At home, yeah, it's very difficult. But you might be surprised how "small" a room you can get away with. I've heard it done with ease in 150 square meters. Not a small room, for sure, but much smaller than a concert hall. And have heard it done with some varying success in spaces 1/2 that size.
Thank you! Unfortunately I can't travel now. I have to finish 3 projects this months.
If you come across Sacramento you can check my Asphalt'ed drivers there in Russian Club. Sound good as well!
Unfortunately, I did not hide graphics EQ there in the safe, so it is open for anybody who wants to "improve" things...
All of science is just hypothesis & only the best guess at the moment - fitting theories to observations. Problem with a lot of science is that if the observations don't match the theory, then the tendency is to find a way of dismissing the observation. This is a long tradition in science & is systemic.
No, it's not complete & should not be taken as gospel either. I use the word wisely as it's not a religion although some treat it as such. The hypotheses of science are only as good as our instruments allow us to measure & how open our minds are) & in the realm of sound I would contend that we are a long way off matching measurements to what we perceive in sound.
I went through a whole thread "What measurements can/cannot show" in which those who swore by measurements were trying to prove that what I heard (& lots of others heard) really wasn't of value & only measurements were. I asked someone to give an example of a measurement of timbre, sound stage, sonic tails, etc - all things that can be heard (although some dismiss as a mirage). None could or would produce such a plot.
And my next experiment will be EnABLing my Jordans!
Last edited:
oh lordie... you REALLY don't understand science do you. I'll bet you LOVE homoeopathic "remedies".
Good luck with the Jordans - just out of interest, how are you going to assess the results?
Oh No, here we go again - please enlighten me - I'm all ears
I'll be using the best & most sensitive instrument I know of at the moment - my ears/brain. If you can match that I challenge you.
Last edited:
Oh No, here we go again - please enlighten me - I'm all ears
why bother if you've heard it before and dismissed it?
Ah come on, can we not have a reasonable discussion without the tit-for-tat argumentative debating starting already. I have an open mind & want to hear any & all sides of an argument.
What I meant by "Oh no.." was that i was hoping it wasn't going to get contentious, not that I had heard it all before!
I'll give you the point that my statement about science was simplistic but it still stands. The hypotheses often dictate where measurements & observations are directed & in some sense science is a self fulfilling closed system. Einstein overthrew/refined Newtons "theories" of classical physics which had been considered "gospel" for a long time. This, despite the fact that there were experiments that didn't sit comfortably with the "theory" & were dismissed. It was these experiments that Einstein delved into in order to explain them. This is all from memory of my school science so forgive my inaccuracies!
What I meant by "Oh no.." was that i was hoping it wasn't going to get contentious, not that I had heard it all before!
I'll give you the point that my statement about science was simplistic but it still stands. The hypotheses often dictate where measurements & observations are directed & in some sense science is a self fulfilling closed system. Einstein overthrew/refined Newtons "theories" of classical physics which had been considered "gospel" for a long time. This, despite the fact that there were experiments that didn't sit comfortably with the "theory" & were dismissed. It was these experiments that Einstein delved into in order to explain them. This is all from memory of my school science so forgive my inaccuracies!
Last edited:
fair enough.
In short, your derogatory statement about science is, at best, biased and misinformed opinion.
Science progresses because it is, when practised properly, impartial. Science doesn't care what the outcome of an experiment or observation is. Some of the major scientific advances have occurred when the expected outcome is replaced by a completely unexpected outcome.
Scientific reasoning STARTS with a hypothesis, and only through repeated validation does the hypothesis become a theory. It is, for instance, no hypothesis that the speed of light is around 300,000km a second. It is, for all known and observable situations, a fact.
Glibly stating that science has a long history of dismissing observations is somewhat ironic given that the statement dismisses the vast majority of occasions when this hasn't occurred.
Your experience in the thread on measurements shows the lack of insight you have into scientific method. I too would question (but not dismiss) any claim you make to hearing unmeasurable sonic differences. Your unsubstantiated observation, while interesting, is not evidence.
However, a well conducted experiment that assessed what a statistically significant group could detect IS scientifically valid despite the lack of measuring equipment. This is a point often made by the objectivists (science types) and entirely avoided by the subjectivists (experience types).
Pity really.
Of course, I think we can both agree on this definition of science...
In short, your derogatory statement about science is, at best, biased and misinformed opinion.
Science progresses because it is, when practised properly, impartial. Science doesn't care what the outcome of an experiment or observation is. Some of the major scientific advances have occurred when the expected outcome is replaced by a completely unexpected outcome.
Scientific reasoning STARTS with a hypothesis, and only through repeated validation does the hypothesis become a theory. It is, for instance, no hypothesis that the speed of light is around 300,000km a second. It is, for all known and observable situations, a fact.
Glibly stating that science has a long history of dismissing observations is somewhat ironic given that the statement dismisses the vast majority of occasions when this hasn't occurred.
Your experience in the thread on measurements shows the lack of insight you have into scientific method. I too would question (but not dismiss) any claim you make to hearing unmeasurable sonic differences. Your unsubstantiated observation, while interesting, is not evidence.
However, a well conducted experiment that assessed what a statistically significant group could detect IS scientifically valid despite the lack of measuring equipment. This is a point often made by the objectivists (science types) and entirely avoided by the subjectivists (experience types).
Pity really.
Of course, I think we can both agree on this definition of science...
Just to clarify your view of me - I have a BSc. degree in Biochemistry & Maths. I have run a software company for 20-30 years so I'm well grounded in science & experimental rigour.
I'm afraid your naive in how science works! This is not the way of the world, when budgets, scientific reputation, & publications come into play. Have you ever worked in a laboratory or in a field of scientific research?
I reference as an example of what I'm saying - the Michelson Morley experiment as one that was dismissed for years as experimental anomaly because it wasn't consistent with the Galilean/Newtonian view of the world! It was only with Einstein's hypothesis that the results were explained!
I'm afraid your naive in how science works! This is not the way of the world, when budgets, scientific reputation, & publications come into play. Have you ever worked in a laboratory or in a field of scientific research?
I reference as an example of what I'm saying - the Michelson Morley experiment as one that was dismissed for years as experimental anomaly because it wasn't consistent with the Galilean/Newtonian view of the world! It was only with Einstein's hypothesis that the results were explained!
Last edited:
your peerless academic record notwithstanding, you have failed to separate the concept of "science" from the reality of business and personal ego.
I'm not naive about science - it works extremely well. However, it is capable of being perverted, misapplied or subjugated in the same way that the law, morals and '67 Camaros can be. We are after all human and hence fallible.
The upside is that in due course, any perversions of science can be corrected - your example of Einstein being an apt one. However, this can only happen if a scientific approach is followed. Guessing and faith in a good ear doesn't cut it.
Last edited:
Science doesn't work in a vacuum, like you suggest - it is part of the real world not some esoteric tower in which these "pure" experiments are conducted in an ego-free & financially unhindered environment.
I take it from your reply that you have never worked in the field of science of which you speak so "knowledgeabl"y & I am just a mis-guided poor soul you are correcting?
I take it from your reply that you have never worked in the field of science of which you speak so "knowledgeabl"y & I am just a mis-guided poor soul you are correcting?
I got attacked again for making my statement about science - am I supposed to just take it & roll over? I used the other thread as an example of something that I thought was relevant. I simply expressed a view & got attacked, I'm sorry about this, it isn't my fault!
no I am not a scientist of any sort. By the same token, I'm not an accountant and I can still balance a cheque account.
I'm not the one suggesting science works in a vacuum - I have explicitly stated that it doesn't, and pointed out at least two factors that bear on the practise of science and may drive it off-course. The fact that this occasionally happens doesn't invalidate scientific methodology and more especially doesn't validate subjective opinion.
btw - I wasn't attacking you - I was attacking your lack of logic.
Gotta go - thanks for the discussion
I'm not the one suggesting science works in a vacuum - I have explicitly stated that it doesn't, and pointed out at least two factors that bear on the practise of science and may drive it off-course. The fact that this occasionally happens doesn't invalidate scientific methodology and more especially doesn't validate subjective opinion.
btw - I wasn't attacking you - I was attacking your lack of logic.
Gotta go - thanks for the discussion
"I got attacked again for making my statement about science"
I don't remember you being "attacked". Is that = disagreement to you?
"am I supposed to just take it & roll over?"
Yes, we all have to from time to time. Otherwise we end up in a bar brawl, which is where you seem to be taking this once again!
Let it go ....
I don't remember you being "attacked". Is that = disagreement to you?
"am I supposed to just take it & roll over?"
Yes, we all have to from time to time. Otherwise we end up in a bar brawl, which is where you seem to be taking this once again!
Let it go ....
Last edited:
That would come as a shock to Lorentz, who proposed his famous transformation in 1892.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.