macgyver10,to make clear as to what I meant in my post,if for anything that comes in my way I have to refer to science,something I can't do as I'm not expert,that means that personally I have to steal time from things and people that are more important to me.I couldn't care less if magazine X claims that throughing a piece of wood in my amp will make a difference,or by sticking aluminium pieces in page 850 of the third book,raw6 of my library would improve sound.Would I be a correct skeptic if I tried to find scientific explanation as to why I will not spend any money on such claims?
Panicos K,
Quote: "In 480 years from now..."
Thanks for making me feel younger, Panicos.
This is a thought-provoking contribution! (Not that your others were not.)
I like the term "correct sceptic". With acknowledgement to you I am going to use that in some of my writings! After some consideration, I would suggest that, no, one should not become paranoid enough to demand that all should forever be accompanied by academically accurate scientific narrative. (This may seem contrary to what I contributed earlier.)
But you would not walk down the garden path with a friend, and seeing a snake that he does not notice, not warn him about the danger. (But then perhaps the snake should not have been there in the first place.) Similarly it is a sad situation that pseudo-scientific clap-trap designed for the sole purpose of befuzzling the brain, should come from so many profiting from the same.
No, what you said in your last paragrapgh above should be the case exactly. (And furthermore it is regrettable that those capable of providing answers are often challenged to the point of absurdity, while the silky mouthed are so easily believed.)
Thanks for this contribution of plain logic, Panicos. I believe it will find a way into one of my future writings (I write for a local hi-fi magazine).
Kind regards.
Edit: The second-last paragraph should perhaps have started: "Yes, what you said in your ....." We here in the RSA sometimes have a funny way of putting in accent.
Quote: "In 480 years from now..."
Thanks for making me feel younger, Panicos.
Panicos K said:
This is a thought-provoking contribution! (Not that your others were not.)
I like the term "correct sceptic". With acknowledgement to you I am going to use that in some of my writings! After some consideration, I would suggest that, no, one should not become paranoid enough to demand that all should forever be accompanied by academically accurate scientific narrative. (This may seem contrary to what I contributed earlier.)
But you would not walk down the garden path with a friend, and seeing a snake that he does not notice, not warn him about the danger. (But then perhaps the snake should not have been there in the first place.) Similarly it is a sad situation that pseudo-scientific clap-trap designed for the sole purpose of befuzzling the brain, should come from so many profiting from the same.
No, what you said in your last paragrapgh above should be the case exactly. (And furthermore it is regrettable that those capable of providing answers are often challenged to the point of absurdity, while the silky mouthed are so easily believed.)
Thanks for this contribution of plain logic, Panicos. I believe it will find a way into one of my future writings (I write for a local hi-fi magazine).
Kind regards.
Edit: The second-last paragraph should perhaps have started: "Yes, what you said in your ....." We here in the RSA sometimes have a funny way of putting in accent.
Johan,why do you find ''correct''a strange word for skeptic?I could use other words like:better,serious,logical............and again you would say the same for my choice of word.However,in this discussions I have seen only two colours,black and white,it is either this(measurements)or that(imagining things).Unless someone defines some kind of limits to show where skepticism ends and stupidity begins,I will still be wondering who's the skeptic.As for the stupid,I will accept the title so,you can use any term you like in your articles.What else can I do,this is the logic nature gave to me.I hope this arrangement will satisfy those who don't seem to like me or my logic much.I only hope you don't find post 1056 provoking too.
Panicos K said:
I'm not an "expert" either. However, the scientific method is open to everybody as a means of reasoned thought. In my job, I am often required to "troubleshoot" problems. The technique is essentially to try and root out the source cause of the problem, by process of elimination. Occam's razor often comes into play. You'd be surprised how many times a "system failure" is the result of a power plug falling out of an outlet. However, hours of time can be spent by those not particularly skilled, or wise, looking for a complex and complicated cause. Many of these people are "experts", but they're blinded by their superior knowledge.
I think this is what you are trying to say, perhaps, about experts, engineers and skeptics...and I agree with you! However, this is a human trait, and failing -- it is an issue of ego and pride, rather than rational thought. We can all overcome this by applying a certain type of skeptical reasoned approach to the problem. You actually have to admit to yourself that you don't "know everything" to make it work. Randi's success is based on his knowledge of this phenomenon, both as a conjuror and challenger of the paranormal. He's fooled many a scientist, and demonstrated their folly.
Panicos K said:
No, you would be a scientist. However, your feeling that the claims are foolish would come from your skepticism.
macgyver10,at least it is a start(your first time)to say that I can be skeptic sometimes.I have nothing against experts and scientists but I have with ''experts'' and ''scientists''so you guessed right.I certainly don't know everything,and surely I will never will,but I also know that no one ever will.So,you could say that sometimes I am skeptic about ''experts'' and ''scientists''.
macgyver10,yes you could say that,and although it may come as a surprice to you,I ALSO respect those who back up their claims with evidence.For some reason though-and that has nothing to do with my ego-I feel ,but I cannot prove it,that measurements alone are not at least at present for me,the complete and final answer to the argument of hearing or not differences between cables.If you accept when I say ''at present''then we seem to agree in more things than we dissagree.
Panicos K said:
Hi Panicos,
Because I sense some misunderstanding here, kindly allow the following. (Also apologise for late reply; we are having huge problems with satellite and server reliability.)
All of my comments were intended to be complimentary. I did not find the term "correct sceptic" strange, rather a very good term. That in the sense that some people will use the innuendo of "sceptic" when in reality they are past convincing. The kind of "I have made up my mind; don't confuse me with facts." Thus there are wrong sceptics and correct sceptics, the latter in the sense of sceptics for the right reasons - such as yourself.
I have never called you stupid and never will. Uninformed possibly, which you yourself confessed to, and that is not a sin; rather the opposite. You yourself should not see you as stupid ever. There is a world of difference between stupid and uninformed and willing to learn. Yours was the latter, and in that sense I thought of seeing you as someone willing to learn, but perhaps confused by conflicting "informed" opinions. You are a test for those of us calling ourselves scientists, something which we sometimes do not pass. Be assured of my respect, should that have left doubt in your mind.
Regards.
Johan,I don't think there is anything you should be apologizing to me for.I never said you called me stupid,nor I see myself as one.I just said I'm not an expert-and I'm not-.I also said that I'm learning from you-and I do-.However being in audio business for decades,and as someone you already realized,one of those who claim they hear differences between cables(small or big),I am a skeptic in my way,in the sense that I need something more than electrical measurements to be convinced that I'm just imagining things.I'm not questioning scientists or science,I just hope and believe that they will move further on this matter.This might be one of the reasons why my way of commending on this,has been missunderstood as being provoking.I never had such an intention,and if you try to see things-even for a minute-from my side,you will agree that I couldn't have the ''privillage''to be provoking against so many,much more informed than me.I just felt that there were times where I was the one under ''attack'' for my comments,and had to ''deffend'' them in my non-scientific way.
Also,I have no doubt in my mind that you are a person who knows how to-and does respect others.I can clearly see it in the way you write-I mean that-,although I cannot prove it scientifically....(..just joking...)
Thank you
Also,I have no doubt in my mind that you are a person who knows how to-and does respect others.I can clearly see it in the way you write-I mean that-,although I cannot prove it scientifically....(..just joking...)
Thank you
,No fine, Panicos. And "provoking" questions should be OK. They bring answers and we all learn. It is when the "provoking" becomes arrogant that the irritation starts, but I have not seen many such on this site (certainly not on this thread). Thanks for your thoughts.
Regarding cables, I cannot work outside the established principles of electronics. But having said that, I have experienced one or two cases where folks I know well did hear differences. I cannot suddenly bring in magic or snake oil as an easy way out, but I have "filed" those experiences somewhere, and they still need to be solved ......... At least, hopefully, I will be remembered as an honest scientist, that did not sweep things that needed a solution "under the carpet".
Best regards to you.
cable so cheap it hertzzzzzz!
hi fi world printed my article on this chance stumble of some high end speaker cable that costs15 uk pounds for ,wait for it.
25meters! i have owned many high end cables and this kicks *** big time honest, for the price of a cd you can own high end cable on a massive budget
here we go rs components cat number 359-510
silver plated copper wire 19/0.15
here is the down fall its pink! the wife loves it
its that thin it shound not work but it does!
hi fi world printed my article on this chance stumble of some high end speaker cable that costs15 uk pounds for ,wait for it.
25meters! i have owned many high end cables and this kicks *** big time honest, for the price of a cd you can own high end cable on a massive budget
here we go rs components cat number 359-510
silver plated copper wire 19/0.15
here is the down fall its pink! the wife loves it
its that thin it shound not work but it does!
samtheman23,19/0.15 seems like 22awg.If you like such thin wire,you could also check Farnell 322-xxxx,it is 19/0.15,silver plated,teflon insulated.It is available in 7 colours,including pink.Costs 16.86 euros for 25m.There are also slightly thicker ones(up to 18awg)for slightly higher price.
When you actually think what is in most loudspeakers - crossover networks containing inductors and capacitors and vast coils of ultra thin wires in the loudspeaker itself then the argument about a few metres of relatively thick cable becomes a little nonsensical.
This is similar to the concerns about gold-plated connectors. Such a connector won't improve perfomance, it just guards against the unlikely possibility of a tarnished surface giving rise to a poor connection. You are still dependant on simple spade connectors within most speakers, that are not gold - only the fact that you can't perceive these makes them far more acceptable! Perception is everything in marketing.
This is similar to the concerns about gold-plated connectors. Such a connector won't improve perfomance, it just guards against the unlikely possibility of a tarnished surface giving rise to a poor connection. You are still dependant on simple spade connectors within most speakers, that are not gold - only the fact that you can't perceive these makes them far more acceptable! Perception is everything in marketing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.