Radioshack wires.... - Page 7

Well if that is what factor was trying to say, perhaps he should have actually said it. What he actually said was promulgating the false notion that only dbt's are scientific. Depending upon the hypothesis being tested and the actual implementation of a single-blind or double-blind procedure, there is nothing inherently better about any type of experimental design the design is a function of the hypothesis to be tested.

No one is disallowing empirical verification. the point is that no experimental design, including dbt's ensures empirical verification. For example, if I could indeed detect a difference 100% of the time then it is also easy for me to make sure of a result of no siginificant difference because traditional hypothesis testing is set-up based upon controlling alpha, the type I error rate, not beta, the type II error rate. You then need to replicate the experiment with other listeners who may or may not alsso cheat.

My comments about other types of approaches to science is relevant because it is all too common on these and other forums to misrepresent anything other than a dbt as being unscientific. An observation can range from hearing a difference to measuring the a difference. Both are merely observations and both can be validly used in the context of a hypothesis test. You may put more credence in one versus the other or have other reasons to dismiss them, but neither is inherently more scientific than the other. Do not confuse the ability to measure something as the criteria for making a scientific test. The actual way something is measured has implications for the generalization of the hypothesis test (assuming that previous observations have led us to conclude that the type of measurement is valid for our hypothesis test).

I realize that most people only get exposed to the scientific method in general science courses, but do not assume that you are being taught the full range of how science actually operates in those courses. They are a simplification of the process, at best.

Oh. and BTW science actually proceeds by empirical falsification not empirical verification and if you don't realize that is much more than a semantic difference then yourscientific credibility is seriously in doubt.

Polite? Can a piece of audio equipment sound rude? I guess if you play some gangsta rap it can...

See ya
Steve

It was a 'polite' way of saying it has less PrAT.

I discerned a difference. The difference fit right alongside other's observations. What else needs to be said?

Look I'm a skeptic myself, and after this little observation above I became a half skeptic. Admittedly the differences are subtle, on the order of tube swapping to these ears. But the Grovers cost less than 5% of my entire system.

PrAT?

It's good to discern a difference. But it would help if you used terms that described what the difference was.

See ya
Steve

I did. It's a common term. PRaT = Pace, Rhythm, and Timing. Essentially if it lacks, the listening experience is less exciting. More 'polite'.

No wonder I didn't understand... You're talking about the music, not the reproduction of it.

See ya
Steve

No, once again this is my evaluation of comparing these cables. I found the experience of listening with the UR4 more exciting with the same music. PRaT may be an 'audiofool' term to some (I first heard it when a fellow musician used it to explain a band playing tight - strong rhythm section, guitarist playing in the pocket, vocalist on key) but it makes sense to me in quantifying what I hear in this case. Speed, more clarity, less congestion, decay, etc - it sounds tighter. Whether or not you like the way I attempt to convey this please appreciate that I do hear a distinct difference between two cables I became intimately familiar within a system I'm intimitately familiar playing music I'm intimately familiar with.

its as simple as putting your money where your mouth is.

buy a few sets of competing cables, give each a fair amount of time in your system and after all is said and done (if you still cant hear a difference) tell everyone else here how stupid we are for wasting our time...

then we'll let you know how sorry we feel for your broken ears.

the main argument being placebo is powerfull enough to make us hear differences in cables that actually dont exist, isnt it just as likely placebo could make you ignore differences that actually do exist? maybe youre skeptic haters by nature, dont confuse that thinking with objective science. in this case objectivity is ignoring all the trolling "scientists" on this forum and listening for yourself.

It may make sense to you, but it doesn't do a good job of describing what you are hearing to anyone else. "Excitement" comes from performance. Your musician friend used the term correctly to describe music making. Cables don't make the music... they carry a signal from one component to another. Cables don't change the rhythm in a song or make the tempo peppier. They don't add excitement or make you tap your foot and hum along. Those are all things you should credit to the performers, not the equipment.

If you want to describe recorded sound, describe recorded sound... talk about frequency response, dynamics, phase cancellation, transient smearing, clipping, signal to noise or harmonic distortion. Then I'll know what you're talking about. If you use glittering generalities like "excitement" or "pace" to describe sound, it may sound good to you, but you really aren't communicating anything concrete.

The reason people conclude that you are hearing a placebo effect is because you aren't describing what you hear in concrete terms. You're describing *feelings* not sounds. If you can describe what you hear well, then you can come up with a theory as to why it sounds that way and be able to test it to see if your theory is right.

See ya
Steve

PRaT is a commonly used term on this site when evaluating equipment. Do a search. I'm within the Head-fi lexicon bounds.

So you say there is no difference in 'excitement' between listening to a particular piece of music on an Ipod w/ Ipod buds vs. a full out system like an Orpheus. Is that your claim?

Phase cancellation, signal to noise... you listen to a system and talk to people in these terms? Really? Don't see people speak like this in the meet impressions section. Not in relation to an actual _listening_ experience.

I don't have a theory. I have an observation. An observation which gels with comments others made with a particular cable.

Yeah, that's because a lot of technophobic luddites will immediately go for the throat if you talk about anything remotely like SCIENCE! Honestly, talking about measurable differences makes me feel like an atheist in a particularly zealous, fringe church.

Happy news to report, courtesy of godaddy.com -

This domain name IS AVAILABLE:
SKEPTIC-FI.COM $8.95*/yr




FWIW Mr. Morphsci is a 49 yo geneticist. According to his profile - I mean I haven't tracked him down and followed to work to prove it.

Just my humble opinion, but PRaT is one of the worst audiophile terms because it's so vague. Everyone has a slightly different interpretation of what PRaT refers to. It's not like bright/dark, rolled off, etc., where it's pretty easy to tell what a person means.

I'm not sure I agree with you about your definition of "polite" either. Usually I interpret that as the opposite of "aggressive" (which usually implies somewhat forward upper mids/highs). I would have never thought to think of "polite" as the opposite of PRaT. The Stereophile audio glossary seems to agree with me here. (They define "polite" as "laid-back.")

PRaT is a term I have troubles with, too. It can be caused by so many different components and rather describes the feelings while listening than the perceived sonic characteristic. On the other hand I've experienced myself and still do how hard it is to describe the sonic characteristics in the case of cables: It's not just about dark and bright, smooth and rough, transparent and intransparent, etc. You're virtually doomed to typical «audiophile» terms if you want to portray exactly what you hear.

In any event, there's no need to respect criticisms who want to depreciate your opinion in the first instance and aren't really interested in the subject.
.

Bottom line (as many EE's will state), with all the REST of your equipment, i.e. amps, headphones, and sources, there are variations in the equipment that can be measured that directly correlate to the sonic signature of the equipment (I make no pretense here of what sounds better).

With cables, there is nothing really quantifiable (in the real sense of the word) that describes people's ongoing perception that there are big differences in cables. Frankly, it is a faith based argument.

If you take two pair of cables and measure the input signal and the output signals and compare, you will find no difference (its been done a THOUSAND times by various critics of the cable industry). None! If you ask any one of those high-end cable companies why they believe their cables are the best, they will ALL tell you its based on experience and what sounds good to them. You will NOT get any scientific reason of why their cables are different from anyone elses (they can't for legal reasons).

What I look for in a cable is quality construction, proper shielding, and high-end connectors. That's it. There are various cable makers (my fav is Moon Audio) that do an impeccable job of providing these services for reasonable prices.

Please don't get me started on power chords...