Originally Posted by maverickronin
I guess its a matter of semantics then.
In that situation I'd say that I thought I heard a difference but the evidence indicates that I didn't actually hear anything different and my perception was influenced by other factors.
Loose terminology will lead to misunderstandings and outright equivocations. I think such tight definitions are important in these types of discussions. In colloquial usage its ok to saw that you "saw" or "heard" something in a dream because pretty much everyone understands that dreams are only in your head and saying that you "saw" or "heard" something is simply shorthand because being more precise and saying that you perceived or experienced something is inconsistent with the normal flow of casual conversation. If you did happen to be in a discussion about the nature of dreams then you'll probably have to use more precise language to enable clear communication.
For example, if you grant Harley's premise that real audible differences disappear under controlled conditions then it implies the components actually perform differently based on the listeners knowledge of them or something else along those lines. As there is no evidence to imply that this does happen, no known mechanism to enable it, would probably overturn a great deal of well supported science if it was true, and because the listener's subjective experience is already explained by psychology such a hypothesis is untenable until it is backed up with substantial evidence.
That's why precise language is useful.
Agreed. My view point shifted on how it works for 'people to hear a difference, when there is no difference' because
-There are so many credible reports of people hearing a difference
-I have heard a difference
-The results of blind and sighted testing showing that adding sight means sound quality varies
-The know affects of placebos and the placebo effect. We don't really know how placebos work, but they do
-The McGurk Effect and how sound and sight is linked
-The contributions Albedo made on the audiophile claims and myths thread about how we hear and that if somene hears something different to what someone else hears, they are not wrong, we hear differently.
So I am sure when someone hears a difference between two cables (when there is none) it is a reality for them, it is not unreasonable to hear a difference, there are good reasons why people hear a difference and it better explains what is going on with cables than the previous cyclical arguments.