I don't dispute the facts. It is ironic that the Greeks were the first to understand the mathematics of sound (most of the language of sound is Greek - octave, tone, harmony, etc.), but they understood the natural world in qualitative terms. Aristotle would have made a great audiophile. Reducing sound to one number (SINAD) would have horrified him.
That reads as spin.
That is because Aristotle had no understanding of the nature of sound and the physics involved. He is a product of his time.
By that notion you must believe if I said wearing red socks makes my system sound warmer than blue ones. Right?
I suspect he did. The earliest known treatise on the mathematics of Harmony was written by one of his pupils, Aristoxenos, although their understanding probably predated that by at least 200 years.
No. "Harmony" is not sound reproduction. At best it relates to music and what the human perceives as "harmonious", whether visually or audibly. It is unrelated to mechanisms that produce sound. While they were great thinkers, philosophers tend to place too much emphasis on what the ancients knew or understood.
Jimmy Hughes came up with that sock theory years ago. I once mentioned it to him. He didn't laugh because he's a serious guy.
Agreed, as I said, dogma was referred to as a roadblock, for 2,000 years Plato was accepted dogmatically and astronomers sought to reconcile observations with Platonic theory, rather than questioning the theory. incidentally, Plato was wrong, planetary motion was not circular, it was elliptical. He was always wrong, the problem was the belief that he was right. Is ASR's use of Sinad as a unifying measurement dogmatic?
No, he wasn't "wrong". There is no right or wrong. His circular model was only a crude approximation and was the best one available until a better model was proven. Until someone can prove that there is a better model than SINAD, it is the one that we will use.
Sorry, but Plato's conclusion wasn't even bad science. Koestler describes it as as "process of metaphysical and a priori reasoning". But, because he was Plato, people spent 2,000 years trying to "square the circle", because the circle was really an ellipse. A square is not a crude approximation of a circle. SINAD is seen elsewhere as an aggregate statistic that might identify real stinkers, but that's as far as it goes. If the choice is between SINAD or nothing (or the What HiFi star rating), ASR goes for SINAD and almost everyone else goes for nothing. I suppose one or two people still read What HiFi.
The blame lies at the feet of those who follow blindly, not the one who makes the hypothesis. I never said SINAD was a "new" model but it remains the best one. BTW, a square is, indeed, a crude approximation for a circle mathematically. A triangle would be an even cruder one.
Philosophy proves power cords do not matter. Current requires a flow of electrons. But in order for electrons to flow from point A to point B they first need to travel half the distance. And then half of that remaining distance. And then half of THAT remaining distance. Rinse, lather and repeat as needed, but the electrons will never, ever be able to make it to point B because they have to keep traversing half the remaining distance first. So no current. And no operation of the audio gear. So the differences between power cords, philosophically speaking, do not matter as none will ever allow the devices to be powered.
Ahhhh... Now it all makes sense...lol. I've been wondering about that stuff!
Lol.
Sorry where is my answer? Does the color of sock change the sound or not?
Perhaps Danny can include a citation from the P man in his credentials/feedback?!
Well, with Popper you have erred earlier in your description of falsification criteria, for instance, so your understanding seems a bit idiosyncratic. Popper’s use of this criteria was partly designed to interrogate Freudian theory, for instance, where the internal consistency of subjective reports ruled out any ability to falsify the suppositions of Freud’s theory. As I hinted at earlier, there are critiques like Kuhn and Feyeraband as to the social and methodological assumptions of science, but none of this rules out that a given theory like macro-scale electromagnetism can be sufficiently reliable to provide a definitive answer to the likelihood that a power cable can affect the observable audio properties of a SOTA system. Rather than sprinkle pixie dust skepticism, you should make a positive claim about how the provided measurements are incorrect or incomplete.
Post-modern deconstruction of the French variety is the fear for me, being an Anglo-American analytic.
