Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Cable Science
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cable Science - Page 6

post #76 of 122

You are seriously suggesting human observation is unquestionable from a scientific viewpoint? Talk about distorting stuff...

post #77 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willakan View Post

You are seriously suggesting human observation is unquestionable from a scientific viewpoint? Talk about distorting stuff...


there are multiple things in observation, ranging from the characteristics of the observation and their existence. as I have stated, nothing prevents you from questioning the characteristics of the observation, such as determining the cause of the optical illusion or the cause of hallucinations. But as stated science cannot question the existence of an observation itself. If you do not agree to that then as I have asked, please present a scientific method (if one should exist) that allows an individual to question the observations made that lead to the hypothesis formed and subsequently tested (notice that the method presented earlier today allows only testing of the hypothesis not the initial observations made that lead to the hypothesis).

 

I think I've been fairly clear on this point. if not, as you can see, I am willing to elaborate for it is a subtle point.

 

post #78 of 122

So $999999 cables are not worth it? My wallet gives its thanks biggrin.gif

post #79 of 122


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
there are multiple things in observation, ranging from the characteristics of the observation and their existence. as I have stated, nothing prevents you from questioning the characteristics of the observation, such as determining the cause of the optical illusion or the cause of hallucinations. But as stated science cannot question the existence of an observation itself. If you do not agree to that then as I have asked, please present a scientific method (if one should exist) that allows an individual to question the observations made that lead to the hypothesis formed and subsequently tested (notice that the method presented earlier today allows only testing of the hypothesis not the initial observations made that lead to the hypothesis).

 

I think I've been fairly clear on this point. if not, as you can see, I am willing to elaborate for it is a subtle point.

 

I don't question that people hear differences in cables which appear to be genuine. However, I question that it is possible to formulate a testable hypothesis from these observations which relates to the physical properties of the cables, as the observations are inconsistent.
 

 

post #80 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willakan View Post


 

I don't question that people hear differences in cables which appear to be genuine. However, I question that it is possible to formulate a testable hypothesis from these observations which relates to the physical properties of the cables, as the observations are inconsistent.
 

 

 

I agree with both your points. And ultimately the point I am trying to make is that if there are arguers for or against cables and the question of the existence of what individuals have heard (as you state the observations are inconsistent and all of these testers are really trying to get a consistent observation and pinpoint it to a cause), then they cannot base their arguments or proof of the existence or nonexistence of such a perception on science -no matter how perfect the experiment. It is outside the realm of science to prove/disprove the existence of an observation. And I think this levels the playing field because every month or so, if you check the "sound science" forums. People always bring up these tests and say "scientifically" you don't hear anything. And that's just not the case. And while I am glad to see that more and more people are accepting placebos as a possibility, I feel that it is a small step (a concession really) considering the status of placebos in the general knowledge base we have. It seems that the word placebo has become a term to describe "Crap that science cannot explain, and will try to explain.... later but we'll be happy to call it something now so it won't bother us." 

 

 

 

post #81 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post



 

Very Nice and I do like the Chart, reminds me of my Highschool books. But I think the chart is missing something... Observing. Isn't that the first part?

 

The conclusion certainly leads to differences in the mind and actually the result you came up with is interesting. Has anyone ever observed audiophiles getting worse than chance? They are soo bad at determining the difference between a high end cable and a normal cable that it is not statistically close to flipping a coin? 

 

..........
 

 


All sorts of results here

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

 

from hardly any correct to most correct, but all are within random range and nothing suggests anythign other than average overall.

 

post #82 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


I'm gonna use this chart because I think it's pretty:

 

overview_scientific_method2.gif

 

Ask Question: Do cables make an audible difference?

 

Do Background Research: Cable makers believe they do, and audiophiles notice differences as well ranging from increased bass to treble extension. However, what we know of electricity suggests there won't be differences.

 

Construct Hypothesis: Cables make an audible difference.

 

Test with an Experiment: Measure a number of cables' frequency responses against a control, and null the results to find the differences.

 

Hypothesis is False or Partially True: There are small differences, but beyond audible limits.

 

Construct Hypothesis: If cables do not make an audible difference, then audiophiles will not be able to reliably distinguish between them in an ABX test.

 

Test with an Experiment: Set up ABX tests with multiple cables of varying prices and materials, and a selection of audiophiles willing to participate.

 

Hypothesis is True: Audiophiles do not score better than chance when ABXing cables. This suggests the differences are in the mind.

 

^^^ That's what's been done so far. What do you suggest we test next?

 

And can I just add that comparing cables in any way to Einstein's Relativity is silly.




Best post ever in a cable thread beerchug.gif. Could any cable believers come up with an experiment to show how cables inherantly make a sound quality difference?


Edited by Prog Rock Man - 8/6/11 at 9:50am
post #83 of 122
Lots of activity since I last saw the thread, the only thing I'd add to Head Injury's lovely chart is a little balloon above it titled "The World as We Know It" with an arrow pointing to the "Ask Question" bubble, because that's where the questions come from.

What is this fixation on the notion of truth? No one that I ever worked with or studied under ever thought that the work was about the or a truth, it was about the best understanding possible at this moment in time. And yes, data are highly interpreted, how can they not be? There's no way that explanations simply leap out of collected data. Are the interpretations accurate or not? That's the important point.
Quote:
The theories of General and special relativity (more on general relativity than special) was "based" on the work of mathematicians and scientists before Einstein BUT his theories did not develop from them directly. The theory of General Relativity was constructed by knowing a head of time what a solution needs to looks like. If you are a scientist and accustomed to solving Differential equations, you should know that there are various ways of solving differential equations, but there are no rigid analytical methods (meaning you can just plug and chug your way through any problem and get an analytical solution). What you do instead is assume a possible solution and "test" or demonstrate that the solution is a possible solution to the problem. This is also how String theory, M Theory, etc... have been developed. So, yes the solutions are based on previously known information and as you state observed phenomena. But understand that the solutions he used for his initial special relativity were actually from "defunct" solutions from Maxwell. The reason those solutions were neglected and in fact discarded until Einstein, is because they relied on the speed of light being constant. Einstein stated, that the speed of light is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT, in his paper without justification -he claimed that it must be so. While there were measurements indicating that the speed of light did not change (eg. Michaelson Morely (sp) experiment). Those were never actual experiments that a scientific method (should one exist) would call a proper experiment because the purpose of the experiment was different from trying to prove or disprove that the speed of light is constant. As you should know, the Michaelson Morely (sp) experiment is actually a very famous null result, they were trying to find the Aether and could not detect it. Einstein made his declaration of the universality of the speed of light as a constant in vacuum, without experimental data. He stated it must be and therefore the following physical laws follow. In fact, this is what separated Einstein from previous physicists who performed countless experiments and formulated scientific laws to govern the behavior of the phenomenon they observed. Einstein did not perform experiments.

The key issue here seems to be whether or not the speed of light as a constant is correct or a kludge to make things work out. All measurements seem to support the former. I guess I'm curioous why you think it shouldn't be. And no, it doesn't bother me,. There's even some research going on that suggests there may be variations over time and that doesn't bother me either. This is what science does. Mathematicians and theoretical physicists generally don't do experiments, does that mean they're not scientists? I don't think so. You need both the empirical and theoretical sides. As for Einstein making that jump, it's like the much mis-quoted Holmes/Spock statement, "Once you've eliminated . . . ."

What Michaelson-Morley did was fail to detect the 4% shift that it should have seen had aether existed. To not find a result does not make an experiment a null experiment (it happens a lot), it just means that something you thought had an effect, doesn't. All experiments test for the null hypothesis, statistically. It's part of that method.

If placebo can cure cancer, then what follows, on the science side, is finding out why. What's the mechanism for this? Is it repeatable? Can it be used for more than one person? It's not to say. "Oh, that's not real." or "Oh, that doesn't matter." People research the mechanisms of placebo, which seem to be largely the effect of conditioning and expectation. It's interesting, that placebo effects tend to disappear in clinical trials where people don't know whether or not they received placebo or the test medication.

Back to cables, you've got some information, your observed changes in your system. You've got a hypothesis, that it's the result of cables. What's not so easy to set up is a test that determines that the cables, and absolutely nothing else, is a factor in the observations.
post #84 of 122

Heaven help me we're about to see Popper vs. Kuhn on the philosophy of science played out in headphone cable debate. From whence comes inference? That tricky devil evil_smiley.gif

 

Alright, this should be fun, have at it dudes. popcorn.gif


Edited by NotJeffBuckley - 8/6/11 at 11:57am
post #85 of 122

Hey, I like philosophy and science - what more could one want from a thread?

@pdupiano

The objection against cables cannot come from refuting that observations are made as you rightly say. However, when faced with a phenomenon that some argue is not explained by modern science, the first step is to attempt to explain it using what we already believe to be true - that which has survived the vigours of the scientific method. If that is not possible, or the bringers of the objection to current scientific principles find the attempt to explain their phenomenon unsatisfactory, the onus is on them to present some form of hypothesis as to its cause, based on evidence, if they wish their objection to be taken seriously. On those grounds I suggest that believing in cables is not currently a rational thing to do. Just my position on the matter.

Also, I completely agree with you about placebo/bias/ect. It is regrettable that people tend to take such things as some kind of condescending insult, rather than understanding that such things are inherent in humanity.

 

I hereby declare the concept of cables affecting sound beyond a certain minimal level of cable functionality a "Myth until proven actual" (from my perspective at leastbiggrin.gif)

 

post #86 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by rroseperry View Post

Lots of activity since I last saw the thread, the only thing I'd add to Head Injury's lovely chart is a little balloon above it titled "The World as We Know It" with an arrow pointing to the "Ask Question" bubble, because that's where the questions come from.

What is this fixation on the notion of truth? No one that I ever worked with or studied under ever thought that the work was about the or a truth, it was about the best understanding possible at this moment in time. And yes, data are highly interpreted, how can they not be? There's no way that explanations simply leap out of collected data. Are the interpretations accurate or not? That's the important point.


If you admit that science is not about the truth then certainly we have no problem. The high interpretability of data is an EXTREMELY problematic premise for the so called objectivity of science. The interpretations are not accurate, they are actually very wide and varied. To bring up Einstein once more, he did not have some sort of new information that led to his theories, he had the exact same set of information that others before him for at least a decade and others just had different interpretations. 

 

 

 

Quote:

Quote:
The key issue here seems to be whether or not the speed of light as a constant is correct or a kludge to make things work out. All measurements seem to support the former. I guess I'm curioous why you think it shouldn't be. And no, it doesn't bother me,. There's even some research going on that suggests there may be variations over time and that doesn't bother me either. This is what science does. Mathematicians and theoretical physicists generally don't do experiments, does that mean they're not scientists? I don't think so. You need both the empirical and theoretical sides. As for Einstein making that jump, it's like the much mis-quoted Holmes/Spock statement, "Once you've eliminated . . . ."

What Michaelson-Morley did was fail to detect the 4% shift that it should have seen had aether existed. To not find a result does not make an experiment a null experiment (it happens a lot), it just means that something you thought had an effect, doesn't. All experiments test for the null hypothesis, statistically. It's part of that method.

 

I think the difference between why the speed of light question bothers me and not you is that I am searching for truth as stated earlier. Without a desire to search for truth then I suppose that I could simply accept that the speed of light is constant. Well if you bring up Holmes, I feel that I must as well. I believe that science and its truth values are also akin to the improper use of the word "deduction" by Holmes. If you notice, Holmes actually never uses deduction rather induction to solve the mysteries. The subtle difference is that one can lead to truth the other can only lead to the "best possible truth for now, but may not actually be true."

 

The experiment was a null result, meaning you did not find what you were looking for. The reason I brought it into question is to call into question the validity of the results they obtained as evidence for a constant speed of light. As outlined in the proposed scientific method, you are only able to test the hypothesis that you are working with, and the results you obtained are "colored or tainted" by the said hypothesis you made since you would design the experiment to presumably obtain a particular result. Using the results of a null experiment is strange because the observed data is once again tainted by the hypothesis. I suppose an example to use is skimming text. If I want to look up a particular word or phrase, I would skim text on a page and only focus when I find the words I want to find. I would then incorporate the text into say an article only to realize later on that I took the text out of context because I had a specific purpose in mind yet and twisted the words into what seemed an altogether improbable way. 

 

 

 

Quote:
If placebo can cure cancer, then what follows, on the science side, is finding out why. What's the mechanism for this? Is it repeatable? Can it be used for more than one person? It's not to say. "Oh, that's not real." or "Oh, that doesn't matter." People research the mechanisms of placebo, which seem to be largely the effect of conditioning and expectation. It's interesting, that placebo effects tend to disappear in clinical trials where people don't know whether or not they received placebo or the test medication.

Back to cables, you've got some information, your observed changes in your system. You've got a hypothesis, that it's the result of cables. What's not so easy to set up is a test that determines that the cables, and absolutely nothing else, is a factor in the observations.

 

I think the last line regarding placebos disappearing also applies to cables.

 

post #87 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willakan View Post

Hey, I like philosophy and science - what more could one want from a thread?

@pdupiano

The objection against cables cannot come from refuting that observations are made as you rightly say. However, when faced with a phenomenon that some argue is not explained by modern science, the first step is to attempt to explain it using what we already believe to be true - that which has survived the vigours of the scientific method. If that is not possible, or the bringers of the objection to current scientific principles find the attempt to explain their phenomenon unsatisfactory, the onus is on them to present some form of hypothesis as to its cause, based on evidence, if they wish their objection to be taken seriously. On those grounds I suggest that believing in cables is not currently a rational thing to do. Just my position on the matter.

Also, I completely agree with you about placebo/bias/ect. It is regrettable that people tend to take such things as some kind of condescending insult, rather than understanding that such things are inherent in humanity.

 

I hereby declare the concept of cables affecting sound beyond a certain minimal level of cable functionality a "Myth until proven actual" (from my perspective at leastbiggrin.gif)

 


Hah, and I declare that I know nothing of the matter and will allow others to find evidence for themselves tongue.gif. And yes Philosophy and Science.... 7 years down the drain.... hopefully I'll find truth one day. 

 

post #88 of 122

If after seven years of modern philosophy you still hold onto the notion that there is The Truth I'm afraid you might be in store for true disappointment. (see what I did there, with the... you know, truth, true? yeah, that - I'll be here all week - tip your waiter, thanks!)

 

 

Gentlemen, respected peers, persons of esteem and integrity... Let's bring it back in a bit. The Scientific Method or the paths of revolutionary minds, we've followed yet another red herring beyond the scope of the question, which, I will remind, was whether or not there is a hitherto-undiscovered property in cables that explains why people hear a difference (albeit, within experimental conditions, mostly only so long as they see which they're using). I propose that it's a classic virtus dormitiva in its convenience and constitutional inability to adhere to what are, I boldly proclaim, fair testing criteria. Can't we just agree to disagree on this paragraph instead of talking about dark matter and dragons and stuff?


Edited by NotJeffBuckley - 8/6/11 at 2:48pm
post #89 of 122
NotJeffBuckley's got a point.

on experimental design
Quote:
The experiment was a null result, meaning you did not find what you were looking for. The reason I brought it into question is to call into question the validity of the results they obtained as evidence for a constant speed of light. As outlined in the proposed scientific method, you are only able to test the hypothesis that you are working with, and the results you obtained are "colored or tainted" by the said hypothesis you made since you would design the experiment to presumably obtain a particular result. Using the results of a null experiment is strange because the observed data is once again tainted by the hypothesis. I suppose an example to use is skimming text. If I want to look up a particular word or phrase, I would skim text on a page and only focus when I find the words I want to find. I would then incorporate the text into say an article only to realize later on that I took the text out of context because I had a specific purpose in mind yet and twisted the words into what seemed an altogether improbable way.

I think the problem here is the use of the word null. They weren't looking for aether. They were looking for the effect that aether should have on the speed of light, iff it existed. No effect = no aether. That's not the same as not finding anything.

Experimental design can be complicated, but it has to be built around a hypothesis. Your insistence that the hypothesis taints the results doesn't make sense. No hypothesis means no experiment. I really don't understand how you'd set up any experiment without some sort of experimental hypothesis. And the skimming text example, no it doesn't work like that.
post #90 of 122

I remember a story about an astronomer who observed Mars and saw things that didn't exist.  I forgot his name, but he studied Mars through a large terrestrial telescope for much of his career and saw what he thought were "canals" across the surface that changed over time.  Nobody else saw what he saw, but he continued to believe this even so.  Of course, we now know that he was dead wrong and there aren't gigantic canals on Mars that can be seen from Earth, but still, it goes to show that observations aren't always correct...he made the same observations over the course of many years and still saw the same thing, even though what he saw really didn't exist.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Cable Science