[Ricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bloggs If all THAT isn't renouncing your hearing in favour of measurements, I don't know what is!

He gave me an useless advice, I already use my ears, I gave him another advice I thought could be useful to him


Quote:

Not everybody on this board is familiar with the intricate engineering aspects of cables (but there are certainly people who are familiar with them) but we HAVE presented results of DBT tests where differences between cables could be reliably picked out. If you want more proof against your theory that all cables sound the same, perhaps you should ask MacDEF for more details about the equipment he used, methodology, etc. You DON'T need a scope to conclude whether cables sound different or not!

We have talked about his tests enough, I think.

Quote:

By the way, when people say that they hear a difference between cables, they are always right, incontrovertibly right, because they are just making a statement about their subjective experience. Their experience when listening to one cable was different from another cable. Even if the cables are later found out to be exactly the same down to the last atom and the last 0.0000000000000000000001 dB, that doesn't change the fact that 'THEY HEARD A DIFFERENCE'. Whether the difference exists or not is completely irrelevant. And since people don't spend all their music listening time in a DBT, aftermarket cables WOULD HAVE THEIR PLACE EVEN IF THEY DO ALL OBJECTIVELY SOUND THE SAME, IF FOR SOME REASON PEOPLE FOUND SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM. ... And stop trying to prove that cables don't sound different. When people feel that they sound different to them, this is already incontrovertible proof that they sound different TO THEM. They just may not sound different to YOU. And whether you can MEASURE the difference, whether the difference even EXISTS out there, is completely irrelevant.

Agreed 100%, that's what I wanted people to know. But then, don't say cables sound different. Say they sound different TO YOU, and only to you, and don't say it's because they color the sound, or are ultra-conductive, or other weird technical reasons, because that's false. They sound different to you, but why, it's a different issue.

 

[setmenu]

And yet more....
And who will reposte?


Setmenu

 

[Nezer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ricky Agreed 100%, that's what I wanted people to know. But then, don't say cables sound different. Say they sound different TO YOU, and only to you, and don't say it's because they color the sound, or are ultra-conductive, or other weird technical reasons, because that's false. They sound different to you, but why, it's a different issue. [/B]

Finally we are getting somewhere.

This statement has finally proven to me that you are neither arogant nore an idiot so I'll rescind all insults stated above.

I think the only answer as to WHY something sounds different to someone is becuase it does. Nothing more, nothing less. And when someone speaks that 'it colors the sound' I think it goes without saying that it's in thier opinion that it does and no one else has to agree.

When they start trying to *prove* it to someone (which they shouldn't have to do) it becomes a futile and idiotic venture (as shown above).

I think we can all agree to disagree about the technical reasons and agree that each person hears what they hear. Regardless of placebo effect or otherwise. If one can hear a difference than there is a difference.

If one feels that difference is worth spending $2000 on, thats one's personal right to do so. Are they stupid for doing so? Only if they don't have the $2000 to spend in the first place but the same holds true for the $4 cable as well.

Hopefully we can put this issue to bed now.

---

Ricky, now that the conversation has taken a intelligent turn I'll address one of your questions above.

No, I'm not accusing you of lying. All I was stating was the fact that no one but you knows what was done to those files and all we have is your word. For all *I* know you are lying (people have been known to do this on occasion) but for all I know you are not either. Simply put, it was yet another variable in the equation.

I don't really think you would do that but, you have to admit, it *is* a possibility from where I sit.

So, I'm not calling you a liar but am saying the potential does exist and there is no way for anyone other than you to know the truth.

Some people have a need (for whatever reason) to prove themselves right through any means possible and sometimes they resort to unethical practices such as lying. Do I really think you are one of these people? No. But I didn't think Clinton was either. In other words, you just never know.

I do feel that you feel so strongly on the issue that you wouldn't resort to such tactics. Others may disagree but I can really tell you believe what you speak is the truth.

So, I apologize for calling you an arrogant idiot but, arguably, what you were trying to do could be called both. I was wrong to reflect that on your character rather than this one action. In other words, we all do stupid things but that doesn't necessarly make us stupid people. I was wrong to imply (or rather, downright state) that *you* were an idiot and arrogant though I still maintain that your actions in this matter were characterstic of both (and, I should know, my actions were the same).

 

[dparrish]

Well,

My 2 cents worth--

The "earth is flat" arguement really isn't a good one to support Ricky's position. It appears that almost all educated people, at least back to the time of the Greeks, believed/knew that the earth was round. Before the Greek mathematicians postulated their theories to "prove" this, sailors surmised it due to slowly-sinking (not suddenly sinking) ships on the horizon (See http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/scolumb.htm). In fact, this example COULD be used to prove just the opposite--that people began with a perception which at first couldn't be proved but which later was.

But I'm not going to change Ricky's mind nor anyone else's on this board.

I think it is clear to ALL of us that (if we are all open-minded and truly scientific) there may be MORE to learn about human hearing/perception of sound and how different cables factor in this equation. Certainly, some will say there is no difference, HOPEFULLY not just because they BELIEVE there is none (even from a measurement standpoint), but because they have taken the time to experience/try this for themselves. On the other hand, there are certainly many (as I do) who believe that cables DO make a difference, based on experience.

In the final analysis, experience is the only thing logically which truly matters. We are not machines--we are physical bodies that must begin with our senses. This is how we ALL come into the world and begin learning ABOUT our world--through the senses. If the difference in sound I hear is one that matters TO ME, that's all that is important. If I want to spend money on this or that cable because I hear a difference, no one has the right to tell me otherwise. Similarly, if another hears NO difference and prefers to not get into cable swapping, that's THEIR right as well. Is it possible that SOME of the differences I hear in cables might be a placebo effect? Perhaps, but I personally believe there is a difference that I'm able to hear with just about every cable I've tried. But does any of this REALLY matter? I really think the end result for YOU is what truly matters.

I think discussion of this topic has been good, but I also think there is a point at which we've all pretty much exhausted all that we have to say

I say, if we're going to continue to disagree without any really NEW information being passed, perhaps it's time to move on to other discussions until something new pertaining to this DOES come up

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I can't believe it! Have I finally managed to bring this discussion to a close?

 

[setmenu]

No

Setmenu

That rounds it up to a nice 200 posts now.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

LOL setmenu

Onward march to 300!

 

[dgs]

I must admit, there are some impressive displays of both logic and the denial of it in this thread.

It reminds me of a line from William Wordsworth:
"...living in a world have perceived and half created."

Of course, I can't remember which poem this is from, or whether I have the line exactly right. As with everyone else, I also live in this half-perceived and half created world.

But fascinating stuff. I particularly liked the part of the thread where some were considering how subtle sonic differences could reflect either a well-trained ear or an imagined difference, and I found it particularly interesting that some people would turn to outside measurements to confirm or disprove their perception, where others would tend to trust their experience over other types of "evidence."

I am further reminded of an experiment done in social psychology about 30 years ago. A subject was shown a picture of two lines, one obviously shorter than the other. He was asked if they were equal or different in length. The problem was, there were 6 other people in the room (hired by the researcher) to say that the lines were equal. A large majority of the people tested in this way said that the lines were equal. When even one of the confederates was told to side with the poor subject (saying that they appeared inequal), the rate of those conforming even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary dropped significantly. Thus, the story goes, we use outside cues to validate our own experience. I guess that this need for validation partly explains the success of this forum in general--we headphone-philes are not really alone in a sea of Sony Streetstyle wearing fools...there are those who think like us, at least, like us enough to think that sound matters.

Very interesting thread, for the differences in opinion as well as the responses to having those differences challenged.

 

[Mic]

Not to start anything, but I once had an argument with my brother on this topic. He made one interesting statement that made me think.

I said that we cannot claim that we know all about sound and its properties.

His response was that perhaps that's true, but we know it well enough and that all the equipment we use for playback hinges on those few properties that we understand. Thus, if there are properties that affect sound that we don't know about, they should affect the equipment randomly, as in better/worse between $0.50 and $800 cables.

Thus, a $0.50 and a $800 may measure the same.

But, maybe something has been done to the $800 one that changes a property that we don't understand. The interesting thing is that the manufacturers claim to base their design on science and known knowledge.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Nah, only if all the good known properties of cables could be designed into a 50c cable and ther is no known way of using $799.5 to improve the cable.

Also, there are probably a complete continuum from complete unknown to completely known fact. Most everything probably lies in between these two extremes.

Also, tweaking cables blindly may have a random effect, but our ears do not perceive randomly.

Also, unknown properties do not yield random effects, they just yield some definite effects that we don't know about.

With so little information on hand, this thread has indeed mostly been a philosophical debate.

And at the risk of fuelling the flames again, I must say that what I said about people hearing a difference for themselves even between identical cables is only a last-stand position. I do believe that

1. cables sound objectively different
2. at least some people would be able to pick out the difference in a blind test
3. other people, although they can't pick out the difference in a blind test, would be affected by the objective sonic differences in their cable preferences in a non-random way

Having said all that, I have no personal experience on this matter

 

[Ricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bloggs I do believe that 1. cables sound objectively different 2. at least some people would be able to pick out the difference in a blind test 3. other people, although they can't pick out the difference in a blind test, would be affected by the objective sonic differences in their cable preferences in a non-random way

Well, I do believe the opposite.

1 - Cables (that are not broken or very poorly designed) sound objectively the same.

2 - That is to be proved, in a rigurously controlled double blind tests. In such a test, it has not been proved so far. Instead, it has been proved many times that:

- In tests, same people being able to identify clearly cables when doing sighted testing, when just going to blind, are incapable of identify them anymore. Either the differences dissapear, or are just random guessing. Note that, being all others conditions in the test the same.

- The opposite. In blind, or just partially blind tests, telling people that they were listening to different cables, they could hear differences between them, even when they had been listening to the same cable, but without knowing it.

There are many first hand references of people that has done these tests.


3 - How do you know for sure, if its not a blind test?

 

[setmenu]

And the Cycle begins again.

Setmenu

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I think your claim for (1) is plain hogwash. Only way two cables can sound the same is if they are microphysically identical! Cables definitely sound different. Only thing to debate is if the differences can be heard with human ears. Are you saying that you can't measure capacitance from any cables? Sure with the kind of capacitance we are talking about the corner frequencies may be like 3Hz and 40000Hz but even then you can get 0.001dB differences at 40Hz and 15000Hz! Don't be so sure we can't hear that

Noise rejection? How can you be so sure that you can't tell between 100dB rejection and 120dB rejection? Especially if I put a dialling mobile phone right next to the cable!

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ricky Well, I do believe the opposite.

What a surprise!

 

[Ricky]

Joe: it's again the same thing, as setmenu says. I think I've talked enough about the issues you point. But then, is YOU who has to actually prove the things you claim, not me, sorry.