How would you make sure of anything? -We can't thats the whole point!
Even your precious measuring instruments are only extensions of your senses. And they are not by one bit "objective" as they have too been constructed to manipulate nature in certain ways...
Depending on how ABX is done it will influence our sense. I'd never say "restrict". I'd say that the specific test setup is part of what is perceived -not something that can be excluded. Validity has more to do with what you claim from specific test results... We did this and then that happened -is valid if that is how it went down. Claiming to answer universal truths is always going to be problematic. Luckily we don't need universal truths to make useful interpretations and produce better sound
Much has happened since Popper...
What is "objective data"?
No such thing exists. Which is not the same as saying that all data are the same and that some are not more useful than others...
Indeed. We all float around in a sea of subjective observations. No facts are real. If you feel 2 + 2 = 5, then you are just as correct as those claiming it is 4.2. Helicopters and unicorns. Cool, man...
"Sure" - no way. But "rather probable" is easy. How about trying the scientific method, even if it is a bit square and uncool?
Never claimed to answer universal truths. As you say:
Standard engineering and scientific practice takes us a long way.
Doesn't mean he was wrong. In a relativistic sense. Just stay away from those poppers, man!
Nope, the exact opposite: there is no "truth" "out there". The truth is what we do, not something that lies around waiting for us to "passively" "discover" it. We construct it through our actions - in fact it is our actions, and thats why science has to be very meticulous about "how" results are produced. No floating, man. You, we are here and our senses are part of it. No subject-object dichotomy.
The point is that you can claim whatever you want, but only if you stay with the facts 2+2=4, you stay "positivist". No method can enable you to state anything objective "outside" what exactly happened through the method. Get it?
Many engineers like to believe that they speak of science - and therefore "the truth" when they extrapolate on theory and disregard something as impossible. They don't. But that doesn't mean that they cant make useful technology.
Your *probably* was prudent. That asked questions. For most of all factors (IM distortion, damping, etc), yes, obviously. And no doubt if you play with group delays. One thing i'm aware about is the coherency of the dynamic behavior. And there, passive filter will be *most probably* better. WIth high slew rate and large spectrum instruments, like bass drums, the tonal balance can vary with time, with hight transients. Of course, everithing can change, depending of power supplies etc.
Right. And they are not wrong in extrapolating on the theory - that is the way you test the theory. At the same time you have to be prepared for the extrapolation to fail - but "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
And then the next question is on the audibility of that coherency.
But we are drifting away from hypex ncores again...
I am sure the debate will carry on long after the universe has reached a thermal equilibrium (or imploded, depending on which theory is closer to the mark)...
What does it mean that an extrapolation has failed or been successful?
As it can't be done through "objective data" we always end up with "more likelyness" (Poppers' "falsification principle" has practically been left as a proper method for scientific claims) Nothing wrong with "more probable explanations". Stay with that -They just don't exclude other probable explanations as so many tend to believe. You can typically produce and evidentially support different scientific explanations of the same event, although it has been reduced into different scientifically produced phenomena. Including ABX tests...
Have never said that ABX can't be useful. But they are nevertheless constructed arrangements and the knowledge it produces will still be limited to (and probable within) the precise conditions of its execution. Do you disagree?
Just stay with the facts. Interpretations should be clearly stated as such when extrapolated from actual facts. Interpretations are fine when we can analyze them and place them within some for of useful context. Not easy.
Have I ever suggested otherwise?
And ABX is hardly "extraordinary" evidence on anything other than what happened, as with any other experiment, no?
- Or can your personal "extraordinary" ABX method prove anything "extraordinarily outside" what actually happened?
Last edited:
If they can't be verified, they aren't scientific. Or they aren't claims, but hypotheses.
"Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter.
...
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance)."
If you do a double-blind, controlled, level-matched ABX test, you have something that, while not being in any way absolute truth, is still very much stronger than somebody saying "well, I swapped the cable last night, and it sounded much airier and crisper".
At the same time, if you claim that hard disk USB cables cause audible differences, or that transferring a FLAC file over the internet affects the sound, unless you "protect" it by zipping it (I have seen both claims on audiophile forums), you'd better provide some pretty strong evidence.
erm, extraordinary simply means something outside of the ordinary...
youve obviously never done a proper ABX test , if you did, you would know how much effort it requires to do properly
I don't think we are on different pages there.
Claims are nevertheless published in peer reviewed scientific journals although they are not repeated by external independent laboratories. That does not mean that such claims are prevented from entering university teaching within engineering, medicine ect. Is that wrong, or unscientific, or just how the world actually works sometimes?
Please carry on your ABX activities, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. As you said yourself it isn't perfect, but I don't see why it should exclude other methods like critical listening under accustomed circumstances -with whatever deficiencies that method may have
BTW, close to the topic of the ncore -what has been done of ABX indicates that they are no better sounding than ordinary amps. Personally I pay more credit to the many unABX subjective listening impressions around and as well as those of my own. But thats just me..
cheers and enjoy your evening
- Status
- Not open for further replies.