Believers VS. nonbelievers???? GEEzzzzz

I agree with Albert, that with the inherent limitations, experimental setups generally fall under, vis a vis the complexity of the object in question, the only consistent and reliable tool is our pair of ears. Science obviously cannot help us here, because its premises will not allow as "real", what we, the "empiricists" if you like, are hearing and describing. To discount us all as selfdelusional would be just as simpleminded as to discount the vality of scientific thinking per se. It seems to me however, contrary to Jadem's opinion, an asset to our field , if someone is sceptical and questions, because audio abounds with snake oil peddlers, charlatans and wierdo theories. We are swamped with hype and clever sales talk and who can be really sure, that all that stuff will have no effect on what one "hears".
Lets face it, how can I be sure, that what I hear, is not only actually there but also really an attribute of the object under scrutiny. Not that this really bothers me as an audiophile. As such I am not after scientific truth, but after musical enjoyment. But if a person like Jostler would ask me, if I really were sure, that its the "sound" of this wire or that amp which I am hearing through my speakers, I would even in the best of cases have to admit to a residual doubt. Is there a way out of this fix? Perhaps in part: Through the years we audiophiles have developed a descriptive language, a terminology and lingua franca, which, with the most erudite amongst us, has achieved a high degree of differentiation in the description of what can be heard and under what circumstances. You may think of the mags what you like, but probably one has to admit that languagewise we all have been educated by the likes of Holt and Pearson. Now I may believe, that my Jadis stuff in my system, with all other things being equal, will sound such and such with this particular software and will form a descriptive set of that experience in my brain. If I chance on a post by say RCPrince, who also owns Jadis gear, describing some aspects of what he hears and I compare that to my findings and to those of my local peers with similar setups, I will not entirely lose my doubts about the objectivity of what I hear, but in time and listening to others, I will be able to form a fairly structured opinion of what Jadis gear can sound like. Of course that is not objectivity, only a possible approximation towards it, but with that I can live, like the most of us, quite comfortably. The "scientist" in me might be unhappy of course with that subjective tinge, which will always remain to all our describing, but I'll surely forget all about that, when I am drawn into the music.

Detlof, what you state, reminds me of certain aspects in clinical psychology: Metric personality tests are usually pretty scienceproof, but they tell you either something you already know anyway or will throw light only on isolated aspects of personality. If on the contrary you try the holistic approach in assessing a person and putting that into descriptive language, you are at once scientifically in deep water but often enough closer to the human reality of the person under test. You see, you are not alone in your dilemma.

Lots to respond to here, starting with JD: Distortion may not be "all it is," but the testing that's been done indicates that if amps are distinguishable, significant differences in distortion (or FR) will be measurable. No two amps, even of the same design, measure identically, but many of them will sound the same. Burn-in? What burn-in? If the amps are operating within their design parameters, the interconnect won't matter, assuming you're using the same interconnect on both, of course. As for objective listening tests, I haven't discussed what that entails at all, so your assertion that they're flawed is a tad presumptuous, don't you think?

To the more general point that I and others are "hiding behind science" in order to brush aside uncertainties, no one's hiding anything. Science is nothing more than the best available explanation of a phenomenon, based on everything known to date. A better explanation is always welcome. "But there must be something else" is not a better explanation.

jostler, while i don't disagree w/a lot of what ewe say, there's one glaring ommission from your point of view that ewe fail to acknowledge, and it's simply: yust cuz something can't be quantified w/our present state of technology does *not* mean that it doesn't exist.

sure, future advancements in science may prove some tweeks to be placebo-effect, but many will be finally able to be scientifically quantified. in the meantime, yust cuz they can't be quantified, it *doesn't* mean thay don't exist.

in the early stages of cd, there were similar pissing-contests about its sound - ie: "bits-is-bits", and if ya count the 1's & 0's correctly it will sound the same. but others heard different, it yust took 'em a while to discover jitter. jitter was mucking up the sound and people could hear it. this phenomenon existed before technology was able to finally discover what it was, & how it was working.

that's how science *works*. to believe otherwise, & to refuse to accept something that has yet to be *scientifically proven* is to *really* have yer head in the sand. so far in that perhaps only yer toes are sticking out? ;~)

so, w/some tweeks surely snake oil, designed to take our money & work only on the *placebo-effect*, while others really work & have valid - but as yet undiscovered - physical properties behind them, what's an audiophile to do? well, in my case, my ears work yust fine, thank you! :>)

regards, doug *beating a dead horse?* sedon

Doug, don't make me call the S.P.C.A. on you ! No wait, if it's dead I geuss it is o.k. sorry.