21 posts12-21-2018 3:00amThere is a lot of confusion here between theories and evidence.
>>>There certainly is. But the confusion is not really between theories and evidence, it’s between proof
. There is also confusion regarding test results, whether they represent proof or evidence, between mathematical proof and scientific proof, and even confusion regarding what constitutes empirical evidence. There is also confusion regarding why a negative test result does not (rpt not) overturn a theory, which is often claimed for controversial audio devices.
Merely having a plausible explanation for some phenomenon does not mean it is a correct explanation of that phenomenon, e.g. a suggestion that good cables have less susceptibility to electrical fields around them. Such an explanation requires a measurement to show such reduced susceptibility of that specific cable.
>>>>>Actually measurement is not proof, it is only evidence of a theory. And lack of measurements does not disprove the theory. Listening tests are evidence, just like measurements, but not proof. Measurements can be deceiving, for example amplifiers with very low THD Total Harmonic Distortion can sound subjectively worse than amplifiers with much higher (orders of magnitude) THD. Another example: silver measures somewhat better conductivity than copper but can often sound worse subjectively than copper in audio applications.
Then you need some proof that this interference or reduced interference is what people are actually responding to as an improvement in sound quality, possibly by adding and subtracting such interference to audio signals and seeing what people report.
>>>>>As I said there can be no proof, only evidence. People are thus put in the often uncomfortable position of having to decide what’s going on by looking at the evidence and seeing if there is a preponderance of the evidence, there may or may not be. C’est la vie!