[PeeeMeS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is no such thing as a person with golden ears. Unless there is something wrong with our hearing (due to damage, genetics, etc.) we all pretty much hear the same, and any differences are so minute, they just don't matter. Like me, I assume most of you aren't teenagers anymore. Well guess what, we already have a dwindling freq. in which we can hear. It still amazes me how some of the biggest audiophiles are well past their 40s, even 50s.

You're right in some sense... especially the part about the age.
However, studies have shown that in many cases, the blind are significantly better than sighted people at hearing faint sounds and pinpointing from which direction sounds originate.
It gets ever better... Early-blind human subjects also reap the same benefits from becoming blind.

These differences are not just minute and they do matter. There is a group of people with significantly better hearing... but they arn't audiophiles.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif You didn't ask me but let me answer anyway. No that's not fraud, which requires intent to profit from knowing deceit.

If they agreed to participate in a scientific test and the cables didn't perform as claimed, then they wouldn't be able to make those claims any more without knowing that what they are saying is false. What does that tell you about Pear Cables' willingness to submit their product for testing?

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif nothing personal. and not an attack. but some people have shown that they have nothing constructive to add to the conversation except misinformation, wild speculation, or worse. so it is easier to bypass these posts than read them.

The problem is, if you insist on providing capsule summations of the knowledge and experience of particular posters, someone might do the same for *you*.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Look at it this way; here's what Pear was probably thinking... A--We win. Now many of the people who've never had any chance of affording our products (let's be honest, where you fall on the cable debate has a huge correlation with your budget) are on our side. This translates to zero sales, as they still can't afford our product. A large amount of the anti-cable people wouldn't change their mind if god himself told them designer cables are gold, so they will find a way to decimate the methodology, more than likely by abandoning "The Amazing Randi". So the test has no effect on them. B--We lose. This shouldn't require much explanation.

You left out that with option A, Pear Cables walks away with a cool million. A million bucks soothes all kinds of potential loss of potential customers who weren't even potential customers in the first place!

I seriously doubt that Pear Cables ever thought a bit about option A. They were only worrying about B.

See ya
Steve

 

[earwicker7]

I'm curious... although this is politically incorrect, I think it has to be asked.

Are there any Audio Luddites who have a complete system valued at over $2,000? I honestly think the cable debate is really a budget debate. IE, those that can't afford them hate them with a passion.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif Guys stop arguing about the same. Please understand for a good darn time, that we have been arguing for decades like that, wanna know why? It is very simple, because nobody had supplied the evidences needed to disprove either one of the sides

That isn't true. In post 212, hciman77 posts a link to a study on speaker cables that proves that the differences are minute- inaudible. The problem isn't that evidence isn't supplied, it's that the obvious isn't acknowledged.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are there any Audio Luddites who have a complete system valued at over $2,000?

What is an "Audio Luddite"?

If you're curious about how much money I've spent on my interest in music, don't ask! It accounts for a huge chunk of my income.

See ya
Steve

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are someone whose comments I have valued, skeptic or not, but here you don't bother to show any thought about what I've written.

That is not the case I have read and mulled over your comments very carefully, however my responses are based on my interpretation that many of them are somewhat tangential to the issue at hand. Interesting as discussion points but a bit off-topic.

Quote:

These things are excuses only if you don't acknowledge that hearing in the full sense is a perceptual activity influenced by many other brain functions concurrently and by learning(history and nature of listening, instruction, etc).

In this contetx it doesnt really matter how hearing works at a neurological level. A subject is given a specific task, can they do it or not.

By all means get trained listeners (Fremer should be a good candidate) , also the AES has been doing these kinds of tests on professional listeners (engineers, musicians, studio professionals) since the early days of CD development when they wanted to examine the effect of brickwall filters at different frequencies. Also training materials are available on the web, Arny Kruger hosts some files that allow listeners to train themselves to hear different levels and sorts of distortion. DBT testing often starts with prolonged periods where the subject gets to listen sighted to different configurations to get used to the sound of a system. Several DBTs take place with the listeners own systems anyway (i.e Ashihara's and 'Meyer and Moran's' studies) thus removing the "unfamiliarity" effect.

[quote
You just can't factor out such things as which equipment, where, under what conditions, what stakes, etc? This seems readily apparent to skeptics when explaining away reports of heard differences as the effect of all these other things, which include motivation, suggestion, imagination, etc. [/quote]

Can you give me some specifc exemplars I would be interested in seeing them. I have never said that all DBTs produce negative results, just most of them.

I will grant you that skeptics do sometimes refuse to accept a demonstrated positive result, I have seen some positive DBT tests where a subject has demonstrated statistically that they can hear the difference between say FLAC and MP3 so I accept that it does happen.

What I have seen from skeptics is typically along the lines of

the test was invalid because...

1) It wasnt properly controlled
2) There was a clear artifact (uncorrelated from the sound) introduced in one condition that was not there in the other
3) the levels were not properly matched
4) The volume was set to an insanely high level(*)
5) The things you are comparing are not fundamentally the same i.e CD vs SACD where the mastering is different

* - This I will admit is a bit of a dodge

Quote:

But there is some kind of weird inability to accept that the same things, e.g., learning, can improve perceptiveness about what comes into the ear canal just as they can distort it or decrease it.

As mentioned before, many of these tests done before do use highly motivated and trained listeners. By all means use trained listeners or train listeners, with $1M at stake that would be a rational approach.

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif If they agreed to participate in a scientific test and the cables didn't perform as claimed, then they wouldn't be able to make those claims any more without knowing that what they are saying is false. What does that tell you about Pear Cables' willingness to submit their product for testing? See ya Steve

I agree with the first sentence, which is why the answer to the question is that they are smart to avoid putting themselves in that position because, aside from the possible misinterpretation that failure under those conditions necessarily means failure under any conditions, none of their competition is in that position. If they did involve themselves in the first place, that was foolish. On top of that, the attitude of those like you whose intention is to debunk them one way or the other not to do science magnifies the inevitable risk of putting their stuff to any public test to the point of it being insanely risky. That's right, I believe the people who most want a DBT are actually making it less likely to happen by their way of pursuing it.

I would like to see such a test done under the best possible conditions for being able to hear differences if they are to be heard, not a circus like this. The putative expert should listen with his own equipment in his own setting without anyone beyond the least number of people involved in performing the test knowing about it in advance. Music familiar to the expert should be used just as in reviews where favorite passages for picking up certain things are used and compared using one and then the other cable. The expert should be able to practice with the cables that will be used in the test. All about how the test will be conducted should be worked out in advance. This way what is tested is whether a difference can be heard in the best conditions by at least one person, which is all that is needed to prove there is a difference and to prevent difference believers from being able to dismiss a negative result or skeptics a positive one. This expert will either have or have not been able to hear a difference in these cables indisputably.

One more thing to add: To get the cables to be tested a small nuimber of believers in difference should pick a cable they believe is particularly and distinctly to them different from another cheaper cable that is well thought of. The brands involved should be kept confidential before, during and after the test so that no company is singled out for possible harm and that beliefs about brands are eliminated as factors.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif That isn't true. In post 212, hciman77 posts a link to a study on speaker cables that proves that the differences are minute- inaudible. The problem isn't that evidence isn't supplied, it's that the obvious isn't acknowledged. See ya Steve

That isnt quite correct. The differences were measured and they were very small. It doesnt prove that they are inaudible since some claim to be able to hear level differences of < 0.1db and if you really crank up the volume you can improve sensitivity.

I would say that it would make it more likely that they are inaudible in normal use since the biggest differences in the cables tested occurred at a frequency (20K) where our hearing has been empirically shown to be much less sensitive, personally I cant hear 20K anyway but maybe some of our younger members can.

Of course 18ga lamp cord vs 3ga cable gave a 0.3db difference at 20K.

 

[Riboge]

hciman77, thanks for your response which does make you point of view clearer to me and also seem not that far from my own. Please the reply to bigshot just above for more.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif That isn't true. In post 212, hciman77 posts a link to a study on speaker cables that proves that the differences are minute- inaudible. The problem isn't that evidence isn't supplied, it's that the obvious isn't acknowledged. See ya Steve

No Steve, this study only proves that the cables measure slightly different, and that the curves measured are slightly different, we all know that, but that study does not quantify for example the minimal amount in those parameters to actually hear a difference or not. So we are on the same point, we all know that different topologies and geometries measure different, now to what extend those differences are actually audible, is what needs to be proved, that study fails in that regard IMO...stating that they are small enough, does not prove neither they are not audible by someone with privileged ears (of course not by the huge mass we have hear stating they do)

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would like to see such a test done under the best possible conditions for being able to hear differences if they are to be heard, not a circus like this. The putative expert should listen with his own equipment in his own setting without anyone beyond the least number of people involved in performing the test knowing about it in advance. Music familiar to the expert should be used just as in reviews where favorite passages for picking up certain things are used and compared using one and then the other cable. The expert should be able to practice with the cables that will be used in the test. All about how the test will be conducted should be worked out in advance. This way what is tested is whether a difference can be heard in the best conditions by at least one person, which is all that is needed to prove there is a difference and to prevent difference believers from being able to dismiss a negative result or skeptics a positive one. This expert will either have or have not been able to hear a difference in these cables indisputably.

That seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[mojo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm curious... although this is politically incorrect, I think it has to be asked. Are there any Audio Luddites who have a complete system valued at over $2,000? I honestly think the cable debate is really a budget debate. IE, those that can't afford them hate them with a passion.

My system is worth more than that. C.E.C. DA53, HA5000 and W5000s alone come in at well over £1000 ($2000).

I could, if I wanted, spend money on cables. I could buy £50-100 interconnects. I don't because I have never been able to hear any difference between cables. A few times I thought I did, but on further listening I couldn't and had to put it down to other factors (amp temperature/burn-in, the way the phones sat on my head etc). We are talking minute differences that were not reproducible.

Honestly, it could have been my cat farting for all I can tell.

I must say I have been tempted by some expensive cables, because they look cool. Vanity was not enough to make me spend the money though. I like making my own cables anyway. If I really thought better cables would help, I'd be willing to spend money on them.

PS. I think my ears are fairly good. I can ABX lame --alt-preset-extreme vs. FLAC on some tracks. Can tell the difference between CD players, amps etc.

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That seems perfectly reasonable.

I have added a paragraph to what you quoted. I hope you still find it reasonable [and maybe even why my earlier statements may not have been so tangential].