On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:55:00 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is
anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific
"fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to
agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we
are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an
overblown faith in technology.

Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing
trumps scientific measurement and knowledge.

We are not measuring here - we are listening to music - or at least I
am.

You're drawing a conclusion based on what you (believe you) hear.


What you hear is what you hear - end of story - there's no "belief"
involved.

That is effectively using your ear as a measuring tool in the same way
as estimating a distance (or comparing distnces) by sight uses your eyes
as a measuring tool.


Only if you're trying to determine differences of some sort - if you're
just listening to music there's no "measurement" of any sort involved.


The human ear is a terribly unreliable measuring instrument. Add to
that personal bias and the subjectivists must be seen as offering
nothing but empty hollow opinion.

Again, I'm not "measuring" - I'm listening to music.

Semantics. You're drawing a conclusion about the equipment not the
music.


Everyone has their own prejudices (or "personal bias" as you call it) -
so what?

Well .... may I ask if you believe that expensive 'esoteric' equipment
interconnects (NOT loudspeaker cables) offer any advantage ?


I don't know (since I've never listened to any) and I don't care
(since I couldn't afford them anyway). It is up to every individual to
make their own decisions based on their own prejudices, wealth,
perceptions, hearing etc etc. If you want to choose on the basis of
electrical specifications, that's fine by me. If Joe Bloggs wants to
choose by a listening test of some sort, that's fine by me also. Your
chosen method will be wrong in Joe Blogg's eyes (or rather ears) and
vice versa. As you're both happy with your choice, what's the problem?

The ear is very easily fooled btw. The most convincing demonstration I
know involves cannabis. Consumption of cannabis will hugely improve the
sound. Startlingly so in fact. That's becauae what you hear is
interpreted by your brain. Quite simply your ears aren't 'accurate'. I'm
sure that simple enthusiasm also affects hearing too, so your costly
investment in interconnects does indeed sound 'better' to YOUR ears (but
not mine of course).

Graham

There is nothing new here - it has been well known for many years. I
seem to remember reading about 30 years ago something to the effect that
£5 of malt whiskey will improve any hi-fi system by £1000. So what?
People's perceptions differ by mood, time of day, substances ingested -
and a myriad of other reasons. None of which mean that one cannot tell
the difference in musical quality (albeit of differing types) between
the Spice Girls and a late Beethoven String Quartet or between a Tesco
£100 midi system and a SME/Linn/Arcam/Naim/Rega/Quad (add other makers to
choice) hi-fi setup.

Malcolm