Hit a nerve terry? It was not directed at you or anybody in particular.
Not in the slightest Jack, and I also did not for one second think it was directed at me, I knew it was a 'genera; observation' type thing. As it was a general thought not only could I see what you meant I also saw the 'fallacies' inherent in 'general observations'. They have the ring of truth when it stays within the bounds of general observations (folklore, grandmas wisdom type of stuff) but quickly fall apart when taken outside the restrictions they need to stay valid. It was your post with the concept which is why I quoted it, twas not directed towards you if you follow.
Indeed, it seems that you also agree with my points on the general observation..
No we do not go investigating every single claim and yes that is the job of the claimant. The burden of proof is his. Do note however that I said OBSERVATIONS. Those are very different from a claims.
You seem to be making an assumption on the next point however, that an observation (which could be true
or not) is
automatically true. A simple example, a group of philes are at a demo and the assistant holds up the python sized speaker cables and go behind the speakers. All report massive improvements, yet those cables were never put in the chain.
I am sure we all know that one (dunlavy)
So in this case, what would we call those reports? Observations? Well, no we cannot call them that because they were not true per your definition above. Then they must be a claim. How do we determine the difference between a claim and an observation? Measurements? A successful dbt? Dunno.
Since you and Keny seem to be having a go, lets use DACs as an example. Supposing we start seeing a significant number of observations out on the field about a certain DAC. In this case let's make it a negative one. Let's say the observation is that it sounds sharp. As the maker of the DAC you could say, the hell with you my baby is perfect. My test unit measures perfectly ergo yours should too. We know this would be foolish because it suffers from availability bias. He could say show me a measurement to prove it. The guy gives him a snapshot of an RTA that shows a peak at 2k. The DAC maker says it could be anything else in the chain. That is indeed a possibility after all. The customer says his old DAC didn't have the peak and shows him an RTA of that. The DAC maker demands more proof and asks that the measurements be taken at the outputs. At this point the customer says FU and demands a refund. Problem is, like the vast majority of consumers his customer doesn't have a measuring suite and all he's got is an app or a radioshack SPL meter.
Questions:
Would the inability to provide proof remove the possibility that the unit observed really might have caused the 2k peak? Like for example that quite a number of the units shipped out actually suffered from defects while the in house unit did not?
A claim is one thing. An observation is another. An observation will most likely be a qualitative and not quantitative one. The burden of proof shifts in this instance.
There is a lot in there! I fully get the point you are trying to make, just as I got your earlier one. But, seein as how you asked me basic courtesy demands I respond. My first point is that yes, I do fully get what you are trying to illustrate. Something akin to adverse reports with drugs? (no, things are never the same between analogies so don't take me to task on that) In any case, in order to make your point, which I fully get, it has to be a rather contrived example.
Firstly, esp when dealing with personal preferences, name an audiophile bit of gear, anyone I don't care which. Now, for every report that it is sharp I can find an opposing one where it is blunt...for every report that says it is warm I can find one that says it is cold and clinical. You get my meaning. In other words, ALL subjective reports are qualatative and we know they vary wildly. This is only to show the rather unreal world nature of the example as it is given.
The customer saying FU, I don't have to prove my observations is entirely appropriate, yet once again it is an entirely different situation than this discussion, where the claim IS that measurements do not tell all. In THIS case saying 'no, no need for meaurements' is not appropriate as it was with the customer. Two entirely different situations.
But yes, I guess it is possible that the test unit at the factory measures/sounds/is different that the one in the field. That would be broken tho wouldn't it? For me, maybe not others, it is far less likley that it is NOT broken but can sound (and measure, as in your example) so different;y because it simply has a different dac chip from the same batch.
Hope that clarifies and shows that indeed I did not have any nerve touched.
