Nope, it doesn't. There whole host of experimental detail missing there - like who are the listeners, how many trials etc etc. Science does depend on others being able to replicate experiments for themselves - your post contains nothing like enough detail to be able to conduct a DBT.
No, your human subjective bias here has resulted in significant misunderstandings. Firstly 'proof' and 'prove' have never existed in science, only in math. A hypothesis (which is what science uses) can never be 'proved' merely falsified. If you're unclear on this point I suggest a dose of Karl Popper. He's hot on falsification.
Secondly 'real' or 'imagined' is a red herring. The difference would be placebo or not placebo.
Nope, I've not found switches to alter sound in my experience. Nor have I become a big fan of so called 'audiophile' components. In the main its active components that contribute the sound quality differences, in my experience.
<edit> I note you've edited your post. You've yet to provide evidence to support your claim that 'those who claim it must prove it'. I assume you have none, or you'd have produced it by now. That gets subject to the rule 'that which can be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence'.
Last edited:
Let me get this clear Abraxalito. Are you saying that DBT isn't a valid way of determining whether one op-amp sounds different to another one? If you're not saying that, why hasn't anyone done that and reported the results to backup their claims?
Tell me, if someone has their head cut off and dies, does that prove the hypothesis that ALL people who have their head cut off will also die? If not, would you like to argue why that's not the case or am I not being esoteric enough for you?
It may not, from an academic philosophical argument viewpoint, ever be possible to absolutely prove a hypothesis, but overwhelming likeliehood is surely sufficient for our hobby.
Tell me, if someone has their head cut off and dies, does that prove the hypothesis that ALL people who have their head cut off will also die? If not, would you like to argue why that's not the case or am I not being esoteric enough for you?
It may not, from an academic philosophical argument viewpoint, ever be possible to absolutely prove a hypothesis, but overwhelming likeliehood is surely sufficient for our hobby.
Last edited:
And why must the proof come from the claim that 2 things sound different? Which one is the hypothesis anyway: that the sound is the same, or that the sound is different??
If, for me, the sound is different, I will feel sorry for others who think that the sound is the same, and I don't need any proof from them that the sound is the same (If they want to do it for free, go ahead). If they ask me to proof that the sound is different, may be I will give them a little charge for that.
Isn't this silly. People desperately want to be proven that they are not blind or deaf
It can prove that something is audible to an incredibly high degree of certainty.
It can't prove that something is inaudible, which isn't really a problem as the burden of proof is on those who claim to hear these incredible differences to demonstrate that they are not a function of understood bias effects, and are instead a function of hitherto unforeseen aspects of audio reproduction.
In the complete absence of evidence, their claims hence fall flat, in the exact manner that the claim of a dragon in my garage falls flat.
So it came from a site related to atheism and godlessness. If a believer asks an atheist to be a believer, it is logical if the atheist ask "prove me that god exist".
Now if I'm a believer and an atheist ask me to prove that god exist I will say "What for? If you really want to know something that you don't know may be I will prove it to you. But if what you want is me to be an atheist, then prove it that god doesn't exist, because you can be sure that I will be happy to follow you if I think you're smart enough"
You see? I'm an open minded. There is only one truth: the god exists, or the god doesn't exist. But who are we to prove which one is? It is a null hypothesis. We would try to prove by using logic, but how high is our IQ BTW??
Same thing with audio. If I say I can hear a different, then I will be happy to give some proof (may be with a little incentive), and I will be happy to admit my mistake if anybody can show the mistake. This is not a contest, isn't it? But why so many people has strong drive for arguing instead of for learning?
Why is it a joke? This is a critical thing in audio. People spend a lot of money for the so called holly grail in audio. The concept is not a joke but the practice and the people who practice it may.
Man, if I can learn a new thing from anyone I will be very happy, but why so many people don't even want to learn anything from me
This is not just about audio but I have met an "office boy" who tried to give me a suggestion to change the computer system into one central CPU system (others only use monitor and keyboard) but he never asked me how to solve his problems related to basic computer things or electricity. When I mentioned that his methodology to solve the problem is wrong then he became busy to defend instead of asking the solution.So it came from a site related to atheism and godlessness. If a believer asks an atheist to be a believer, it is logical if the atheist ask "prove me that god exist".
Now if I'm a believer and an atheist ask me to prove that god exist I will say "What for? If you really want to know something that you don't know may be I will prove it to you. But if what you want is me to be an atheist, then prove it that god doesn't exist, because you can be sure that I will be happy to follow you if I think you're smart enough"
You see? I'm an open minded. There is only one truth: the god exists, or the god doesn't exist. But who are we to prove which one is? It is a null hypothesis. We would try to prove by using logic, but how high is our IQ BTW??
Same thing with audio. If I say I can hear a different, then I will be happy to give some proof (may be with a little incentive), and I will be happy to admit my mistake if anybody can show the mistake. This is not a contest, isn't it? But why so many people has strong drive for arguing instead of for learning?
That is a horrible logic...
I can't give you an answer to that before you explain what 'valid' means in this context. I don't object to DBTs but in general they are run by objectivists who often don't recognise their own subjective bias.
I see you're still avoiding listening to what I have already said about proof. All people die, given enough time.
In audio, detecting differences between sounds is relatively very easy for me. What is difficult, is to detect which sound that we (our ears, our mind) like best. It takes me a lot extra time and experience to know this. Because we don't just try to hear if a bell sound like a bell, or to hear if the background conversation is understandable, but we want a "good sound" which cannot easily be defined.