I'm going to take a whack at this and would first like to establish my credentials. My experience with the scientific aspect of electronics is limited to the DYNA ST-40 amp I built back in the 70's. When I was done and put the cover on the box, I was struck by the little yellow label that said, "caution, no user serviceable parts inside". Truer for me than, I suspect, for many kit builders.
However, I do know a few things about science and the philosophy of science. One of those is that there is something called "electron theory". No one, not any of us or any Nobel Laureate KNOWS what electrons do or if they even exist as the theory supposes. It is just that, a theory.
I regard audio equipment designers, for that reason, as wizards in the true sense. They manipulate forces beyond their understanding to perform miraculous feats. Stevemj and 70242, on the other hand, are like the 14th generation of high priests who keep the scrolls that they can't read but you'd better not look directly into the eyes of the idol or you'll be struck down.
Way back when, kids rolled paper into a cone, stuck a needle through the narrow end and held the needle to one of dad's 78's while it rotated on the Webcor. Sound ensued. How much difference is there between that and a Goldmund Reference? Only one of degree. One has a suspension based on theory, the cone doesn't. One has amplification of the vibrations based on theory, the cone doesn't. The child with the cone doesn't know why there is sound, but empirically, there is. The modern turntable designer likewise doesn't know, although he'll probably tell you he does. His work is the result of empirical observation and a "belief system" grounded in a theory, not in fact. We laugh at the notion of an 18th century Dutch scientist who believed a little person he called a "homonculous" bent the light through a prism. Everyone knows that Newton "proved" that the light was bent due to the refractive nature of the glass' shape. Yet, we don't know why that particular shape bends the light, only that it does.
Electromagnetic theory "supposes" invisible, "sub-atomic" particles that have cause and effect. We can only observe the gross consequences of the theory. Where a finer understanding is desired, such as what is going on inside a power cord or a transformer, with impossibly tiny amounts of a theoretical concept called "current", we rely once again on empiricism, not objective truth.
Ohm's Law is not a law. It is a mathematical formula that allows "theorists" to predict the behavior of current, which, once again, is part of a theoretical model. Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle", while elegant and brilliant, is more of an apology for the inability to observe energy than an attempt to explain it.
When the so-called "objectivists" deride the notion of our tweaks, condescending to admit that perhaps any audible differences stem from something "outside of the LAWS of science, as we know them", that is the worst sort of hypocrisy and a telltale that they have no understanding of the true Science that lies at the foundation of rational thought.They are simply acolytes who guard a temple of their own creation to defend themselves against forces they do not understand.
However, I do know a few things about science and the philosophy of science. One of those is that there is something called "electron theory". No one, not any of us or any Nobel Laureate KNOWS what electrons do or if they even exist as the theory supposes. It is just that, a theory.
I regard audio equipment designers, for that reason, as wizards in the true sense. They manipulate forces beyond their understanding to perform miraculous feats. Stevemj and 70242, on the other hand, are like the 14th generation of high priests who keep the scrolls that they can't read but you'd better not look directly into the eyes of the idol or you'll be struck down.
Way back when, kids rolled paper into a cone, stuck a needle through the narrow end and held the needle to one of dad's 78's while it rotated on the Webcor. Sound ensued. How much difference is there between that and a Goldmund Reference? Only one of degree. One has a suspension based on theory, the cone doesn't. One has amplification of the vibrations based on theory, the cone doesn't. The child with the cone doesn't know why there is sound, but empirically, there is. The modern turntable designer likewise doesn't know, although he'll probably tell you he does. His work is the result of empirical observation and a "belief system" grounded in a theory, not in fact. We laugh at the notion of an 18th century Dutch scientist who believed a little person he called a "homonculous" bent the light through a prism. Everyone knows that Newton "proved" that the light was bent due to the refractive nature of the glass' shape. Yet, we don't know why that particular shape bends the light, only that it does.
Electromagnetic theory "supposes" invisible, "sub-atomic" particles that have cause and effect. We can only observe the gross consequences of the theory. Where a finer understanding is desired, such as what is going on inside a power cord or a transformer, with impossibly tiny amounts of a theoretical concept called "current", we rely once again on empiricism, not objective truth.
Ohm's Law is not a law. It is a mathematical formula that allows "theorists" to predict the behavior of current, which, once again, is part of a theoretical model. Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle", while elegant and brilliant, is more of an apology for the inability to observe energy than an attempt to explain it.
When the so-called "objectivists" deride the notion of our tweaks, condescending to admit that perhaps any audible differences stem from something "outside of the LAWS of science, as we know them", that is the worst sort of hypocrisy and a telltale that they have no understanding of the true Science that lies at the foundation of rational thought.They are simply acolytes who guard a temple of their own creation to defend themselves against forces they do not understand.
