Quote:

prog rock man said:

Placebo needs to be discussed openly and without fear of being flamed. Do that and we have made a big stride towards working together.

Click to expand...

This.  x1,000.
 
You can't search for the truth if you don't even admit you might not already have it.  If someone puts 100% trust in their subjective impressions then there is no way to convince them that they might be wrong as long as they hold that beliefs and someone whose's mind can't be changed is not very useful in a discussion about where the truth lies.

The best I can do towards working together is what I have already been doing, which is reasearching and then posting evidence for further scrutiny.
 
At the moment I am sure I know why some people hear differences and others do not. The answer is best summed up as placebo whereby our other senses and influences affect the way we hear sound quality.
 
Now can subjectivists work with me to confirm as to whether that is or is not the case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I am sorry I can't contribute to the actual measuring as I have no equipment and limited knowledge on that subject.
 
That's a problem for many of us sadly thus we are limited to a small sampling of data points that could hardly be accepted in any comprehensive and universal manner.  This applies to both sides.
 
As for ego, I am afraid I see ego as more of an issue with the subjectivist side as they dismiss out of hand the possibility placebo is the answer to many questions as to why things sound different. Placebo needs to be discussed openly and without fear of being flamed. Do that and we have made a big stride towards working together.
 
I disagree.  It's a problem for both sides.  It's not a zero sum game and the existence of placebo does not negate the presence of audible differences either.  Placebo and expectation bias also works the other way against the 'objectivist'.  I see only (perceived) inaudible measured differences thus I hear no differences.  Notice how many said they used to hear differences till the measurements revealed to their mind to be none whatsoever.  Now they hear none.  Is this causality or correlation?  
 
The knife cuts both ways.

Click to expand...

Data is empirical but human interpretation of data is less so.  Here's a graph that was believed to indicate the relationship between the rise of polio in children and their increased consumption of ice cream during the summer.  Case closed?  Uh, no.
 

 

My position is based on the following evidence (referring to cables as I have researched such. I have not looked at opamps yet)
 
1 - sighted vs blind comparison vs ABX testing find consistent results, where sighted has the greatest differences, blind comparison find some differences which are not consistent with product image and price and blind finds hardly any if any difference at all. Conclusion, our other senses and not hearing have a major part to play in hearing differences in sound quality.
 
2 - cable makers come out with lots of measurements which show cables are different. But they cannot link construction and measurement to sound quality. They make claims over construction that are contrary to one another. Conclusion, there is nothing inherant in a cable that can affect sound quality.
 
3 - the differences found when measuring cables are shown to be inaudible by signal testing. Conclusion, again cables make no difference to sound quality
 
4 - that I have heard differences in the past that I do not now does suggest that reverse palcebo has happened. But it is reverse placebo in that placebo causes the sound quality difference in the first place, so to remove it means I am back to the reality of cables, which is they make no inherant difference.
 
That is where we stand with available evidence at the moment. If evidence appears of passed ABX tests, a link from cable construction to sound quality, clearly audible differences between cables, I will change my position.
 
Is the case closed, no. But there is a corrobration of the evidence from different sources with regards to cables that is clearly lacking with the polio and ice cream example.
 
 

Quote:

anaxilus said:

Data is empirical but human interpretation of data is less so.  Here's a graph that was believed to indicate the relationship between the rise of polio in children and their increased consumption of ice cream during the summer.  Case closed?  Uh, no.

Click to expand...

I'm left speechless by the utter inanity.  Do I really have to elaborate here, or are you just trolling?

Quote:

maverickronin said:

I'm left speechless by the utter inanity.  Do I really have to elaborate here, or are you just trolling?

Click to expand...

Apparently not quite speechless.  Please elaborate on my inanity.  It wouldn't be the first time.  Do make sure you are understanding my illustration before you turn it into an equivocation.  I'm waiting with baited breath.
 

Anaxilus, with that graph and your comments you are treating us like clueless children. We know about correlation, corroboration etc, so lets move on and see your evidence.

Quote:

anaxilus said:

Apparently not quite speechless.  Please elaborate on my inanity.  It wouldn't be the first time.  Do make sure you are understanding my illustration before you turn it into an equivocation.  I'm waiting with baited breath.

Click to expand...

Well, as far as I can tell you're saying that because correlation does not imply causation, measurements and blind listening test aren't useful.
 
Please confirm that or state your actual position more clearly.

Quote:

prog rock man said:

Anaxilus, with that graph and your comments you are treating us like clueless children. We know about correlation, corroboration etc, so lets move on and see your evidence.

Click to expand...

You can feel that way but if I may say the 'objectivist' presentation and commentary is equally offensive even though I'm sure that isn't your intent nor was it mine.  I guess ego favors no particular side after all.  With all due respect I do see a lack of critical analysis in some of the data and conclusions being offered so forgive me if you feel my comments are beneath you. 
 
So we've gone from 'why do opamps sound different' to measured differences in opamps are inaudible to I need to provide you with evidence I can hear differences in my gear.  Odd, since I made no claim here but you want me to provide evidence.  Expectation bias?  I'd love to accommodate you if I had the resources and time but obviously such an experiment would be so limited in scope I wouldn't be inclined to claim some sort of universal dogma in the way many here have already w/ their data points.  Plus it would be subject to all sorts accusations of potential 'errors' of methodology and psychology.  
 
Maverick says he doesn't hear a difference between opamps in his XM6.  I hear differences between the opamps (AD8610, OPA627, OPA209) in my UHA6S.  I can even describe their character to you as well but alas that is all I can do for you.  Being that's all I can do, feel free to call it placebo or imaginary while I take my leave of this thread before anyone else gets offended by my unwarranted, overly critical analysis.
 
 
 

Quote:

maverickronin said:

Well, as far as I can tell you're saying that because correlation does not imply causation, measurements and blind listening test aren't useful.
 
Please confirm that or state your actual position more clearly.

Click to expand...

Wow.  It amazes me how people extrapolate.  I can't even begin to fathom how you got that from what I wrote.  
 
I'll stand by my opinion that there is too much ego involved on both sides here and people seem too predisposed to seek simple universal explanations to the unexplained.   I only sought to be more vocal per Kevin's request but I don't think we are going to get anywhere.  I don't think it's worth the headache.
 
Everyone just listen for yourself w/ your gear and make up your own minds.  Just be wary if you are hearing what you believe or not.  In the end it's about your ears and wallet, not someelse's.
 
Peace out.  
 

I promise you there has been no lack of critical analysis on my part. I needed a lot of convincing that cables do not work as claimed because the vast majority of audiophiles, who are not exactly daft say that they do sound different and the cable companies provide convincing (but I see now flawed) reasons as to how that is.
 
As I have said before in this and other threads, is that audible or not? I look for corroboration of all evidence before I take it further.
 
I wish you would move on from the 'evidence I can hear a difference'. I have even resurrected the USB thread pointing out that we should ask why you hear a difference and not doubt that you and thousands of others do. (See my new signature) It is significant that Maverickronin does not hear a difference as well. Why is that?
 
This is why I feel as kwkarth asks, I can show that I am prepared to work together to find an answer to the various questions about cables, opamps etc.
 
EDIT - your argument that is not worthwhile as ego gets in the way means yes, you probably should peace out.

One way to start working together is for both sides to each come up with a list of conditions that if met, would cause them to change their position. In other words, if my own position is not falsifiable, then I should not expect others to accept it. This may not necessarily provide any new information about either side, but I think when it is framed in a "this is how you can prove me wrong" manner, egos are less likely to get in the way.
 

 

Quote:

prog rock man said:

 
EDIT - your argument that is not worthwhile as ego gets in the way means yes, you probably should peace out.

Click to expand...

Now see, you just can't help making a personal dig can you.  Reported.  Unsubscribed.  
 
Edit - I also don't appreciate you misquoting me or putting words in my mouth, for the second time I might add.  I dare you to prove I ever said I do not believe in or discount Placebo.  One would think you would have had a better grasp of my position from the burn-in and epistemology threads but no.  It is clear you are not a very good listener which is why it is futile to even have a discussion with you.  You shift topics, label straw men and fail to understand or appreciate opposing view points.  It takes more to be open minded than just saying you are.  That is why it is best to let you continue your cable debate here in the opamp thread w/ the phantoms you have created in your own mind.  I have no interest in engaging holy crusaders who demonize those who disagree w/ them but if you continue to engage me personally and misrepresent me I will defend myself against false characterizations.

Quote:

prog rock man said:

For the record, people do hear differences, I do not dispute that, I only ask why. One of the possible answers to why is indeed biases, user expectation, placebo, whatever you want to call it. But there are other possibilities, primarily an undiscovered electrical property that only works with some people some of the time.

Click to expand...

One possible difference that's rarely mentioned is the amount of overshoot. This might be noticeable and is mentioned only in few specifications. (e.g. OPA134) It's frequency dependent too. Partially tied with oscillation in that bypassing the opamp with a capacitor decreases the overshoot and increases slew rate.
Another possibility is the energy distribution among the harmonics, not just the total amount.
Perhaps the ear is more sensitive to those than miniscule differences in THD+N? This would have to be validated in a double-blind trial...
 
Edit: Would love to see some papers on this phenomenon if there are any - I can't find them.