Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners A MUST READ Personal STORY: Newbies Must Know

just when you think its over, it comes back around again.

but i like the whole monkey aspect to the thread..

FIND A HAPPY PLACE!!!

bigjohn

In reply to:

---

our ability to mathematically model processes great and small, is evolving and at least in part, tentative. The relationship between theory and observation - experimentation, is dynamic and each colors the way we see the other.I think for the most part, the methodology used by 'scientists' to formulate their audio theories is simplistic.

---

2x6 - you act as if audio theory has only begun to evolve since you were old enough to have moved away from the Fisher-Price cassette deck. You keep talking about modelling but you're missing the point - these discussions aren't about computer models and extrapolation of data, they're about real-life experience of a lot of audio technicians and engineers. Pioneers like Alan, whose years working in the industry - not as a hobbiest and weekend cable wrangler - in the field day-in, day-out who have created and expanded their industry. Do these techs know their stuff? They sure do - they work with it every day. So put aside the idea of lab coats and think about the IATSE and Teamsters in jeans with Leatherman and Gerber multi-tools on their belts - if I have to put my faith in anything, it's these guys that have come before me.

The longer you work with them, the more you realize that most equipment tolerances are already outside of human hearing, I've never seen a tech reach for a 24k gold plated XLR cable or ask if it's been properly broken in, a lot of times field work is run off genny trucks (diesel generators) which makes my "dirty" home AC lines look like a pure electron stream - so what am I worried about?

Bren R.

BrenR,

2x6 has already set up an impasse in his mind. Anything other than personal experience is unacceptable to him. Unless he does the testing himself (with flawed methodology, I might add), then he won't believe it.

This is why he keeps insisting Chesseroo is full of $hit for citing evidence he didn't discover himself. Instead of trying to directly counter any scientific claims, he sidesteps and waxes philosphical about science in general.

It's a classic misdirection tactic.

I second what Bren says...when I see a guy walk into a room, blast pink noise and hit an EQ in minutes - or hear a mic ring and instantly know the frequency to dial out - I listen to what he says about audio.

my 2

^billy

I think you have it wrong, pmb. I didn't see any scientific evidence from chess, only a proclamation that he is a scientist and therefore his opinions are facts. I don't think you'd accept that as science.

I'm not offering up my methodology as scientific testing, I thought that was pretty clear.

Maybe there has been rigorous, well designed experimental testing of these propositions - I don't know about it. When it comes to opinions, I'll take mine until the contrary is proved to my satisfaction. After all, what audio is about for me, is my satisfaction, although I do get a kick out of sharing.

On and on we go, but incessant repetition of a myth doesn't make it true. One simple phrase defeats it, however: "prove it". When the labels and pricetags disappear and you actually have to "trust your ears", your ears tell you that they can't hear any difference and that you've been the victim of a hoax.

You say all amps sound the same. Prove it! Prove your opinion is not a myth.

Counsellor, you know that trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't work.

You STILL have not replied re: what you think about double-blind tests. Because when you ask "us" (those darn science brats) to "prove it," we point to the double-blind test, so if you're going to continue ignoring it (a real world test based on listening to actual music), then it would seem that you don't even care for proof, as your mind is already made up regardless.

I think it's clear that a properly designed double blind test would give significant results one way or another.

As to the burden of proof - why would one side bear a greater burden than the other?

There are 2 propositions [1] all amps sound the same; [2] not all amps sound the same. Perhaps you think that the first proposition is so well settled that it is the challenging proposition which bears the burden. Neither proposition deserves any primacy absent proof.

Now, although a well designed double blind test may provide more forceful proof of one or the other, it is not the only evidence with force. People who have listened to different amps in otherwise identical systems report they've heard differences to which they ascribe a quality (like it more, like it less, different but dunno). Folks who claim there is no difference between amps rely on theory, rather than their ears. Who has the burden? I think the folks intent on proving a theory which stands at odds with experience.