fdegrove said:Why is it so hard for some people to just accept it could well be possible that some things are audible to some and maybe not to others?
Cheers,😉
you missed it again. It has been stated multiple times in the past that it is entirely possible and highly probable that some things are audible.
The question is if people can hear what they claim to have heard.
For example. We can certainly hear sound at 100db (in a rocket concert for example). However, if you claim to be able to hear sound at -200000000000000000db, or that you can hear neutrinos hitting the collector of the 3rd output device on the positive side, that's an entirely different story.
Hi,
Now that claim I'm certain I must have missed.😉
However, if you claim to be able to hear sound at -200000000000000000db, or that you can hear neutrinos hitting the collector of the 3rd output device on the positive side, that's an entirely different story.
Now that claim I'm certain I must have missed.😉
Steve Eddy said:
But by the same token, it could also be that dramatically more intense involvement could also be causing more intense subjective biases.
Why would you assume that subconscious factors would necessarily be inconsistent? The evidence seems to indicate that subconscious factors are quite consistent under sighted conditions.
Certainly trained listeners can have a greater acuity than untrained listeners. But under sighted conditions, you don't always know what the source of that difference you perceive is.
But all this speculation has been hashed out many times before and doesn't get us any closer to the real answers. The real answers will only come when differences can be demonstrated when biases have been accounted for.
se
Here'a a nice example that confirms my speculatons that not everything we hear is subjectively based.
A member inquired about coupling capacitors to experiment with. I sent him a bunch, without mentioning anything about the sound they produce. He checked them out and his description here is very consistant how I feel about the sound of those different capacitors http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=267956#post267956
I didn't even met him and he was conducting his experiment in total independance. How can we explain that his observations and comments match those of mine pretty well?
Hi,
Neither can I....
Could it be it needed 10 pages of breaking in?
Cheers,😉
I can't believe this power cord nonsense has continued for 34 pages.
Neither can I....
Could it be it needed 10 pages of breaking in?
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:Now that claim I'm certain I must have missed.😉
Yeah, as well as the claim you can hear solid core power cords, 🙂
Peter Daniel said:I didn't even met him and he was conducting his experiment in total independance. How can we explain that his observations and comments match those of mine pretty well?
there is no shortage of such "coincidence". I only wish we could replace scientific methodology with such anecdotes. Becoming an Einstein in such a world would been thousands of times easier.
fdegrove said:Hi,
I agree and I apologise.
Is it really necessary to compare someone's aural experiences to vodoo in the first place?
unfortunately, this forum doesn't have a rule governing necessity: otherwise, this whole thread wouldn't have existed in the first place.
However, we can all argue we can about someone's experience but no matter how much disagreement there is, no one should be allowed to attack another person.
I hope you learn from this experience and respect others just as much as you like to be respected.
For all those people claiming to have enough hearing capability to be able to hear things as power cords, clarifiers, wood blocks et all
How about learning some physics, some electronics and some acoustics to start experimenting, designing, building and tuning-up your own electronic and electroacoustic equipment with outstanding specs instead of sticking on the same bulls**t forever?
If you claim to have these outstanding hearing capabilities, I think you should make an effort to show it to the world and at the same time use it for something profitable
Also, If you talk about mysterious unknown physic properties present in some materials and some unknown electric and electronic properties present on copper....
Why not making an effort to learn current physics, make scientific experiments for years and demonstrate to the rest of the world all those things you say following fully repeatable, measurable and universally accepted scientific methods instead of sticking to the same lame subjetive discussions again and again?
Anybody capable of changing current physics and electronics should have a Nobel prize almost granted
And ...
If you decide not to make any effort...
How about just enjoying your subjective experience forever without bothering scientific and rational people with nonsense discussions?
Subjective experiences end enjoyment are free
How about learning some physics, some electronics and some acoustics to start experimenting, designing, building and tuning-up your own electronic and electroacoustic equipment with outstanding specs instead of sticking on the same bulls**t forever?
If you claim to have these outstanding hearing capabilities, I think you should make an effort to show it to the world and at the same time use it for something profitable
Also, If you talk about mysterious unknown physic properties present in some materials and some unknown electric and electronic properties present on copper....
Why not making an effort to learn current physics, make scientific experiments for years and demonstrate to the rest of the world all those things you say following fully repeatable, measurable and universally accepted scientific methods instead of sticking to the same lame subjetive discussions again and again?
Anybody capable of changing current physics and electronics should have a Nobel prize almost granted
And ...
If you decide not to make any effort...
How about just enjoying your subjective experience forever without bothering scientific and rational people with nonsense discussions?
Subjective experiences end enjoyment are free
Sometimes sanity prevails because of people's efforts. And sometimes it prevails despite the best efforts of others.
Peter Daniel:
A hundred different ways from misplaced hero-worship through coincidence to the remotest femto-fractional chance of fact.
Peter Daniel:
A member inquired about coupling capacitors to experiment with. I sent him a bunch, without mentioning anything about the sound they produce. He checked them out and his description here is very consistant how I feel about the sound of those different capacitors. I didn't even met him and he was conducting his experiment in total independance. How can we explain that his observations and comments match those of mine pretty well?
A hundred different ways from misplaced hero-worship through coincidence to the remotest femto-fractional chance of fact.
mrfeedback said:But by the same token, it could also be that dramatically more intense involvement could also be causing more intense subjective biases.
Dramatically more experimental trials build a dramatically larger mental database and from this recognition of system defects and vitues and consequent preferences are established.
I don't care how people come to have their particular preferences. It doesn't establish anything more than people subjectively perceive differences. But we already know this and no one has ever disputed it.
Sighted listening is prone to biases. More sighted listening is prone to biases. It's human nature.
Why would you assume that subconscious factors would necessarily be inconsistent? The evidence seems to indicate that subconscious factors are quite consistent under sighted conditions.
With experience you learn to recognise and eliminate 'subconcious factors'.
Um, how do you recognize that which is subconscious? If you can recognize it, then by definition, it wasn't subconscious. This is just your ego talking, Eric.
Certainly trained listeners can have a greater acuity than untrained listeners. But under sighted conditions, you don't always know what the source of that difference you perceive is.
How about you define a perfect blind testing procedure and then we will listen to you - we all understand that normal blind tests are hopelessly flawed.
How do we all understand that blind tests are hopelessly flawed? Based on what exactly? Because they haven't so far confirmed your preconcieved beliefs?
You're behaving no differently than the "creation science" folks here, Eric. They believe that the Bible is literal and anything which shows otherwise must be hopelessly flawed.
But all this speculation has been hashed out many times before and doesn't get us any closer to the real answers. The real answers will only come when differences can be demonstrated when biases have been accounted for.
Proper blind testing would be the first start.
What exactly has been improper about the blind testing that's been done?
Until then descriptions by experienced ears are to be listened to, and not automatically disregarded or automatically challenged as is you habit Steve.
I don't automatically disregard and I don't automatically challenge.
You've got it all wrong, Eric. What I don't do is automatically swallow everything without question. Especially when it comes to wild speculative claims, gibberish and doubletalk, which is about all you've had to offer.
If you think unquestioningly swallowing wild speculative claims, gibberish and doubletalk is an admirable trait, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you.
se
Eva said:The best coupling capacitor is the one you make redundant from the circuit 🙂
Sometimes a good cap is better than additional circuitry. If you think that only coupling caps are bad, you should also know that PS filtering caps have same effect on the sound as coupling caps.
Peter Daniel said:Here'a a nice example that confirms my suspections that not everything we hear is subjectively based.
A member inquired about coupling capacitors to experiment with. I sent him a bunch, without mentioning anything about the sound they produce. He checked them out and his description here is very consistant how I feel about the sound of those different capacitors http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=267956#post267956
I didn't even met him and he was conducting his experiment in total independance. How can we explain that his observations and comments match those of mine pretty well?
You ask how we can explain that his observations and comments match those of yours pretty well, but how do we know that they did? Are your comments documented anywhere so that we can compare his to yours?
And how do you know that your reading his comments had no influence on your own recollections? Remember that experiment that was done a few years back about how easy it is to create false memories and how they were able to influence peoples' memories and get them to remember having seen Bugs Bunny at Disneyland?
Also are we to assume that your observations were wholly unique compared to the observations of others and that no one has ever written of similar observations here or elsewhere such that Chris couldn't have been exposed to them and been influenced by those observations? For that matter, had you yourself not been exposed to any similar observations prior to your own? If not, I don't see how you can say that his observations were done in total independence.
After all, Chris had been registered here for nearly two years prior to the post you refer to and it's probably safe to assume that he reads other forums and perhaps has done so for quite a while before registering here.
And if there are no other observations out there similar to yours, doesn't that sort of defeat the argument you're trying to make here?
Anyway, not saying there's nothing here. Just that it's not quite as simple as you're portraying it and that there are more questions than answers at this point.
se
I never mentioned it is simple. It's just one example that works for me.
And I'm not saying that what you are portraying isn't possible either.
And I'm not saying that what you are portraying isn't possible either.
Peter Daniel said:I never mentioned it is simple. It's just one example that works for me.
That's fine. As I've said many times before, I don't care how anyone goes about figuring out what works for them.
Just that the way you presented it, asking us to explain why your and Chris's observations were similar, seemed to be making an argument beyond something that simply works for you, i.e. that you were trying to establish some broader truth.
se
Steve Eddy said:
Just that the way you presented it, asking us to explain why your and Chris's observations were similar, seemed to be making an argument beyond something that simply works for you, i.e. that you were trying to establish some broader truth.
I woudn't dare to even try doing it here😉
I thought I was clear enough saying that the example confirms only MY speculations Here'a a nice example that confirms my speculatons that not everything we hear is subjectively based. I forgot to mention to me, obviously.
And I also said: How can we explain , which actually meant broader audience in general and not only people envolved in this thread.
Peter Daniel said:I woudn't dare to even try doing it here😉
I thought I was clear enough saying that the example confirms only MY speculations Here'a a nice example that confirms my speculatons that not everything we hear is subjectively based. I forgot to mention to me, obviously.
And I also said: How can we explain , which actually meant broader audience in general and not only people envolved in this thread.
Fair 'nuff. Thanks for clarifying, Peter.
se
Eva said:If you claim to have these outstanding hearing capabilities, I think you should make an effort to show it to the world and at the same time use it for something profitable
Anybody capable of changing current physics and electronics should have a Nobel prize almost granted
I have suggested much simpler ways to make money off their exceptional hearings, win the prize AND enjoy what they do best at the same time.
Unfortunately, all of them, without one single exception, decided to waste their precious time and exceptionally gifted hearing capabilities on raising their middle fingers and berating those "morons" demanding a proof. 🙁
I could never figure out why, 🙂
mrfeedback said:How about you define a perfect blind testing procedure
you are asking the impossible: how can one design anything perfect, especially a test or experiment?
Reading your "Design of Experiment 101" textbook is in order.
Steve Eddy said:How do we all understand that blind tests are hopelessly flawed? Based on what exactly?
se
based on "mental pictures"? or "personal observations"? or simply pulled out of thin air, 🙂
Steve Eddy said:What exactly has been improper about the blind testing that's been done?
se
it exposes unsubstantiated claims?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Amplifiers
- Solid State
- power cord break-in or burn-in is there such a thing?