• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

GR Research B24 AC Cable Review: Does it Make an Audible Difference?

charbong

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2022
Messages
78
Likes
53
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.

You aren't addressing the point that was made, you are only disparaging it.
 

ExUnoPlura

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
32
Likes
39
You aren't addressing the point that was made, you are only disparaging it.
False. If we round up the collection of sentiments it is something to the effect that science is changing and sometimes wrong. I have described that position as historically correct but too expansive when applied to specific theories (and also incorrect in many of the details). More, I have provided a challenge for the philosophically inclined to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of any specific measurement and how it relates to some specific weakness of the theories in focus: electromagnetism, signal processing, perceptual psychology, etc. I’m addressing the points but I just don’t think they are valuable!
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
39,501
Likes
180,026
Location
Seattle Area
False. If we round up the collection of sentiments it is something to the effect that science is changing and sometimes wrong.
There is no one science. Here we are only concerned with audio science. Do you papers indicating science of cables for audio is changing?
 

ExUnoPlura

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
32
Likes
39
There is no one science. Here we are only concerned with audio science. Do you papers indicating science of cables for audio is changing?

I think you misunderstood my comment. I was responding to the claim that science (yes, many of them) might be wrong and challenging those who asserted such to prove it by, for instance, producing papers per your assertion. So I am in alignment with you.
 

charbong

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2022
Messages
78
Likes
53
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.

Earnest question: can anyone prove that current measurements exhaustively represent all aspects of sound that affect our hearing? That is the crux of the matter, isn't it?

[I think it is just as incumbent upon those making claims of greater sound with certain cables also to prove it].

If you had to convince someone that measurements exhaustively represent all aspects of sound that affect our hearing and that there will never be a new understanding of sound which will avail us of enhancements to existing measurements or new measurements altogether, what would you say?

If you could, please do not refer to ADCs/DACs in your answer. That process is defined by its measurements, much like a computer copied image consisting of a set of ones and zeros exactly like the original.
 
Last edited:

ExUnoPlura

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
32
Likes
39
Earnest question: can anyone prove that current measurements exhaustively represent all aspects of sound that affect our hearing? That is the crux of the matter, isn't it?

[I think it is just as incumbent upon those making claims of greater sound with certain cables also to prove it].

If you had to convince someone that measurements exhaustively represent all aspects of sound that affect our hearing and that there will never be a new understanding of sound which will avail us of enhancements to existing measurements or new measurements altogether, what would you say?

If you could, please do not refer to ADCs/DACs in your answer. That process is defined by its measurements, much like a computer copied image consisting of a set of ones and zeros exactly like the original.
I think this is misplaced. It’s logical positivism all over again. Can we prove all swans are white? Can Russell’s teapot be disproven? The best we can say is that to the best of our understanding it is highly unlikely.
 

charbong

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2022
Messages
78
Likes
53
The best we can say is that to the best of our understanding it is highly unlikely.

I agree, and don't believe anyone here would disagree with this. What some people here would disagree with is going further than this.
 

ExUnoPlura

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
32
Likes
39
I agree, and don't believe anyone here would disagree with this. What some people here would disagree with is going further than this.
And my other points are that it is irrational to think further than this. One can speculate, but it is just dreamy skepticism. To be clear, there is no rational method to rule out all possibilities.
 

charbong

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2022
Messages
78
Likes
53
And my other points are that it is irrational to think further than this. One can speculate, but it is just dreamy skepticism. To be clear, there is no rational method to rule out all possibilities.

Very refreshing views.
 

ExUnoPlura

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
32
Likes
39
Very refreshing views.
I’m honestly not being refreshing. This is the gist of logical positivism and the entire intellectual history of Western philosophy. Inductive truth < deductive truth and limited in what we can rationally know. But I emphasize again that there is an opportunity to prove scientific models are wrong but it requires you actually do so. Speculating that mysterious unknowables govern cable audio behavior is not of the same intellectual valence as actually creating a new theory and proving it is true.
 

charbong

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2022
Messages
78
Likes
53
I’m honestly not being refreshing. This is the gist of logical positivism and the entire intellectual history of Western philosophy. Inductive truth < deductive truth and limited in what we can rationally know. But I emphasize again that there is an opportunity to prove scientific models are wrong but it requires you actually do so. Speculating that mysterious unknowables govern cable audio behavior is not of the same intellectual valence as actually creating a new theory and proving it is true.

I used the wrong word. I didn't mean that your views are refreshing, actually, what I was referring to is your intellectual honesty.
 
Last edited:

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
1,972
Likes
2,290
I think this is misplaced. It’s logical positivism all over again. Can we prove all swans are white? Can Russell’s teapot be disproven? The best we can say is that to the best of our understanding it is highly unlikely.
I agree, and don't believe anyone here would disagree with this. What some people here would disagree with is going further than this.
Do you have an example to share of someone going ‘further than this’, wrt audio science, here on ASR?
 

charbong

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2022
Messages
78
Likes
53
Do you have an example to share of someone going ‘further than this’, wrt audio science, here on ASR?

Just search for the word "idiot" and you'll find many examples. The implications are certainly everywhere to be found from what I can tell.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
1,972
Likes
2,290
I searched and I found your post above. What do you really mean?
 

beagleman

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
784
Likes
974
So, using philosophy and logic, just HOW many guys does it take to TOTALLY ruin a thread with nonsense??

I count Three!!

Prove that wrong.
 

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
2,331
Likes
3,299
I just perused the youtube comments under the review. Wow...a lot of them could have been written by a predictive "Golden Ears" algorithm!
Man, that comment section is wild.
 
Top Bottom