esldude Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Summit said: Acceptable Responses when Impossible Claims Are Made should enlightening us why it is in fact impossible, objectively and with reliable references. Saying things like it is against physics is very vague IMO and it’s better to try to explain which physical law and how the design is in contradiction of the law. And yet those responses as described in the first paragraph of your post aren't sufficient. I think that is what prompted this thread. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 3 hours ago, sandyk said: This thread is against the spirit of the forum. No. Teresa, askat1988 and marce 2 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
sphinxsix Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 Is the claim that we may not be able (yet?) to measure or explain the differences that (some!) people hear on (some!) systems impossible? Just a couple of decades ago a person claiming that the faster you move or the lower you live above the sea level the slower you age (or in other words the slower the time passes) would have been thought to be out of his mind. Time dilation (BTW this is not the reason why I moved to the Netherlands ) As for the reaction to the impossible claims - a shrug seems to me to be a good one (and no opponent on the forum will get offended). Of course it is not a good solution if someone wants an endless debate (or is very attached to the idea that he has a monopoly on the truth) Teresa 1 Link to comment
Popular Post plissken Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 4 hours ago, sandyk said: This thread is against the spirit of the forum. This thread is an attempt, for us more analytical and logic based members, to figure out how much we need to muzzle our speech around here so Chris doesn't get inundated with PM's about how the play ground isn't equipped to someones liking and what is he going to do about 'those' kids. sandyk, Ralf11, esldude and 4 others 3 2 2 Link to comment
plissken Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 4 hours ago, sandyk said: where opposing views weren't shouted down, and for the most part discussions were civil. I've yet to see ANYONE's sincere and honest post shouted down. I have seen plenty of data and logic presented in counterpoint to patently incorrect positions. sandyk and esldude 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 30 minutes ago, sphinxsix said: Is the claim that we may not be able (yet?) to measure or explain the differences that (some!) people hear on (some!) systems impossible? It is extremely unlikely that anyone is able to hear something scientific instruments cannot detect. 30 minutes ago, sphinxsix said: Just a couple of decades ago a person claiming that the faster you move or the lower you live above the sea level the slower you age (or in other words the slower the time passes) would have been thought to be out of his mind. Time dilation (BTW this is not the reason why I moved to the Netherlands ) You must be under the influence of some kind of time dilation, because you're off by a century. Einstein's paper on special relativity was published in 1905 based on previous work by Lorentz. It was accepted without controversy and within a few years was considered well established (Stephen G. Brush, Why was Relativity Accepted?). While time dilation (and other relativistic effects) is readily observed, I'd have my doubts if someone claimed the ability to sense it without the use of instruments. esldude, pkane2001, plissken and 3 others 2 2 2 Link to comment
Popular Post Richard Dale Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 8 minutes ago, mansr said: It is extremely unlikely that anyone is able to hear something scientific instruments cannot detect. You must be under the influence of some kind of time dilation, because you're off by a century. Einstein's paper on special relativity was published in 1905 based on previous work by Lorentz. It was accepted without controversy and within a few years was considered well established (Stephen G. Brush, Why was Relativity Accepted?). While time dilation (and other relativistic effects) is readily observed, I'd have my doubts if someone claimed the ability to sense it without the use of instruments. The theory of Relativity wasn't accepted without controversy and Einstein never was awarded a Nobel prize for that work as a consequence: http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped-ensure-there-was-no-nobel-for-relativity Teresa and sandyk 2 System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs Link to comment
nbpf Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 On 12/12/2019 at 8:28 PM, Ralf11 said: What responses are allowed when someone posts a claim that cannot possibly be correct? I guess you mean which responses are suitable because what is allowed and what is not allowed is stated in the forum's rules. The answer to the question of what are suitable responses to posts that "cannot possibly be correct" very much depends on what does it mean not to be correct in the specific case at stake. A statement or post can be logically incorrect or it can be in contradiction with facts. In the second case, providing suitable responses is often more difficult and open to controversy, I would say. But it is also the case that logical arguments are often takes as arguments about facts and, of course, the other way round! Also, we sometimes face posts that are neither correct not incorrect but plainly meaningless. Finding a correct answer to such posts is often difficult. Finally I would like to remark that not all posts need to be answered. As long as they do not do any harm, posts that cannot possibly be correct can simply be ignored. Teresa 1 Link to comment
Popular Post John Dyson Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 My opinion about acceptable responses -- only my opinion, and you can say 'John is stupid and wrong', and I'll definitely follow my rule below: Regarding 'acceptable responses' -- it really is best to try to stay kind, not just civil, but kind. I have sometimes run into troubles also -- like everyone, but it is still best to try to stay KIND. Even if personally attacked for silly reasons -- or some kind of absurd technical claim is made -- STAY KIND. Don't forget KINDNESS, but that doesn't mean that disagreement is wrong. It is okay to disagree, but along with disagreement, a proper technically accurate* response would be very wise. Again, even if it seems to be impossible -- you cannot go wrong with being kind... A person writing a posting makes a stronger argument by being kind and rational esp when a crazed lunatic makes outrageous claims. The differences in 'sense of reality' becomes clear except to the most dense and opinionated reader. Don't bother trying to convince the person who already knows everything, very opinionated or who is set-in-their-ways... Sometimes finding a way to agree (or alternatively agree to disagree) is possible, without creating stronger bad feelings. Just accept that we cannot win all arguments, even the brightest scientists don't win all of their arguments. * When I use the term 'technically accurate', I do not intend to mean 'technical terms', but I mean to suggest that 'as accurate as possible in precise terms', not about 'feelings'. Feelings are difficult to interpret and lead to further disagreement. Being technically accurate is important, even if it is about a perceptual thing. What I mean is -- 'this music sounds bad' is not a good criticism, but no one can really disagree with, and might be a 100% technically correct statement to write "this music sounds bad to me'. When complaining about something 'sounding bad', be clear and specific -- using made up techno speak isn't really helpful to communicate with most anyone. Even describing things in real-world terms as closely as possible is a useful thing (like the singer seems to unnaturally move around in the stereo image.) Try to avoid usage that isn't in the dictionary, also/or TRY to use terminology that is used by the people who actually design equipment. If someone designs equipment in 'from scratch' designs, using typical engineering technical aids, they will probably use language that can communicate ideas reasonably clearly. I know that there will be people who might disagree with my suggestion about using precise *technical* language -- but I don't really mean it MUST be technical vernacular, it is just that it might be a helpful suggestion. I haven't always followed my rule, because like everyone, I get frustrated. Yelling louder does not convince... Kindness is more likely to convince. (Bold or upper case only directs the vision or emphasizes, it doesn't convince.) Assertiveness is also okay, but must be accompanied by kindness. Aggressiveness in the UK sense is NOT acceptable, not because it might get you kicked off the forum, but because it makes the aggressor look foolish and overwhelmed by destructive emotions. Perhaps also important -- try to use commonly accepted technical terms (here, I mean true technical terms as long as it isn't an affectation) -- it avoids confusion, and sometimes people actually agree, but cannot communicate that fact. My language skills suck, and I tried to proofread this -- I apologize if I made a mistake. Ignoring anything else above, a bit of mutual personal respect can be helpful. It is okay to 'not trust' someone's technical expertise, but MUST respect their person. John crenca, Iving and Teresa 3 Link to comment
Popular Post wgscott Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 28 minutes ago, Richard Dale said: The theory of Relativity wasn't accepted without controversy and Einstein never was awarded a Nobel prize for that work as a consequence: http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped-ensure-there-was-no-nobel-for-relativity The "controversy" was a fraudulent construct of anti-Semitism. https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/oct/08/einstein-nobel-prize-relativity sphinxsix, Thuaveta and plissken 3 Link to comment
Richard Dale Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 9 minutes ago, wgscott said: The "controversy" was a fraudulent construct of anti-Semitism. https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/oct/08/einstein-nobel-prize-relativity Thanks for the link - a really interesting article. Mentioned in the Guardian article is another twist to the story, in that Arthur Eddington's experiment that supposedly confirmed Relativity by experiment was actually bogus. http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/eddingtons-experiment-was-bogus.html System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs Link to comment
mansr Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 50 minutes ago, Richard Dale said: The theory of Relativity wasn't accepted without controversy and Einstein never was awarded a Nobel prize for that work as a consequence: That was just the Swedes being jerks. Other top physicists, such as Planck, had no problem accepting the ideas. From the paper I referenced earlier: Quote The first comprehensive study of the early reception of the special theory of relativity was conducted by Stanley Goldberg; valuable historical research was also published by Arthur I. Miller and Lewis Pyenson. They found that relativity was widely discussed among leading physicists in Germany soon after the appearance of Einstein’s 1905 papers. By 1911 it was considered so well established that Arnold Sommerfeld, who had planned to speak about relativity at the Solvay Congress that year, decided to address instead the more controversial questions about quanta and the nature of light. Link to comment
Richard Dale Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 4 minutes ago, mansr said: That was just the Swedes being jerks. Other top physicists, such as Planck, had no problem accepting the ideas. From the paper I referenced earlier: In your link does "In the third stage, the confirmation of Einstein’s light-bending prediction attracted much public attention and forced all physicists to take the general theory of relativity seriously" refer to the bogus Eddington experiment? I'm personally very interested in the history of science here, but I'm not quite sure what relevance it has to decisions such as 'what sort of interconnects should I use in my HiFi system?". System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs Link to comment
wgscott Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, Richard Dale said: the bogus Eddington experiment? If it is "bogus," how is it that it is reproducible (and has been reproduced and corroborated)? I am also interested in the history of science, including how the right-wing creates "controversies" where none exist (eg: Evolution vs. Creationism, Genetics vs. Eugenics, Climate Change vs. Sunspots, etc.) mansr 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 50 minutes ago, Richard Dale said: Thanks for the link - a really interesting article. Mentioned in the Guardian article is another twist to the story, in that Arthur Eddington's experiment that supposedly confirmed Relativity by experiment was actually bogus. http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/eddingtons-experiment-was-bogus.html Do you have any better reference for the "bogus" claim than a blog post by a right-wing Christian economist? Thuaveta, semente and wgscott 3 Link to comment
Richard Dale Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, mansr said: Do you have any better reference for the "bogus" claim than a blog post by a right-wing Christian economist? I had heard about Eddington's experiment being wrong before today's discussion, and found that link. But you are probably quite right and that I agree it is probably bollocks. System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs Link to comment
wgscott Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Richard Dale said: I had heard about Eddington's experiment being wrong before today's discussion, and found that link. But you are probably quite right and that I agree it is probably bollocks. There actually has been legitimate discussion of this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment#Criticism_and_legacy Link to comment
Iving Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 42 minutes ago, wgscott said: I am also interested in the history of science, including how the right-wing creates "controversies" where none exist (eg: Evolution vs. Creationism, Genetics vs. Eugenics, Climate Change vs. Sunspots, etc.) Isn't that more a history of "Authoritarianism" or some such rather than a history of "Science" (mostly - but not of course all - only about 500 years if we allow "Scientific Revolution" and "Enlightenment")? I mean the history and explanation of the bastard is deeper than the history of the legitimate? I agree with your gist! We don't have to go OT! Link to comment
Popular Post Ralf11 Posted December 14, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 8 hours ago, sandyk said: This thread is against the spirit of the forum. It's yet another in a series of attacks against the Audiophile members of the forum by those who wish to save us from ourselves. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that there is a " resident "Angry letter to the editor" member. It's more likely to be quite a few different members wishing to see this forum return to more pleasant days where there wasn't an all out war between the Subjective and Audiophile members, where opposing views weren't shouted down, and for the most part discussions were civil. These days, you won't even see the members of the Industry that used to frequently post here and we all benefitted from their participation. quite a few different members wish to see this forum return to more pleasant days where there wasn't an all out war on science or its application to audio, and angry belligerent rage posters did not try to disrupt every thread on here do you know anyone like that??? marce, mansr and Ajax 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Ralf11 Posted December 14, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 3 hours ago, mansr said: It is extremely unlikely that anyone is able to hear something scientific instruments cannot detect. however, that does not mean that those detections or measurements have been made, nor that they have been presented to the consumer.... which is why I started a thread on that very issue Teresa and sandyk 2 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted December 14, 2019 Author Share Posted December 14, 2019 1 hour ago, wgscott said: If it is "bogus," how is it that it is reproducible (and has been reproduced and corroborated)? I am also interested in the history of science, including how the right-wing creates "controversies" where none exist (eg: Evolution vs. Creationism, Genetics vs. Eugenics, Climate Change vs. Sunspots, etc.) just to be 'fair & balanced' I will point out that some of the Anti-VAXer stuff comes from Tiburon, including a woman (who was very far from right-wing) who stated that she had a very fine liberal arts education from an elite institution and was therefore well-equipped to judge the science and then there were the Luddites... Thuaveta 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Ajax Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 The upside of people making incorrect statements is that often one of our more knowledgeable members replies with a “considered” response from which we can all learn. e.g the numerous replies to “Class D amps suck” taught me a lot about the reasons why they in fact don’t and confirmed my own listening experience. Similarly the MQA threads taught me a lot about the importance of filters and how they work. To those who really understand how digital audio really works, and have been generous with their time in providing factual explanations, pls accept my sincere thanks. wgscott, Jeff_N, Thuaveta and 6 others 6 2 1 LOUNGE: Mac Mini - Audirvana - Devialet 200 - ATOHM GT1 Speakers OFFICE : Mac Mini - Audirvana - Benchmark DAC1HDR - ADAM A7 Active Monitors TRAVEL : MacBook Air - Dragonfly V1.2 DAC - Sennheiser HD 650 BEACH : iPhone 6 - HRT iStreamer DAC - Akimate Micro + powered speakers Link to comment
sandyk Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Ralf11 said: quite a few different members wish to see this forum return to more pleasant days where there wasn't an all out war on science or its application to audio, and angry belligerent rage posters did not try to disrupt every thread on here do you know anyone like that??? You . As a Scientist you should have an open mind and be able to accept that currently accepted Scientific knowledge isn't always perfect ,and investigate where their is a heap of, confirmed by others, anecdotal reports such as in the A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming thread, and some Sponsors threads. How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Popular Post Ralf11 Posted December 14, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 4 minutes ago, sandyk said: As a Scientist you should have an open mind and be able to accept that currently accepted Scientific knowledge isn't always perfect and investigate where their is a heap of, You misunderstand science and what scientists do. Scientists do NOT have open minds like a screen door in a submarine and do not waste time on when a bunch of ill tutored people conflate confirmation bias with actual tests, nor are anecdotal claims of much use in areas that are well understood. Scientists certainly do not need untutored crazy people how to conduct their business either. there is a heap of something tho, you are right about that crenca, Teresa and wgscott 1 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now