Peter Daniel said:
what do you need proof for? what I said is what I heard (or read) you saying and that's sufficient. No proof, no logic no nothing, 🙂
Seriously, you essentially stated that you didn't go through a rigorous process to verify that you heard it consistently or in a statistically significant way. what you "heard" could very well be something totally unrelated to the power cord, as there is absolutely zero evidence (or proof) from you that can link what you heard to the cord.
Hi,
Unrelated to the PC? Such as?
If it's the only parameter that's been changed and you hear a difference isn't that the one to point to?
Now if I'd claim that every time I replace a standard PC with my twisted solid core PCs, I do hear better coherency across the band and the stereo image has better focus and has done so for twenty years in a row, that may not constitute sufficient scientific proof to anyone but I surely prefer it that way.
Just like Peter Daniel, to me it's certainly not the most important issue when setting up a fine system. Not by a large margin.
Also, keep in mind that your results may vary from mine as incidentally in Europe all household wiring I know of happens to be done with solid core which is exactly the same type and gauge as I use for my PCs.
It doesn't break the bank to try.
If it doesn't bring an improvement you're still left with what you started with: a system that likely doesn't show a difference in PCs.
Could be good or not so good, depending.
So, if you feel like it, give it a shot. If you don't, you'll only be left with the nagging feeling you may have missed a chance.
That's all there's it to it really.
Cheers,😉
Unrelated to the PC? Such as?
If it's the only parameter that's been changed and you hear a difference isn't that the one to point to?
Now if I'd claim that every time I replace a standard PC with my twisted solid core PCs, I do hear better coherency across the band and the stereo image has better focus and has done so for twenty years in a row, that may not constitute sufficient scientific proof to anyone but I surely prefer it that way.
Just like Peter Daniel, to me it's certainly not the most important issue when setting up a fine system. Not by a large margin.
Also, keep in mind that your results may vary from mine as incidentally in Europe all household wiring I know of happens to be done with solid core which is exactly the same type and gauge as I use for my PCs.
It doesn't break the bank to try.
If it doesn't bring an improvement you're still left with what you started with: a system that likely doesn't show a difference in PCs.
Could be good or not so good, depending.
So, if you feel like it, give it a shot. If you don't, you'll only be left with the nagging feeling you may have missed a chance.
That's all there's it to it really.
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:
yes, if you can prove that you heard what you thought you heard.
The whole point of my prior post is that one needs to go through a rigorous process to make sure that what one hears is really there to be heard, and isn't something random or unrelated.
It is that simple.
Hi,
Fair enough.
Question is, does one need to prove it to the entire community or does it suffice to mention one's experience?
How does one prove one's perceptions?
As I've mentioned before, I used to make before after recordings of changes implemented in my system.
A system that merely served as a reference to customers to show differences in caps, resistors and tubes mainly, as those were the main products I marketed.
More often than not I left it up to the customer(s) to pick what they preferred and only gave advise according to what I knew already about the person, his preferences and of course his current system.
Call it a consultancy if you like.
Now, I said before that in that system solid core twisted pair PCs made a difference and consistantly so for twenty years, is that acceptable proof?
No, not scientifically.
It only proves that in that particular context it did.
Now, if I say that most of those customers also heard the difference amongst the PCs in their systems, does that make it more scientific?
Guess not, but I'm sure you catch my drift...proving audio related things is pretty tough especially when you're convinced that measurements don't tell the whole story.
Reenter the recording methods....We only want to show up if a difference does exist, right?
Well, I know of one member who's done just that and differences did show up.
Without explicit agreement from that member I can't and won't tell but it shows that it can be done which is the point after all.
Up to you to do the same, not that I need convincing of audibility.
You and others may find it useful to convince yourselves though.
Cheers,😉
Fair enough.
Question is, does one need to prove it to the entire community or does it suffice to mention one's experience?
How does one prove one's perceptions?
As I've mentioned before, I used to make before after recordings of changes implemented in my system.
A system that merely served as a reference to customers to show differences in caps, resistors and tubes mainly, as those were the main products I marketed.
More often than not I left it up to the customer(s) to pick what they preferred and only gave advise according to what I knew already about the person, his preferences and of course his current system.
Call it a consultancy if you like.
Now, I said before that in that system solid core twisted pair PCs made a difference and consistantly so for twenty years, is that acceptable proof?
No, not scientifically.
It only proves that in that particular context it did.
Now, if I say that most of those customers also heard the difference amongst the PCs in their systems, does that make it more scientific?
Guess not, but I'm sure you catch my drift...proving audio related things is pretty tough especially when you're convinced that measurements don't tell the whole story.
Reenter the recording methods....We only want to show up if a difference does exist, right?
Well, I know of one member who's done just that and differences did show up.
Without explicit agreement from that member I can't and won't tell but it shows that it can be done which is the point after all.
Up to you to do the same, not that I need convincing of audibility.
You and others may find it useful to convince yourselves though.
Cheers,😉
millwood said:
Why does one need to go through such a rigorous process unless their goal is to prove actual audible differences? If such is not their goal, the only process one needs to go through is figuring out what works best for them.
se
millwood said:
I completely agree with SE. If this is only for my personal use, I don't have to go through any rigorous process to prove it. My threshold of acceptability is very low and I don't question many aspects of the world surrounding me. I just take things as they come (or present themselves (in my eyes😉)).
Another issue is if I should ever mention it in public place, like on this forum, for instance. I presume ( or should I rather say know) that for a number of people who would suggest I shouldn't, there is at least the same number of people who are hungry for that sort of info. So that's why I'm doing it😉
Peter Daniel said:
BUT... 🙂
Whether personal use or no, if you make objective claims as to actual audibility then a demand of proof is a legitimate one.
se
BUT...
What do you mean by objective claim? What is the difference between claim and observation? Can observation be objective?
What do you mean by objective claim? What is the difference between claim and observation? Can observation be objective?
if it floats your boat, go ahead. and could you please mail me the old cord? i can "dispose" of it for you. 🙂
Peter Daniel said:
An observation is personal. A claim is public. (For example, "personal observation" "public claim").
Yes, an observation can be objective, (especially considered objective if there is a second observer to collaborate the observation).
And I think an "objective claim" was just an amplification, in a literary sense, of the thought that a claim usually implies something objective (rather than a willy nilly comment), if you get my meaning.
JF
Peter Daniel said:
Simply claiming you perceive differences isn't an objective claim as there's no direct assertion of actual audibility and as such no one should be hassled for proof of such a claim. Perhaps it's actually audible, perhaps it's not. Without a direct assertion of actual audibility no objective claim is being made.
Basically as long as all you're doing is relating your subjective experiences and observations you're not making any sort of objective claim.
But as soon as you directly assert that something is actually audible, all bets are off and demands for proof are legitimate and you've no one to blame but yourself. 🙂
se
Peter Daniel said:
Doesn't stop most of us.
(And I think it's Steve that claims you claimed something.)
JF
Peter Daniel said:
I would hope not. Simply sharing personal observations doesn't imply any sort of universal truth, merely one person's subjective experiences. If you say you've tried different power cords and they sound different to you or that you prefer one over another, you're not making an objective claim, even if you're saying it in a public forum.
But if you say you've tried different power cords and they sound different to you and then assert that the differences you perceive are due to actual audible differences, then you're in objective territory as you're effectively making a claim of some universal truth, i.e. that there's an actual audible difference between power cords.
se
Steve Eddy said:
This is all pretty well understood, but how forum members can differentiate and make it perfectly clear that they don't make objective claim, but just simply describe personal, perceived observations? In this way they would avoid harassment by the objective crowd.
I would assume that most members approach their comments in this way, so maybe once and for all some sort of proper procedure should be introduced (when making comments), so no further confusion would exist.
Peter Daniel said:
Well, I think instead of members having to think twice about everything they say lest someone somehow manage to read into it something which isn't there, just don't make any obvious objective claims as to actual audibility.
I mean, if you say "This power cord sounds better to me" you don't have to add a bunch of weasel woreds like "in my subjective experience."
Just don't say something obvious like "This power cord makes an audible difference." Unless of course that's precisely what you mean to say and you're prepared to provide proof when asked and if asked, don't get your panties all in a bunch. 🙂
I don't think members should have to walk around on eggshells fearing ambush if they utter something that might possibly be construed by someone as having some between-the-lines implication as to actual audibility.
Instead, I think that short of obvious direct assertions of actual audibility, no one should be hassled for proof or told they're delusional, etc.
Just as I expect those who say they don't percieve any differences or not have the same tastes and preferences as others to not be hassled and told that they're deaf, that their systems suck, that they should see their doctor, etc.
I guess if I had to summarize my advice to both sides in a single sentence, it would simply be "Just because you perceive it doesn't make it so, and just because it has yet to be proved doesn't make it not so."
se
Steve, there may be a simpler way... Why not start a new forum and call it something like Sonic Parapsychology or Audible Snake Oil or perhaps Golden Ears R Us where all manner of quasi-sensible, offbeat and unsubstantiated issues are discussed...
Certainly subjectivity enters into these forums. Must do. But then Frank, Peter, John and others should say "I hear XYZ" and not start a verbal punch-up by saying "PC's change XYZ", universalizing (wonder if that word exists...) the issue into some blanket statement of fact. Which requires proof.
And while you're at it, admitting there is no proof and that human hearing is flawed could do a lot to de-fuse combustible topics. In so doing you also acknowledge the possibility you may be wrong. The power of suggestion and preconception must never be underestimated. The subconscious is a powerful enitity. As a silly example for Peter... if your 4' PC happens to lie over the corner of your wife's Persian rug, your subconscious might suggest to your hearing that the 2' PC sounds better, simply to avoid an altercation with her. This is possible.
Certainly subjectivity enters into these forums. Must do. But then Frank, Peter, John and others should say "I hear XYZ" and not start a verbal punch-up by saying "PC's change XYZ", universalizing (wonder if that word exists...) the issue into some blanket statement of fact. Which requires proof.
And while you're at it, admitting there is no proof and that human hearing is flawed could do a lot to de-fuse combustible topics. In so doing you also acknowledge the possibility you may be wrong. The power of suggestion and preconception must never be underestimated. The subconscious is a powerful enitity. As a silly example for Peter... if your 4' PC happens to lie over the corner of your wife's Persian rug, your subconscious might suggest to your hearing that the 2' PC sounds better, simply to avoid an altercation with her. This is possible.
DrG said:
It's easy to shout about requirement for the proof. But we are not silly, and we all well know, that arranging such experiments and presenting the satisfying proof is practically almost impossible, if not only for a simple reason of time and space restrictions. So don't get excited.
DrG said:
I don't see a reason for a new forum. This forum is for everybody, don't forget about it.
If you don't like discussions about Sonic Parapsychology or Audible Snake Oil, Golden Ears R Us, quasi-sensible, offbeat and unsubstantiated issues ... maybe you should start looking for another forum?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.