|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: "...we have been fooling ourselves for years." posted by Monstrous Mike on June 17, 2003 at 21:33:05:
Mike:You said:
"Scientists and engineers only speak like this about things like Newton's Law of Gravity and Maxwell's Equations. So saying this about twisted pair cables is about as non-scientific as you can get. Unless, of course, I missed that article titled: "Risch's Twisted Law".
I think you just provided the perfect example of the opposite argument to your own. Newton's view of the universe was accepted as truth for several hundred years. It was the first part of my training in Physics.
But guess what? Newton was wrong! For example, his equations of motion are an approximation that works well at low speeds, not as you approach the speed of light.
As the total body of knowledge increased, others like Einstein modified Newton's work. Should the scientific community have ex-communicated these new guys because they dared to suggest that traditional thinking was flawed?
There are many examples over history of closed-minded people stating that "we already know everything" and denying that any new discoveries are relevant. I don't recall any of them being proven right....
Peter
Follow Ups:
You are elevating cable phsyics theory to be mathematical equivalent with the General Theory of Relativity?Do you seriously think someone with the mental acuteness of Einstein or Newton is going to come along and develop new theories that explain sonic differences in cables?
Maybe someday we will be saying Risch and Einstein in the same sentence. Thanks, you just made my day. LOL....
Einstein does not consider string theory, cosmic foam, alternate universes, quark-gluon plasma...Maxwell doesn't consider those either..As well as vacuum fluctuations, and other stuff..Eventually, both will be proven as partially correct, as was Newton..with what, who knows?
""As the total body of knowledge increased, others like Einstein modified Newton's work. Should the scientific community have ex-communicated these new guys because they dared to suggest that traditional thinking was flawed?""Peter
Funny you use the word ex-communicated...Seems the church used that tool in the past..
""There are many examples over history of closed-minded people stating that "we already know everything"""Peter
And as I believe, Mike is alluding to the fact that JR is indeed showing that behavior here...with respect to one particular cable type, twisted pairs..
I personally believe everything we know as right will eventually be embellished or modified..
Cheers, John
John:"And as I believe, Mike is alluding to the fact that JR is indeed showing that behavior here...with respect to one particular cable type, twisted pairs.."
That's not my read of Jon's posts at all. I don't hear him saying that the science is perfect and that there is nothing to discover.
Actually, I took exception to Mike's statements like:
"This statement is incorrect. There is a large body of work in the medical field that has determined the frequency range we can hear, the minimum SPL we can detect, the minimum change in SPL we can detect, the loudest sounds before damage is done, our sensitivity to harmonics, and the list goes on. We know the capabilities of the ear."
THIS sounds remarkably like declaring an end to an avenue of science, and setting up the premise that anyone who finds evidence to contradict the established wisdom is a heretic.
BTW, I used the religious connotation deliberately -- this sort of thinking smacks of dogma and belief, not open-minded exploration.
At least Einstein knew that he would eventually be proven wrong....
Peter
""That's not my read of Jon's posts at all. I don't hear him saying that the science is perfect and that there is nothing to discover""peter..Although I do not agree, I respect your opinion..You've been quite nice about it..
Jon's post:what Mike was talking about:
""In point of fact, it provides an improvement in nearly ALL cases, and is one of the few things that is about as universal as can be possible for audio cables.""JR
In this case, the traditional thought being "about as universal as can be possible", and Mike being the one to question that traditional thought..and being ostrasized for his beliefs..
""There is a large body of work in the medical field that has determined the frequency range we can hear, the minimum SPL we can detect, the minimum change in SPL we can detect, the loudest sounds before damage is done, our sensitivity to harmonics, and the list goes on. We know the capabilities of the ear."mm
I would tend to agree with him..however, what was not covered is how we interpret a soundstage binaurally..That is way open right now.. The tests Mike talks of have been beat to death.. But, notice that no distortion, either harmonic, or temporal, is in that list..
""BTW, I used the religious connotation deliberately -- this sort of thinking smacks of dogma and belief, not open-minded exploration.""peter
The people who believe cables sound differently must beware of falling into that trap as well..
""At least Einstein knew that he would eventually be proven wrong....""peter..
Yup
Cheers, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: