rgro wrote: > When the inquiry is in response to someone else's claim, I would mostly, > but not totally, agree. Sometimes a claim, even if it may sound odd or > spurious, can stimulate someone to a path of inquiry that ultimately > ends in new discovery. And, as I know has been brought up previoiusly, > to blanket-apply an arbritrary rule that says, essentially, if you don't > meet whatever I (or somebody else) define as the "burden of proof", we > will all deem your idea as moronic and unworthy would seem, at least in > a historical context, to have precluded some of the great scientific > lines of inquiry. But I certainly see your point. > > Indeed, science does not require one to follow all leads---vetting what > one believes is reasonable, vs. what is not, is appropriate---if for > nothing else but time management. But, the *original* (which is what I > really should have emphasized, in my first reply) researcher, working in > his/her lab, isn't necessarily responding to someone else's need to > convince him that something is or is not "worthwhile" to pursue, nor is > he attempting to prove or disprove someone else's theory(s). So, in > that case, the burden of proof is not in the decision as to whether or > not to pursue the inquiry, but in the proving of the results of the > inquiry, itself. At that point, it most certainly is matter of others > verifying and replicating your results. But--again, at the origin of an > idea, to simply not try an experiment because you have an unfounded > expectation that it won't work does, potentially, cut off what might > otherwise have been a productive line of inquiry.
"unfounded expectation" well I'm with soulkeeper here . For example the sugested -server tweaks- is an waste of time to test because that's not how things work . or the fixed volume tweak . * Also there is afaik very little evidence that any human can distinguish between *any* reasonable good digital transport (it does not have to be super high end ) into a decent DAC . * There is also not clear that you always can tell the difference between two reasonably good DAC's if they are level matched and have flat frequency response and low noise and low distorsion (if these criteria are not fullfilled the device is rubbish, as sadly some audiophile contraptions called DAC's are seems like some are going to great lengths to be "different" :-/ ) So there are already 2 layers of "unlikelyness" before we even consider the tweaks imo. But all things are not equal as science is not used much in audiophilia products that are "different" are all to abundant , so it's not always so unlikely as it should be. Also consider the psychoacoustic knowledge base on human hearing ? Some of the tweaks may make small differences for better or worse, but on a level that can be measured but not heard . here science could help ! A small free improvement (even inaudible in isolation) is not wrong they all add up somewhere. But thats not how things are done here ? "Productive line of inquiry" the whole method of tweak and listen sighted with full bias on and no assistance from measurement or other science IS going to yield completely random results, in such mess there is no way differ between fail or sucesses you just can't know, that's perhaps what control my expectations people who develop these tweaks use very flawed methodology and are very unlikely to suceed whatever they propose because the "work method" is not suited to the task and proven soo in other fields of science. It's not impossible to stumble upon things by chance and find stuff to , in such cases I'm happy to wait until more curious people with more spare time have provided more positive indications (not more anecdotes they don't count ). Or from other realms of audiophilia difference in sound between AC wall outlets or between silver and copper ohm is ohm, such things should have been noticed in the rest of the EE or scientific world if there where anything to them. So you can always save time and not try things that have to break the laws of physics as we know them in order to perform the claimed effect . If someone discovers a new principle of physics they are not going to design a cone to place under your Hi-Fi with such knowledge ;) Consider that the high end business is very cynical and exploit these beliefs fully . A favourite example that some people accept without question is Lavardin (an amp manufacturer ) that discovered "memory distorsion" that *ofcourse* could not be measured by conventional means ,but Lavardin coincidentally had a solution to this "problem" in their amps, how nice of them ;) So when a typical audiophile claims something extraordinary ( as they usually do ) that counter the wast majority of known science , I'm simply not going to try if it can be debunked from principle alone (if you are right science is wrong ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94770 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
