New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The HDMI Cable Discussion - Page 9

post #121 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

The only evidence shown here CLEARLY is that the subjects were well informed of what Placebo entails, but at the same time, informed that while the pills that they will be taking are in fact inert, have been shown in clinical trials to improve symptoms.

That's not unlike HDMI cable upgrades. There's no scientific reason that there should be a perceivable improvement, yet many people, like yourself, still perceive a subjective improvement. The most plausible explanation is the placebo effect.

As soon as you started doing subjective comparisons without any objective data showing that there would be a perceptible difference in the respective data streams, you set yourself up for the placebo effect. How, exactly, did you design your blind testing to ensure that your results were statistically significant?

Incidentally, there have been other, smaller studies that suggest the placebo effect is not limited to instances where the recipient is not aware that they are receiving a placebo.
Edited by Jaywalk3r - 2/19/12 at 12:53pm
post #122 of 338

Of course it's placebo. Wether he knows it or not is irrelevant. If both cables work fine, and if scientifically it's impossible to perceive a difference between 2 to-spec HDMI cables, what else could it be? It can't be anything else, unless you imply the TV is trolling us.

post #123 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


That's not unlike HDMI cable upgrades. There's no scientific reason that there should be a perceivable improvement, yet many people, like yourself, still perceive a subjective improvement. The most plausible explanation is the placebo effect.
As soon as you started doing subjective comparisons without any objective data showing that there would be a perceptible difference in the respective data streams, you set yourself up for the placebo effect. How, exactly, did you design your blind testing to ensure that your results were statistically significant?
Incidentally, there have been other, smaller studies that suggest the placebo effect is not limited to instances where the recipient is not aware that they are receiving a placebo.

I've already discussed how I did the blind tests.
 

 

post #124 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

Of course it's placebo. Wether he knows it or not is irrelevant. If both cables work fine, and if scientifically it's impossible to perceive a difference between 2 to-spec HDMI cables, what else could it be? It can't be anything else, unless you imply the TV is trolling us.


Your argument here either consists of Denying the Antecedent or Affirming the Consequent. And unfortunately acts as a stone-wall or question begging the entire core of the debate.  Remember what the debate here is.

 

Also, in your previous Beer example, I fail to see what you were measuring by stating that it was analogous to Placebo without deception.

What were you exactly measuring by drinking beer and being aware of it? That you'll in fact get drunk? Well, if so, I must congratulate you, mission succeeded. You got drunk.  However, if it was to see if you won't get drunk while still being aware of drinking alcohol, then I must challenge you line of logic or understanding what Placebo entails to.  Remember that Placebo (when it comes to drugs or other measures) itself must be an INERT variable, thus non effective whats or ever physically.  

 

I highly doubt that alcohol is inert.

 

post #125 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

I've already discussed how I did the blind tests.

Your previous description was inadequate to indicate that the test could have potentially resulted in a statistically significant result. It certainly doesn't indicate that your result was statistically significant. Without a statistically significant result, the null hypothesis of no difference cannot be rejected.
Edited by Jaywalk3r - 2/19/12 at 5:15pm
post #126 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


Your previous description was inadequate to indicate that the test could have potentially resulted in a statistically significant result. It certainly doesn't indicate that your result was statistically significant. Without a statistically significant result, the null hypothesis of no difference cannot be rejected.


I already stated that my experience is not to be taken as empirical evidence.

That said, what I saw and heard is sufficient and true in my books.  And as discussed, far too many report the same things, or in variance of these things.

 

And science should go beyond simply stating that it is placebo effect. And it should definitely not be ignored or rejected.

 

As long as we know that the initial signal is never transmitted in 100% to the receiver, and providing that the transmitting medium, the cable, is always prone to some margin of over despite the error correction, reports of seeing such differences cannot be simply ignored or attributed to 'it's only your perception'.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Shotor102 - 2/19/12 at 7:11pm
post #127 of 338
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post
 

 

"As long as we know that the initial signal is never transmitted in 100% to the receiver, and providing that the transmitting medium, the cable, is always prone to some margin of over despite the error correction, reports of seeing such differences cannot be simply ignored or attributed to 'it's only your perception'."

 

 

Assuming you are talking about HDMI, or any digital cables, small differences in the electric signal would make no difference. If it reaches the receiver, the picture will be displayed. Arguing that there was a difference would be like arguing that the circuits in a processor could have an impact on the information they are processing, making it different than another processor. There is no difference in these digital domains because a circuit or signal is either complete and sent, or broken and not sent. Although there could be minuscule differences in voltage this would not have an effect. If it's high enough, it goes through or switches the IC on, if the voltage is low enough it doesn't work, and the IC is left in the off position. It would be like giving an F for 0-50%, and an A for any amount over 50%. No matter what number you have or how close it is to the line, it's always one or the other.
 

 

post #128 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post

Your previous description was inadequate to indicate that the test could have potentially resulted in a statistically significant result. It certainly doesn't indicate that your result was statistically significant. Without a statistically significant result, the null hypothesis of no difference cannot be rejected.


I already stated that my experience is not to be taken as empirical evidence.
That said, what I saw and heard is sufficient and true in my books.  And as discussed, far too many report the same things, or in variance of these things.

And science should go beyond simply stating that it is placebo effect. And it should definitely not be ignored or rejected.

The placebo effect is the most plausible explanation. You haven't presented any data that would suggest the difference you perceived was caused by anything else.
Quote:
As long as we know that the initial signal is never transmitted in 100% to the receiver, and providing that the transmitting medium, the cable, is always prone to some margin of over despite the error correction, reports of seeing such differences cannot be simply ignored or attributed to 'it's only your perception'.

I don't think you realize how few transmission errors can occur with an in-spec HDMI cable. Further, the differences you perceived and described are not what would be expected from a degraded digital signal.
post #129 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenswall View Post

 

Assuming you are talking about HDMI, or any digital cables, small differences in the electric signal would make no difference. If it reaches the receiver, the picture will be displayed. Arguing that there was a difference would be like arguing that the circuits in a processor could have an impact on the information they are processing, making it different than another processor. There is no difference in these digital domains because a circuit or signal is either complete and sent, or broken and not sent. Although there could be minuscule differences in voltage this would not have an effect. If it's high enough, it goes through or switches the IC on, if the voltage is low enough it doesn't work, and the IC is left in the off position. It would be like giving an F for 0-50%, and an A for any amount over 50%. No matter what number you have or how close it is to the line, it's always one or the other.
 

 


1. Remember that I said that electric differences alone aren't enough to cause difference. However, a combination of different things might.

 

2. Circuits alone cannot impact the information they are sending, but how they implemented in the chip of a board + construction and materials used to build the damn thing could very well impact the outcome.   It sounds like the argument you're making is like saying that a Bad portable hard-drive cannot affect its content no more than a high quality hard drive will (not that either will).  But, use that hard-drive to stream media, and construction, design and overall engineering could very well impact how the content is being sent over. Is this not correct?

 

What I am suggesting is not as outrageous as saying that a full hard drive will weight more than an empty one -  That could be easily proved and disproved scientifically and physically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #130 of 338


 

 

Quote:
The placebo effect is the most plausible explanation. You haven't presented any data that would suggest the difference you perceived was caused by anything else.

 

Plausible, possibly yes, with other people (possibly).  In my case, no.  And being THE MOST plausible? Not really either.

And I did present enough data, it just wasn't recorded. Read that post again.

 

 

Quote:

I don't think you realize how few transmission errors can occur with an in-spec HDMI cable. Further, the differences you perceived and described are not what would be expected from a degraded digital signal.

 

Not all manufacturers build their HDMIs to spec. And there two different issues going on here:

 

1. Manufacturers that sell not to spec HDMIs and say that they do, and of course fly under the radar since the difference is almost un-detectable. 

 

2. To spec HDMI cables that are made with with different materials and construction. Even though up to spec, are prone and will display the image and audio slightly differently than cables with better construction and materials used.

 

Again, tested in a lab with ideal settings (even for error code and correction) won't show much if at all.  Do various blind and double blind tests at home with multiple components as I previously described, by yourself and then come back and let me know what you saw and heard.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Shotor102 - 2/19/12 at 9:57pm
post #131 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post



 
Quote:
The placebo effect is the most plausible explanation. You haven't presented any data that would suggest the difference you perceived was caused by anything else.

Plausible, possibly yes, with other people (possibly).  In my case, no.  And being THE MOST plausible? Not really either.
And I did present enough data, it just wasn't recorded. Read that post again.

Yes, even in your case it's the most plausible explanation. Nothing about your experience suggests otherwise. And, no, you haven't presented any data, nor have you described your testing procedures in any useful manner. All you've done is given a poor description of an anecdotal experience.

Quote:
Not all manufacturers build their HDMIs to spec.

While I readily admit that one could find cables that plug into HDMI ports that might not meet HDMI specs, that would mean that they are not, by definition, HDMI cables. However, even using cables that aren't in spec but are close enough to work won't result in the kinds of differences that you have previously described. Instead, you'd be seeing dropped/sparkly pixels (snow), dropped lines, screen flashes, etc.

So, a not-to-spec cable is a less plausible explanation of your experience than the placebo effect.
Quote:
To spec HDMI cables that are made with with different materials and construction. Even though up to spec, are prone and will display the image and audio slightly differently than cables with better construction and materials used.

No. That's not how it works.
Quote:
Again, tested in a lab with ideal settings (even for error code and correction) won't show much if at all.

Agreed. And the lab is where any differences would be easiest to detect.
Quote:
Do various blind and double blind tests at home with multiple components as I previously described, by yourself and then come back and let me know what you saw and heard.

Are you referring to the tests you refuse to adequately describe, making them (at best) non-repeatable?

If there are no lab detectable differences, such tests are pointless. Differences seen in the lab may not be detectable in real world conditions, but if the differences are detectable in the real world, they will be detectable in the lab.
post #132 of 338

What's not repeatable?

 

Go find yourself at least 3 HD media players of any kind that are capable of displaying 1080p. 

Then go find 4 different HDTV panels from 32' - 55', Plasma and LCDs or LEDS if you choose.  

 

Buy a few HDMI cables to compare. Go home, connect, test numerous times and record your data.

Do it objectively and then have someone switch the cables on you at least 10 times each, with a possibility of running the same quality cables to propose or eliminate placebo.

 

 

That's about it.

 

As for anything else, I'm not interested in reading, it's a repetition...

 

 

 

post #133 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

That said, what I saw and heard is sufficient and true in my books.  And as discussed, far too many report the same things, or in variance of these things.

 

As long as we know that the initial signal is never transmitted in 100% to the receiver, and providing that the transmitting medium, the cable, is always prone to some margin of over despite the error correction, reports of seeing such differences cannot be simply ignored or attributed to 'it's only your perception'.

 


expansion.gif

 

Did you see movement in that image? I saw it as well. And I'm guessing many others will agree. Do you believe there was truly movement? The movement is perceived by you, with many agreeing, but I'm guessing you dismiss the idea that it actually moved. Don't try to explain it based on our existing knowledge of this effect. While we do have the capabilities to analyze the file and data related to it, the fact that many people perceive a difference means we can't simply accept the fact that our current knowledge of the image is accurate.


While I'm being a bit ridiculous (and an *******), this isn't very far from what you're saying.

 

Also, I wouldn't recommend citing other claims. While you may have accounted for some variables, I can only assume that an overwhelming majority of the other reports were exposed to many other potential variables.

 

A lot of people claim to have seen bigfoot and have similar reports. There's not a whole lot of scientific evidence against the existence of big foot, but I'm not about to believe it exists and I don't think you believe it does either. It might be worth investigating (to some people), but I think the reasonable hypothesis would be that bigfoot does not exist.

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenswall View Post

 

Assuming you are talking about HDMI, or any digital cables, small differences in the electric signal would make no difference. If it reaches the receiver, the picture will be displayed. Arguing that there was a difference would be like arguing that the circuits in a processor could have an impact on the information they are processing, making it different than another processor. There is no difference in these digital domains because a circuit or signal is either complete and sent, or broken and not sent. Although there could be minuscule differences in voltage this would not have an effect. If it's high enough, it goes through or switches the IC on, if the voltage is low enough it doesn't work, and the IC is left in the off position. It would be like giving an F for 0-50%, and an A for any amount over 50%. No matter what number you have or how close it is to the line, it's always one or the other.
 

 



Are you trying to make the point that there are absolutely no errors for HDMI signals?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post


 

 

 

Plausible, possibly yes, with other people (possibly).  In my case, no.  And being THE MOST plausible? Not really either.

And I did present enough data, it just wasn't recorded. Read that post again.

 

 

 

Not all manufacturers build their HDMIs to spec. And there two different issues going on here:

 

2. To spec HDMI cables that are made with with different materials and construction. Even though up to spec, are prone and will display the image and audio slightly differently than cables with better construction and materials used.

 

Again, tested in a lab with ideal settings (even for error code and correction) won't show much if at all.  Do various blind and double blind tests at home with multiple components as I previously described, by yourself and then come back and let me know what you saw and heard.

 

 


 

First... let's drop the placebo thing. Perceptual error is a much broader term that still covers the basic idea of what is being discussed. The important point isn't necessarily what the specific effect is that is responsible for the perceptual error, but whether or not the perceived difference is the result of some form of perceptual error.

 

On that note, it's ridiculous to propose that you are, or were, immune to any form of perceptual error. At this point, I don't believe your story has nearly enough credibility to eliminate that as a possibility or even eliminate it as a good possibility. A basic understanding of human perception is moe than enough to understand why your story should be questioned, even by you. In response to your suggestion of doing a test myself: If I do the test and don't perceive a difference, does that mean there isn't a difference? Or would you suggest that your perception is better than mine, rendering my experience invalid? No matter what, I would seriously doubt my results unless I could show extremely high accuracy and could do it with consistent and repeatable results. I would prefer if the results of all of the trials were unknown to me until the end of the entire test. Even with a thorough design and reasonable amount of data, I would definitely report all of the exact methods used, the results found and statistical analysis of the data and welcome criticisms to possibly account for anything missed in the experiment.

 

In regards to your point #2, proof? How can you say that with absolutely no reasonable evidence in support of that idea. I'll admit that it might be worth investigating, but there is no reason to even suggest that view as the better hypothesis for an experiment. 

 

 

Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

As for the argument that specific cable testing to show specific error codes and how they would be translated onto screen, visually and audibly... That, I am actually skeptical of.

As I discussed already, I actually am convinced that there many production lines from different manufacturers that produce and sell HDMI cables that meet the very minimum of the standard. And regardless of their proprietary testing methods which would show that their cables meet the HDMI standard spec compliance. Or even objective testing to be conducted on these cables. The errors or fluctuations in signal that will be reported with the test, will hold the claim that the onscreen translation will be exceedingly meaningless. Not only because of the claim that humans could not possibly tell, but also because the fluctuations are too random and inconsistent.  In one test it might show this margin of distortion or signal interference or degradation, while the same cable will show something slightly different on the next test.    Further to that, remember that these tests are conducted in controlled environments (labs and such) where conditions are ideal and possible outside interference is limited.  So I say again, those tests can show quite a bit, but clearly can't predict every single parameter of a household potential interference, which in addition, to be taken in consideration to the components that HDMI cable will be used with. TV to BD? XBOX to TV? HD player to receiver? BD to receiver and than another HDMI cable from the receiver to the TV.. 

 

 

Why are you skeptical? We have more than enough reason to believe we understand how data is processed by the TV. We could easily tell at what point there was an error and determine what kind of error it would have been. I'm not sure you understand even the most basic concepts about HDMI if you're suggesting we can't figure these things out.

 

Yes, there is variability from one test to another. I never said that taking 1 low quality cable and 1 high quality cable and conducting one data transmission would be evidence. I would expect at least 4 different cables designs to be tested (2 high quality, 2 low quality) and multiple of each design to be tested multiple times. I also welcome the idea of testing this in a realistic setting, as I would still predict there would be no significant difference.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

What's not repeatable?

 

Go find yourself at least 3 HD media players of any kind that are capable of displaying 1080p. 

Then go find 4 different HDTV panels from 32' - 55', Plasma and LCDs or LEDS if you choose.  

 

Buy a few HDMI cables to compare. Go home, connect, test numerous times and record your data.

Do it objectively and then have someone switch the cables on you at least 10 times each, with a possibility of running the same quality cables to propose or eliminate placebo.

 

 

That's about it.

 

As for anything else, I'm not interested in reading, it's a repetition...

 

 

 

 

What were your results? 100% accuracy? 75% accuracy? What did you record? Details of what you noticed? Which cable you believed was in use? Which cable, by comparison, seemed better? What do you mean by doing it objectively? Self report is inherently a subjective measurement.

 

Did you have any interactions between trials? Was the time for switching cables controlled? You conducted around 120 trials? What were all of the statistically significant variables in the quality?


Edited by CC Lemon - 2/20/12 at 12:31am
post #134 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

What's not repeatable?

Go find yourself at least 3 HD media players of any kind that are capable of displaying 1080p. 
Then go find 4 different HDTV panels from 32' - 55', Plasma and LCDs or LEDS if you choose.  

Buy a few HDMI cables to compare. Go home, connect, test numerous times and record your data.
Do it objectively and then have someone switch the cables on you at least 10 times each, with a possibility of running the same quality cables to propose or eliminate placebo.


That's about it.

If you want your test to mean anything, you'd better set it up more carefully and precisely than how you've described it here.
Edited by Jaywalk3r - 2/20/12 at 1:21am
post #135 of 338

dis_gonna_b_gud.gif

 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: