New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The HDMI Cable Discussion - Page 7

post #91 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post

I have to disagree with the main criticisms from the linked article. The blogger seems to have either missed the purpose of the study or forgotten that experiments tend to be most effective when they test only one variable.
Placebos, when administered, are portrayed as useful and effective. However, hiding the identity of the placebo, representing it as something with medicinal value, is thought to be unethical. The researchers wanted to find out if placebos could still be effective if subjects knew that that was what they were receiving. Had the researchers not made the subjects aware that placebos had been shown to be effective in clinical studies, the subjects would have no expectation for the placebo to work. That would have been a second variable and could have raised an unnecessary question that would cloud the conclusion. If there was no difference between the two groups, would it have been because there were no expectations or because the subjects were aware that the treatment was placebo? As performed, the experiment avoided the results being clouded by such a question. They eliminated the unethical deceit without eliminating the expectation, which is exactly what they set out to do.


I ABSOLUTELY disagree with your conclusions. This is in no way a good study to suggest replacing the "deceit" used for placebos with the  methods used in this study. There is no comparison of the effectiveness of the "open placebo" to a blind placebo. Without a test of significance comparing those 2, there is no reason to conclude that this is a sufficient replacement for a typical placebo. If it turns out that the "open placebo" is only half as effective as the typical placebo method, then the standard for drug effectiveness is also affected.  It would also need to be tested in multiple instances with differing conditions to safely conclude that it can be applied to other circumstances as well.

 

Also, the first comment in his link is worth reading. At best, I'd say it's a start for researching the area and maybe enough to warrant a couple of follow up studies. The way things are worded still makes it sound like they have to convince the participants that taking the pills is somehow directly responsible for improvements, which isn't exactly accurate. Even after mentioning that they are inert, it kind of makes it sound like this is some recognized treatment and they even go as far as to mention that it has been shown to make improvements for IBS specifically.

 

Some other problems to consider:

 

- Will there be differences in conditions in which participants are aware of an actual drug treatment being available?

- Will participants drop out of a study upon being informed of being in a non-treatment group?

- Will you have more issues with participants keeping up with the schedule?

- Will you have more issues with attrition?

- Are the expectations of the placebo participants still the same? Or does it result in other effects?

 

And I still really have issues with describing this study as showing that there is a placebo effect without deception. I'd like to have seen a follow up question asking about their understanding of the placebo they were taking. I still get the feeling that they had to distort the understanding of a placebo in order to have the participants form enough of an expectation to get the results found in the study.

post #92 of 338

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

I went into FNAC, which in france is like your bestbuy, or for the UK crowd, like currys, to buy a DVI to HDMI cable.

To my surprise and shock the cable was being sold at 40€.

Quite literally a wire that is worth, and I kid you not, like-for-like look, feel etc on amazon £5, thus around 8€.

 

This is what shocks me the most.

Its retailers like bestbuy, flipping the HDMI cables for such a HUGE profit.

 

Do not even bother with FNAC. They're our big culture retailer here in Portugal, but the reason I don't think they're like BB is because from what I've read BB is more of a bargain place, you'll usually get good deals on a product. I only go to FNAC to test headphones, and I don't even do that anymore because nowadays they only have some low-end Panasonics, AKG and Sennheisers which I've tried all, a K702 (praise the Universe!) and of course the Beats. They sell the AKG K518 LE (the colorful limited edition) which is a pretty good headphone for its internet price. On Amazon it sells for 45.98$. In FNAC, once you convert the price, it's 92.11$. This is beyond acceptable, it's quite literally the double.

post #93 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

 

 

Do not even bother with FNAC. They're our big culture retailer here in Portugal, but the reason I don't think they're like BB is because from what I've read BB is more of a bargain place, you'll usually get good deals on a product. I only go to FNAC to test headphones, and I don't even do that anymore because nowadays they only have some low-end Panasonics, AKG and Sennheisers which I've tried all, a K702 (praise the Universe!) and of course the Beats. They sell the AKG K518 LE (the colorful limited edition) which is a pretty good headphone for its internet price. On Amazon it sells for 45.98$. In FNAC, once you convert the price, it's 92.11$. This is beyond acceptable, it's quite literally the double.



Oh don't get me wrong - I never buy cables...in fact anything any more from stores, they are all too over-priced.

I was in there for work. I told my employer, look I can buy one from ebay, get you the invoice and all, and its 10x less expensive + better quality...although it will take 5 additional days to get here.

 

At the end I ended up not buying it, as I found a solution for our PC -> TV via VGA, however what still was a rip off, was a 3m 3.5mm to 3.5mm wire for 13€...

Absolute rip off. (but I don't care that much, i told my employer and they wanted it there and then so i got it for them)

 

post #94 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC Lemon View Post

I actually did a research paper on the psychology of superstition so I can safely say that it's a little bit different than what you're describing. Superstition may improve performance out of expectations, but the root of superstition is more connected to learning theories. A superstition, in an over-simplified explanation, is basically a learned connection between a positive or negative event in relation to another environmental factor. For example: You go to a casino and gamble for 2 days without changing clothes or anything. No luck. You notice your shirt is smelling pretty foul so you go change, then head back to the casino floor. You place a bet and suddenly you've won. Even though we all know that was a statistical probability, that shirt was the noted change and has suddenly become the "lucky shirt". In a way, superstition works in reverse. A superstition is formed when a difference is noticed and is then attributed to something like an item. A placebo works on the idea that the item will cause a difference, therefore you realize a difference.

 


I enjoyed this paragraph quite much!

Very good example!

 

BTW:
Wouldn't the BEST test be this:

-Show 2 cables to your average customer.

-Say the £1 wire is worth £100, and is braided with certain wires, and has been heavily modified

-Say the Monster cable one for example, is worth around £30 from online retailers.

 

Then see how this goes down.

After doing that, say you were lying, and see if their opinions change.

 

This study would show the way we listen to people whoa re in "higher knowledge" than ourselves.

And I know for sure that a study of the sort has been done - but not with HDMI cables for example.

 

Now the only problem with such study, is that you would need to be a trained engineer. In order to say: These cables are both the same.

Or else, people would count your study, invalid.

 

So in this case, this would be 2 birds in 1 stone.

First proving that HDMI cables are quite similar, if anything identical

Then your second being that people listen or are susceptible to marketing.

 

post #95 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrozombie View Post

I would bet my pair of Ultrasone's and HARX700 (which are my only 2 pairs not up for sale) if you took 100 people and put them in front of 720/1080i/1080p and component/HDMI setups with the same displays and same source, none of them could tell the difference between any of them at any decent clip, not to even mention a cheap cable over an expensive one. 


You might as well give me those headphones RIGHT now.

 

I worked for LG, selling TV's - in a store, mine was currys.

So i was selling LG tv's working for LG in currys - ie. like bestbuy etc

 

In store there currys had some panasonics.

Literally all next to each other.

Now I know this is a little different but:

 

One was plasma, one was LCD, the other LED

People straight away from far, without even looking at the price or anything, preferred:
LED > LCD > Plasma

 

They were all put on the same source (via HDMI) and were all running the same image + all had the same display settings

 

The plasma was more vivid but much less sharper than the LCD

The LCD was more washed out than the plasma, but had much greater definition

The LED was brighter, and MUCH more defined than the LCD

 

And these were people who had absolutely no clue what a LED/LCD/plasma was - they could tell, so could I.

FYI:
LED was £850

LCD was £700

Plasma was £650

 

(around those lines)

 

 

Now for the 720, & 1080 - 1080i & 1080p are too similar, even for our human eyes to see. You would need to be gaming at high speeds, or watching something at high speeds to see the difference.

 

But for 720 and 1080 - people could tell the difference on a 32" TV -> and for some stupid reason LG had the 720p and 1080p one at the same price, people never ever bought the 720p one.

Sold SO MANY of those 1080p 32" ones.

32LD450 from memory

 

(both were LCD's)

And yes, i sold more than 100 TV's thus talked to much more than 100 people ;)

So...where are my headphones :D!

 

post #96 of 338

Question, since we're off-topic (total shocker): do you think it's worth investing in a LED tv now? I just feel like it's a recent technology in TVs, and even in other applications it's pretty new, so maybe in a few years for the same price I might get something really good. I'm asking because these are all assumptions.

post #97 of 338
Thread Starter 

Well, the OLED's are starting to make their way very slowly, and due to the "rush" over the 3D TV's all prices have dropped quite significantly.

 

LED's are very much better TV's in all aspects.

Before someone comes and flames me about refresh rate, we have LED's that do 800hz refresh rates, better than any 600hz plasma can do.

 

Plasma's will either become the cheap man's TV - if not already, or be a niche for panasonic, who's 3D plasmas are jaw droopingly beautiful. 

 

What TV do you have atm lizard?

-> send me a link to specs

And what TV is on your horizon?

-_ again send me a link to what you see yourself spending/budget/TV

 

FYI:

Here is what I would go for:

-For 3D, LG TV's without a shadow of a doubt (and samsung, if you can afford it, or want active 3D)

-For LED, Samsung

-For LCD, LG as they are cheaper than samsung's with the same quality

-For Plasma, Panasonic

 

I would not buy another brand, apart from those mentioned above, for their categories. 

post #98 of 338

OLED TVs are coming out this year, but it will be no different to when Plasmas appeared on the market - they'll be priced prohibitively high for most people - and it'll take several years for them to become affordable for the average joe. As an enthusiast, I'd probably stick with plasma for the time being  - Panasonic since they are the next best thing to the Kuro's, RIP - and my next TV down the road would be an OLED (or Crystal LED if Sony are right, which they probably won't be), at 4K res (only a matter of time, there are already 4K-ready AV processors/receivers). Picture quality takes priority over everything else on TVs for me.

 

EDIT - the above being said, I'll probably be a sucker and buy the Apple TV. :D


Edited by Somnambulist - 2/18/12 at 5:33am
post #99 of 338

Wow.. so much discussion and so many tangents; placebos, 720p/1080i vs 1080p..

Research and such..

 

Man, I would like to address all, and hopefully my mind is still with me after a 12 hour shift.

 

Here goes:

 

The challenge with the 720p/1080i and 1080p. Easy challenge. Fork over the headphones this minute. If you have a BD or some HD media player transmitting a full 1080p signal of a movie/clip or whatever, people will most certainly notice a difference right away. 32' and up, most definitely. The problem comes when you compare 1080i and 720p. Which basically is the same thing in a  different pile.  I used to remember when sales people in Visions Electronica and Best-buy were pushing the '1080i' more expensive display models over the 720p. This was a few years back.. but then of course, anyone who's done a little read about the display technology will know that by definition any 720p TV will be able to display 1080i resolution, the difference is in frame-rate of display, either 1280x720 lines (i believe every 1/30 of a second) while 1080 displays 490 of 1280x1080 every (1/60th of a second), which at the end of the day makes no difference when it comes to motion.  Still photos might be a different story.  As for 1080p vs 720 on smaller panels.. well, it's hard but noticeable. However, the current standard sits somewhere at 50' - 55' at 8-10 feet of distance for full benefits of the 1080p.  Basically this, if you have a 1080p panel with a BD player, and you're sitting at that relative distance, then you'll benefit the most from it. Of course you could sit closer, but it will be simply harder to watch.  Further, if you have 720p vs 1080p of let's say a 50' while sitting about 12 - 16 feet away, you most likely won't see the different. There is a difference, but human eyes won't be able to distinguish.   One way to to test if the signal is full 1080p or not is to actually get close to the panel and observe the image from a close up. If the image gets better then it's 1080p. If it starts to get unfocused, then it's anything below.

 

 

As for the Placebo discussion.  I'm 100% with CClemon here.

Sorry Jaywalker, but your assessment and conclusions are simply incorrect here. 

While the study shows potential and the fact that Placebo in itself could be harnessed for better medical treatment, or alternative treatment, is exhibited. A. This is nothing new. and B. That was NOT the purpose of the study. The purpose in the abstract clearly defines that the intent is to find out whether people will still have positive response to using Placebo even though they are told that they are using Placebos.  Now, clearly the platform and model of the study could be utilized in the future, however, the method was flawed. As stated by the blogger, the people/subjects were still deceived. Even though were told that they are taking Placebos, they were also told that those Placebos were proven to be successful in previous studies via healthy mind and body clause or such.  As CC stated, the mere fact that they were suggested that these Placebos were shown to be beneficial, that is already contradicting the very thing they were trying to prove. 

Perhaps in the future they might be able to show that this is possible, but until then, there is no proof that Placebo works with the full awareness of the subject of it being a Placebo (Key factor: to begin with).  

 

Now, CC as for you doubting what I saw, well, there really isn't much more to be said. You either believe me and try to look up for other reasons why I saw and heard what I did, or you don't. And to me that would read as you basically calling me a liar.  Your theories and speculation on the idea that just because I bought a more expensive cable, an inherit suggestion was playing in the back of my head that a quality may be improved may automatically accompany it... Well, this may be true in theory. But, this differs from an individual to an individual.  As per Placebo criteria, if I am and was in the state of mind that a more expensive cable will produce better quality is basically a marketing sham, then trust me that I was very critical of myself not to be susceptible to such or any placebo effects, or the likes of it.

 

 

 

 

 

post #100 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somnambulist View Post

OLED TVs are coming out this year, but it will be no different to when Plasmas appeared on the market - they'll be priced prohibitively high for most people - and it'll take several years for them to become affordable for the average joe. As an enthusiast, I'd probably stick with plasma for the time being  - Panasonic since they are the next best thing to the Kuro's, RIP - and my next TV down the road would be an OLED (or Crystal LED if Sony are right, which they probably won't be), at 4K res (only a matter of time, there are already 4K-ready AV processors/receivers). Picture quality takes priority over everything else on TVs for me.

 

EDIT - the above being said, I'll probably be a sucker and buy the Apple TV. :D



apple TV *face palm*

 

 

oh, and almost forgot the obvious 720v1080:

Put that on an xbox, and you can see quite a difference.

Anyone will be able to see the difference.

 

Also, component v hdmi is also another thing that's very easy to tell the difference between.


Edited by Totally Dubbed - 2/18/12 at 5:51am
post #101 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorino View Post


Yeah, I think I did.

 


From the movie "Dumb and Dumber" which was infinity more entertaining than this thread.

 

post #102 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 View Post


From the movie "Dumb and Dumber" which was infinity more entertaining than this thread.

 


Well I'm finding this thread quite informative might I say ;)

 

 

post #103 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC Lemon View Post

I ABSOLUTELY disagree with your conclusions. This is in no way a good study to suggest replacing the "deceit" used for placebos with the  methods used in this study. There is no comparison of the effectiveness of the "open placebo" to a blind placebo. Without a test of significance comparing those 2, there is no reason to conclude that this is a sufficient replacement for a typical placebo. If it turns out that the "open placebo" is only half as effective as the typical placebo method, then the standard for drug effectiveness is also affected.  It would also need to be tested in multiple instances with differing conditions to safely conclude that it can be applied to other circumstances as well.

I agree that the study is not perfect. It could be improved. However, eliminating the expectation of placebo being effective is absolutely not an improvement. It weakens the study significantly. I do agree that a third treatment of placebo with deception would make the study stronger, but it is not necessary for such a preliminary study.
Quote:
At best, I'd say it's a start for researching the area and maybe enough to warrant a couple of follow up studies.

Agreed. As far as I can tell, that is how it was intended by its authors.
Quote:
And I still really have issues with describing this study as showing that there is a placebo effect without deception.

I have to respectfully disagree. The fact that the pills were inert, without any medicinal value at all was emphasized. There is documented evidence that placebos can be an effective treatment, even if they are rarely the most effective treatment. There was no deception, at least in the since of a doctor unethically administering a placebo as an effective medicine. The improvements were minor, but that is to be expected with placebos.
post #104 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

Wouldn't the BEST test be this:
-Show 2 cables to your average customer.
-Say the £1 wire is worth £100, and is braided with certain wires, and has been heavily modified
-Say the Monster cable one for example, is worth around £30 from online retailers.

Then see how this goes down.
After doing that, say you were lying, and see if their opinions change.

Since we're comparing digital cables, the best way would be to take objective measurements and bypass subjective opinion completely.
post #105 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


Since we're comparing digital cables, the best way would be to take objective measurements and bypass subjective opinion completely.


true - but you are talking about technical specs - which is a separate thing.

I'm talking about psychology instead. 

 

Thus why, you would need to be trained of have done the tests to prove both are the same, before moving unto "people's opinions"

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: