In Reply to: Why do I need to establish what I perceive is due to the equipment? posted by Analog Scott on December 16, 2006 at 00:05:06:
And in so short a space, too.I should first of all point out that whether I have a double standard or not does nothing whatever to prove that you or anyone else can hear the differences between interconnects, speaker cables, CDPs, and other things. In that respect, you personal attack could become an argumentem ad hominem, too.
Now, you ask, "Why do I need to establish what I perceive is due to the equipment?"
The very simple answer is that you don't have to if you don't want to. I never said other you did. As well, if you prefer this product over that one, that's fine, too, but that is not really a testable claim (and that is another inconistency in your reasoning, but I won't dwell on that one). If you don't want to prove you can hear differences between interconnects, speaker cables, CDPs, and so on, that's fine with me. But if you claim they do sound different, that's a testable claim, and you should have no objection to having someone point out that you have not proven they are audibly different. I know, I know, it's human for you to be miffed if I don't believe some of the things you say.
Now, since I don't in fact demand that you make tests, your arguments for double standards are pretty moot. I simply point out what sort of evidence a rational person would require before accepting unlikely claims. But preference requires no proof.
But even though I have disproven your charge, I will continue on with the logic of quantifiers. Now let's deal with your confusions between 'some' and 'every'. Some testable claims are quite plausible and others not plausible at all.
It is well established that the speakers, speaker set up, room acoustics, and recordings make for audible differences. There are decades of research at the NRC and other places which prove that. As well, so will signal processors, surround sound, and things like that. Often tube amplifiers sound different from other amplifiers, as many tube amplifiers are not accurate (which you may prefer in your system). I don't bother to ask whether people have proved those kinds of things sound different because they very likely do.
Hence, I don't question whether people's systems sound good (I looked up yours in Inmate Systems and I'm sure it sounds excellent): I leave that sort of thing to others, mostly a few self-identified subjectivists. Since I do not maintain that I have proved my system sounds good to me (and to many others), I readily agree that I have not proved it. But then I don't in any sense ask you to prove your system sounds good to you, either.
Now, let's take the very unlikely claims of audible differences. Now, if you *prefer* your "Audioquest Clear speaker cable, MIT Shotgun interconnects," that's fine, and it's not a testable claim--it's your choice. But if you claim they sound different from other cables and interconnects suitable for a high fidelity system, that is a testable claim of a kind which no one seems to have been able to prove--Richard Greene, for instance, says he has been asking for such proof on the net for 10 years, for example. [Yes, speaker cable differences have been proven in *some* circumstances, but I doubt they apply to you. Also phono cables may well sound different because many phono cartridges are sensitive to large differences in capacitance.] That's not the same things as saying there is no audible difference, just saying that there is no evidence there is.
But again, since you apparently have no interest in *proving* that you speaker cables and interconnects sound different, then you should have no objection whatever to someone pointing out you have not.
I couldn't count how many times tube aficionados and cable 'believers' have tried to push their preferences on to me.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- You don't! Ah, so many confusions . . . - Pat D 09:27:03 12/16/06 (23)
- You do seem to be quite confused - Analog Scott 10:22:37 12/16/06 (22)
- Ahh, here's the guy who set out to "expose" me! Reduced to muttering epigrams . . . - Pat D 10:59:12 12/16/06 (21)
- You have been exposed even if you don't see it... - Analog Scott 16:37:19 12/16/06 (20)
- In your dreams, maybe . . . - Pat D 18:45:43 12/16/06 (19)
- No, it is clear to anyone who wants to read this thread - Analog Scott 19:04:33 12/16/06 (18)
- I have no obligation to defend things you make up for me. (nt) - Pat D 21:09:42 12/16/06 (17)
- prove that I am making things up? - Analog Scott 12:00:28 12/17/06 (16)
- Child's play, my son. - Pat D 18:26:39 12/17/06 (15)
- And yet you fail to do so - Analog Scott 21:39:06 12/17/06 (14)
- The "failure" is your failure to provide evidence for your allegations. (nt) - Pat D 06:57:30 12/18/06 (13)
- Wrong again. You are the one failing to provide any evidence for your assertions - Analog Scott 09:34:06 12/18/06 (12)
- John Clease is a comedian, isn't he? - Pat D 17:54:56 12/18/06 (11)
- You are just catching on? - Analog Scott 20:41:03 12/18/06 (10)
- I have known for some time you haven't been interested in carrying on an honest discussion. - Pat D 20:53:04 12/18/06 (9)
- Only when it became clear you were not interested in an honest discussion - Analog Scott 21:28:46 12/18/06 (8)
- Did you ever meet Echo? (nt) - Pat D 05:38:34 12/19/06 (7)
- Thank you for finally conceding my point. - Analog Scott 22:33:47 12/19/06 (6)
- You had a point? And how are you and Echo getting along? (nt) - Pat D 23:09:10 12/19/06 (5)
- Sorry you lack the smarts to understand what is being said - Analog Scott 22:12:48 12/20/06 (4)
- I do have the smarts to realize one can't prove the null hypothesis. - Pat D 07:08:54 12/21/06 (3)
- You don't have the smarts to understnad what is being said though. So how - Analog Scott 15:15:13 12/22/06 (2)
- Are you trying to see how far off the screen we can get this thread to go? (nt) - Pat D 18:02:49 12/23/06 (1)
- No. Are you? - Analog Scott 09:04:08 12/24/06 (0)