New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Cable Factor - Page 13  

post #181 of 211
Ricky,
I apologize for wasting your time. It seems clear that you are not interested in expanding your field of knowledge. There's no point in restating what's already been articulated many times over, yet another time. So I will refrain from my “ranting.”

You say that because you read what someone else wrote, cables have no effect on sound.

I say that I used to believe that until my equipment reached a sufficient level of quality and I was actually able to hear differences in a 100% repeatable, consistent fashion.

You seem unwilling to explore my (and many other’s) observations and I am unwilling to submit to your ill conceived and invalid “test.” I guess we’re done.

You’ll save some money and I’ll enjoy much better sound. We each have what we need.

Cheers!
post #182 of 211
Since Ricky in his last post has officially renounced using his ears in favour of poring over equations, measurements and charts, I think we can now officially kick him from this AUDIO forum.

post #183 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Bloggs
Since Ricky in his last post has officially renounced using his ears in favour of poring over equations, measurements and charts, I think we can now officially kick him from this AUDIO forum.

Hey, just because *you* don't listen to your music by watching a scope doesn't mean others can't!! Jeez, why the sterotype that we all listen with our ears? Maybe some of us are just 'outside the box' so to speak!

post #184 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Bloggs
Since Ricky in his last post has officially renounced using his ears in favour of poring over equations, measurements and charts, I think we can now officially kick him from this AUDIO forum.
Never said such thing, as always, you have a partial, distorted and extremely simplified version of what I actually said.

I was discussing about technical issues in my previous posts, the "listening" experience was not the matter of the discussion, until suddenly the person I was discussiong with, decided to change the matter of the actual discussion.

I use my ears for listening to music. I can detect differences on different equipment just by sighted listening. But if those differences are subtle enough, I know my ears might not be accurate enough to really know if there are real sonic differences. In these cases, I have to use a more rigorous method to know if the differences are real or not, to make sure the if perceived differences are just due to the actual sound, or to other external factors.

Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
post #185 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky






But if those differences are subtle enough, I know my ears might not be accurate enough to really know if there are real sonic differences.

So then if you think you hear subtle differences but are not sure,
and on repeated listening you still percieve a difference.
Are those differences real?

At what point would you trust your perception to consider something real[a hell of a question that....]


What if you felt certain there is a difference but...you could not find one with the measuring instruments you have to hand?

And what if you quite liked the difference but found no measurements to back it?

hehe

setmenu
post #186 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Nezer

Again, my points above stand. Why would you want to convince me of something I already know?


I guess people who maintained that the earth was flat said the same things to the people trying to convince them it was round. The former, obviously knew it was flat, because they could see it, so it was stupid to say otherwise!

Quote:
It makes no sense. I've done my own tests in better-controleld circumstances and I have heard the differenc with my own ears.


It's obvious you don't really understand what "controlled" means.

Quote:

For all we know you simply took the same sample and did nothing to it except change maybe a few bits around so they will fail checksum tests.


Are you accusing me of lying? Are you saying I took the work to do all the test and just use faked files? I'm not that kind of person, as opposed to what you may think.

Quote:

I know of *no*scientific test like this where the test was for the benefit of the subject taking it. It's skewed all to hell and, well, a waste of everyones time, especially yours.


If you're wrong, it's not supposed to benefit you, of course. But if you pass the test, you could say you passed it, and have a undisputable proof of that my equipment is really ****ty, and of that I could be wrong. Until that, you have proof of nothing, just your words against mine.

Quote:

If you wish to remain skeptical, fine. But why do you have the need to prove to me something I know is false?


It is supposed to prove you are wrong, or I'm wrong, simply that. People who said the earth was flat were proved wrong, even when they *knew* it was flat.

Quote:

This is why I think your arrogant and and idiot. Had this test been so you could collect data and post the results of how many people could tell the differences, that would have some value. but this... Well, it's stupid and it's *very* arrogant of you to shove this down my throat. HOW DARE YOU!!


Because even if you don't like it, I think you're wrong, simply that. Not so complicated for your "clever" mind, uh? I thought it was pretty clear which was the purpose of the test.

Quote:

And I have to take issue with your statement that 'cheap' cable alters sound... *ALL* cables alter sound. *ANYTHING* the signal passes through colors the sound to some extent and this will be the case until superconducters are perfected and used in our gear.
Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. If you're so sure about what you're saying, you could prove it easily taking my test.

Remember, in my test I haven't compensated cable differences, simply because I didn't find any, so I didn't know how.
post #187 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by setmenu

So then if you think you hear subtle differences but are not sure,
and on repeated listening you still percieve a difference.
Are those differences real?
If I set up a controlled blind test so that I can make sure that the only thing that can have an effect on my perception is the actual sound coming to my ears, and then truly verify there is a difference, then the difference must be real, of course, just common sense.

Quote:
At what point would you trust your perception to consider something real[a hell of a question that....]
Explained.

Quote:
What if you felt certain there is a difference but...you could not find one with the measuring instruments you have to hand?

And what if you quite liked the difference but found no measurements to back it?
Again, just back to ranting. I could rant too and say whatever weird idea comes to my mind, but that would not be a solid argumentation, nor of course proof of anything.

Well, to answer your question, it hasn't happened ever, nor to me, nor to anybody I know of.

The opposite (measured differences that happen to be inaudible) has happened many times, and can easily be checked. My test, at the moment, just looks like that so far.

hu-hu
post #188 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky


I guess people who maintained that the earth was flat said the same things to the people trying to convince them it was round. The former, obviously knew it was flat, because they could see it, so it was stupid to say otherwise!

[/B]

It's obvious you don't really understand what "controlled" means.

[/B]

Are you accusing me of lying? Are you saying I took the work to do all the test and just use faked files? I'm not that kind of person, as opposed to what you may think.

[/B]

If you're wrong, it's not supposed to benefit you, of course. But if you pass the test, you could say you passed it, and have a undisputable proof of that my equipment is really ****ty, and of that I could be wrong. Until that, you have proof of nothing, just your words against mine.

[/B]

It is supposed to prove you are wrong, or I'm wrong, simply that. People who said the earth was flat were proved wrong, even when they *knew* it was flat.

[/B]

Because even if you don't like it, I think you're wrong, simply that. Not so complicated for your "clever" mind, uh? I thought it was pretty clear which was the purpose of the test.



Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. If you're so sure about what you're saying, you could prove it easily taking my test.

Remember, in my test I haven't compensated cable differences, simply because I didn't find any, so I didn't know how. [/B]
Sorry, not gonna bite today. Go troll-fish for someone else.
post #189 of 211
by Ricky
Quote:
So, I thought we were talking about physical measurable or describable effects, and now you forget those, and simply rely on you ears. That doesn't sound very scientific.
by kwkarth
Quote:
God gave you two ears and only one mouth. Start listening twice as much as you speak, you might learn something.
Ricky's reply
Quote:
Useless advice, I think you should re-read some of your engineering books instead of talking about weird, unexplainable, unmeasurable phenomena.
If all THAT isn't renouncing your hearing in favour of measurements, I don't know what is!

Talk about putting the cart in front of the horse. The end we want to achieve has only to do with our hearing, whereas measurements are only the means.

Not everybody on this board is familiar with the intricate engineering aspects of cables (but there are certainly people who are familiar with them) but we HAVE presented results of DBT tests where differences between cables could be reliably picked out. If you want more proof against your theory that all cables sound the same, perhaps you should ask MacDEF for more details about the equipment he used, methodology, etc. You DON'T need a scope to conclude whether cables sound different or not!

You must understand that there are many possible reasons why people don't want to take tests. 1. It's boring, 2. people don't agree with your methodology, and whether their complaints are valid or nots, it is going to detract from their willingness to take the test. 3. For me the main gripe is that I'm sure I'll be listening to music I've never heard, and this is going to take a heavy toll on my ability to discern differences, so even if I can't tell a difference, it doesn't mean anything.

By the way, when people say that they hear a difference between cables, they are always right, incontrovertibly right, because they are just making a statement about their subjective experience. Their experience when listening to one cable was different from another cable. Even if the cables are later found out to be exactly the same down to the last atom and the last 0.0000000000000000000001 dB, that doesn't change the fact that 'THEY HEARD A DIFFERENCE'. Whether the difference exists or not is completely irrelevant. And since people don't spend all their music listening time in a DBT, aftermarket cables WOULD HAVE THEIR PLACE EVEN IF THEY DO ALL OBJECTIVELY SOUND THE SAME, IF FOR SOME REASON PEOPLE FOUND SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM.

Go chew on that one.

And stop trying to prove that cables don't sound different. When people feel that they sound different to them, this is already incontrovertible proof that they sound different TO THEM. They just may not sound different to YOU. And whether you can MEASURE the difference, whether the difference even EXISTS out there, is completely irrelevant.
post #190 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Bloggs

By the way, when people say that they hear a difference between cables, they are always right, incontrovertibly right, because they are just making a statement about their subjective experience. Their experience when listening to one cable was different from another cable. Even if the cables are later found out to be exactly the same down to the last atom and the last 0.0000000000000000000001 dB, that doesn't change the fact that 'THEY HEARD A DIFFERENCE'. Whether the difference exists or not is completely irrelevant. And since people don't spend all their music listening time in a DBT, aftermarket cables WOULD HAVE THEIR PLACE EVEN IF THEY DO ALL OBJECTIVELY SOUND THE SAME, IF FOR SOME REASON PEOPLE FOUND SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM.

Go chew on that one.

And stop trying to prove that cables don't sound different. When people feel that they sound different to them, this is already incontrovertible proof that they sound different TO THEM. They just may not sound different to YOU. And whether you can MEASURE the difference, whether the difference even EXISTS out there, is completely irrelevant. [/B]
This is what I've been trying to say! Why take a test with so many unknowns to prove to myself something I already know?!?! You can't tell me I don't hear this. Regardless of the reasons, I *DO* hear a difference even if you don't!

This has been the only point I've been trying to make all along.
post #191 of 211
Ricky
So then after all that.......whats your favourite colour?


Setmenu
post #192 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by setmenu
Ricky
So then after all that.......whats your favourite colour?


Setmenu
Don't you know? All colors are the same.
post #193 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Nezer


Don't you know? All colors are the same.

Sounds like a bit of double blind testing would needed to prove
that eh?


Setmenu
post #194 of 211
Quote:
This is what I've been trying to say! Why take a test with so many unknowns to prove to myself something I already know?!?! You can't tell me I don't hear this. Regardless of the reasons, I *DO* hear a difference even if you don't!

This has been the only point I've been trying to make all along.
Well that's my philosophy classes paying off It's long been long that it's a complete B***H to try to determine what other people's subjective feelings are from the outside view of another person. Basically a lost cause

Now if Ricky is a philosopher, he might try to argue this point but
post #195 of 211
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked