George,
If it is imaginary then calling it so can hardly be an insult. Audiophools exist of that there can be no doubt. The comment was addressed to that subsection of the community as a label and to no-one specifically.
The uncertainty principle states that you can only determine space, time and energy to within a combined limit given by the Planck constant. There is nothing in contradiction with my previous statement except that in its fullest sense the measurement the distribution collapses to can only be measured to within limited accuracy as dictated by the HUP. None of this has anything to do with the cable issue or statistical testing above the quantum scale - it is just hijacked to land an air of false authenticity using inappropriately applied legitimate science. Creationists routinely do the same. Your statement concerning the legitimacy of tests is then revealed to be illusory. Even if QM was at all relevant here (and it is not) then even at the quantum level testing would still work in probabilistic terms (and does). Again I point out to you that hearing the difference is itself a test and observation just to point out the untenable nature of your position. If it can be heard then by definition it can be tested. Tests can be constructed to remove the biases you have mentioned and to test the effects of certain parts of the test methodology. Ideally a number of different routines would be followed with the aim of reaching consensus. if differences occur these would be pursued until all of the relevant factors have been addressed and there is a single consistent body of work.
With regard to amplifiers - the wrong thing was being measured, or should I say an incomplete set of things. People now look at things like TIMD effects etc and design with that in mind realizing that other distortions other than THD exist. Measurement, theory and subjective testing were out of sync and continued research and testing has brought them into line. Thats the scientific process. There is no discrepancy of this type with regard to cables.
Sounds familiar - didn't we debate cables before?
Nick
If it is imaginary then calling it so can hardly be an insult. Audiophools exist of that there can be no doubt. The comment was addressed to that subsection of the community as a label and to no-one specifically.
The uncertainty principle states that you can only determine space, time and energy to within a combined limit given by the Planck constant. There is nothing in contradiction with my previous statement except that in its fullest sense the measurement the distribution collapses to can only be measured to within limited accuracy as dictated by the HUP. None of this has anything to do with the cable issue or statistical testing above the quantum scale - it is just hijacked to land an air of false authenticity using inappropriately applied legitimate science. Creationists routinely do the same. Your statement concerning the legitimacy of tests is then revealed to be illusory. Even if QM was at all relevant here (and it is not) then even at the quantum level testing would still work in probabilistic terms (and does). Again I point out to you that hearing the difference is itself a test and observation just to point out the untenable nature of your position. If it can be heard then by definition it can be tested. Tests can be constructed to remove the biases you have mentioned and to test the effects of certain parts of the test methodology. Ideally a number of different routines would be followed with the aim of reaching consensus. if differences occur these would be pursued until all of the relevant factors have been addressed and there is a single consistent body of work.
With regard to amplifiers - the wrong thing was being measured, or should I say an incomplete set of things. People now look at things like TIMD effects etc and design with that in mind realizing that other distortions other than THD exist. Measurement, theory and subjective testing were out of sync and continued research and testing has brought them into line. Thats the scientific process. There is no discrepancy of this type with regard to cables.
Sounds familiar - didn't we debate cables before?
Nick