Are you a Verificationist about audio?

IMO - It's all an exercise in futility, as our opinions are based on our personal experience with the equipment under a set of conditions virtually impossible, or at least unlikely for someone else to replicate. For example, in my system, because of my speakers, my amplifier and my room, I come to the conclusion that Brand X speaker cables lack midbass fullness, that's only because of the cable's interaction with my system and room. Another person, with a different system, could find the same cables to be overly bloated in the midbass. Both results could be verified by appropriate testing equipment, as frequency response in a room is scientifically verifiable. So, other than talking about this stuff because some people find it interesting, the process is otherwise without value. So I believe.

the problem with the distinction raised in the thread is that corroboration or verification is not proof.

thus the verificatopn of a perception does not mean that that which is verified is true.

05-17-12: Mrtennis
the problem with the distinction raised in the thread is that corroboration or verification is not proof.

thus the verification of a perception does not mean that that which is verified is true.

MrT - We've had this conversation approximately 1 million times. The last time was on the Magic thread, when you said...

...I have concluded that since perception is unreliable and it is the means of interacting with our stereo system, all objective considerations, and arguments are academic.

And I said...

[That] is the conclusion you ALWAYS come to, no matter what is being discussed. It goes like this...

1. Knowledge must be certain.
2. Perception cannot be certain.
3. Therefore, perception is not knowledge.

This little syllogism, which encapsulates your Ideology of Skepticism, is presented by you so frequently here on A'gon that it is beginning to look like stereotypy.

Fire with fire, stereotypy with stereotypy.

Bryon

Say what dude!!

Ah Bryon, another great question pondering the imponderables, so to speak, since consensus would appear to be difficult but in the end worth the endeavor.

I would consider myself a 'verificationist' in as much as I put my trust in things not to blow up, short out, or commit some other kind of catastrophic failure upon turn on. Thank goodness for UL. Beyond that, I'm content to try things that my own, lying ears perceive to be for the better in my musical appreciation regardless of whether or not it has been thoroughly vetted to the satisfaction (if attainable at all) of any cadre of rejectionists, no matter how adamantly they insist and semantically twisted they present their arguments.

Granted, there is a limit to what is doable, attainable and repeatable that would beg human ken to adopt as conventional wisdom. If it neither breaks my legs or picks my pocket then what is all the fuss about when sharing what one thinks to be an improvement with others?

I've gotten beyond that some time ago but do enjoy the thrust and perry of the truly talented out there (you know who you are) as they lay out a rational and reasonable argument that we don't know everything yet and to simply trust our ears as to what works and reverse engineer the point, or possibilities.

All the best,
Nonoise