Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › To the cable non-believers...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

To the cable non-believers... - Page 10

post #136 of 149
Monoprice cables ftw! Also, I know we're all audiophiles here and most of us are willing to spend more than the market value to achieve that sound we are looking for. But seriously, 100-200+USD cables and sometimes even more? Even if there is a repeatable distinction of difference in audio quality from high-end cables, I would rather spend that money tweaking either the headphones, amp and/or dac (which I believe would produce more sound difference and offer a higher potential of increased audio quality) than just buying high quality strands of metal in a nifty package/shielding.

Friends call us crazy but when another audiophile starts calling you crazy... Not to mention, a lot of us will agree that high priced audio gears does not necessarily translate to us preferring it more since our musical taste are very subjective. That's just my two cents and if some people can sleep better at night having those expensive cables in their system then so be it. One of the things I like about this hobby is you need not to justify your rig other than to yourself
post #137 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
Well for DBT testers to state "Cables don't make a difference" is not a conclusion that you can make. It goes beyond the boundaries of what you can conclude.
I agree with this statement, but I can't help but feel as if this is an issue with the wording of the claim rather than the substance of it - if I were to modify the claim to "It's highly unlikely that cables make a difference" or "it's very likely that cables do not yield audible differences" would you be ok with that? I don't think making those claims goes beyond the boundaries of what you can conclude thanks to the statistical sciences, and when people claim that "cables don't make a difference," I think most people mean "it's highly unlikely that cables make an audible difference."

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
Since DBTs are limited to the individual person that's taking part in it, then you can only conclude, "Person A cannot distinguish between these cables." As the OP stated, his uncle could distinguish between 6, so the ability is out there and a DBT for him would state "My Uncle can distinguish between these cables" But notice that this can only lead to the conclusion "DBT on cables show that cables do make a difference" in so far as the other DBT testers can conclude "DBT on cables show that cables do not make a difference."
This is only true for tests that only have one subject, but there are several tests out there that have tests with larger bodies of people. I don't remember the specific sampling methodology, and if you PM me I can quote the portion of the study I'm referring to, but there was at least one study that had a large sample size of mainly audiophiles, which does allow the study to generalize (to some degree of probability) the sample to a larger population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
People keep pushing for DBTs because they think it works, and a scientific , REAL scientific falsification is one that is not questionable. Think of the falsification of einstein's theory of general relativity. In Eddington's 1919 experiment, einstein's theory predicted the EXACT amount of bending in light. It was a test that would either make or break einstein's theories, should he fail, then he failed, no saving grace no complaints. Should he succeed, well I think we can all figure out what happened there. DBT's if truly conclusive as a test for cables, should not lead to so many additional comments as "oh this was a placebo, no this was not the right environment" and so on and so fourth. A true scientific test is a definitive one not one that you can continue to question. And I don't think that's too radical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
And the issue I would raise is that people are drawing conclusions that far exceed what they are in fact testing with DBT's. And I would disagree, that you should stop testing, not to stop entirely, but to change your methodology. Here's the thing, since people haven't seen anything wrong with DBT's they continue to push for it, over and over again because it is coming up with a favorable result for their side. So maybe take a step back, re-examine what it is that you're looking for and redesign your methodology. You don't really expand your understanding if you keep doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result -last time I checked that was the definition of insanity or was it lunacy? Either way do something different, dbt's can't be that scientifically conclusive if people are still debating (thats not a real argument but I hope it comes across more of a superficial recognition of a problem).
You have a valid point, but I wonder how applicable it is to the debate at hand. For one, claiming that we should doubt test methodologies solely because "something" could be wrong with them is not a useful way to conduct research - using your example, if scientists pre-Einstein claimed "well there could be something wrong with Newton's theory, so we should hold out against Newtonian physics because something better might come along," they would probably be right, but were terrible scientists. Imagine all of the useful advances we made with Newtonian physics - we (as the human species) have done great, useful work, creating new technology and scientific discoveries, on what is at its roots an incorrect theory of physics.

Now, this also isn't to say that we should just blindly accept Newton's theories as right and never work to falsify them. Rather, we should look to specific critiques of the methodology, and tweak them appropriately, if and only if that critique of the methodology is falsifiable and demonstrable. A great example of this came up awhile back - someone suggested that DBTs as currently conducted may be flawed because quick-switching cannot reveal differences as well as casual, laid back listening. I then posted a link to an article that tested the criticism, and it turns out that quick-switching is, indeed, more accurate than casual relaxed long-term listening at spotting differences. This was a productive critique because it was specific, falsifiable, and demonstrable. Claiming, conversely, that "we must keep changing our methodology" without specifically claiming what we need to change about it, why we should change it, and (most importantly) demonstrating empirically how the methodology is flawed, is not very constructive.

Finally, as for your claim that "dbt's can't be that scientifically conclusive if people are still debating," I know it's not a real argument but I don't think it's even a superficial recognition of a problem.

The Flat Earth Society

This forum is chock full of people who come up with critique after critique of how the earth is flat, and not round as we think it is. This isn't just one troll - this is a forum full of people who are probably trolls, but I really wouldn't be that surprised if some people actually believe in this.

Now, to make myself absolutely clear: I do not think that cable believers are equatable to flat earth believers. My previous statements do not imply this in any way. My previous statements, however, do challenge the claim that if people are debating about something, that there actually is something wrong. I'm not saying that nothing is wrong with current test methodologies, just that if people are debating one side or the other, this does not even suggest that there actually is something wrong with it, just that, well, people are debating about it. Rather, the focus should be on the merit of the claims made by the people debating. There's probably no merit to the claims of the flat earth society. That doesn't mean that there's no merit to the claims of cable believers either, it just means that we have to actually discuss the merits of each objection rather than just assuming that those objections have merit without analysis.
post #138 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
The faux legal terminology is due the fact that SWMBO and I have been enjoying Series One of Rumpole of The Bailey on DVD at home lately
I used to love that show, but haven't seen it in a long time. Anyway, now that I know you're a Rumpole fan, that explains a lot.
post #139 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS View Post
I used to love that show, but haven't seen it in a long time
Netflix is your friend
post #140 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcrown View Post
You have a valid point, but I wonder how applicable it is to the debate at hand. For one, claiming that we should doubt test methodologies solely because "something" could be wrong with them is not a useful way to conduct research...
You can't possibly be serious.

The many "something"s have been pointed out time and time again by very knowledgable people in this forum. I hope it's that you're unaware of this and not that you're being intentionally obtuse.
post #141 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi View Post
You can't possibly be serious.

The many "something"s have been pointed out time and time again by very knowledgable people in this forum. I hope it's that you're unaware of this and not that you're being intentionally obtuse.
Right, those specific examples are what are constructive, not vague and undefined deficiencies of blind tests. If someone has a problem with quick-switching, or the pressure of testing, or pooling of results, etc, those are all valid objections, but that's far different from vaguely saying that we always need to change the methodology of the experiment.
post #142 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcrown View Post
Right, those specific examples are what are constructive, not vague and undefined deficiencies of blind tests. If someone has a problem with quick-switching, or the pressure of testing, or pooling of results, etc, those are all valid objections, but that's far different from vaguely saying that we always need to change the methodology of the experiment.
I doubt many would disagree with you there. Would you agree that a different methodology is needed in this case?
post #143 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi View Post
I doubt many would disagree with you there. Would you agree that a different methodology is needed in this case?
I think it depends on the criticism. There are some objections that I am convinced exist, such as pooling of test subjects (something I didn't understand fully for awhile but understand now after learning more about the topic), and some that are raised often but I don't think have any substantiation, like quick-switching (since quick-switching is utilized in codec testing and has been shown in that arena to have extremely high sensitivity, as well as empirical evidence that quick-switching is more effective than relaxed, home-listening when spotting differences between components). I suppose everyone weighs objections differently, but I am more convinced by objections that are falsifiable and demonstrable rather than ones that are speculative, and I've seen both types as well as a range in between.
post #144 of 149
Thread Starter 
Really sorry to bump this dead thread, but just so everyone knows, I asked my uncle, and he said the main way he (thinks) he heard a difference was that he knew the gauges of each cable, and so he listened for the differences there.
post #145 of 149
??
post #146 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavoman View Post
Off topic.

Erik -- Medieval philosophers understood that angels must have 0 mass. Why? Simple logic: since every person who dies is replaced by an angel, and the angles live among us for eternity, we would soon run out of room, hence 0 mass. Thus an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin, since the head of a pin has a measurable area -- they all knew that. This is not the queston they asked (although it is -- incorrectly -- what we all say today. It is a mis-translation of Latin).

But the point of a pin is someting different -- it has 0 area. It all comes together at the point -- hence 0 area. Now we have a tough question: how many entities of 0 mass can fit (or dance) in a place of 0 area.

We say "how many angels can dance ..." to dismiss arguments as silly and time wasting. But asking how many 0-mass things can fit in 0-area is neither silly nor time wasting. It is about infinity and infintesimals -- these philosophers were smart.

The answer leads to L'Hospital's rule on the ratio of limits, how to give meaning to 0/0, etc. A fundamental problem of calculus. And I do believe that L'Hospital preceeded Newton and the other inventors of calculus with his logic.
No. Newton first published the calculus works in 1693, and L'hospital published his rule (which was arguably at least co-created, if not totally derived, by Bernoulli) in 1696, three years later. In fact, his rule involves derivatives, and this could not possibly have been around before calculus. And his rule does not "give meaning" to 0/0, it gives a way to easily (it was do-able before he made the rule) give meaning to the limit of the quotient of two quantities that seemed to converge upon 0/0 or infinity/infinity, using rates of change (i.e. derivatives). Just thought I would interject some actual fact into one of the earlier posts in this thread. Fake science or, more applicably, explanations by people who have no idea what they are talking about annoy me to no end.

On a totally related note, I would be curious to know how the gauges effected the sound. If you could ask for his opinion, I would be interested.

-Nkk
post #147 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkk View Post
On a totally related note, I would be curious to know how the gauges effected the sound. If you could ask for his opinion, I would be interested.

-Nkk
A big difference in a gauge might create a noticeable difference in signal loss but it would have to be a *really* big difference in gauge assuming the same materials and topology.

The only similar example I can think of was a test using the un-eq'ed output of a phono cartridge and 6m rca cable vs 1m rca cable in this case the signal is so small i..e a few mV that the extra length might just make a difference.
post #148 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyrokid View Post
between some.
But not near as much difference as my uncle heard. He has super trained ears.
No.. He is just familiar to the sound.. I believe cables CAN influence the sound. I'm borderline about believing in cables. I want to believe! But logic gets in the way, & tells me cables don't.. So I'm stuck in a quagmire.
post #149 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadrangulum View Post
I don't believe in cables at all (based on my own, however brief, experiences) but reports like this intrigue me and make me want to do more investigation in my own system.
Save yourself the money, & try ultra hi end cables at meets..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › To the cable non-believers...