking for?

 

[Phronesis]

Rob Watts: "continuing this process on I ended up with 350 dB performance (and I could still hear improvements from 330 to 350)."!

G

Let's put it in context:

"Now when I listen to noise shapers, and change the performance of noise shapers, I can easily and reliably hear changes in depth perception. And when I measure the digital domain performance of the noise shaper, there is a correlation between the small signal performance of the noise shaper and depth perception; so a 200 dB noise shaper (this means it can't resolve small signals below -200 dB accurately) has poorer depth than a 220 dB noise shaper - and continuing this process on I ended up with 350 dB performance (and I could still hear improvements from 330 to 350)."

If we still disagree, I suggest that we agree to disagree and move on to more fruitful discussion.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Let's put it in context:
[2] I suggest that we agree to disagree and move on to more fruitful discussion.

1. Yes, I saw that context. It doesn't matter what the context is though, claiming to hear an improvement or difference of anything in any context to -350dB is 100 Billion times beyond ridiculous.
2. How can we have a fruitful discussion on anything if you are going to defend claims which are 100 Billion times beyond impossible/ridiculous?

I noticed you failed to actually answer my question, maybe you didn't see it as it was an edit. "Now answer my question: He's claiming something which is 100 Billion times beyond the laws of physics, how much more certain does it get, what "kind of certainty" are you looking for?"

G