darrylfunk
Banned
Amazing but true! Guess it validates the claim that we're all just a bit different ;-)
so your 'claim' has changed again dave....???
Amazing but true! Guess it validates the claim that we're all just a bit different ;-)
It's amazing what you can learn when ready about usb cables (How many posts ?, we'll be up there with the MDAC threads ...). Someone mentioned Vilfredo Pareto, which if you google & wiki leads to Sturgeon. I think Maxflin needs to take note of Sturgeon's law (as defined by Sturgeon)
- Nothing is always absolutely so
I think Maxflin already has a good handle on Sturgeon's revelation (often referred to as Sturgeon's law, leading to some confusion)
- 90% of everything is crap
Going back to Pareto, the 80:20 principle is interesting too. 80:20 are often used but the two numbers don't have to add up to 100. So how does this apply to usb cables?
so your 'claim' has changed again dave....???
with the strange exception that = shock - some people do actually prefer the american idol bint....
Not necessarily. You need to be quite selective with Furtwangler recordings.That one's easy. Buy the version this bloke conducted.
Yes all true, but where does any of this take us? The issue is not over whether the body of knowledge changes in the light of evidence, but over what constitutes evidence in the context.Well, if experiments, controls and peer review confirm that the effect of XYZ is true, then it was true before science confirmed it. It wasn't untrue before the scientists experimented on it, only for it to become true after the scientists concluded that it was.
Something can be true before experiment, control and peer review confirms it to be so.
In the context of this thread, factors like musicality, soundstage may be readily apparent to those who listen, but completely undefined by those who haven't established the relevant parameters to enable completion of experimentation and peer review.
Now lets be honest here. That research does *not* dispel the myth that foot tapping is a sales ploy, does it?Well, maybe there isn't, but that doesn't mean that the differences don't exist and that one day we won't have the evidence. Advances in neuroscience are particularly interesting and are providing some fascinating results. This research http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2013/april/music.html dispels the myth that we all hear music differently and that foot tapping is a sales ploy.
Perhaps the only way to be truly objective is to have all senses unavailable at the time of the experience.
The aspect of the 80/20 rule which I hear most often is that you make 80% of your money from 20% of your customers. This is often taken to imply that the easiest way of increasing sales is to sell more stuff to the existing good customer base.Going back to Pareto, the 80:20 principle is interesting too. 80:20 are often used but the two numbers don't have to add up to 100. So how does this apply to usb cables?
Interesting how you rephrase what I said about HDMI cables to state my supposed 'position' on all digital cables..... Intended or not?
Do I 'believe' there can be differences between digital cables? It's not a 'belief', but I'm open to the possibility that there might be, whether HDMI, S/PDIF, USB, whatever. If I can see or hear such differences, all good and well.
I'm also open to the possibility, as stated above, that they might perform differently, even if the makers didn't design them to do so, and even if the makers can't see or hear those differences themselves (and even if the makers are doggedly insistent that they don't perform differently).
I have severe difficulty accepting the blanket premise that everyone who claims to see and/or hear differences is imagining things, deluding themselves, or falsely claiming as such to keep themselves in a job.
I also have difficulty accepting the premise that because a certain subset of scientific evidence at this point in time says that there 'can't' be differences, that there are none.
It's amazing what you can learn when ready about usb cables (How many posts ?, we'll be up there with the MDAC threads ...). Someone mentioned Vilfredo Pareto, which if you google & wiki leads to Sturgeon. I think Maxflinn needs to take note of Sturgeon's law (as defined by Sturgeon)
- Nothing is always absolutely so
I think Maxflinn already has a good handle on Sturgeon's revelation (often referred to as Sturgeon's law, leading to some confusion)
- 90% of everything is crap
Going back to Pareto, the 80:20 principle is interesting too. 80:20 are often used but the two numbers don't have to add up to 100. So how does this apply to usb cables?
Now lets be honest here. That research does *not* dispel the myth that foot tapping is a sales ploy, does it?
I've never actually jumped out of a tenth story window. But I can conclusively assert that I would not fall upwards.
Chris
I can see how the factors other then sound in room can influence PYes.
Erm.
No.
What matters (and what a certain S. always seems to miss) is perception. And in the cause of music replay perception is a complex function, not only of the actual sound in the room, but also of the listener's intellectual, mental, and physical states, which encompass (but reach far wider than) prior experience, expectation, knowledge (or lack thereof), familiarity with the music, immediate history, mood, ... and so on.
thus
P = f (S,A,B,I,N,M,H,O)
Now in order to establish what the subject actually hears one should suppress all other stimuli.
P = f(S,-,-,-,-,-,-,-)
Sadly, one cannot entirely suppress a person's inner states (well, not without killing him), so what one gets at the best of times is something like:
P = f(S,a,b,i,-,-,-,-)
But this deprivation of stimuli, to most people, is rather unsettling and definitely brings them in conditions very much unlike actual music listening conditions (where pleasure is the ultimate aim). This changes mood. One might even wonder if we are not looking at:
P = F(S,a,b,i,-,-,-,-)
So on the one hand we have casual and uncritical listening, where P = f (S,A,B,I,N,M,H,O) holds. delta-Ps may be very well real, but it would be false to attribute them exclusively to delta-Ss. Yet that is what the archetypical subjectivist does.
On the other hand we can exert maximal control, in which case we run the risk of getting P = F(S,a,b,i,-,-,-,-). delta-Ps may be more accurately known, but at the same time they may be less relevant. f has changed into F.
I see the uncertainty principle at work.
All puns fully intended.
You would if the floor numbers were reversed as in some countries...
Says it all really, regarding absolutes...
Thanks for posting the link it's very interesting. Nevertheless:OK. You're quite right. I did get a bit Daily Mail-esque! I've amended my post accordingly.