please elucidate.
I do hope the 'excluded middle' doesn't involve sighted listening. I would be most alarmed if such a definitive and unqualified testament to the superiority of the JJ were to have been made on a foundation of straw .....
Refference,
Four things in reply:
1. A compliment!! Not often seen 'in these here posts!' My modest gratitude for that.
2.
??
Not sure where that comes from (my post #374, yours #379). Nowhere did I 'quote' Einstein (thus put words in his mouth); I merely said that the by him quotations from you, were about his (discovered)/formulated empirical theories, not about basic scientific facts - such as Ohm's Law etc, e.g. I don't think it is far fetched to indicate that he honoured the latter (including inter alia the Laws of Thermodynamics, and Motion, etc.); he was after all, a scientist!
So yes, 'some things in our life cannot be expressed only in mathematical equations'. But this thread is, in essence, not about those! My intention was to show that your Einstein quotation (respected and excellent though it was), was less relevant to this thread, where, condensed down, one deals with little else than established scientific fact (i.e. mathematics) plus the (also established) actions of our senses, 'made known' via the brain. Not saying by that, that matters of perception/emotion do not also exist!
3. If I erred on the part of inexactitude through my grammar, I apologise unconditionally - I assure you that I have the greatest respect for Prof. Einstein.
4. Perhaps I should also apologise for repetition, of which I am certainly guilty. But it becomes a little difficult to find new interesting ways to try convince those who appear unable to see a simple point. Thus one later runs the risk of becoming boring - thruth has a habit of doing that.
Again my thanks for your post.
Four things in reply:
1. A compliment!! Not often seen 'in these here posts!' My modest gratitude for that.
2.
refference said:
??
Not sure where that comes from (my post #374, yours #379). Nowhere did I 'quote' Einstein (thus put words in his mouth); I merely said that the by him quotations from you, were about his (discovered)/formulated empirical theories, not about basic scientific facts - such as Ohm's Law etc, e.g. I don't think it is far fetched to indicate that he honoured the latter (including inter alia the Laws of Thermodynamics, and Motion, etc.); he was after all, a scientist!
So yes, 'some things in our life cannot be expressed only in mathematical equations'. But this thread is, in essence, not about those! My intention was to show that your Einstein quotation (respected and excellent though it was), was less relevant to this thread, where, condensed down, one deals with little else than established scientific fact (i.e. mathematics) plus the (also established) actions of our senses, 'made known' via the brain. Not saying by that, that matters of perception/emotion do not also exist!
3. If I erred on the part of inexactitude through my grammar, I apologise unconditionally - I assure you that I have the greatest respect for Prof. Einstein.
4. Perhaps I should also apologise for repetition, of which I am certainly guilty. But it becomes a little difficult to find new interesting ways to try convince those who appear unable to see a simple point. Thus one later runs the risk of becoming boring - thruth has a habit of doing that.
Again my thanks for your post.
Wavebourn said:
Don't under estimate the power of suggestion and the power of placebo.
Billions of dollars every year are spent on drugs that had showed in randomized controlled study that are no better than placebos.
Yet people still buy them. One feels better if one thinks that he can actively do something to control the situation.
Excluded middle:
One always tests everything exclusively by measurements OR one listens to everything. Measurements mean everything or measurements correlate to nothing. Or that insisting on controlled tests to demonstrate extraordinary claims means that controlled tests must be performed for phenomena which are well-known to have verifiable audible differences (e.g., frequency response, noise, gross distortion).
Not to mention the odd idea that the same regime that applies to loudspeakers (where audible differences are rife, verifiable, and are impossible to fully correlate to measurements) applies to individual components such as a tube or a resistor. A tube or a power cord has a simple job, a single-valued output for a single-valued input- a speaker does not.
One always tests everything exclusively by measurements OR one listens to everything. Measurements mean everything or measurements correlate to nothing. Or that insisting on controlled tests to demonstrate extraordinary claims means that controlled tests must be performed for phenomena which are well-known to have verifiable audible differences (e.g., frequency response, noise, gross distortion).
Not to mention the odd idea that the same regime that applies to loudspeakers (where audible differences are rife, verifiable, and are impossible to fully correlate to measurements) applies to individual components such as a tube or a resistor. A tube or a power cord has a simple job, a single-valued output for a single-valued input- a speaker does not.
SY said:
You could hire an electrician to rewire your entire house with wire qualified for use in nuclear power plants for that. That's wire that is insulated with "mineral", solid copper pipe jacket, and it won't mind a fire. Probably "low oxygen" too...
😀
wa2ise said:
Plus, a silver bar from each outlet to the buried star ground with constant water supply to keep soil always moist. 😀
Sy,
I am quite aware what the term 'excluded middle' means. There are some really excellent examples on this post. Extreme examples of audiophool cablemania (not to mention magic pebbles etc) sure make a fun read, and it is an easy (not to mention lazy) way of discrediting anybody who maintains that there is an audible difference between cables by continually tarring them (or a post) with this brush.
By taking the extreme position, my questions were specifically targeted at finding what your excluded middle was in this particular instance: you did not attest to using sighted testing in your evaluation of 12AT7 variants (something I find a little difficult to believe), so my questions were deliberately aimed at prising out an admission. You parried with the poise of a seasoned politician.
My point is that we ALL use sighted listening (on its own or in combination with measurement) to arrive at (or help us arrive at) conclusions. To do so oneself, and yet selectively claim the results are totally invalid strikes me as being a mite hypocritical.
Using your own logic, I could easily argue that you merely heard what your 12AT7 tube measurements suggested, or what your own prejudices dictated. And yet you had no qualms in bringing down a definitive and unqualified finding and posting it on this forum.
I am quite aware what the term 'excluded middle' means. There are some really excellent examples on this post. Extreme examples of audiophool cablemania (not to mention magic pebbles etc) sure make a fun read, and it is an easy (not to mention lazy) way of discrediting anybody who maintains that there is an audible difference between cables by continually tarring them (or a post) with this brush.
By taking the extreme position, my questions were specifically targeted at finding what your excluded middle was in this particular instance: you did not attest to using sighted testing in your evaluation of 12AT7 variants (something I find a little difficult to believe), so my questions were deliberately aimed at prising out an admission. You parried with the poise of a seasoned politician.
My point is that we ALL use sighted listening (on its own or in combination with measurement) to arrive at (or help us arrive at) conclusions. To do so oneself, and yet selectively claim the results are totally invalid strikes me as being a mite hypocritical.
Using your own logic, I could easily argue that you merely heard what your 12AT7 tube measurements suggested, or what your own prejudices dictated. And yet you had no qualms in bringing down a definitive and unqualified finding and posting it on this forum.
mach1 said:
I can prove you scientifically that post-hypnotic suggestions work. But you can't prove scientifically that the cable that has no measurable difference improves enjoyment of sound without a post-hypnotic suggestion.
Edit: mistake corrected
Only on some people. Many subjects (including myself) are immune to hypnosis and post-hypnotic suggestion. I found this out when I tried it to give up smoking.
I don't feel the need to: I am quite happy with my $11 patio cord speaker cables.
ditto your edit.
mach1 said:
There are no immune to hypnosis people, there are hypnotizers that are not flexible enough.
For example, you believe that you are immune. A belief is a post-hypnotic suggestion. Any belief. If it is the result of multiple experiences that means it is a suggestion confirmed many times.
Edit: smocking is a very sneaky habit. For easy successful suggestion you have to find some opposite word to what you want to replace. The same word with "no" does not work: in order to understand the meaning of "no smocking" you have to use an image of "smocking" stored in your memory, so trying to suggest "no smocking" you actually confirm suggestion of "smocking", then add "no". If former works on sub-conscious level that your conscious mind don't control, the later works on the conscious level that has no direct influence on habits and beliefs.
mach1, do you not see the difference between an ordinary, replicable measurement and confirmation of an extraordinary claim? If I have a headache and the doc gives my head a CAT scan, is that not a different matter than my doc claiming that he can read my aura and diagnose me as having cancer?
Believe what ever you want but dont push claims on the rest of us with out real proof.
Personaly, when it comes to physics, and that what connecting electronics whit cables is I will believe a physicist over some one who thinks THEY have "golden ears" and can "hear" the difference.
ie. Jim Lesurf. From his wed pages. "I have recently retired as reader in Physics and Electronics at the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University here in St. Andrews." Almost a life time of advancing electronics and physics. His recent work involves 60 - 600Ghz !! electronics. He is also deeply involved in classical music and audio electronics.
Among a whole lot of other audio related electronics, (brilliant web site for any DIY audio person especially LP and tube amps: http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html ) What he thinks about cables, including the physics.
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/cables/ukracables.html
Personaly, when it comes to physics, and that what connecting electronics whit cables is I will believe a physicist over some one who thinks THEY have "golden ears" and can "hear" the difference.
ie. Jim Lesurf. From his wed pages. "I have recently retired as reader in Physics and Electronics at the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University here in St. Andrews." Almost a life time of advancing electronics and physics. His recent work involves 60 - 600Ghz !! electronics. He is also deeply involved in classical music and audio electronics.
Among a whole lot of other audio related electronics, (brilliant web site for any DIY audio person especially LP and tube amps: http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html ) What he thinks about cables, including the physics.
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/cables/ukracables.html
- Status
- Not open for further replies.