I stand by every statement I’ve made and prof’s copied/pasted, then- twisted. ie: ONLY experimentation, PROVES whether theories or opinions/biases are correct(no theory has ever proven anything). The second is PLAINLY an encouragement for OTHERS to trust THEIR ears, and the third speaks for itself. Nothing but HUBRIS could lead one to make claims, regarding another’s possible equipment/cable/tweak choices or results, that’s NEVER stepped into their home, heard their system, tested their equipment, or sat in their listening seat, much less LISTENED with THE OTHER’S ears. Such that do, have never received anything from me, but disdain and disregard, as pontificating pseudo-intellects(or whatever their claim to fame). Can’t help but wonder; what’s the next event horizon, around which such will swirl?
Why no “Break in” period?
If people say there’s a break in period for everything from Amps to cartridges to cables to basically everything... why is it with new power conditioners that people say they immediately notice “the floor drop away” etc. Why no break in on that?
I’m not trying to be snarky - I’m genuinely asking.
I’m not trying to be snarky - I’m genuinely asking.
- ...
- 162 posts total
rodman Ok, so you are re-iterating what I pointed out you already said.Along with simply re-stating a disregard for known variables in human perception. (Again...would you have similar "disdain" for researchers who control for biases???? If so, you’d show yourself to be anti-science. If not, how do you imagine audio becomes magically separated from the problem variable of human bias?).
What kind of experimentation "proves" it? The kind where you have no control for well-known biases, or the type where you control for it?
How exactly does your truth theory work, in practice? If for instance we sat down in front of your system, swapped AC cables, and you perceived a difference and I perceived no difference, which perception points to the truth? Are you justified in concluding from your perception that the cable objectively altered the sound signal? If so why would your perception be privileged in apprehending "The Truth" over mine? Or would you grant that I would be justified in my conclusion, from my own perception that "there was no audible alteration to the sonic signal?" Do you subscribe to some form of "everyone has their own truth" concept? (If so...have you ever thought that through)? I’m just trying to understand what you actually mean, in practice, and it’s implications. |
I sometimes imagine these guys with their wives, honey the coefficient of friction seems a little off tonight, but lets get Larry in here to double-blind you so I can be sure. Funny. I sometimes imagine audiophiles stopping otherwise normal parties to subject guests to demos of their audio tweaks like cable elevators, tuning bullets, unplugging and plugging in cable tweaks. Real "life of the party" stuff. Of course, that’s a joke. No audiophile is that tweak-focused to do that in real life to his guests. ;-) |
Cargo cult “In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he's the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.[1]” - Richard Feynman |
- 162 posts total