Occam's razor in audio

[AlainGr]

I was wondering when I would see a green light over your avatar Alex Great to see you here and hope it will be for a very very long time Take care and get stronger each and every day

 

Kind regards,

[sandyk]

Thanks Alain !!!

[esldude]

esl-DUDE!!!

 

I find it hard to believe you are suggesting we should always conform to staying with currently known facts. That it would be the only “safe” path to follow, anything else would be dangerous if you always want to be correct.

 

It is good you find it hard to believe. A careful reading would indicate your statement is not what I advocate at all.

 

Having faith in the scientific process can expand our knowledge, having unquestionable faith in generally accepted facts locks us into ignorance. We are all free to question what we don’t know or understand. After all, knowledge is the never ending journey into the unknown.

 

This also is not a description of my opinion. I do not advocate being locked into to current facts only. Read more carefully.

 

 

Have a Nice Day.

 

Thank you, I usually do. I usually enjoy music on most of those days. Though you seem to confuse that ability with trying to be sensible about things as if you can't do both.

[Jabs1542]

The self called "objectivist" are desperate to win their point, the problem with them is that they can not listen to differences. So, they post here in CA and some other forums a lot of BS 'white papers' or web articles from people with exactly the same problem. Please remember this could be 1/3 of the listeners population...! But the other 2/3 are very happy selecting cables (et al) that match their taste and budget.

 

Honestly I can see this as a problem, but the contrary, the choose is very easy for them.

 

The other new guy (trithio?) said in another thread that you should be away from feelings when listening, my God how can we? if music does not cause you any feelings, mejor apague y vámonos (it's better to shut down the lights and go home).

 

Cheers!

 

Roch

 

Could the extremity of an Objectivist be proportional to their OCD?

[One and a half]

The self called "objectivist" are desperate to win their point, the problem with them is that they can not listen to differences. So, they post here in CA and some other forums a lot of BS 'white papers' or web articles from people with exactly the same problem. Please remember this could be 1/3 of the listeners population...! But the other 2/3 are very happy selecting cables (et al) that match their taste and budget.

 

Honestly I can see this as a problem, but the contrary, the choose is very easy for them.

 

The other new guy (trithio?) said in another thread that you should be away from feelings when listening, my God how can we? if music does not cause you any feelings, mejor apague y vámonos (it's better to shut down the lights and go home).

 

Cheers!

 

Roch

 

I agree totally with this post, well done Roch!

[sbgk]

let's apply occam's razor to usb cables

 

manufacturers make different cables at different prices to different designs

people try cables

people review cables

people buy cables

people make their own diy cables

people write about their findings

 

So the simplest thing that would cause all this activity is that usb cables sound different

 

If this were not the case there would be loads of threads where people had tried cables, found they were the same and reported such, but there are no such threads. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities usb cables do sound different.

 

I still use a printer cable, though.

[beanbag]

The self called "objectivist" are desperate to win their point, the problem with them is that they can not listen to differences. So, they post here in CA and some other forums a lot of BS 'white papers' or web articles from people with exactly the same problem. Please remember this could be 1/3 of the listeners population...! But the other 2/3 are very happy selecting cables (et al) that match their taste and budget.

 

Honestly I can see this as a problem, but the contrary, the choose is very easy for them.

 

The other new guy (trithio?) said in another thread that you should be away from feelings when listening, my God how can we? if music does not cause you any feelings, mejor apague y vámonos (it's better to shut down the lights and go home).

 

Cheers!

 

Roch

 

This reminds me of a quote from Peter Hitchens:

"I can get myself analysed succinctly and free of charge almost any day of the week. Just ask a cyclist to stop riding his bike on a pedestrians-only path in Kensington Gardens, and you will be given a mordant and concentrated assessment of your failings. Another good way of doing this is to upbraid a driver for illegally using his or her mobile phone while at the wheel."

[tne]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16595[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16596[/ATTACH]

 

 

The guy in the second slide deserved a Nobel Prize !!!

[fritzg]

Hi Alex,

 

May the joyfulness of those "Winds of Change" sessions come through clearly and lift your spirits as the healing progresses.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

Not to take this thread even more off topic, but is "Winds of Change" available for download yet?

[mayhem13]

The self called "objectivist" are desperate to win their point, the problem with them is that they can not listen to differences. So, they post here in CA and some other forums a lot of BS 'white papers' or web articles from people with exactly the same problem. Please remember this could be 1/3 of the listeners population...! But the other 2/3 are very happy selecting cables (et al) that match their taste and budget.

 

Honestly I can see this as a problem, but the contrary, the choose is very easy for them.

 

The other new guy (trithio?) said in another thread that you should be away from feelings when listening, my God how can we? if music does not cause you any feelings, mejor apague y vámonos (it's better to shut down the lights and go home).

 

Cheers!

 

Roch

 

Your statistical approach is a bit off my friend. 2/3 of the listening population eh? The principle suggests the simplest solution and in the case of the listening audience, your 2/3rds actually equates to less than 1%. So in fairness to the principle, the likely answer is that the 99% are correct.

[mayhem13]

let's apply occam's razor to usb cables

 

manufacturers make different cables at different prices to different designs

people try cables

people review cables

people buy cables

people make their own diy cables

people write about their findings

 

So the simplest thing that would cause all this activity is that usb cables sound different

 

If this were not the case there would be loads of threads where people had tried cables, found they were the same and reported such, but there are no such threads. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities usb cables do sound different.

 

I still use a printer cable, though.

 

Are you being sarcastic here or serious?

[bdiament]

Not to take this thread even more off topic, but is "Winds of Change" available for download yet?

 

Hi fritzg,

 

Thank you for your interest.

Please see this.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[jabbr]

Einstein, 1933

It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.

[jabbr]

When electrical engineering says cable doesn't have a sound, measurements confirm the model, and the model is based upon current physics, then anecdote and conjecture that not everything is known is not the high percentage bet to make.

 

Not that I've ever heard a cable make a peep but who is this "electrical engineering" that says this? What model? Which "current physics"?

 

I see that you and your buddies are perfectly content being approximately 93% correct?

[esldude]

Not that I've ever heard a cable make a peep but who is this "electrical engineering" that says this? What model? Which "current physics"?

 

I see that you and your buddies are perfectly content being approximately 93% correct?

 

Well not sure where the 93% comes from though maybe you meant 95% from the confidence level of some blind testing. In any case, it seems preferable to settling for 50% correct.

 

As for the physics well I mean physics. We can start with the Maxwell equations from more than 150 years ago. Other physics have been refined and expanded since that time. So maybe 'current' physics was unnecessary. Though it does mean the physics has stood the test of time and is still current. The physics which predict what the signal over a cable will be, and the prediction is in turn verified in the real world.

[jabbr]

Well not sure where the 93% comes from though maybe you meant 95% from the confidence level of some blind testing. In any case, it seems preferable to settling for 50% correct.

 

As for the physics well I mean physics. We can start with the Maxwell equations from more than 150 years ago. Other physics have been refined and expanded since that time. So maybe 'current' physics was unnecessary. Though it does mean the physics has stood the test of time and is still current. The physics which predict what the signal over a cable will be, and the prediction is in turn verified in the real world.

 

Huh? I'm just not seeing where Maxwell wrote anything, or his equations say anything about how cables sound. I think "physics" has a greater imagination than you.

 

93% -- that's a "high probability" number. Close enough to 100% for you. Close enough to 47/1500. Should settle the issue. Cables must sound close enough to each other to be the same. I understand.

[beanbag]

Huh? I'm just not seeing where Maxwell wrote anything, or his equations say anything about how cables sound.

 

He's probably talking about MAxwell's equations on which electromagnetic theory is based on, which give all the equations that describe the electrical properties of cables, e.g. R, L, C, skin effect, transmission line properties, reflections, etc.

[wgscott]

All of classical electrodynamics is derived from the four Maxwell equations.

[esldude]

Huh? I'm just not seeing where Maxwell wrote anything, or his equations say anything about how cables sound. I think "physics" has a greater imagination than you.

 

93% -- that's a "high probability" number. Close enough to 100% for you. Close enough to 47/1500. Should settle the issue. Cables must sound close enough to each other to be the same. I understand.

 

Well beanbag and wgscott have given you the answer.

 

Should I have instead said, "it is a science thing, you wouldn't understand"?

[jabbr]

All of classical electrodynamics is derived from the four Maxwell equations.

 

 

Certainly. And gravity was incorporated into this framework via "ether".

 

As a liberty 93% refers to (roughly) the extent that the precession in Mercury's perihelion is explained by classic mechanics/dynamics equations. So Einstein's general relativity has been verified by observation -- it predicts the missing 7%.

 

In any case there's nothing in there that says that, for example, cables can't affect sound (of course the transmission of, and the sound of, cables is determined by their physical properties, and of course Maxwell's equations -- still to this day -- are the most accurate known descriptions of electrical behavior).

 

Physics doesn't tell us what we have to observe, rather it predicts what we will observe. I have 100% confidence that when there is a real unbiased difference in the "experience" provided by different cables, that there is a corresponding physical difference. You just need to figure out what it is.

[trithio]

Are you being sarcastic here or serious?

No worries, there is no sarcasm there .

Plus, he totally misses the simplest explanation, the one that almost never fails in its infinity: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein.

 

And of course Occam's doesnt really work like that. Neither should be ever used like that. Nor does it ever completely eliminate the question marks, it just makes some extremely weak.

But that's already too much science and some smart listener may already be spiting in left and right to scare its devil minions.

[wgscott]

You just need to figure out what it is.

 

Nope. The burden of proof is on those who reject the null hypothesis.

[jabbr]

Nope. The burden of proof is on those who reject the null hypothesis.

 

The null hypothesis is invalidated by by the "real unbiased" observation. Not saying that this invalidates Maxwell.-- just the assumption that the cables are physically equivalent.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[esldude]

The null hypothesis is invalidated by by the "real unbiased" observation. Not saying that this invalidates Maxwell.-- just the assumption that the cables are physically equivalent.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So are you saying you have such a "real unbiased" observation? Also for most purposes there is no assumption the cables are physically (electrically) equivalent. As Maxwell's equations have been quite reliable this need not be an assumption.

[trithio]

The null hypothesis is invalidated by by the "real unbiased" observation. Not saying that this invalidates Maxwell.-- just the assumption that the cables are physically equivalent.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The 'null hypothesis' is science. The 'unbiased observation' is still just anecdote. Those two do not invalidate each other much.

Unless it is a measurement 'observation' but we are not talking about those. Or I havent seen any floating around.

Or you invalidate the NH with controlled tests. At least partially. But havent seen any of those either.

The one and only thing you can do with the usual audio anecdotes and 'observations' is tell nice beer stories. Or tea stories if you prefer. CA stories seem quite popular too.