doogiehowser46 posts07-08-2021 2:01pmWhat the heck, is this a troll farm?Ohhh... that's so cute Audio2Design. You make it sound like you are not familiar with these forums. Come on now. Let's be real
Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?
Measurements are useful to verify specifications and identify any underlying issues that might be a concern. Test tones are used to show how equipment performs below audible levels but how music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard science fails miserably.
Why is it so?
Why is it so?
238 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
doogiehowser42 posts07-07-2021 7:52amI was going to create an account and only post wrong answers, but I see many people have already beaten me to that idea.LOL!!!! As if you have not done that a dozen times here already |
I forsee a career for mahgister selling herkimer diamond and tourmaline jewelry on Etsy! I made sure in this post to describe one of my artefact like a bait for some fish brain to pick...Congratulations! You pick that instead of schuman generators.....I am not surprized.... But i will sell on Etsy instead Helmholtz resonators and diffusers grid by the way....Because they are more acoustically impacful than quartz and tourmaline effect and more impactful than S.G. ... And easier to sell to deaf ears or fish brain...Helmholtz being the founder of modern controlled room acoustic... I am going to state the obvious. Our increased knowledge of how the universe works does not change how the universe works. Our understanding of the cause, does not change the effect. Our lack of understanding also does not change the effect.it is precisely why sometimes we are surprized by introducing in an audio system some new improbable or supposedly, at first sight, inactive or "useless" materials beside an electronic device, like shungite or quartz, then some known effect is resulting by modification of the cause by a free act of the experimenter, something is added to the "effect" coming from an addition or modification of the " cause"....This is called an experiment...And it is not always and necessarily a placebo....Contrary to the affirmation of simplistic brain... And our understanding of causes anyway may change the effect, positively or negatively, read psychology about negative or positive cultural biases... Our lack of understanding change the effect, look at cargo cult people waiting not for "plane"! but for gods.... And if you are inclined in science do yo know the experiment devised by Wigner in Q.M. called "Wigner friends" ? consult wiki...and read about " no-go theorem" in the wiki article about Wigner’s friend.... Contrary to what you just said Wigner was thinking that perhaps our increased knowledge may change the way the universe work if Q.M. worked... An information conscious feed back can perhaps play a greater role in the universe working than the "materialist" think.... Then why adding a piece of shungite,like i experimented with for example, couldn't in any way worked, modifying the sound coming from an electronical designed piece of gear ? Why calling that a delusion? Why not calling it a real sound modification, negative or positive, that could be replicated ? Only simpleton or ignorant or SUPERSTITIOUS mind describe reality by their decree or by ready made recipe or by their blind faith and never experimenting... Be creative.... Experimenting with something dont means that we negate the value of engineering scientific known recipes...save for zealot and fish brain.... |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
"Well, I asked for a clear example from rodman99999 about some tweak he "hears" making a difference at home, and we get yet more scattershot rambling and links...as if someone else needs to do the job to piece it all together." Well, POOF clearly can't even remember what they asked for! From their rambling deflections, of 07-04-2021 4:09pm: "What is it that has been scientifically established, that you think anyone is scoffing at? What’s your actual point. Can you be clear, maybe with some actually relevant example, rather than vague waving to Quantum Mechanics, which just happens to be the de rigueur move for countless crackpot theories? (I’d be a millionaire if I had 10 cents for every new age purveyor appealing to the mystery of quantum mechanics)." Then: from their further deflections, of 07-05-2021 12:25pm: "Yet when rodman is asked for any example actually relevant to anything he "hears" in his system...he punts back to "just saying it’s POSSIBLE." Whooooooo! And down the rabbit hole we go." "It’s precisely this cloud of irrelevance and mush that you see in defense of every goofy claim under the sun. "I believe I have this power or experience, and it’s not validated by known science...but it’s POSSIBLE...because scientists have been wrong, science doesn’t know everything, and...Quantum Mechanics!!!!" "Look...the claim that it’s POSSIBLE is something that can be justified to show it is actually PLAUSIBLE and a REASONABLE explanation based on science. As in "this audio tweak changing the sound is POSSIBLE based on this theory and this robust evidence." In which case: show some bloody examples for why we should think so." ANYONE, with even the SLIGHTEST intellectual capacity and HONESTY, or- an IOTA of scientific/electrical understanding, would have comprehended my responses and (QUALIFIED) references. NOT The POOF (and his congregants), however! As I mentioned, "...anything the Naysayer Church's popes can't fathom, they'll VACUOUSLY dismiss." |
Prof are you really a scientist? Or a crusader disciple of James Randi...Obsessed by cables like Randi was obsessed by spoon benders... No audiophile and music lover need blind test.... Marketers of drugs or audio products perhaps need it, debunkers in a circus also or on a theater or in a show on tv.... Serious use of blind test methodology is very complex and implicate statistic in drug market for example...And anyway all the problem in audio life is the way by which we must educate our "biases" way more than the way to eliminate them... It is called a continuous series of listening experiments...Like a practicing musician on a new instrument coordinating hands and ears.. In my room i coordinated mechanical modifications about vibrations controls for example, electrical modifications pertaining to the noise floor level with devices of my own, and many many acoustical modifications ... All that has no value for you if not blind tested? And if you work someday like me around your system will you wait for a blind test for each of the many hundred introduced modifications... Do you see the ridicule of your obsession? Do you see the misplaced imposition of blind test by you in an audiophile creative forum? and all this revendications to be a scientist from you, asking forcefully for blind tests are they not ridiculous ? I fine tuned each one of my 40 Helmholtz tubes and pipes resonators and diffusers to actively control my link speakers/room... And the only blind tests useful was for me accidental blind test, when some device is uninstalled or removed by accident, and my feeling said so, and simple private conscious blind test in the course of a work when a change in sound is borderline between real and placebo.... Do i need public blind test to satisfy you and mute your mantra ? I installed a grid of Schuman generators, do i need to blind test each one addition or all of them in one test strike? I created many devices of my own like special diffusers in set of suspended strings with passive connectors and herkimer diamond and tourmaline.... Do i need blind test to verify if they work or if it is a placebo? Creativity cost nothing sometimes, stupidity generally cost way more.... « An elephant blind tested is no more an elephant»-Groucho Marx Guess why? |
Well, I asked for a clear example from rodman99999 about some tweak he "hears" making a difference at home, and we get yet more scattershot rambling and links...as if someone else needs to do the job to piece it all together. Again, this is a thread about science and audio. rodman99999, if you are such a fan of science, you must acknowledge the relevance of blind testing, right? Have you successfully passed any blind tests for your tweaks? That's the problem: for most if not all the controversial claims in high end audio, nobody has produced reliable results showing people can tell differences when they are not peeking. *(there are some intriguing reports here and there, e.g. occasionally for cables, but there doesn't seem to be any sturdy replication of these results to put the debate to rest). |
Look class! This is the sound someone makes when they can’t produce a reasoned rebuttal to an argument.Sorry but all your "arguments" are sophism around a mantra...the mantra is Blind-test....Your idea of science is akin to a comic book fiction... and in this comic book superman is a scientific superpower debunking astrology and ground bare walking.... Is it not pitiful enough? Ears are not replaceable by equations or arguments... Psycho-acoustic use measures, very precise one, of all kinds, but none of them replace hearing experience or even explain it...Psycho-acoustic is precisely an exploration of hearing mysteries...One of the problem for example covered in a 800 hundred page book i own is : what is musical timbre... Save for religious scientism mind, measure of electronic design is very far to explain what we hear through and audiob system or what we could hear with an improved an audio system modified by many embeddings controls...... Dont test your ears ,educate it.... No human ears is perfect for sure, no need to prove it at all, but all ears can be educated by our own strike of EXPERIMENTS...For our own pleasure.... This audiophile claims of mine is not a zealot mantra like your obsession with blind test but an invitation to be creative.... |
btw: Someone mentioned lifting cables off carpeting. Whether that's audible or not: I can't say, as none of mine have ever been on the carpet, in the past 40 years.. I can say: whatever your cables are contacting, along their lengths, will become a part of their dielectrics, which can (potentially) affect signal propagation. Some carpeting/flooring is manufactured of really bad materials (re: permittivity). Just sayin'. |
Should anyone need a rationale for trying new cables or fuses in their system and is dissuaded by the Naysayer Church's antiquated electrical doctrines: take heart! Many new electrical facts have been established in the past 100 years, that support audible differences, between various cables, etc. I couldn't find anything like, "Updated Electrical Theory For Idiots", but- did manage to find something resembling a cartoon, that even a child (perhaps: even, the POOF) could follow. It neither mentions AC in wires, nor does it go into the photon propagation of electromagnetic waves. It does, however, emphasize/demonstrate how Electrical Theory has progressed, since the 1800s: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGJqykotjog) These next few presuppose a certain amount of knowledge, in the field of modern Electrical Theory. Click, "more" in the first link's first answer, to get it's entirety. Note how it mentions the OLD, "... commonly held misconception that the flow of electricity through a wire resembles a tube filled with ping pong balls...", to which the Naysayers fervently adhere. https://www.quora.com/Are-photons-involved-in-all-forms-of-electricity-for-example-when-it-flows-through-wires?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa and: https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2348 It's an established (measured) fact that an electromagnetic wave's propagation and speed, are dependent on the materials, of which the transmission line (cable) are made (ie: Dielectric Constant/permittivity). The better (lower) the Dielectric Constant the better the flow and the longer it takes for that material, to become polarized. One reason that anything that comprises an LC circuit (ie: capacitors, cables, PC boards), takes time to, "form", or, "break/burn-in".* *Something that makes the Naysayers apoplectic. https://resources.pcb.cadence.com/blog/2019-dielectric-constant-of-pcb-substrate-materials-and-signa.... https://unlcms.unl.edu/cas/physics/tsymbal/teaching/EM-914/section4-Electromagnetic_Waves_2.pdf Even the most inane (regarding the sciences) must admit; braiding and twisting wires eliminates/reduces EMI interference. That must lend credence to various cable geometries. That better dielectrics enhance the propagation of electromagnetic waves (ie: your music signal), lends the same credence to choosing cables with better materials (ie: Polypropylene, Teflon, air, etc). Of course: anything the Naysayer Church's popes can't fathom, they'll summarily dismiss. PATHETIC twits, that they are! 🙄 |
Is the unfathomable irony, of one that IMAGINES themselves a fictional intelligence operative, posting a quote from ANOTHER fictional character, lost on anyone? ^^^^^^ Look class! This is the sound someone makes when they can't produce a reasoned rebuttal to an argument. ;-) |
" The capacity of Humans for self-deception is apparently unlimited" - Mr.Spock the Vulcan."He has also self deceived himself into believing that 15 systems worth of 40 year old stuff is the top of the mountain. He could have spent half of what he has invested into a good room and good components and actually HAVE a good system. It is pretty clear that he can't hear the difference. Self-deception indeed. |
Since when has the common opinion been worth any value?I thanked someone for his simple common sense post , and out of the blue you take it personally SWITCHING completely from the post content of lhasaguy that has no relation to your own posts and you come back to your OBSESSION with speakers of certain type...ad nauseam.... Please dont read my post anymore and go out in a speakers thread ...i am myself interested by matters pertaining to all audio system, and i am not interested by obsession for particular design in any piece of gear.... It is my last post answering to your compulsive behavior...... By the way we ALL know that crossX over speakers are a compromise and large band speakers may be one better solution.. but life is made of trade off.... Then all of us knowing what you speak about for already hundred of posts it is no more necessary to repeat it.... All people here could not sell their crossXover speakers to buy a large band one because you said so.... and it is the same remark about high sensitivity....Is it clear? Or you will repeat your not so new information till the thermodynamical death of this universe? Next time i thanks someone stay silent about my post and DONT QUOTE IT....I will thanks whom i will choose to thanks .... It is the second time in this thread you quote me inappropriately.... i dont want a THIRD TIME.... |
mahgister5,691 posts07-06-2021 7:58amThanks for your wise common sensical post... My best to you.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please note **common** Since when has the common opinion been worth any value? Only someone unique and with higher sensibiliy is able to say what speakers are high fidelty and those which fail the test. Sorry all speakers designs are not equal. There is only one design that set the golden standard for all time. xover designs are nothing more than propagandized commercialism , with only profits in mind. having nothing whatsoever to do with true high fidelity. xover speakers are fakes and frauds. Which the common audiophile sucked in hook/line and sinker |
lhasaguy263 posts07-06-2021 7:51amI have read perhaps 30% of this thread, so excuse me if this post is redundant. I would like to suggest that science clearly has an effect that is demonstrable in many ways. However, the complexity that cannot be quantified and is one of the primary drivers of diverse opinions cannot be measured. Each individual hears things differently due to having ears that have different abilities to process the signals being received. This is then assimilated by the brain, a vastly complex organ whereby two people can listen to the same thing and react very different.y to the same input. Implicit to the brains though created I. Response to the sound received are psychological components with regard to a variety of biases. This might partially explain why some like horns, others enjoy planar speakers and yet others enjoy enclosed box speakers. The same is true for all components and the complexities synergy among those components. Science can create better and better resolution, yet what sounds “best” is beyond anyone’s ability to create an element that spunds “Best” to everyone. Thus, we have the never ending arguments (to the joy of this forum) as to why their preference is better than yours. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Aint buying any of your ideas. This sounds so so cliche, Just a sweet sounding truism which many here might well believe. Only in Jungian psychology is The Individual is the most critical factor. In speaker fidelity, no such thing as each his own. This fallacy reduces true high fidelity down to never becomming defined and understood as a objective fact , which is opposed to subjective faulty, biased opinion. Science might tell us all the specs in graphs, measurements, other baloney to lead us astray... In the end only the astute, qualified, highly sensitive judgement can say how the speaker really truthfully sounds. By what standard shall we use? That of the 1920’s Field Coils These designs set the standards, and so we employ wide band as the judge against which all other speakers are rated. = Xover designs fail miserably due to IN-Efficiency. By low sensitivity they are crippled from voicing true bonifide high fidelity. There is no such thing as to ecah his own tastes. Thats baloney Obviously you , among most here on audiogon, have never in your life heard a true high sensitivity driver. Measurments can not tell how how a speaker will sound, The only most important spec is the sensitivity rating. This is the only spec that can give us some inkiling of a idea how the speaker responds to the source energy. Low sensitivity = distortion, High sensitivity = true high fidelity. Wide band/High sensitivity is The Bench mark against which all other designs are judged. These wide band/full range are the speakers which define what is and is not high fidelity. |
I have read perhaps 30% of this thread, so excuse me if this post is redundant. I would like to suggest that science clearly has an effect that is demonstrable in many ways. However, the complexity that cannot be quantified and is one of the primary drivers of diverse opinions cannot be measured. Each individual hears things differently due to having ears that have different abilities to process the signals being received. This is then assimilated by the brain, a vastly complex organ whereby two people can listen to the same thing and react very different.y to the same input. Implicit to the brains though created I. Response to the sound received are psychological components with regard to a variety of biases. This might partially explain why some like horns, others enjoy planar speakers and yet others enjoy enclosed box speakers. The same is true for all components and the complexities synergy among those components. Science can create better and better resolution, yet what sounds “best” is beyond anyone’s ability to create an element that spunds “Best” to everyone. Thus, we have the never ending arguments (to the joy of this forum) as to why their preference is better than yours. |
Look, I can see we have quite a few good thinkers, well rounded high intelligence participating on this topic. But can we get back to some fundamentals concerning the main topic. Audiophiles and who/why do they kid themselves in all their endeavous of tweaking, modding, upgrading,,,when the truth of all their ventures at making a better sound syatem,,, is not very well thought through. Let me try to clariy. If you've followed my many posts past few weeks on the new wide band speaker technology, You will know where I am comming from. My ideas palce speakers at the pinnacle of our systems, Speakers are the heart and soul of the sound produced. Amps/sources are only servants to the King (ie speakers) Nothing more. In this sense. Example Gather together all of Jadis' top of line components. Now voice this system through,,say any xover design speaker you wish. Jadis will only sound as good , or as bad as the speaker voicing the music. Thus Folks spend who knows how much on high priced cables , interconnects, new expensive Mundorf Caps, all sorts of high priced tweaks/mods/upgrades. Why? It will all be miniscule, yet the gains are real and this is why we make these tweaks. (some are pure snakeoil, having not even a miniscle gain in sonics)) Now what good was it to go through all those tweaks/mods/upgardes,,when in fact these additives might just ~~NOt show up in the over all sound~~~ Why? Ready? Faulty speaker design. Yep, bass is ok, highs not bad. Midrange 1k-6khz's, here there may be serious issues, = distortion/coloration. Thus rendering all our efforts and not to mention money,,all near futile All because we did not approach this hobby from a well thought out ((scientific rationale) game plan, Perhaps we left common sense out the equation. Why? How could we? Marketing propaganda goes a longg way to fool us all, thus we kid ourselves all along the speaker Merry Go Round path. I made a few critical observations just after I spend $1200++ on upgarding my 20 yr old Seas Thor speakers,, I figured if I upgraded the Hovland caps to all Mundorf high end (=$$$$ EACH!!!) caps, I'd have a **super high fidelity* speaker, Like WOWW, Totally transformed into something super musical. ~~WRONG~~~~~ ))-: (sad, angry, frustrated) Where did I go wrong.. Brand new Seas Millennium tweets as my tech geek said , *time for new ones they are off .5 ohms from original* + wrong, sounded exactly like the old Millenniums. = $1500 upgardes all for nothing. Only the W18's now had more slam, = Big deal, My classical really does not require **slam bass* ,,Hummm, Lets see , where do i go from here,,Gotta think,,hummm, what about those starnge, oddities on Ebay called **Full Range***, hummm, let me order a few different ones, see what gives** Millennium on one channel, DavidLouis 4 inch Full Range (150hz-12khz) on the other,,, Flipedd the balanced several times, Well actually the 1st flip, was The Awakening Scientific experiement complete = The Full Range was the answer all along to my problem. Off went the new Millenniums, and now today, just placeda order for the new high tech wide band drivers. Now all my new Takman REy resistrs, Mundorf caps in the Defy7, Jadis DAC, jadis linestage, new high tech silver/copper wiring throughout entire system , new high tech JFET opamsp,,now with a speaker that has the capability to detect and voice these miniscule upgrades,, will be cleanly, clearly heard in all their brilliance. Conclusion: WE must begin to approach this hobby froma more careful thought out understanding of how each component is making its contribution to the final sound. Somehow amplifiers has been given some Kingship status, as if one KT88 design will be something ~~more ~~ or something ~~ less~~~ of another fact is, in my experiement, a tube = a tube, with only slight nuance /miniscle of differences. Thus amps have to be lowered in importance of the scheme. Again a good tube cd player = a Good tube DAC, minisclue differences. And so on , so forth. I did not say **negligible** , **not noticable** But so little nuance as to make a tube amp = a tube amp. Now if amplifiers and sources have been lowered to Servant status, Which component now will step up to sit in the Royal Seat of Kingship? That privilidge belongs to only 1 component The Speakers And now which Design is most musical to become Most critical component. Its up to each of us as individuals to make this hopefully ~~well thought out~~~ choice,. Either Xover traditional .low efficiency design. (The design that pushed Field Coils under the bus) Or Wide band/high sensitivity designs. Most give these essentuial Q's no sense of importance. I never did, just went along with the flow. I began thinking outside *the box* (pun intended) For me, there only exists one design that can rightfully sit in the Critical component seat, That of Field Coil's reborn as new wide band speakers. If we accept the new sciences in every single area of our lives, cp's, computers etc, Why not accept the New Technology in our audio hobby? These new speaker technology is here to stay, It will eventually over take xover design sales, but it will come very slow, very cautiosly, As folks fear the odd, the strange, the not well understood, = **No xovers??* How? What are these weird things?? Folks incredulously ask themselves. Xover designs are the only thing they know. Little do they know these high sensitivity speakers may just be the lucky ticket to the end of their speaker journey, They can now finally get off the Speaker-Merry-GO-Round. They now have super high fidelity in their system for the very 1st time. Let us deny the past progaganda of speaker ads, and fully embrace what may bring us into the New 21st Century audio experience. It already exists, Why wait any longer? At least thats how i sum things up after 30+ years experience in this hobby. I am awakened now. |
Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected? That's right, by more science. It's a self-correcting method. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Exactly. this is what is going on in the world of high fidelity speakers right now. 2 labs in germany wanted to know and discover, what was it that made the Field Coil speakers of the 1920's, made in Chicago Illinois and Klangsfilm in Berlin/ so special in reproducing midrange/high fq's. So they broke apart these drivers. Added in the experiements from Fostex, and Lowther and now have taken the old science and developed a new speaker science. Yet seems the audiophile community prefer to stay with the OLD-new science = The xover science in speaker designs. We all fell for the marketing hype, ,, minus the horn crowd, they knew better. man I hope i never ever listen to a speaker with a xover in the 800hz=15khz range ever again. I'm done with dome tweeters, ribbons, horns, ,, Wide band for me is the end of speaker technology. back to The Future, back to 1920's Chicago and Berlin. |
mahgister5,690 posts05-12-2021 4:49pm Of course, one could make judgements and opinions of the sound - that’s a starting point, not an end point.Good post.... Not only we can interpret the sound of this amplifier experience but we will interpret it differently in different conditions. ~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ True and not true The new wide band speakers are inproduction. This for me is The End of The Speaker Road, The final spin on the Speaker-Merry_Go-Round for me. High sens is The End of my xover speaker disaster journey. Power tube amplifiers,, Most sound very close. The only component which possess gigantic difference in design types, are ~~Speakers~~ Xover designs , to me pretty much all sound the same, just different flavors of that paricular dish, A dish which i find horrible tasting. Wide band, now here is the complete total opposite of xover designed speakers. Thus Power tube = power tube, onlya slight nuance here and there. Speakers xover vs Wide Band Night vs day, black vs white, Extreme comparison. Either you like one and reject the other, Or love the one and hate the other. No middle ground here. |
mapman19,263 posts05-07-2021 7:49pmDiscounting science is a popular hobby with people these days it seems. It helps make some feel special I guess to discount things they do not understand and just say they know better and there is always a captive audience for that. Just like for the crap fast food people eat and the junk shows on TV they eat up as well. Whereas the reality is that mastering any field of science or any other actual field of value (not merely unbridled ideology) is what actually makes people special. How about those Mars landings? How’d they do that? It takes an education and a lot of thought. It’s the only way to get things done. Wherever you might get it from. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mars/space industry is a complete totally waste of human effort and genius. Science has been a phenomenon lately, but is there anything really to show that has made, can make life in the future any better? The most important science is being completely, well lets say is being severly neglected. That of psychology. Not the kind taught in the Universities, I am speaking of the studies Jung left behind, which are being ignored and worse misunderstood. Science is the agent of man's genius that has and is now, slowly but surely destroying the delicate balance of the earth;s natural eco systems. Science gave the tools to destroy, can science now make tools to heal and restore the planet? |
mahgister5,689 posts05-05-2021 8:51pmSorry but your quote is from the OP of this thread not from me...In that regard science fails miserably.Science dont fail at all...Pseudo scientist fail... Science never fails miserably... Only "self appointed scientist" here fails miserably... Then dont implicate me in your future irrational rant.... Thanks |
mahgister5,689 posts05-05-2021 8:51pm In that regard science fails miserably.Science dont fail at all...Pseudo scientist fail.... Only those not using their own ears at the endpoint fail...Science do what science did the best: give us great engineering possibilities... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Science is marketed now a days, **Gee don't these xover speakers sound just fantastic, you need xover designed speakers*** Since that was most marketed , we had no choice but to believe **the experts* The speaker labs. Little did we know the real deal speakers were pushed under the run. The 1929 Field Coils made in Chicago, The German Klangfilm Field Coils, 1920's. These produced authentic midrange in glorious colors, Fast forward 50 years, Along came the xover types, = money making designs. That old science has been reborn in the new high sens designs,,,, and only a very select few with highly tarined sensibilities anda thirst for super high fidelity will make The New Speaker science a part of their sound system. The rest of the audiophile community will pretend this new science does not even exsist. |
Why is science just a starting point and not an end point? Measurements are useful to verify specifications and identify any underlying issues that might be a concern. Test tones are used to show how equipment performs below audible levels but how music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard science fails miserably.Why is it so?pedroeb No doubt about it, Speakers are so hyped up, Read what Seas says about their tweeters, You might think they are the most gorgeous sounding fq's in all audio, Well I can assure you, the ONLY spec you need to know in all speaker tech specs, is ~~~Sensitivity~~~ all else is meaningless. Science can be nothing more than propaganda to get us to believe things that just are not true. Seas and sacn speaks tweeters are below 90db, = to me worthless for accurate, full rich, open musical reproduction, The new wide range claim they are the finest sound speakers in the world. Now that is not hype nor propaganda, Its the truth,. as the sens is over 92db. Science is all measuments, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual sound. The only spec that I am interested in is ~~Sensitivity~~ all else is meaningless jargon. I know the 2 wide band labs are the worlds finest spakers,,I do not need to read about them. Nor demo,. Watch the propaganda concerning speakers measurments. It may have you believing/imagining things that are just not true. The real thrust, is how they actually sound. Thats the proof of the science. All else is bunk. 05-05-2021 7:52p |
Q.M. play a fundamental role in perception like in the photosynthesis of a cell... Who says that Q.M. negate physical acoustic? Strawman argument of simplistic mind...Nobody never says that here...sorry.... Dont read what you need for to give munition for your children war against audiophiles... But you know that psycho-acoustic and neurophisyological acoustic are a bit more complex than physical acoustic, dont you? And for "prof" clothed in "Science" itself it is very comical to read his children like attitude of controlled despise ( but generally polite yes thank you for that) toward very different persons who try to improve their system by basic science yes but also sometimes by creative unorthodox means....They dont merit to be accused of being gullible in mass... You must attack some audio companies and propose them your blind test....And let us innovate in our own room at peanuts cost with shungite, 10 bucks schumann generators, ionizer at few bucks, Helmholtz resonators or diffusers made of toilet paper roll (Yes true simple science is not moved by costly esthetical marketing at least in my room 😊) without accusing us to be ignorant and gullible.... We are TOO many here and too different to be treated like a sheeps crowd.....By the way my NO COST Helmholtz equalizer grid was fine tuned by my ears during a 3 months period.... No blind test needed.... "Science" dont exist by the way.... It is a grammatical short-hand expression for some rhetorical and cultural need...Those who think the opposite are modern zealot not skeptic but true believers... Only exist SCIENCES in the plural with a very general methodological rule relating each fields in the most general way possible, because between psychology, electronics and cosmology or mathematics and medecine or biology the only link is an ETHICAL position of the consciousness loooking for truth....But truth is not enough for a living , in human life we need values.... And sciences are mute on the subject of value.... Your "science" used by you in a singular syntaxical mode dont exist even in the Lancet magazine or in the Nature magazine save for the means it gives to these institution to socially CONTROL and REGULATE with good effects and sometimes very negative effects..Only exist diverse sciences....not one of them owning truth... Only relative aknowledged historical facts.... And opposing to my view the argument that i defend the possibility to fly like Icarus or the possibility of walking through walls is not an argument but a sophism.... Your "science" is a theater boasting, a theatrical gesture for children here or for adults you treat like if they were children waiting for your education.... Like the gesture of past popes about their dogmas.... |
Another example of something noone said. All we hear is placebo if not blind testedThe claim is what you hear COULD be expectation bias and to rule it out blind testing is usually used. No answer is needed....I will not post any article about wall and Q.M. save if you ask for it and i will even explain it to you because it is a complex matter .... You don't need to explain it to me, my point was keep walking into the brick wall until all of your atoms and the walls atoms line up just right so you will pass through it, though I doubt you'd have enough lifetime for it to happen. The wall still exists, it is a material object, QM doesn't negate classical physics. People on this forum use QM like people used witchcraft and mercurial Gods centuries ago. |
It seems rodman99999 can’t or won’t answer direct questions clearly for some reason. So this is for others... As I’ve written before, it’s typical for believers in dubious claims, under pressure from skepticism, to fall back on classic responses as a defense.To the psueodoscienfic ear they sound robust and profound. To the more careful thinker familiar with the logic of empirical inquiry, they are recognized as irrelevant fluff. Rodman99999 has provided typical examples. Scientists have been wrong before: rodman99999: I’ve mentioned elsewhere, on the ’GoN: If the world’s best inventors, throughout human history, hadn’t ignored, "scientists", naysayers and scoffers (such as some of those, above): we’d still be living in a relative Stone Age, with respect to technology. And anyone currently with a patent on their perpetual motion machine (there are tons) will make the same "point." "Scientists of the day scoffed at X, but they were wrong, weren’t they!" But of course, this is irrelevant. We are always in a position of relying on the best established science we have. If you want to make a new claim or overturn current well-justified science, you have to actually produce BETTER science, that is produce evidence/theory rigorous enough to justify your claims, especially if this overturns or extends current science. So in the face of skepticism raising the fact any scientist or science was later understood to be incorrect or incomplete does ZERO to provide any credibility or justification for your current claim. But since this *sounds* like it’s making some profound, important, educated point relevant to a dubious claim, it’s just what you find in people thinking pseudo scientifically. Science doesn’t know everything:
Again, just like above. To the psuedoscientific ear that sounds like some substantial reply. But it’s empty for the same reasons as above. One may as well say "Science hasn’t the means to falsify the claim that aliens with unknown technology from an unknown dimension are manipulating my dreams." Well..strictly speaking, yeah. But that’s not how rationality works. If you have some novel, interesting, controversial or extraordinary claim, it’s up to YOU to provide POSITIVE evidence that a rational person should consider it plausible, much less demonstrated.Countless people think they have extraordinary powers and fall back on "just because it may not be established scientifically doesn’t mean I don’t have these powers!" It’s the go-too "point" of flakes and crack-pots the world over. And it’s question-begging: to say "I hear the things I do and just because science can’t measure it doesn’t mean I don’t," is typically the exact claim under dispute. Often, someone making this claim provides no actual good evidence they "hear the things they think they hear" to begin with! Nothing that allows us to distinguish the claim from their own imagination. And finally, the appeal to Quantum Mechanics rears it’s head: "My position has always been: with what we’ve learned from the studies and advancements, related to QM and QED: there are a multitude of POSSIBILITIES; as to why we MAY hear the things we do, when listening to our own systems, in our own rooms, with our own ears, and our various add-ons." Yet when rodman is asked for any example actually relevant to anything he "hears" in his system...he punts back to "just saying it’s POSSIBLE." Whooooooo! And down the rabbit hole we go. It’s precisely this cloud of irrelevance and mush that you see in defense of every goofy claim under the sun. "I believe I have this power or experience, and it’s not validated by known science...but it’s POSSIBLE...because scientists have been wrong, science doesn’t know everything, and...Quantum Mechanics!!!!" Look...the claim that it’s POSSIBLE is something that can be justified to show it is actually PLAUSIBLE and a REASONABLE explanation based on science. As in "this audio tweak changing the sound is POSSIBLE based on this theory and this robust evidence." In which case: show some bloody examples for why we should think so. Or someone is just using "possible" in the utterly empty sense of "logically possible" in the sense you can make up statements that "science hasn’t strictly disproved." Like "I can hear angels singing on Mile's Davis' Kinda Blue recording. Prove me wrong. Except you can't just use science, because it's been wrong before and even if you come up with a test, I can just say your test isn't sensitive enough to detect what I claim to hear!" It’s deflection: the fall back of psuedoscientific cranks. |
All we hear is placebo if not blind tested and walking against a wall is the proof of material reality against Q.M. interpretation... 😊 No answer is needed....I will not post any article about wall and Q.M. save if you ask for it and i will even explain it to you because it is a complex matter .... You are not tiresome... I smile....But like stand up comics repeating these 2 mantras above make you tiresome at the end... |
What you hear in your room from your stereo and all the adjustments and tweaks has more to do with psychology than Quantum mechanics. Constantly posting vague references to QM without identifying what exactly it has to do with your perception of sound is really just useless. I'll leave you to wallow in your psychobabble, I find it tiresome. |
Quantum mechanics did not kill materialism if you think it did then try a simple experiment. Try walking through a brick wall. Quantum mechanics is not fully understood and to continue to fall back on, " well what about QM " is lazy thinking to say the least. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/9/1533 |
"It’s not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it’s moved on, in so many areas." You are right for sure.... And my Goethe quote say the same thing....Science is not a decree someone can use against spirit, astrologers, God, or magicians.... Science is an aspect of the travel of consciousness looking for truth and experiments and reason engrossed by creativity because reason without creativity is a dead body.... Science is not a mere word used in audio forum to justify blind test where blind test has no real usefulness : in your home or small personal audio laboratory..... In a hundred continuous experiments i never used " organized" blind test, only my own accidental or improvisezed blind test....We are audio enthusiasts not marketers trying to use blind test to sell a drug or a dac, nor zealot Randi disciple trying to debunk their claims...Nobody need statistic to create an hi-fi system....(By the way only an idiot or a showman like Randi can offer money prize to debunk psychic faculties, they are all over the place and history illustrate it with plenty of examples but zealots dont like history because history always destroy dogmas) Life is not simple save for simplistic mind.... Rodman you battle with zealots not scientists... There exist in history example of religious heart with very scientific mind and also of atheist and materialist with zealot mind.... Q.M. killed materialism in 1925... And any human perception involved Q.M. effect and life in his more basic working like photosynthesis work only because Q.M. No science today is able to explain hearing.... We know many facts but none of our maps explain reality.... Save for transhumanist or simplistic mind confusing spirit/brain/and A.I together or conflate consciousness/"matter"/ and algorithm... The least possible philosophical position today is a form of idealism or panpsychism...Bernado Kastrup is easy for materialist to read i recommend it.... Cassirer or Goethe are not for too simplistic mind Alas!... Mine (idealism) was inspired from mathematics all my life...Not the mathematic technology of A.I. for sure.... 😊😊 |
What, "prof" (snort of derision) posted and my first response, to this thread: "So we wee that tired old refrain from some audiophiles "Science has been wrong before you know!" and "science doesn't know everything!" "It's the same refrain used by every crackpot theory in the world. Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected?" "You don't get to say "I'm justified in believing something that contradicts or isn't validated by current science...because MAYBE science is wrong and we'll discover I'm right." Literally any nonsense idea would fly under such conditions." Referring back to my first response to this thread, in which I challenged their knowledge of the sciences (07-04-2021 3:20am), in light of the many changes, this past century, I stated: "It's not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it's moved on, in so many areas." Their first deflection: 'rodman99999,
Where in the world did you pull that from? I'd respond more, but all I see is a jumble of non-sequiturs. ' Referring to my post (07-04-2021 1:43pm), in which I mention the study of QM broadening the horizons of many branches of Science, they provide further deflection: "Even understanding in the Biological Sciences has been expanded/deepened, through the studies of QM, regarding how the senses and brain function, in many areas. Like...what?" AND: "What’s your actual point. Can you be clear, maybe with some actually relevant example, rather than vague waving to Quantum Mechanics, which just happens to be the de rigueur move for countless crackpot theories? (I’d be a millionaire if I had 10 cents for every new age purveyor appealing to the mystery of quantum mechanics)." To which I replied with four precise examples, that would have satisfied any enquiring mind (the expiring mind: not so much, obviously). Which they deflected with: "rodman, You are all over the place." YES and: exactly my point (QM appears, "all over the place", and has affected virtually every branch of Science) Their continuing theme: "Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected? That’s right, by more science. It’s a self-correcting method." "Do you agree or not?" "If so, the old "science has been wrong" bit is a red herring. Yes, science has been wrong, but you don’t get to promote a dubious claim that isn’t scientifically verified "because science has been wrong before." Followed by more deflection, in that particular post. What they can't seem to grasp, is what I stated in my first post: "It's not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it's moved on, in so many areas." Then: their very clear lack of comprehension, of the point I've made* (VERY CLEARLY), twice, on this same page: "If you tried to leap from some Discovery article citing a paper of researchers "controlling a cell’s interaction with light" to validating some audiophile’s tweak...that sounds like a profoundly incautious, unscientific leap...the type no actual responsible scientist would make. But...be my guest...show us the leap to relevance." "So, again, try to be clear. If you are going to invoke SCIENCE, can you maintain an actual SCIENTIFIC mindset? Show me exactly what audio thing you "hear at home" that a "naysayer" may criticize, that you think is somehow validated by SCIENCE." * I've never tried to, "validate" anything. For the third time now: "My position has always been: with what we've learned from the studies and advancements, related to QM and QED: there are a multitude of POSSIBILITIES; as to why we MAY hear the things we do, when listening to our own systems, in our own rooms, with our own ears, and our various add-ons." Perhaps that, "possibilities" is greater than two syllables, is an issue? Were they ever even a, "prof" in such a liberal art as Home Economics; it would have required much better comprehension skills. I'm convinced: their field (if any) must have been Geology, based on their marked, petro-cephalic disposition. Don't waste your keystrokes on such. Happy listening and enjoy the journey! |
But...Do you do everything anyone ever suggests you try? For your audio system, health, whatever? Or do you employ some critical thinking to sift where your time, money and energy are better spent? That’s all I’m doing.It is a perfectly rational attitude for yourself...Congratulation! But why imposing your scientism ascetic attitude to ALL here.... Because in an audio forum criticising ANY out of the norm experience and experiments if not blind tested first is no more rational.... It is a crusade... By the way a schumann generators cost 10 bucks ....to experiment with it do not cause great lost... And a shungite plate is also very low cost... And i never bought ANYTHING over few bucks.... I enjoy a S.Q./ cost ratio out very high....Only basic science or experiment with some device which others claim to be useful: schuman generators or Helmhotlz devices, or minerals like Herkimer diamond and shungite... Or my own method to control vibrations with springs and other materials at peanuts cost....Great success...Peanuts costs.... Science is not a crusade against : God, astrology, homeopathy, magic, or barefootwalking and religion...Dawkins is no more useful than Randi....When science is a crusade it begin to mimic an ideology and transhumanism irrational faith and idolatry is not too far... Science is a method of inquiring mind linked to experiments, not an ideology to be used in crusade with the blindtesting obsession....Science is really NOT a religion or a cult....For example science is not in any way linked to the cult of atheism or to the blind testing obsession in audio.... Like famously say Groucho Marx , keep a rabbit feet in your pocket to remind you of the necessary added healthy creative irrationality in your life but to remind you also of the unavoidable unhealthy "irrationality" in any human life.... Irrationality like reason come ALWAYS in 2 flavors...The right posology is a balance between the 2 flavors... When there is no balance, reason mimic irrationality, and irrationality mimic reason... To improve i recommend reading Lao-Tse, and Goethe....After that Ernst Cassirer a friend of Einstein.... |
Prof- Thank you, but I prefer to allocate my money toward things that actually are likely to alter/improve the sound. There is no plausible reason it would change the sound, or any good evidence it does. I get that you are trying to help, and no doubt now have the impression "Well, what a closed mind!" But...Do you do everything anyone ever suggests you try? For your audio system, health, whatever? Or do you employ some critical thinking to sift where your time, money and energy are better spent? That's all I'm doing. |