Re: How so? What else would *I* have been refering too when *I* said state of mind?

It is non constructive to argue against truisms so I do not.
Yes, it would be nice, helpful (and advantageous) if people could have proof - scientific proof - irrefutable proof - for concepts or techniques they may wish to put forward. But, truisms are a discussion stopper. So, instead of arguing against truisms, I prefer to give examples so that these truisms can be placed in context. Life (and science) is not straightforward.

And, Analog Scott, it is like you demanding proof, proof, proof, scientific proof from Jean Hiraga (the editor of the French Hi Fi magazine) when over 25 years ago he stated that he could hear different cables sound different - thus starting the cable controversy - which is still raging today !! Or, 25 years on, demanding he keep quiet until he HAD that proof. And, even more arrogantly, asking him if he thought that the differences in the sound he was hearing MIGHT be in his mind !!!

Or, like you demanding that the person who wrote the (23 year old) article I quoted from recently regarding them 'hearing' directionality in wires should provide scientific proof or keep quiet until they HAD that proof. Or asking them if they thought that the differences in the sound they were hearing MIGHT be in their mind !!

Over 100 years ago the well known French chemist Louis Pasteur made his own wine and found that when he left wine bottles open to let the fermentation bubbles escape, his wine 'went off'. So Pasteur devised a contraption to fit over the tops of the wine bottles which allowed the fermentation bubbles to escape but did not allow the air to get in. After that, his wine was OK. From that experience Pasteur deduced that there must have been 'something in the air' (what he called 'vibrios') getting at his wine to make it 'go off'.!!

Presumably, if you had been around then, you would have insisted on proof, proof, scientific proof to back up Pasteur's concept that 'there is something in the air which is adverse to wine' before you would take any notice of what he was suggesting !! Presumably you would have demanded that until he HAD that proof, then he should keep quiet. And, even more arrogantly, you may have asked him if he thought that he MIGHT have imagined it all !! And, one gets the impression that you would never, never do any experiments for yourself (even though you might actually brew your own wine or beer) until irrefutable proof had been presented for such an outrageous suggestion that there might be 'something in the air'!!!

A 25 year span in history is not a long time span for concepts to be considered.

To quote from a book on Pasteur "While it took others so many years to understand Pasteur's work, Lister saw immediately that Pasteur could be right."

10 YEARS after Lister's first successful case was published in the British medical journal and after numerous other surgeons' successful cases using Lister's antiseptic techniques had also been published, the medical profession in the USA were STILL ANTI Lister !!!!!

>>> "since you are citing actual scientifically tested phenomenon" <<<

Please, Analog Scott, don't say that again. I can feel the early pioneers shouting and screaming from their graves when they remember all the attack and ridicule aimed at them (sometimes for decades) BEFORE any scientific tests confirmed what they had been suggesting !!

>>> "In the face of the fact that there is a mountain of evidence showing that bias effects do exactly the same thing you are claiming your tweeks do " <<<

Analog Scott, if there is such a MOUNTAIN of evidence that bias effects DO improve the sound - giving greater height, greater depth, greater width, better instrument separation, better soundstaging, imaging and resolution - then surely all the audio industry has to do is to manufacture basic, workable equipment and then SUGGEST that it will give greater height, greater depth, greater width, better instrument separation, better soundstaging, imaging and resolution - and bingo - if it is as easy as THAT, then there will be no need any more for equipment reviews, magazine articles etc advising people how to get the best sound !!!

How I wish, all those years ago, all we had to do concerning our daughter's impaired hearing problem was to give her a hearing aid and SUGGEST that it would 'sound good' !!!!

>>> "I have been following this stuff since the late eighties" <<<

If your 'claimed' understanding is the result of following our work since the late eighties, then there is really nothing more I can add. If others can 'grasp' it, then I fail to understand why you cannot !! Maybe, for other people, it is because our work (and results) confirm and reinforce, independently, their own (listening) experiences. THAT is, in effect, how much of science works !!

>>> "and you have never tested for bias effects to eliminate that as a possible cause." <<<

That is really quite arrogant on your part. The FIRST thing an intelligent person considers is "Is what changed the sound suggestion or imagination at work ?" The SECOND thing an engineer considers is "Is what changed the sound somehow affecting the audio signal ?". The THIRD thing an engineer considers is "Is what changed the sound somehow affecting the acoustic air pressure waves ?"
When the answer to all those three questions is NO - then what ? To say "It cannot happen, there is nothing in science to suggest it could have happened, therefore forget about it ?"

Or, do you do what such as Pasteur did - and that is to tell people what happened and let them experiment for themselves ?

>>> "and you have never tested for bias effects to eliminate that as a possible cause." <<<

Actually, Blind Trials HAVE been carried out - on 'treated' hearing aids - but then you claim to know all that already i.e >>> "I have been following this stuff since the late eighties" <<<

>>> "OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me." <<<

So, is that what you would have suggested to Pasteur ? To say to people "I have no idea why stopping the air getting to my wine solved the problem of my wine going 'off'."
Or, in your opinion, is Pasteur allowed to say "I think there is something 'in the air' which is causing problems for my wine" but Peter Belt is not allowed to say "I think there is something 'in the environment' which is causing problems for us (human beings)."

Regards,
May Belt.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.