Mixing Amps -

[WmAx]

.....well, good for you, WmAx, few question marks are displayed in posts usually....what I did was only post a post, but I'll admit, the desire to do so might have been prompted somewhat by seeing what you posted, that once again goes back to what we see at this site too much....if something can't be proven by science, or a scope or a meter, it could not be true and valid, or, could not have been heard....that type of reasoning is useless in my view as it stands only for not having had an experience involving the senses, and saying others could not have either....I sure didn't mean it as a personal attack, I promise, but that line of reasoning eludes me.....

Your summary makes it seem as if you have not paid very much attention to what I or mtrycrafts have tried to make clear.

I'll try to be specific, for the sake of clarification.....

"that once again goes back to what we see at this site too much....if something can't be proven by science, or a scope or a meter, it could not be true and valid, or, could not have been heard."

No, you say this in absolute sense. That's not the case. Really, it's about probability, not absolutes. For example: there could be ghosts and goblins(of the supernatural variety). There could be a magic fairy named Zues that only I can see, whom washes my back while I'm asleep. I could guess the pick 6 lottery numbers and win millions of dollars. All of these things could be, but are highly improbable. Using the degree/type of speculation as typically used by audiophiles to explain what they percieve is about as useful a method to solve problems as if someone asked a question, and then drew from a hat an answer, when the information on 1,000,000,000 slips of the paper are fiction and the factual information written on 1 slip of paper. Highly improbable that the answer drawn will be the factual one. The same goes for claimed audible factors of an amplifier that are typically claimed by audiophiles: no one has ever demonstrated in a properly controlled test, a phenomena that can not be measured, that is audible. Call it factor X. It could exist, but it's highly improbable. To claim factor X exists is speculation. It is not responsible or efficient to claim that factor X is a real factor and to proceed to give advice based on such an assumption in a forum that's intent is to propogate factual knowledge/advice. The same goes for measurable parameters that have not been specifically coorelated/linked to the claimed effect by valid, bias-controlled observation(s). Call this factor Y. The repeated unsubstantiated speculations that you have made in reference to amplifier sound in various threads as if they were fact, without taking the required precautions[double blind protocol, sufficient statistical scoring, level matched, measurements to correlate what was heard in case of positive results in DBTing, etc.] to heed known factors that will affect perception to carry out a valid listeing comparison are not responsible in a forum such as this. You lower the signal-to-noise ratio when doing this. Such speculative comments made in the form of fact would, however, be welcomed in most forums, therefor it escapes me why you frequent this forum... unless perhaps you find it entertaining when you get to argue these subjects?

-Chris

 

[Tomorrow]

Your reply did not make any sense to me when I first read it. It does not make sense to me now.

Okay, so you start out saying: "Science is our best and brightest hope to lead this Rag Tag Fugitive Fleet of humans to the Promised Land of Realization." You follow up with: "But logic must prevail...even at the expense of letting people have their "beliefs"."

But what? Please specify. Also, [1]belief is not the issue, [2]faith is.

-Chris
]

I'll try to be as parsimonious as possible, Chris. You and mtry took Mac's comment far afield from its context and meaning. I was trying to bring you back to it. He was talking about 'beliefs', while you were talking about provable a/v issues. You expressed the idea that maybe he should leave the forum if he was uncomfortable with the hard data approach. My point was, and is, that 'belief' is present in all human activities, including your (and my) 'faith' in science. (Thanks, but I know the definitions.)

If you don't comprehend what I mean by "faith in science" then further dialog on the matter is meaningless. These are very abstract terms and ideas. I see you as a person dedicated to precision in details. I really appreciate that about you, in fact.

But sometimes those approaches, details (knowledge) and concepts (beliefs in this case), can be difficult to blend in a forum like this one. That was why I brought up the issue of relationships to you. (Had you answered my questions, you may have understood.) There is no clear scientific means to solve relationship issues...and in this particular case...between you and MacmanNM. As long as you're dealing with people, you're going to have relationship issues (not solvable by scientific method). Ergo my advice....let people have their beliefs...you are not going to be able to keep this forum in the detailed/factual/knowledge level when it comes to peoples' beliefs...and that includes your beliefs.

In the words of the Budweiser lizard, "Let it go, Louie. Let it go."

 

[mulester7]

The repeated unsubstantiated speculations that you have made in reference to amplifier sound in various threads as if they were fact, without taking the required precautions[double blind protocol, sufficient statistical scoring, level matched, measurements to correlate what was heard in case of positive results in DBTing, etc.] to heed known factors that will affect perception to carry out a valid listeing comparison are not responsible in a forum such as this.

.....you agree with this, Clint?....are guys not supposed to mention what they hear from equipment in the form of just a simple observance pertaining to the sound quality of, open to discussion?....

.....what you and Mtry keep hounding, WmAx, is that no reports should be allowed to be made concerning anything to do with "sound quality", unless it can be measured by scopes and meters, wearing blindfolds, with 23 other conditions met....and even then, a few would jump in there and say the room conditions caused the difference, when you're standing right in front of front-firing speakers, am I on Candid Camera?....hey, is there another forum online where guys talk to each other about what they hear from their equipment pertaining mostly to sound quality, "without" members that carry a lot of baggage with no apparent confidence who tell them they could not be hearing what they heard unless blindfolds are brought into play?....guide me home, WmAx....please.....

.....Nick, you do what you want concerning putting me on ignore, and it would probably be better overall if you did, because it appears one of us is going to do just that to the other soon....I'm GOING, to enjoy being here, while I'm here, from here on, however long that may be......

.....I've never attacked anyone....for sure one who simply made a report that they didn't hear what I heard using like equipment, which someone using like equipment hasn't seemed to happen yet, has it?....but then, along comes someone who tries to tell me I didn't hear what I did, and my hearing was only being tricked, and they are holding out ridiculous blindfolds because an article by Richard Pierce said they should, and here we go, with me having to try to defend myself, and it's done got old.....

.....it seems there will always be a few who seek basic attention, acceptance, and notoriety through confrontational attacks online, well hidden behind a computer monitor, how valiant, and they could care less about any truth being exposed.....

 

[Nick250]

...

.....it seems there will always be a few who seek basic attention, acceptance, and notoriety through confrontational attacks online, well hidden behind a computer monitor, how valiant, and they could care less about any truth being exposed[/B].....

Bingo! Exactly. And with all do respect the highlighted part above is where I see you sitting.

Edit: can't seem to get the bold thingie to work.

 

[WmAx]

He was talking about 'beliefs', while you were talking about provable a/v issues.

I don't have any problem with someone believing what they like. However, the matter is different when things are claimed as if they were fact or highly probable on a forum such as this; something needs to substantiate the information given. For example, claiming a mystery X or Y factor[as described in my previous reply] that is not proven to exist is an example of pure faith is used as the premise of a belief.

You expressed the idea that maybe he should leave the forum if he was uncomfortable with the hard data approach.

I was addressing everyone. I worded this part of the reply to apply to anyone.

My point was, and is, that 'belief' is present in all human activities, including your (and my) 'faith' in science. (Thanks, but I know the definitions.)

I pointed to specific definitions becuase it would appear that you have confused the two words. Faith is the belief in something with no substantiation. Belief in itself is not a negative thing; but the standards people hold to choose a belief varies wildly, and in the case of no substantiation, the belief is based on faith.

But sometimes those approaches, details (knowledge) and concepts (beliefs in this case), can be difficult to blend in a forum like this one. That was why I brought up the issue of relationships to you. (Had you answered my questions, you may have understood.) There is no clear scientific means to solve relationship issues...and in this particular case...between you and MacmanNM. As long as you're dealing with people, you're going to have relationship issues (not solvable by scientific method). Ergo my advice....let people have their beliefs...you are not going to be able to keep this forum in the detailed/factual/knowledge level when it comes to peoples' beliefs...and that includes your beliefs.

Now it seems to me that that there is a probability that you are more so commenting on the social system of the forum as opposed to what is efficient in the propogation of useful data/information of physical phenomena. Is this the reason for this conversation? If so, this may explain the confusion I have had in regards to your replies. If the faith-based beliefs are allowed to propogate unchecked/unchallenged, I believe it to be highly probable that this forum will follow in the steps of the ones I gave examples of in my reply to Mac. If no one challenges these things, how is anyone to determine probable fact from probable fiction?

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

.....you agree with this, Clint?....are guys not supposed to mention what they hear from equipment in the form of just a simple observance pertaining to the sound quality of, open to discussion?....

Open discussion is a good thing. But if the views in such discussion can not be challenged, it's not a useful discussion so far as objective information.

.

....what you and Mtry keep hounding, WmAx, is that no reports should be allowed to be made concerning anything to do with "sound quality", unless it can be measured by scopes and meters, wearing blindfolds, with 23 other conditions met....

If one is to expect their report/opinion to be respected/considered equal to current scientifically determined ones, then it must meet the same level of scrutiny/burden of proof. [1] Subjectively based pinions are fine, just make it clear that this is what they are and don't argue them as if they are anything more than such.

is there another forum online where guys talk to each other about what they hear from their equipment pertaining mostly to sound quality, "without" members that carry a lot of baggage with no apparent confidence who tell them they could not be hearing what they heard unless blindfolds are brought into play?....guide me home, WmAx....please.....

From this statement, it would appear that you believe superhumans exist; people that are not subject to the undefeatable psychological factors that exists in humans. Actually, with some of the things you have described[comparing amplifiers by simply switching them], you do not appear to even respect basic physiological factors[such as level matching to 0.1dB, since hearing is a non-linear function or comparing instantly or within a few seconds with the same audio passage since auditory memory precision reduces drastically within just a few seconds].

...but then, along comes someone who tries to tell me I didn't hear what I did, and my hearing was only being tricked, and they are holding out ridiculous blindfolds because an article by Richard Pierce said they should, and here we go, with me having to try to defend myself, and it's done got old.....

You can report what you hear, no problem or arguments. Refer to [1] above.

....it seems there will always be a few who seek basic attention, acceptance, and notoriety through confrontational attacks online, well hidden behind a computer monitor, how valiant, and they could care less about any truth being exposed.....

There are probably people like that; do you care to name some people and then back this up with verifiable examples?

-Chris

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Hogwash. We can set up experiments of speculations that are falsifiable but not those that cannot be. So far, no evidence exists for any one of those silly ideas.

By the way, can you prove any of the above speculated phenomenons??? Don't dance around it, prove it or cite evidence by others, credible evidence, not bogus stuff

Obviously this thread has become a waste of time for most of the readers. It's become a big pi$$ing match, that I don't see anyone pulling ahead. (kind of like arguing with your wife-you don't win that argument)

I can argue either way for or against life outside of our planet, but I won't waste my time, and will get back to helping others with future A/V purchases.

C'mon guys, everyone knows where you stand. Lets take our energy over to other topics and be done with this.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I can argue either way for or against life outside of our planet, but I won't waste my time, and will get back to helping others with future A/V purchases.

No,no, no, that is not what the argument is about, but rather about being abducted by aliens as thousands have been claiming. Big difference.

I would not argue against other life forms in the universe as I believe the probability is very good that there are and the universe is so much older than this solar system, another increase for that probability

The End

 

[mtrycrafts]

Edit: can't seem to get the bold thingie to work.

It is tricky using [ ] with a b between at the beginning and /b at the end. Just be sure you remove any other info in [ ]