The HDMI Cable Discussion - Page 10

Oh, I forgot to make one last comment.

Until I see evidence that realistically suggests that there is a difference in quality, why would I spend (potentially waste) money on "high quality" hdmi cables? I'd have to be at the point where I don't care about money enough to just buy cables on the (terribly supported) chance there is a difference. Even at a $5000, I'd probably still go with monoprice. It would have to be close to the $10,000+ range before I'd really consider buying it just to be safe. At that point, I'm clearly not too concerned about how much it's going to cost me and willing to do it just for the hell of it.

Ahh....

And this is where you shot yourself in the foot.

1. Safe from what exactly?

2. Is the ability to afford more expensive products suddely increases the risk or chance factors of HDMI cables not displaying image and sound quality the same way?  As you and others have stated, $5 cable or a $100 is all the same, then surely  a $1500 home theater set up or a $15,000 set up will absolutley have zero effects on any given HDMI cables. Sounds like a contradicting statement if you ask me.  So I ask again, just to be safe from what, exactly?

3. Optical illusion, specifically designed to fool your eyes and brain to perceive as if something is moving in that picture yet it is factually not...?  As an analogous reference to difference in HDMI cable?  Not the same at all. Even if you're trying to make a point there, think of what an optical illusion gag like that is specifically designed for, and then tell me if HD display is meant  to be the same thing.  It's quite far...

He used the image as an analogy for illusion, not for HDMI in particular. I agree with not using placebo and a more broad term, and that image explains it very well: we all look at it and see it moving, yet we know it scientifically can't display movement because it's a .jpg file and is thus incapable of such. Now our knowledge is telling us one thing and our eyes another. So what does that say about our perception when faced with conclusive science?

Another example of thousands of people seeing something is in my own country: the sightings of the Virgin Mary. Thousands of people in Fatima swear they all saw the virgin appear in the sun at a certain time. Funny how she wasn't busy healing those with cancer or feeding the hugry, but whatever. They know they saw her and who are we to say no? I believe their brains made them 'see' something, but since it's impossible for an antropomorphic figure to appear in a star for a few seconds and only be seen in a specific part of the Earth by believers, I know this didn't actually happen. This isn't supposed to be a perfect relation to HDMI so calm down, I'm not going for perfect metaphors. It's just an example of thousands of people - way more than people who 'see' differences in HDMI cables - watching something impossible.

My beer analogy wasn't perfect because I didn't care enough, you don't have to keep bringing it up. 

Actually, I've only brought up the beer thing twice, once in a direct reply and a second time because there was a point I meant to discuss in the first reply post, but lost my train of thought... Then somehow it came back to me.

I don't have a problem with metaphores, and I understand why you and CC would relate to those abstracts as relevant  allusions.  But it's only on a superficial level mind you.

Trust me that I am far from being upset by any of this, although I am a bit bemused as to how you people will have such regard to scientific detail, which is susposed to be an empirical field with high attention to precision and details. Yet, can't seem to realize a fundamental flaw in a given analogy or a metaphore.

I'm sorry to bring up the beer thing again, but just as an example here.  Yes, I get why you would go that way, but at the same time, we both know that you should have known better than that. This isn't me picking on grammar errors or typos (after all, I am pretty notorious for such)... 

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotor102 

Ahh....

 

And this is where you shot yourself in the foot.

 

 

 

1. Safe from what exactly?

 

2. Is the ability to afford more expensive products suddely increases the risk or chance factors of HDMI cables not displaying image and sound quality the same way?  As you and others have stated, $5 cable or a $100 is all the same, then surely  a $1500 home theater set up or a $15,000 set up will absolutley have zero effects on any given HDMI cables. Sounds like a contradicting statement if you ask me.  So I ask again, just to be safe from what, exactly?

 

3. Optical illusion, specifically designed to fool your eyes and brain to perceive as if something is moving in that picture yet it is factually not...?  As an analogous reference to difference in HDMI cable?  Not the same at all. Even if you're trying to make a point there, think of what an optical illusion gag like that is specifically designed for, and then tell me if HD display is meant  to be the same thing.  It's quite far...

 

 

1 & 2) My point was that I'm probably in the "more money than sense" territory if I'm throwing $10,000 at a home theater set up. That's just not my thing, so I must have so much money that I don't even think twice about how much I'm spending. You seem excited at the thought of having tripped me up, but you missed my point. If I don't care how much I'm spending, I don't care if I'm wasting money either. I was focusing on the price of the set up as a reflection of the amount of money I have, not suggesting that the more expensive set up would be more revealing. If I'm being completely honest: I don't believe there is any chance there's a difference. I understand how digital signals work and those very simple principles are more than enough to explain why there shouldn't be a difference. The ONLY instance I'd be willing to actually accept there would be a difference is if a well designed experiment showed some rather significant results indicating that there might be some differences that are visible to humans. At that point, I'd weigh the percentage of people that were able to consistently identify the better cable and do a blind test of my own to determine if it would be worth it to me.

3) You completely missed my point. You readily accept that it is absolutely an optical illusion and not actually movement. Why?

-There's plenty of evidence that indicates that HDMI cables that are within specifications will not have a significant difference in terms of the data transferred and especially not at the level that could be perceived by humans. The way the data is transferred and processed is well understood and there's not really a reason to believe differently. In spite of this, you say you have seen a difference (your perception) and use the logic that many others have reported similar experiences so there must be something to it.

-It's well understood that the image I posted is an optical illusion and is, in fact, a still image. This effect can be explained rather easily and there's not really a reason to believe differently. This is where your logic is different. In spite of you perceiving motion, you refuse to believe it because of the overwhelming amount of information that explains why it isn't moving. Many others perceive the motion too and report a similar experience.

For some reason, you accept your perception of improved quality from HDMI cables as fact or real in spite of the evidence suggesting otherwise. In fact, there is no known reason why it should have an effect. But when it comes to seeing motion in an image, you immediately refuse the idea that there was actually movement. Why? What makes these so inherently different?

Philosophy: In a way, the motion in that picture is more real than the differences of image/signal quality from HDMI cables. I can pretty much guarantee that the percentage of people that would report seeing motion in that image would be higher than the percentage of people that would report a difference between HDMI cables. If you consider that reality is essentially the collection of our perceptions, then the motion is a reality to more people than the HDMI quality difference. Therefore, the motion in that picture is more real than the difference in quality between HDMI cables.

To be honest here, I have grown really tired of this discussion.

I posted my views in regards to this debate.

Those who found something insightful or helpful in them, great. Those who didn't, oh well. No harm done..  It is what it is.

I think beyond this point, continuing this debate will be repetition and rehashing points that have already been made, just in different forms.

Would I like it if my views got across better, sure I would, but that desperate I AM NOT.

Cheers to everyone taking part,

Good discussion.

Gazebo anyone?

Hmm... well that effectively kills the discussion lol.

Out of curiosity, do they have to disclose to participants that a placebo might be used for a proper informed consent? Or are they allowed to omit that information or even say that all participants will receive actual treatment, even if some will receive a placebo?

If it's part of the informed consent process, I don't see a huge issue with the ethics of using a placebo with deception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC Lemon 

Hmm... well that effectively kills the discussion lol.

 

Out of curiosity, do they have to disclose to participants that a placebo might be used for a proper informed consent? Or are they allowed to omit that information or even say that all participants will receive actual treatment, even if some will receive a placebo?

 

If it's part of the informed consent process, I don't see a huge issue with the ethics of using a placebo with deception.

Well at least we're not discussing HDMI's..

We should change the thread to HDMI+Placebo..

If I understand your question, are you asking if in studies, the researchers have to disclose to the participants that Placebos would be used? 

As far as I know, it the answer is no.  Then of course, you have to judge the study itself and what it's trying to measure.  Remember that thus far using Placebos must fulfill two conditions: Deception and Suggestion of some sort.  Without it, it's hard to measure any effect of a given Placebo pill. 

Outside of studies, yes, Doctors, shrinks and Psychiatrists try to avoid using Placebos as much as possible. Obviously, the first and foremost reason would be the ethics involved. You're deceiving your patient. Well.. and that's just plain bad.

The other issue is that you are essentially giving a patient a pill that has zero physical properties in terms of any effect (other than psychological).  And again, I haven't read too many studies about prolonged usage of Placebo, and I don't mean a month or 6, but years.. Let's face it, people are treated with prolonged uses of medication, years, and clearly lifetime as-well.

With that said, a person's mental state could sustain placebos for a while, while with another person, for a longer time, and the next person, it could work for 3 months and then somehow lose its effect for no particular reason. It really does depend on the person him or herself as-well.  There are some people that may have great positive feedback from using Placebos, but when are told that it was a Placebo, it no longer works.  While others, simply keep taking them.. if it worked before, it'll keep on working.

I wasn't thinking outside of experimental/trail conditions for some reason. I can see why it would be an issue to give placebos as a treatment to a patient without them being informed.

I don't see why it would be an issue with studies to keep it a secret from participants, but I would expect they have to be made aware of the chance to be in the placebo/control group prior to participating. It could be an issue if participants only participated on the idea that the treatment might positively benefit their health and they discover they never even received the treatment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC Lemon 

I wasn't thinking outside of experimental/trail conditions for some reason. I can see why it would be an issue to give placebos as a treatment to a patient without them being informed.

 

I don't see why it would be an issue with studies to keep it a secret from participants, but I would expect they have to be made aware of the chance to be in the placebo/control group prior to participating. It could be an issue if participants only participated on the idea that the treatment might positively benefit their health and they discover they never even received the treatment.

Well, again, you're discussing two different issues here.

1. The first one is the ethics of the Study. This really depends on the study itself. Some studies like the one on this thread requires the researchers to inform the participants of usage of Placebo. Clearly, the researchers are studying just that.  However, other researchers or studies that let's say wish to debunk certain beliefs or what they presume myths (for example only), might do multiple tests and blind tests and double blind tests on the participants. And of course, in favor of the study, they might inform them that they will be exposed to certain things, maybe audio, visuals or taking drugs/pills, without stating anything about placebo. That is if the research is measuring if a placebo effect is directly responsible for claims that have been made; which are being studied of course.

2. The Second issue, while might benefit the participant to know of being given Placebos, but this could actually lead to internal validity issues of the study. If you have a biased participant who is aware of the research and core details, that person might either co-operate on purpose in favor of the research or him/herself. Which yields results that aren't very reliable.

I haven't read the whole thread since I was gone, but are you guys seriously still debating about the placebo study? O.o

It doesn't matter. Let's put away the study and instead talk about HDMI, which you can use to prove that HDMI cable perceptions are placebo. Here's how that works:

1. HDMI cables cannot physically effect contrast, sharpness, etc. -- it's impossible due to how digital electronics and information works

2. Therefore, if you think you see HDMI cables effecting contrast, etc., then what you perceive is an effect of the mind -- placebo or confirmation bias, however you'd like to call it.

Tada. No need to use the placebo study.

Ok guys, yesterday I, being the rookie of our hi-fi shop, had to fully set up two Sharp LC- 60LE840 while missing out on sales. After that was done I said what the hell, I may as well play around for a bit. So, I decided to bring out a 2m Audioquest diamond hdmi cable and hooked one tv with that, while the other same model tv was hooked up with a monster m2000 hdmi of the same length as the audioquest. I didn't really notice a difference at all, but when I got closer, I could see which tv was better; no bias, no placebo effect. I was watching a hockey game on RDS HD network, and the television with the audioquest cable performed noticeably better in terms of speed. With the monster cable, if I watched extremely carefully and closely, I noticed some visual lag when the puck was slapped at high speed a few times and when some players got big checks into the boards. Color vividness and sharpness was the same; the overall picture quality was in fact. But one of the tv's felt a tiny bit snappier and more responsive to fast movement and sudden camera changes. It's really hard to explain, but I saw it; and I kind of wish I could deny it.

I was not expecting any difference, and if I was standing 6 feet + away from the screens I did not notice a difference. But up close, you could see that one television was responding a little bit better compared to another.

Oh, and I also have visual acuity of 16/20 if that helps in any way