whatsnext
Naimless
Some interesting reflections on human nature (the listener)
Parlour trick
- Thread starter BE718
- Start date
Some interesting reflections on human nature (the listener)
droodzilla
pfm Member
Yes, the principal investigator insisted on a full Nordost loom. By the time he was finished we could no longer afford to fill the detector with the liquid xenon needed to detect (fingers crossed!) the dark matter.
quite a few areas of scientific research show that thousands of scientists are influenced by where their next grant is going to come from or who pays their salaries.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Some here may have in the distant past used and read the uk.rec.audio newsgroup on usenet (yes, it still exists!) And will know that I'm a card-carrying "physicist" who remains a real audio nutcase. 8-]
FWIW One of the things I've found so frustrating - as a physicist and injuneer - about the whole 'cables' thing is the way people used to keep appearing and then:
1) Make claims about "obvious" differences, implying you must be deaf if you can't hear them.
2) Make claims about the "reasons" for the difference. i.e. present some apparently 'scientific' reason. Often seeming to be based on making a mountain out of what might be a molehill.
*But* then whenever I tried to check, they'd duck away from having what they said scrutinised using the standard scientific methods. This means an experiment designed to enable a 'critical' test - i.e. one whose outcome might show they were mistaken. Scientists try to *disprove* things. An idea which survives repeated 'critical' tests of that type becomes one they then place some trust in *because* it stood up when tested in such ways.
Fortunately, it is often possible to assess claims about the 'cause' of 'differences' that present some argument in physics. Alas, often the proposed mechanism seems not to stack up or be implausibly small. But of course that doesn't prove there was no audible difference. Just implies any such difference wasn't caused by the proposed mechanism.
I've always been quite happy to accept that others may well hear 'differences' which I miss. My interest then is to look for any "new physics" because it would be exciting to *find* it and learn something I didn't know before. But despite claims made, getting the claimers into such tests seemed to be impossible.
IIRC decades ago there was something like a 10,000 USD prize for anyone who could show they could hear 'differences' in a controlled test that would be 'critical'. Similarly, for some years 'Pinky' on uk.rec.audio offered 1,000 quid in the UK for something similar.
No-one stepped forwards to even try so far as I recall. That continued to be the case for years, and as many came and went, making the claims, then *not* putting it to a critical test.
I'm saying this now because I'd *still* love to find some "new physics" here, but I can't take such a test because I don't seem to hear what others claim. So not showing I can hear it wouldn't prove anything one way or another.
So having experimented with various cables over the years I just go on using ones I made up myself from cable I bought from CPC, Maplin, or RS. (Including low-loss UHF TV cable, which seems to work nicely.
)Jim
venton
pfm Member
If science had all or even most of the answers, all scientists and physicists would agree on everything. It would be there in black and white. But I can assure you this is not the case at all, most are at each others throats in a similar way to us lot here, if not worse.
Any science I have looked into (excepting mathematics) is full of as many arguments as you find in politics.
For example I have looked into nutritional science through to quantum physics to astrophysics to string theory. There is little scientific agreement, and quite unpleasant slandering and base behaviour.
Any science I have looked into (excepting mathematics) is full of as many arguments as you find in politics.
For example I have looked into nutritional science through to quantum physics to astrophysics to string theory. There is little scientific agreement, and quite unpleasant slandering and base behaviour.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
I'd say that academic scientists actually agree about quite a lot. Just that they may fight like cats in a sack over the things they *don't* agree. 8-]
That said, in decades as an academic I didn't encounter much in the way of slander or "base behaviour". I did encounter many mistakes and sometimes stubborn errors, though. There seems to be a side of human nature that can lead some into thinking they are an 'expert' who has nothing new to learn. But for me the point of science and injuneering is that there are always new things to learn. And the main trap to avoid is to think you already know everything relevant.
That said, in decades as an academic I didn't encounter much in the way of slander or "base behaviour". I did encounter many mistakes and sometimes stubborn errors, though. There seems to be a side of human nature that can lead some into thinking they are an 'expert' who has nothing new to learn. But for me the point of science and injuneering is that there are always new things to learn. And the main trap to avoid is to think you already know everything relevant.
clivem2
pfm Member
You've missed the point being made (or maybe I have). The point seems to be that our knowledge of physics is not complete. What you've talked about is the method usually used to work on and verify any advances made.
From my perspective I don't suppose anyone cares enough about cables to apply the best scientific minds and funding to the subject.
whatsnext
Naimless
Why does our knowledge have to be complete to hear minute differences in cables, maybe.
Get 100 people in a room (bake of/on) and instead of a demonstration left them hear what an agreed neutral fellow HiFi enthusiast swaps around.
When 90 of those room occupants agree and describe what they hear similarly then perhaps we won't have to be polite to the solo - this is what I can hear - enthusiasts who have to keep telling us what they can hear.
Get 100 people in a room (bake of/on) and instead of a demonstration left them hear what an agreed neutral fellow HiFi enthusiast swaps around.
When 90 of those room occupants agree and describe what they hear similarly then perhaps we won't have to be polite to the solo - this is what I can hear - enthusiasts who have to keep telling us what they can hear.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
It is true, I think, that in general academic scientists would regard the hifi 'cables' issues as bonkers. I was a bit odd in at least being interested in the issue *because* there might be something to learn or discover. "Eminent" scientists (not me, Gov!) might fear that looking at issues would make them seem bonkers. However since everyone already knew I was mad, I didn't feel I had to worry about that.
In general, you don't need much funding to test many of these ideas. What I kept finding I lacked was people who made claims then being willing to actually engage in a critical set of tests or experiments. I could often analyse their 'theories' about the 'causes'. (An on a few occasions, find significant flaws in measurements and results they published.) But you can't tell what someone can or cannot actually hear if they won't put it to any test. You're left with 'take it or leave it'. They may well believe it, they may well have heard a 'difference' for reason other than assumed, but you then can't tell.
I found that really frustrating as my interest was simply to find out if there was anything genuinely new to discover.
Lee T
pfm Member
Nice one
venton
pfm Member
Off the top of my head a quick example, I was looking into the danger of mercury fillings. Which basically is putting a mixture including 50% highly toxic element into our mouths to be there for the rest of our lives. There was a dentist who was raising concerns about this in the USA. I later read he had been struck off because of his views on this, and not 'towing the line'. His career was ended. And another example, albeit an old one, was the great inventor Edison and how he ruthlessly bankrupted Tesla and bought his science into distrepute through lies. And even older, the rivalry between Newton and Leibniz - all pretty nasty stuff. And Einstein, he really didn't like quantum effect at a distance - not sure if he ever got personal about it though.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Have I missed something? It seems to me that the people who usually argue that measurements tell us everything, and that if you didn't blind test it, it didn't happen, are now happy to take the word of somebody based on an entirely subjective assessment, without measurements.
From what I recall of the link in the OP, the blogger estimated* the level change as 1-2dB. I may be mistaken, but I'm sure I read somewhere that a level change of 1dB is the smallest increment which can be reliably detected by ear (presumably blind tested), so we're not talking about 'night and day' differences here.
Also, we're often told (by these same people) how unreliable aural memory is, so how confident can we be of his 'estimate' that the second time was louder?
So, what is it about this blog which has caused the conversion of all these techy types into arch-subjectivists, all of a sudden?
*not 'measured' you will note.
From what I recall of the link in the OP, the blogger estimated* the level change as 1-2dB. I may be mistaken, but I'm sure I read somewhere that a level change of 1dB is the smallest increment which can be reliably detected by ear (presumably blind tested), so we're not talking about 'night and day' differences here.
Also, we're often told (by these same people) how unreliable aural memory is, so how confident can we be of his 'estimate' that the second time was louder?
So, what is it about this blog which has caused the conversion of all these techy types into arch-subjectivists, all of a sudden?
*not 'measured' you will note.
Lee T
pfm Member
Imagine the lovely speakers you could purchase with that amount, i doubt anyone would care about a cable if they listened to something in their system costing this much, money much more suitably spent, if you have it that is.
droodzilla
pfm Member
You're simply wrong about QM. All trained physicists agree on the essence of the theory and how it may be used. Likewise with the so-called standard model of particle physics - it's agreed on by everyone who works in the field and has passed the most stringent of experimental tests again and again. Researchers at the cutting edge will disagree about the best way to extend theory to account for new phenomena or to unify different fields. For example there are various proposals about how quantum mechanics and general relativity might be reconciled. But ultimately these diagreements will be resolved by experiments that all sides will have to accept.
I don't know anything about nutritional scinece but you are certainly wrong about physics.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I think you have to assume that anybody preparing to spend a 4-figure sum on a mains cable, has already got the source, amp and speakers they want, and would probably consider a $6k pair of speakers as budget models.
droodzilla
pfm Member
I'm familiar with the sociology of science. Scientist are people too so it's inevitable that they will worry about earning a living. However, these factors influence the directions pursued in scientific research, not the validity of the results of the research that is funded. Unless you are accusing the scientific community of widespread fraud, that is.
whatsnext
Naimless
How about talking about the cables instead of people
How do they do that? Has anyone on PFM been there, ODIN 2'd their system and noticed the infinitely black background, then rushed around putting kettle cables in their place to hear the insipid greyness?
http://www.nordost.com/downloads/multiLanguage/Norse2 brochure_update_web_ENG.pdf
By Nordost said:
How do they do that? Has anyone on PFM been there, ODIN 2'd their system and noticed the infinitely black background, then rushed around putting kettle cables in their place to hear the insipid greyness?
http://www.nordost.com/downloads/multiLanguage/Norse2 brochure_update_web_ENG.pdf
Lee T
pfm Member
You see the problem here is this, this is only your point of view, there are plenty who have differring views in the scientific world regarding anything based in physics, we do not know everything, even though we like to think we do,new discoveries are happening all the time scientifically, nothing is set in stone as we all know.Some here may have in the distant past used and read the uk.rec.audio newsgroup on usenet (yes, it still exists!) And will know that I'm a card-carrying "physicist" who remains a real audio nutcase. 8-]
FWIW One of the things I've found so frustrating - as a physicist and injuneer - about the whole 'cables' thing is the way people used to keep appearing and then:
1) Make claims about "obvious" differences, implying you must be deaf if you can't hear them.
2) Make claims about the "reasons" for the difference. i.e. present some apparently 'scientific' reason. Often seeming to be based on making a mountain out of what might be a molehill.
*But* then whenever I tried to check, they'd duck away from having what they said scrutinised using the standard scientific methods. This means an experiment designed to enable a 'critical' test - i.e. one whose outcome might show they were mistaken. Scientists try to *disprove* things. An idea which survives repeated 'critical' tests of that type becomes one they then place some trust in *because* it stood up when tested in such ways.
Fortunately, it is often possible to assess claims about the 'cause' of 'differences' that present some argument in physics. Alas, often the proposed mechanism seems not to stack up or be implausibly small. But of course that doesn't prove there was no audible difference. Just implies any such difference wasn't caused by the proposed mechanism.
I've always been quite happy to accept that others may well hear 'differences' which I miss. My interest then is to look for any "new physics" because it would be exciting to *find* it and learn something I didn't know before. But despite claims made, getting the claimers into such tests seemed to be impossible.
IIRC decades ago there was something like a 10,000 USD prize for anyone who could show they could hear 'differences' in a controlled test that would be 'critical'. Similarly, for some years 'Pinky' on uk.rec.audio offered 1,000 quid in the UK for something similar.
No-one stepped forwards to even try so far as I recall. That continued to be the case for years, and as many came and went, making the claims, then *not* putting it to a critical test.
I'm saying this now because I'd *still* love to find some "new physics" here, but I can't take such a test because I don't seem to hear what others claim. So not showing I can hear it wouldn't prove anything one way or another.
So having experimented with various cables over the years I just go on using ones I made up myself from cable I bought from CPC, Maplin, or RS. (Including low-loss UHF TV cable, which seems to work nicely.
Jim
A good scientist will say, this is how it is with our current knowledge & investigate, a bad scientist will say this is how it is.
It may be a good get out clause to mock those who state this but it is a fact, we only need to look back our discoveries to learn a lesson in thinking we have all the naswers, we don't even understand how gravity works, fully, yet base our lives & inventions around it as we know as much as we know, currently, research continues in this area for obvious reasons, no research will ever take place regarding anything hifi by a scientist as it has no bearing on our world.
Dark matter is just a word for something we cannot see or understand but know it's there having an effect on everything in the unverse, it is exapnding at an accelerated rate yet the universe should be slowing down with our current understanding of gravity & it's effects on the universe. It would be easier to act as Einstein did when he came up with the theory of relativity, inject a new theory into it to explain how the universe is static to fall in line with current thinking at the time, it was the biggest blunder of his carreer as his original idea was proven correct many years later by Hubble.
I'm afraid being blind to discovery is of no use to anyone, thanfully, real scientists explore & are never satisfied with how things are or the knowledge we currently have.
droodzilla
pfm Member
I don't think I've missed the point, but let me put my point another way. If Nordost published their methods and findings in a respected peer-reviewed journal, I might give them some credence. Until then they get none.
I don't often contribute to cable threads because I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But I get testy when someone uses the "science can't explain everything" meme to suggest there might be some truth in the most ridiculous claims about cables.
droodzilla
pfm Member
I don't think he did. Anyway, since Bell's work on non-local correlations in the 60s and Alain Aspect's critical experiment in 1982, the evidence has ruled in favour of Bohr and against Einstein. Actually, this is a slight simplification in that Aspect's experiment left a few loopholes that people who wished to defend local hidden variable interpretations of QM culd wriggle through. I'm fairly certain that more sophisticated experiments since then have closed all the loopholes. Sadly, I don't have time to check references as I have a lab report to write.