On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 08:30:46 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

You are of course confusing the stating of opinions as fact. For example:

Fact: Using the equipment I currently have, when I switch from Gale
XL-185 to Audio Innovations Silver Bi-Wire, I hear an improvement.

Fact: When I upgrade to an even better cable (Chord Company Rumour 4) I
hear another big improvement.

Opinion: Therefore, based on my observations above, a better cable will
improve the sound.

You are the confused one here, Glenn.

You do not hear the improvement you state as being a fact. You gain
the impression of an improvement for a variety of reasons. The word
"hear" attaches this phenomenon to a single sense - unfortunately it
is the wrong one. There is no "heard" difference. The difference comes
from a whole set of other senses that seem to be rather more refined
in you then the rest of us.

So your opinion is naturally also wrong, based as it is on a set of
erroneous "facts".

You can of course establish the true nature of the "facts" very
easily. Why don't you? You must surely be interested just for your own
satisfaction to learn why you are being told you are mistaken around
here. I mean, why would you keep arguing otherwise?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

You do not hear the improvement you state as being a fact. You gain
the impression of an improvement for a variety of reasons. The word
"hear" attaches this phenomenon to a single sense - unfortunately it
is the wrong one. There is no "heard" difference. The difference
comes from a whole set of other senses that seem to be rather more
refined in you then the rest of us.

I'm more inclined to believe my ears, that I've lived with for the past
28 years, than someone on Usenet who I've never met telling me "you're
not hearing what you think you're hearing".

When I change the cables, the music sounds different (sometimes better,
sometimes not). Is that better for you?

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:01:18 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

You do not hear the improvement you state as being a fact. You gain
the impression of an improvement for a variety of reasons. The word
"hear" attaches this phenomenon to a single sense - unfortunately it
is the wrong one. There is no "heard" difference. The difference
comes from a whole set of other senses that seem to be rather more
refined in you then the rest of us.

I'm more inclined to believe my ears, that I've lived with for the past
28 years, than someone on Usenet who I've never met telling me "you're
not hearing what you think you're hearing".

When I change the cables, the music sounds different (sometimes better,
sometimes not). Is that better for you?

No, because you use the word "sounds", which ties the phenomenon to
the sense of hearing. If you rephrase it as "the music seems
different", you will get no argument from me.

When you use the word "sounds" you are drawing an inappropriate
conclusion from a flawed experiment.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article , Glenn Richards
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

But the problem is that those who say/believe they can then tend to
refuse to engage in a test whose protocol would enable us to obtain
results which would actually help us to decide if their 'faith' was
well founded or not...

Probably because the likes of Pinkerton persist on posting tirades of
abuse to anyone who says they can hear a difference. And aren't prepared
to lower themselves to his childish and juvenile level.

Oddy enough, although I seem not to be able to hear the kinds of
things you keep claiming, I can't recall ever calling you any of the
above.

There is no need whatsoever for anyone who wishes to engage in such a test
to have anything to do with Stewart. Thus the above does not seem to me to
be a sensible reason for anyone refusing to engage in such a test. The test
can be organised by anyone (or a small group) who understands the relevant
requirements, and the process/results observed and described according to
the relevant methods.

Indeed, if some of those who express the belief that they *can* hear such
differences were to engage in such tests, *and* the results supported their
claims, then this would be strong evidence which could be used to dismiss
what Stewart says. Thus it would be in your interest to engage in such a
test, regardless of any 'cash prize' that might be involved or not.

Being willing and able to engage in this way would also help rebut the
ideas that they refuse to do so out of:

1) A fear that that they are wrong and an unwillingness to face this
possibility.

2) Their claims being knowing 'lies'

3) That they reject the scientific method and rational approaches,
preferring to proceed on the basis of a 'personal faith' which selects and
rejects 'evidence' according to if it supports their beliefs of not.

You seem to be one of the fading minority that have the ability to
disagree with someone else's viewpoint and have it be just that, a
disagreement. I'd mistakenly credited Don Pearce with the same ability,
but recently he's proven himself to be little better than Pinkerton.
Which is sad, because he seems like an otherwise intelligent person.
(Don Pearce, I mean... Pinkerton comes across as a complete cretin.)

If you wish my approach to be more than a 'fading minority' view, then you
can help that process. IMHO The reason my POV tends to 'fade' is that
people see a sucession of others who make sweeping claims about 'audible
differences' which conflict with their own experience and understanding
*but* the claimants then refuse to engage in any tests which would really
shed some light on this matter.

Thus the root of the problem seems to me to rest with claimants who won't
then give any useful backing or support for what they claim. Given this I
can understand why people like Stewart lose patience and decide that the
claimants are 'idiots' or 'liars' even though my own approach is different.

Then again, this is Usenet, and on Usenet there are always two points of
view. Yours, and the incorrect one. ;-)

I was familiar with that long before usenet. :-) My Dad used to work on a
similar basis. However he was amenable to rational argument and evidence.
;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Your level of disregard for the opinions of others is in itself
beneath contempt.
I have no problem with the opinions of others. I do have a problem
with arrogant clowns who state their opinions as fact, and refuse to
test the veracity of those opinions.

You are of course confusing the stating of opinions as fact. For example:

Fact: Using the equipment I currently have, when I switch from Gale
XL-185 to Audio Innovations Silver Bi-Wire, I hear an improvement.

Not quite: The 'fact' may be that you believe (and then claim that) you
"hear an improvement". However to see if this is correct, and if so, why, a
suitable test would be required in order for your statements to be of any
use to anyone else.

Fact: When I upgrade to an even better cable (Chord Company Rumour 4) I
hear another big improvement.

Not quite: reasons as above.

Your use of the term "fact" implies that, despite a previous statement from
you, that you do not actually understand the scientific method.



In both the above examples, the "fact" section is based on actual
observations. In the first example, I heard a difference between cables
- this is an unquestionable fact,

Since it is questionable is manifest that it is not actually "an
unquestionable fact". I am afraid all you are doing is showing you
misunderstand what would constitute evidence for what you claim.

regardless of the actual mechanism
behind hearing the difference. It doesn't matter if it was
"psychological", I still heard a difference. Therefore, based on these
observations, I formed the opinion that cables do affect the sound.

But your 'opinion' is not based on evidence that establishes that your idea
is a reliable description of reality, I'm afraid.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Glenn
Richards wrote:


I'm more inclined to believe my ears, that I've lived with for the past
28 years, than someone on Usenet who I've never met telling me "you're
not hearing what you think you're hearing".

Yet there is evidence that it is a common characteristic of human beings to
make mistakes.

Take, for example, the 'Stereophile' test which was run at a show some
years ago. The results indicate a tendency for people to decide there *was*
a change when no actual change to the system had been made.

This is not just a matter of 'psychology'. The physiology of hearing means
that our physical hearing alters as we listen, so even if we are subject to
the same sounds twice, we may 'hear a difference' as our hearing has been
changed by time, or by the first hearing.

You may be inclined to "believe your ears". Alas, that isn't very reliable
unless you use your ears with due care, and employ methods for comparisons
that mean the conclusions can be assessed to have some validity.

Simply saying that you listened to one arrangement, then another, and they
sounded different, isn't useful as evidence except with quite gross changes
as it would be too easy to "hear a difference" for reasons which were
nothing to do with those assumed.

When I change the cables, the music sounds different (sometimes better,
sometimes not). Is that better for you?

That is fine. But it does not actually constitute evidence that the change
of cables *did* cause an audible change in the sound as a result of the
cables being different to one another. :-)

Thus you can report that "you heard a difference", but not draw *any*
conclusions from that *without* employing a suitable test protocol of the
kind that has been outlined. Such a report is therefore 'interesting' but
its only value would be to prompt a relevant test to collect useful
evidence.

Alas, since you, and others, keep making such assertions, but then decline
to engage in a suitable test, we are left with no reliable evidence and a
feeling that those who make the claim are unwilling to put it to a proper
test... This process of "claim and then refuse to be tested" has been
going on for decades, so it is perhaps hardly surprising if Stewart and
others have lost patience with those who behave in this manner.

As I think USA politicians have said: "Where's the beef?" (Although this
saying may need interpeting for some non-USA people who speak English
rather than 'American'... ;- )

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Don Pearce wrote:

No, because you use the word "sounds", which ties the phenomenon to
the sense of hearing. If you rephrase it as "the music seems
different", you will get no argument from me.

You were doing very well right up until this point:

When you use the word "sounds" you are drawing an inappropriate
conclusion from a flawed experiment.

....but adding that last bit was like just getting a dig of arrogance in.

Are you sure you're not Pinkerton's slightly better educated twin? ;-)

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:07:25 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

No, because you use the word "sounds", which ties the phenomenon to
the sense of hearing. If you rephrase it as "the music seems
different", you will get no argument from me.

You were doing very well right up until this point:

When you use the word "sounds" you are drawing an inappropriate
conclusion from a flawed experiment.

...but adding that last bit was like just getting a dig of arrogance in.

Are you sure you're not Pinkerton's slightly better educated twin? ;-)

No that last bit is the literal truth - not an arrogant dig at all.
Please read and understand, don't just get offended. Try to understand
the difference between an expression of preference and an attribution
to a physical phenomenon.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Hi,

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:01:18 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

When I change the cables, the music sounds different (sometimes better,
sometimes not). Is that better for you?

No, because you use the word "sounds", which ties the phenomenon to
the sense of hearing. If you rephrase it as "the music seems
different", you will get no argument from me.

When you use the word "sounds" you are drawing an inappropriate
conclusion from a flawed experiment.

Perhaps an example would help. This has been posted here before, but...

Glenn, take a look at the image he

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/ade..._illusion.html

When I first looked at it, I was of the *opinion* that the squares A and B
seemed to be different colours.
The *fact* is that the two squares are the same colour.

It would be erroneous of me to say "I see two different coloured squares"
since I obviously don't, given that they can be proven to be the same.
The weird thing about this kind of brain-trickery it that even though
I know the squares are the same colour, the trick remains; my brain
still tells me they are different.

Our grey matter plays similar tricks with sound. Don't trust your ears
or the grey matter that does the signal processing, as nature didn't design
them to be accurate. It designed them to tell you when big hairy animals
were about to try to eat you.

Regards,

Glenn.

In article , Glenn Booth
wrote:

[snip interesting example]


Our grey matter plays similar tricks with sound. Don't trust your ears
or the grey matter that does the signal processing, as nature didn't
design them to be accurate. It designed them to tell you when big hairy
animals were about to try to eat you.

The key distinction is that it is quite reasonable to "trust your ears (or
eyes, etc)" when saying that you may *perceive* a difference. But this does
not in itself tell us if:

1) That there *was* any different of the kind 'perceived'.

2) That any actual 'difference' was for the reasons assumed or asserted.

(1) or (2) may or may not be so in a given case, but can't be determined
simply on the basis of a 'perception' - unless this is obtained via
suitable methods that have been arranged so as to deal with the various
possible 'reasons' for such a 'perception', and the ways in which this may
lead to mistakes. Hence for (1) and (2), "trust your ears" not sufficient.

For similar reasons, there is a distinction between doing an informal test
for your own personal purposes of 'preference' or 'acceptability' and being
able to report the results as having any value to anyone else.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html