"Theorise less, listen more and learn more"

[Julf]

Come on Julf, a man of your considerable technical prowess will know that anyone who can calculate the amount of watts in both these examples would never need to ask such a dim question!

My point is that equally dim, if not worse, technical misunderstandings are routinely paraded in the audio forum.

I feel sure there must be a word for your type of Continual-Ridiculous-Argument-Proliferating.

Might be - I do know there is a term for attacking the person instead of the issue.

 

[Julf]

But no-one responds that it's impossible you hear no difference.

True. They just start to call you names and attack your person.

 

[Fox]

Fives and tens (in three groups of 2x5 and a 10x ghost line twice repeated)


This does my head in:
When I close my eyes

the visible universe disappears!

All I am left with
Smell, Sound, taste and touch

The visible universe disappears!

So where does all the
Other stuff come from?

 

[darrenyeats]

Julf, I can't remember such a response to someone saying they heard no difference.

It only happens when first it's implied that other people's experience is invalid, or that they lack knowledge or intelligence - this is of course a completely different situation.

 

[Julf]

It only happens when first it's implied that other people's experience is invalid, or that they lack knowledge or intelligence - this is of course a completely different situation.

Part of the problem is that some people take "did you check it using double-blind ABX?" as stating that the persons experience is invalid.

 

[Dowser]

Audible differences between USB cables are not possible.

People with vested interests want others to believe that this is not the case.

People with no vested interests who claim they have heard differences get annoyed when others present reality.

As avole said, there are far more important things in the world to be concerned about.

LOL, for the good of humanity I hope you don't breed Max

 

[Steven Toy]

Part of the problem is that some people take "did you check it using double-blind ABX?" as stating that the persons experience is invalid.

That is exactly what it states because when the response is in the affirmative there is invariably a follow-questioning (doubting the validity of) the test methodology.

 

[Steven Toy]

LOL, for the good of humanity I hope you don't breed Max

Alas, such forthrightness may prove to be attractive...

 

[S-Man]

Might be - I do know there is a term for attacking the person instead of the issue.

The issue in this case is that some people use ridiculous examples to perpetrate an argument. I can only speculate that the motivation behind this is either to "win" the argument by attrition, or because the person is bored and is frittering some time away.

 

[martinm]

You know what actually the tension of the two camps is probably a good thing for future developments.


Stops people resting on the laurels when designing. If we all agree we'll end up with this situation....

Ever come across the five monkeys and a ladder thought experiment?

People usually fail to mention this is actually a thought experiment and pass it off as a real experiment. It’s not. It’s a thought experiment based on an actual experiment published in a 1967 paper by a researcher called G.R. Stephenson and it goes like this:

Five monkeys were placed in a cage. In the middle of the cage there was a ladder with a banana on top. As one might expect one of the monkeys raced toward the ladder and as he started to climb, the researchers sprayed the monkey with cold water. In addition to the monkey climbing the ladder, however, the four monkeys at the bottom of the ladder were also sprayed with ice cold water.

A second monkey attempted to climb the ladder and the same thing happened: the researchers sprayed all 5 monkeys with cold water. After a while none of the monkeys dared to climb the ladder to get their hands on the delicious banana, regardless of the temptation.

Once the researchers made sure none of the monkeys was going to climb the ladder, they replaced one of them with another monkey. The newcomer, unaware of the situation, ran toward the ladder to get the banana. But once he started to climb the ladder he was brought down and beaten up by the other four monkeys. After several beatings, the inexperienced new guy learned his lesson: Climbing = Getting beat up. Although he had absolutely no idea why.

The researchers then replaced another one of the original monkeys with an inexperienced one. The same thing happened again: newcomer climbs -> the other four beat him up -> he learns his lesson. The interesting observation here was that the first substituted monkey also joined in to beat up the the new guy, even though he had no idea why he was beaten up for doing the same thing.

The same process was repeated and the 3rd and 4th monkeys were substituted, only for the newcomers to get beaten up every time they attempted to climb the ladder until they stopped trying. Finally, the 5th monkey – the last of the original monkeys and the only monkey present in the cage who actually received the cold showers – was replaced. The new monkey, naturally, attempted to climb the ladder for the banana, but the other 4 monkeys – who had never received cold showers and were instead beaten up every time they tried to climb the ladder themselves – attacked the newcomer and beat him up.

If monkeys could speak English, the new guy would probably ask “Why do you guys keep hitting me every time I try to get the banana?“, and the other four monkeys, after giving each other puzzled looks, would reply “It’s always been done like this“.

Also some people seem to keep using the word FACT a bit inappropriately I feel.

I would suggest “scientists” deal in theories, they only take each other’s theories seriously when they are clearly backed by the evidence. The evidence is a clear analysis of indisputable data-sets, covering all the parameters of the system under study. This then leads to the derivation of a theory (note, not fact, theory), then scientists try to disprove that theory or make it fit the facts better. Can we perhaps then say current theory rather than fact?

e.g. Current theory clearly suggests that HDMI cables cannot sound different. Rather than HDMI cables cannot sound different FACT

Small but significant detail I think


I'm personally at a loss as to why people care so much.

I bought hifi to better my enjoyment of the music I love, how its designed and the theory behind it is not for me. I buy because I enjoy and it enhances my music pleasure. I'm not trying to search for some impossible holy grail from either side. Despite all the science my mood, comfort, time, sleep levels, expectation bias etc etc have way too much influence over what I hear on a day to day basis. That's before we even get into the whole recording/mastering/loudness/bit rate mine field. I can perfectly understand why others would want to try and cut out as many variables as possible, but for others those variables are what makes the hobby fun

I have a threshold, like I suspect most do, on what personally represents foo and what I'm happy with. Given the scientific leaps that are continually being made I think it would be a bit strange to suggest that differences claiming to be heard don't have the chance to be proved correct at some point down the line. But to also not understand that your psychological biases don't influence you is also strange to me.

It constant the jumping up and down shouting I'm right you're wrong that's bloody tiring!

Choose your own reasons to purchase what you do, be that objective or subjective and anywhere in between. Place your opinion with a modicum of understanding that it may not make sense or be right for the person reading it

The end result is to listen to music is it not? if you are you happy with what you have or go onto buy then you are probably doing something right.

Oh and I think I've just proved that some of us talk way to much and should shut up and go listen to some tunes

 

[Julf]

The issue in this case is that some people use ridiculous examples to perpetrate an argument. I can only speculate that the motivation behind this is either to "win" the argument by attrition, or because the person is bored and is frittering some time away.

You might see them as "ridiculous", but reductio ad absurdum has been considered a valid form of argument at least since before Socrates.

Maybe it would help if you pointed out a specific example of using ridiculous examples to perpetrate an argument with the motivation behind of either "winning" the argument by attrition, or because the person is bored and is frittering some time away?

 

[S-Man]

Keep up the attrition Julf

 

[Julf]

Can we perhaps then say current theory rather than fact?

While I agree with the sentiment, the problem is that the word "theory" has multiple definitions/meanings. To non-scientists "theory" usually means "A hypothesis or conjecture" or even "Mental conception; reflection, consideration". To a scientist, "theory" means "A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc.".

The end result is to listen to music is it not? if you are you happy with what you have or go onto buy then you are probably doing something right.

Absolutely!

 

[Julf]

Keep up the attrition Julf

Keep attacking people, not issues...

 

[Julf]

Ever come across the five monkeys and a ladder thought experiment?

Actually, what we have here is a slightly different version of the five monkey thought experiment. We have a couple of monkeys claiming bananas grow from tops of ladders. Hearing this, the other monkeys have climbed up the ladders, and not only have they been hosed down with cold water, but they haven't found any bananas at the end of the ladder. Despite this, the "banana faithful" monkeys claim that they keep finding bananas at the top of the ladder, and anyway, everybody *knows* that bananas grow from ladders.

When the other monkeys ask the banana believer monkeys to at least once bring down a banana and show it to the others, the banana believers get angry and offended that their statements are questioned.

 

[martinm]

To a scientist, "theory" means "A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc.".

Yes this sums it up when something has been described as scientific fact when probably it should rather be described scientific theory. I would hope that the context of the statement would indicate hypothesis or conjecture as opposed to scientific theory.

But of course you are correct we are all brilliant at taking meaning in context that suits ourselves rather than the intended. Particularly to maintain the banging of heads LOL

 

[martinm]

Actually, what we have here is a slightly different version of the five monkey thought experiment. We have a couple of monkeys claiming bananas grow from tops of ladders. Hearing this, the other monkeys have climbed up the ladders, and not only have they been hosed down with cold water, but they haven't found any bananas at the end of the ladder. Despite this, the "banana faithful" monkeys claim that they keep finding bananas at the top of the ladder, and anyway, everybody *knows* that bananas grow from ladders.

When the other monkeys ask the banana believer monkeys to at least once bring down a banana and show it to the others, the banana believers get angry and offended that their statements are questioned.

Not really we've had a group of monkeys who have found bananas on top of a ladder, yet when the others have climbed up there are no longer bananas atop the ladder. They then claim it is impossible to have had bananas there as bananas do not grow on ladders. The first monkeys of course did have bananas and have no reason see it otherwise.!

The point is much more about being entrenched in your view leads to no progress being made. Perhaps the second monkeys should be wondering why the first monkey is sure there is a banana there, rather than just telling him it isn't and it cannot be. The thought that the banana could be there from means other than growing is the limiting factor in this scenario.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Marx said the point of theory was to change to the world .

Marx actually wrote that: 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.'

Only listening will improve your hifi

So if I listen long enough to my hifi it will upgrade itself?

 

[Daniel Quinn]

Marx actually wrote that: 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.'



So if I listen long enough to my hifi it will upgrade itself?

I'm sure Marx also wrote : Joe Hutch's point to posts ratio's is sadly in decline in a manner analogous to the declining rate of profit .

Pedantic pointless posts , what is the point ?

 

[Fox]

That's peanut butter
disproving evolution,
Don't go there, madness awaits,
or food poisoning....