"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:


I can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of
audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like
must be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you
missed his point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I
think the point is that those same "some people" probably don't do
that at all. Which means they have decided for some reason to pick
on something very specific for scientific validation out of the vast
relm of experiences that are widely evaluated without such evidence.

I'm not clear from that whether it's the case that you think any
audible difference should be scientifically measurable too or not.


Absolutely I believe any real audible difference is scientifically
measuable.

Well, I think people should at least *try* to do this, particularly where
there is some dispute and/or the experiences of different people
contradict. The problem is that they often seem not to want to bother.

For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for
detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what
the
reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in
response
all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but with
little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the
reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up"
and "prove them wrong". My actual aim is to establish in each case
what may or may not be correct.



I would like to observe that I believe it isn't a trivial matter for
ordinary people to make accurate and meaningful 'scientifice measurements'
and that, despite both you and Einstein might perhaps have wished it, not
everything in this life falls into the 'easily explained/easily measured'
category....??

In any case, with 'audio' there is the human factor - where one man's meat
can simply be another man's poisson....