[Head Injury]

Quote:

Nope, didn't say that.  If somebody can't hear a difference, that doesn't mean they're not hearing a difference.  It's an analogue world.  All it means is the differences are below their noise threshold but that doesn't mean the differences aren't there.
 
Kindly refer to the above bolded passage for why your post is ridiculous.
 
If the differences aren't audible, then for all our brains are concerned, there is no difference. That's why anti-cablers debate not that there are no differences, but that there are no audible differences. All the measurable differences in the world mean nothing for a product meant to change perceived sound if our ears aren't good enough to perceive them.
 
Would you like more italics?
 
No, I'm saying that if you want the truth, you'll have to wire the listener's brain up and see what lights up.  Now you're in valid, quantifiable, territory.  Anything else is a waste of time because it's all arbitrary.  Until this is done, there's no debate as it's all subjective.
 
But results from a DBT are quantifiable. If they get X right out of Y trials, there's a Z percent chance that they're guessing. Those results are perfectly acceptable in lieu of expensive brain measuring equipment. Modern medicine has been accepting them for ages. And that's all the scientists ask for is the passing of a DBT. Your reasons for invalidity aren't valid.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

There's no need to name any tests as they're all flawed or invalid; sighted, unsighted, double-blind, etc.  How can anybody debate flawed testing?  There's no point.

You haven't provided any evidence that those methodologies are invalid.  They seem to work just fine for everything else, so why not audio cables?

 

[beeman458]

These kinds of tests never indicate anything better than chance guessing.
 
Of course they don't.  Why?  The evaluation parameters are designed to make sure that's all they'll ever be.  Ya can't have a rational debate based upon irrational rules.  Based upon the evaluation parameters set out by the test givers, fail is the only option.  Good for them.  I wish them a happy and fulfilled life.
 
Okay, enough with this sparring.  It's getting fatiguing on the innocents of my poor little brain.
 

 
Okay, the power cord was a bust but there's still hope with the pending arrival in a week or so, of the custom ordered headphone cables.
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

These kinds of tests never indicate anything better than chance guessing.
 
Of course they don't.  Why?  The evaluation parameters are designed to make sure that's all they'll ever be.  Ya can't have a rational debate based upon irrational rules.  Based upon the evaluation parameters set out by the test givers, fail is the only option.  Good for them.  I wish them a happy and fulfilled life.

What evaluation parameters are those?
 
We're not psychic, nor do we have our brains hooked up to yours with 99.9999999% pure copper interconnects. You have to tell us these things.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Of course they don't.  Why?  The evaluation parameters are designed to make sure that's all they'll ever be.  Ya can't have a rational debate based upon irrational rules.  Based upon the evaluation parameters set out by the test givers, fail is the only option.

You keep saying that, but you won't tell us why.
 
Also I'd like to clarify my earlier posts a bit.  When I said that the universe was basiclly digital I was referring to the discrete nature of matter and energy but I left out the position of an object within space-time.  AFIK the jury is still out on whether the Plank Length is the discrete unit by which position can change, but I'm far from an expert on the subject.  I will anxiously await an actual physicist to come give both beeman and myself the smack down.

 

[beeman458]

You haven't provided any evidence that those methodologies are invalid.  They seem to work just fine for everything else, so why not audio cables?
 
And I don't need to as I'm not here to change the world.  As I wrote, the test givers are taking analogue behavior and summing it up using digital parameters, invalid methodology.
 
Example: if a ball club wins only fifty percent of their games, does that mean they don't exist as a team?  If at four hundred yards, without a scope, you hit a target one out of a hundred times, does that mean you don't know how to use a rifle?  If one can reliably pick out a cable change one out of ten times, does that mean they're not hearing a change?  Mighty arrogant to say they're not as you haven't a wit of proof they're not hearing a change.  The conclusions drawn are totally specious.  Why?  Because they're drawn upon false premises.
 
If someone wants to buy into this world of doctored up testing results and skewed evaluation rules, more power to them as it's none of my business what they want to believe.  If anybody wants to believe there's nothing to cables, I'm happy for them.  Too bad they can't be happy for those who do enjoy cables.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Example: if a ball club wins only fifty percent of their games, does that mean they don't exist as a team?  If at four hundred yards, without a scope, you hit a target one out of a hundred times, does that mean you don't know how to use a rifle?  If one can reliably pick out a cable change one out of ten times, does that mean they're not hearing a change?  

Woo, analogy fail.
 
Ball club: No, because wins has nothing to do with physical existence. Can we argue that a team with a 50% loss rate is not a winning team? Yes.
 
Rifle: That's exactly our point. Hitting a target 1 out of 100 times says nothing about skill. Especially if the chance of hitting the target accidentally when "guessing" is not known. Luckily for us and not so luckily for your terrible analogies, we do know the chance of guessing a cable correctly. And between two cables, it's exactly 50%.
 
Cable: No. But the key word here is reliably. I wouldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, call 1 out of 10 "reliable". "Reliable" here would be a ratio which minimizes or even eliminates the chance that the listener was guessing. 5% is (as far as I know) the maximum percentage chance of guessing that would be accepted as a pass. Out of 10 trials, I believe it's something like 8 correct. But I'm not doing any math for it. The thing to take from this failed analogy is that "reliable" only applies to those that pass the test. Everything else is unreliable, too likely to be guessing.
 
Also, what exactly is analogue behavior? Behavior here is either "Yes, I hear it" or "No, I don't", not analogue at all. We don't care what you hear, as long as you hear it and can reliably prove it in a DBT. In fact, the odds are stacked in your favor! There's only one "analogue" value that results in a "No, I don't", and that's zero audible difference. There's millions that can result in a "Yes"!
 
@ below: I think you'll find the response to post #263 in my Cable section of this here post #262. Maybe I am psychic.

 

[beeman458]

What evaluation parameters are those?
 
We're not psychic, nor do we have our brains hooked up to yours with 99.9999999% pure copper interconnects. You have to tell us these things.
 
I have, many times.  The parameters stating what constitutes a successful test.  Parameters which say you need to get a certain percentage right in order to say you're hearing a difference.  I've stated this point several times.  I've also stated what I would consider a valid test.
 
The premise set forth regarding what's considered a valid result is totally laughable but folks are welcome to believe anything they want.  If one wants to believe the world's flat, I'm happy for them.  I'm not going try to change them.  In the case of cables, it's a power struggle on the part of the anti-cable crowd.
 
"We are Borg, you will be assimilated."
 
If someone doesn't want to buy cables, good for them.  Why?  Cause it don't matter what I enjoy as to what they think.  See, no debate.

 

[beeman458]

Woo, analogy fail.
 
And I'm happy you think this way.  You won't get a debate out of me.
 
Also, what exactly is analogue behavior? Behavior here is either "Yes, I hear it" or "No, I don't", not analogue at all. We don't care what you hear, as long as you hear it and can reliably prove it in a DBT.
 
Yes, digital rules for an analogue experience.  You know, sound waves, light waves, issues surrounding sensitivity, noise floors and sensory thresholds.
 
???
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

 
I have, many times.  The parameters stating what constitutes a successful test.  Parameters which say you need to get a certain percentage right in order to say you're hearing a difference.  I've stated this point several times.  I've also stated what I would consider a valid test.

Yes, you've said that such statistics are invalid, but you've never said why they are invalid.  You gave some kind of pseudo solipsistic, post-modernist rant about "emotion" but never told us why we can't ask for the same sort of 95% confidence interval that is accepted in every other field of study.

 

[beeman458]

Yes, you've said that such statistics are invalid, but you've never said why they are invalid.
 
Please reread what I've written as yes, I have posted why they're invalid.
 
You gave some kind of pseudo solipsistic, post-modernist rant about "emotion" but never told us why we can't ask for the same sort of 95% confidence interval that is accepted in every other field of study.
 
Wow!  Solipsistic and Post-modern.  Never wrote either but hey, gotta admit, it sure sounded cool.  And yes I have responded to the invalidity of demanding a confidence interval that's accepted in every other field of study.
 
You'll find I'll present my position on this matter but in the same token, find no reason to defend or debate my position.  If someone doesn't want to buy cables, for any reason, I'm happy for them; no effort to control.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beeman458 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Wow!  Solipsistic and Post-modern.  Never wrote either but hey, gotta admit, it sure sounded cool.  And yes I have responded to the invalidity of demanding a confidence interval that's accepted in every other field of study.

Well you seem to saying that subjective experience is more important than objective measurement and observation, and that's wading in to that territory.
 
What exactly are you saying then?
 
Are you saying that a cable that makes a difference so small it can only be heard 10% of the time is worth buying?  Even if you think it is, such a cable does not appear to exist.  With a large sample size you can crunch the numbers to see if such a cable really was different 10% of the time, but they don't even find that.  If a cable was making a difference 10% of the time, that's what the studies would come up with because choosing that cable would still be better than chance.  It would be a small bias towards that cable, but it would still be there.  A 95% confidence interval doesn't mean getting it right 95% percent of the time, it means that the statistics tell us with our sample size, it's 95% percent certain that our results are not the result of chance.
 
If 100 people each took 10 trials of 2 cables and they mostly chose cable A 10% more often than cable B then there would actually be some decent evidence.  It never happens that way though.  The results are random.  There is no bias, not even a small one.

 

[Lenni]

Quote:

You're making the assumption that an audible "difference" is a result of a physical difference in cables.

 
[size=11.0pt]yes. absolutely.[/size]

Quote:

If you want to be scientific about this, there are two fundamental questions:

 

1.  Is there a physical difference in cables that leads to audible differences?

2.  Is the human listening to cables actually hearing a difference, or is the heard difference a result of placebo, expectation and belief?

 

Whenever you try to answer number one with testing, no audible difference turns up.

 
I tested cables made of different conductors and they made audible differences to me.
 
Quote:

Whenever you try to answer number two, you repeatedly get results that show human bias.

 
it's possible that in some cases one or all of those biases could play some influence on the final test. but I don't accept that is the same for everybody. certainly not in my case. I'm interested in the sound, NOT the cables. I'm not sure how to explain it. I don't care if the cables retail for $5 or $500, or what special alloy is made of.  of course I marvel at the built quality of some, but that's about it. do I get excited, hopeful  for a new cable? yes. do I have expectations? not really. I have two pairs of interconnects, one has supposedly gold plated wire, and one has silver (or a special alloy mixture of both - I'm not even sure). the gold ones retail for almost twice the silver's. after testing both for few days I settled for the silver's. does it mean anything?
 
Quote:

Here's something to think about: even if a difference is eventually demonstrated scientifically, it must be incredibly small.  Almost insignificantly small.  Why?  Because careful testing of cables and humans has missed it so far.  If it was an obvious phenomenon, then people would pass blind tests without much trouble and endless handwringing over minute protocol differences.  Similarly, if the effect was easily found, it would show up as anomalies in tested results.  You'd get slightly off readings and ones that didn't fit with Ohm's law.  There might be a mysterious element, but still, it would affect known parameters.

 
sorry I'm not scientist, I haven't hung out with my science Ohmies in awhile. But people can't tell differences between amps / CDP's, and even speakers in some of them tests. that tells me that all these BT's are utterly useless; unless you think all amps / CDP's sounds the same too. 
 

 

[Sovkiller]

We have a dedicated forum to discuss freely about the science behind audio, some audiophiles feel the urge of spending money in things even while there is absolutely no science and logic behind the claims, and what is even worst they make up their minds so bad to those ideals, that they ended claiming to hear those things as well...There are some nice article about that topic, BJC has one posted, Straightwire has another, and I recall one made by an speaker company in which on the DBT audiophiles wrote about the differences in cables, and at the end they were all the time listening ta zip wire, and so on...
My suggestion is that you have hear for yourself and if you noticed a difference, even if it is due to placebo effect, to you, that is all that matters, placebo effect is real and exists, and makes a noticeable number in the investigations results of any kind...Also the human race have embrace some faiths, Voodoo, etc...that have no scientific explanation neither for centuries...so what do we know...
Same applies to biwiring, direccional interconnects, speaker wires, etc...  
 

 

[beeman458]

Well you seem to saying that subjective experience is more important than objective measurement and observation, and that's wading in to that territory.
 
Nope.  Nowhere in my writings have I stated such.  You're inferring the above due to your personal bias'. You'll find, if you reread my comments, I only write of people's happiness and the intentionally flawed nature, for stated reasons, of the evaluation methodologies and how the test givers intentionally set the test respondents up for fail, before the tests take place.  If one wanted to be pointed, then one could be pointed by telling test takers they're being played for fools and their ego's are getting in the way of their BS detectors.
 
I'm not here to debate the issue.  If you, or anybody wants to believe there's no difference in cables, I'm happy for you.  If you or others don't want to spend your monies on cables, I'm happy for you.  If you or others want to believe the evaluation methodologies of the test results are based upon sound scientific principal, I'm happy for you.  See, no debate, no Solipsisticism as it's not about me for the flaw continues to persist, with or without my presents in the Universe.  And I can see you don't understand the basis of Post-modernism because I have no ax to grind with Modernism.