[Solrighal]

   Son? Pay attention? I am 73, have multiple advanced degrees from a top university and have in high end audio since soon after the 33 LP was invented. I have also been fortunate enough to have gone through and owned some of the very best audio equipment available. Your condescension fails.

 
I believe the "son" was directed towards me. Still a fail though. This clown doesn't know the first thing about me.

 

[Steve Eddy]

 Son? Pay attention? I am 73, have multiple advanced degrees from a top university and have been in high end audio since soon after the 33 LP was invented. I have also been fortunate enough to have gone through and owned some of the very best audio equipment available. Your condescension fails.

The "son" was directed at Zorrofox. Christ, what's wrong with you guys that you can't follow a simple discussion.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

I believe the "son" was directed towards me. Still a fail though. This clown doesn't know the first thing about me.

I know that you can't follow a simple message thread and figure out who is saying what to whom. I don't need to know your height, weight and date of birth to see that.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

For the record I'm 50 and started out in the hi-fi trade when I was 19. I don't perceive a difference I hear a difference.

But you haven't demonstrated that to be the case.

It's all perception. The question is whether or not that perception is due to the sound that's striking your eardrums or whether it's purely psychological in nature. If it's purely psychological in nature, then it can't be said to be an audible difference.

Here is a perfect example. It's called the McGurk Effect. When the video changes to his mouthing the sound "fa" with an f, you percive it as if he is actually saying "fa" with an f. But the sound that's actually striking your eardrums is the same "ba" with a b that he was saying from the start. In other words, your perceiving it sounding like "fa" with an f is purely psychological in nature. There is no actual audible difference.


[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0[/VIDEO]


That's the problem with "audiophiles." They have no understanding of their own humanity and the weaknesses that come along with it. And when made aware of it, they just go into deep denial, or think that their humanity can somehow be overcome by "experience," or sheer willpower. But this is nothing but vanity and ego.

Not with all cables, in fact not with most. But with this one particular cable I do. If you can't deal with someone holding a different opinion to you then I suggest you do one.

Again, when you are making claims of actual audible differences, YOU ARE NOT STATING AN "OPINION.". You are making a claim of fact. And if after 50 years on this planet you don't understand the difference between the two, then you should probably not engage in discussions such as this.

Enough of your pish. You're blocked!

The pish is all on your side. You just don't have the capacity to understand that it's pish.

se

 

[nigeljames]

I see the thought police have arrived again. 

 
Boring....

 

[Kimball Corson]

The flat earthers really do dampen any discussion on Head-Fi of the sonic differences between cables, as I earlier explained.  We have an example here. Indeed, a further example is as to the entire thread. But more specifically . . .

I discussed the sonic properties of several different cables (all silver plated copper of various types) in two posts here and was immediately rained on by the naysayers.  

This was so even though I also posted research -- indeed much inspired by a book by a Nobel Laureate and an expert on perception, indicating why double blind testing for perceived differences is a failure and will not reveal them whereas other blind testing can. Of course, there was no response by them to that at all.

Thought police rings true. Indeed, the policing is much done by libel and insult.

 

[skeptic]

Says the guy who has to throw around the ad hominem "flat earthers" in order to try and make his point. Logical fallacy police needed asap.

Also, still waiting on the list of supposed amp manufacturers who laser trim their own resisters and roll their own caps. Hint, the teflons in my mainline were made for arc's 25k preamp by RTI, the same company that makes virtually all high end caps. Do these same amp makers also build custom vacuum tubes using 10awg silver litz for the output? I love claims that the physical dimensions of a conductor is a "bottleneck" in the chain when the amplified signal is coming off the plate, in all or our fancy tube amps, on hair thin wires of uunknown composition.

 

[Steve Eddy]

I see the thought police have arrived again.  :rolleyes:

Boring....

I haven't noticed any posts having been deleted. What thought police are you referring to?

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Thought police rings true. Indeed, the policing is much done by libel and insult.

What policing? I've deleted none of your posts. There has been no libel and it's not an insult to call a liar a liar any more than it is to call a thief a thief.

se

 

[dudlew]

Some questions..... I have not read multitudes of books on the subject or researched a lot of these claims of proof of hearing differences....
 
but it seems to be  continuous war. cant the both camps just agree to disagree? 
 
It is hard to say that there is no differences from my point of view because i did a blind test with a complete non audiophile between two cables and the choices made were constant.
 
Also i remember buying a cheap cable that was so bad that it was immediately obvious that it was just down right inferior.
 
I understand the video shown about the McGurk effect, but how does it affect a blind test? Take away the other stimuli and leave it up to your ears and perhaps there might be a difference?
 
A lot of the points against this are valid... what about the rest of the chain? arent there various things that come into play as well? why should that make a difference? But then why should there be a difference in two dacs that use the same chip and probably filters, but the difference being construction and implementation? In that case, the better quality resistors and capacitors should make no difference and neither shoud the circuit board design or the type of soldering etc. Why are there claims that potentiometers have an affect on the sound of a device, or the power supply? If they all do the same thing, then a cheap pot and cheap  transformers with the cheapest caps and resistors etc made in the same config as one using better quality parts of the same spec should sound identical. right?

 

[Steve Eddy]

Some questions..... I have not read multitudes of books on the subject or researched a lot of these claims of proof of hearing differences....

You don't need to read a book. It's very simple. When one makes an objective claim, which is a claim that holds true for all observers, then the onus is upon the person making such a claim to substantiate it. If they cannot, they have no business making the claim in the first place.

Let's say my wallet turns up missing. And I turn to you and say "You stole it!"

Your having stolen the wallet or not would be true for all observers. So if I'm going to make the objective claim that you stole my wallet, then the onus is upon me to substantiate that claim. If I cannot, then I have no business making such a claim in the first place.

Do you understand?

but it seems to be  continuous war. cant the both camps just agree to disagree?

No. When it comes to opinions it's fine to ultimately agree to disagree. But this is not about opinions. An objective claim of actual audible differences is not a natter of opinion. It is either true or it is false. And those who continue to make such claims but cannot substantiate them should have their feet kept to the fire until they can substantiate those claims or they stop making the claims.

It is hard to say that there is no differences from my point of view because i did a blind test with a complete non audiophile between two cables and the choices made were constant.

And that alone counts as nothing. Without knowing the full details and procedure of the test in order to determine if it provided proper controls, and if so the results duplicated by others, it means nothing.

Also i remember buying a cheap cable that was so bad that it was immediately obvious that it was just down right inferior.

And I know people who say their audio systems sound much better after they put photographs of themselves in their freezers.

I understand the video shown about the McGurk effect, but how does it affect a blind test? Take away the other stimuli and leave it up to your ears and perhaps there might be a difference?

The McGurk Effect is simply one phenomenon. The purpose of blind testing is to control for all of the various biases and influences that can affect how we perceive things. So if you get a positive result (provided adequate controls were in place which they often aren't with amateur blind tests), you can be fairly confident that it was due to actual audible stimulus.

A lot of the points against this are valid... what about the rest of the chain? arent there various things that come into play as well? why should that make a difference? But then why should there be a difference in two dacs that use the same chip and probably filters, but the difference being construction and implementation? In that case, the better quality resistors and capacitors should make no difference and neither shoud the circuit board design or the type of soldering etc. Why are there claims that potentiometers have an affect on the sound of a device, or the power supply? If they all do the same thing, then a cheap pot and cheap  transformers with the cheapest caps and resistors etc made in the same config as one using better quality parts of the same spec should sound identical. right?

Because people are human beings. And anyone who is truly interested in audio should be at least reasonably well versed in how any why we perceive the things that we perceive. Human beings are not the perfect measurement instruments our vanities and egos would like to lead us to believe. That's why the field of study for this sort of stuff is called psychoacoustics.

se

 

[Lenni]

I think there should be a total ban on science related comments in this forum. Total. The same stupid arguments have been going in circle over and over ad nauseam, and they serve no purpose as no one is going to be convinced by the other. Anyone with two functionally brain cells would have seen that by now.

 

[Lenni]

What policing? I've deleted none of your posts. There has been no libel and it's not an insult to call a liar a liar any more than it is to call a thief a thief.

se

 
I think you should have been banned from making comments in this forum a long time ago. Instead they appoint you as moderator? What a joke.
 
they pretty much sign a death warrant for this forum.
 
RIP cable forum.

 

[Solrighal]

   
I think you should have been banned from making comments in this forum a long time ago. Instead they appoint you as moderator? What a joke.
 
they pretty much sign a death warrant for this forum.
 
RIP cable forum.

 
I agree. The title of this forum is, after all, 'Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum)'. The clue should be in the name.

 

[bfreedma]

  I think there should be a total ban on science related comments in this forum. Total. The same stupid arguments have been going in circle over and over ad nauseam, and they serve no purpose as no one is going to be convinced by the other. Anyone with two functionally brain cells would have seen that by now.

 
Would you support a total ban on unsupported claims and anecdotal evidence used as "proof" and "fact" in the Sound Science forum?
 
I really don't see the issue - either skip or ignore posts you disagree with.  Censorship is never a good path, particularly on a forum intended for open discussion.