$1 Million Cable Challenge Is On
Oct 20, 2007 at 12:23 AM Post #151 of 581
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The difference between cables is so subtle (if it exists at all) no amount of familiarity is going to help you remember. You aren't going to memorize whether the sheen on the top of the cymbals has a 1dB boost at 12kHz or not.

Even performance style or balance isn't totally memorable. Remember the Joyce Hatto affair? Well respected reviewers gushed over her performances, only to find out afterwards that they were direct ripoffs of other pianists' recordings- ones that received tepid reviews from the same critics. In rec.arts.music.classical-recordings, people are always putting up mp3s and inviting people to guess the conductor and orchestra. There are a lot of people there who really know their recordings, and even they often aren't able to name them without clues.

I think a little bit of DBT would confirm what I say is true. Perhaps the Randi challenge will convince you.

See ya
Steve



What you say is not hard to accept as what happens a lot of the time under random circumstances and with different sets and emotional states. That's the problem with the Randi thing. The glare and stress of a very public, sporting contest-like listening situation makes what happens quite exceptional EITHER WAY. If Fremer cannot differentiate it could be what many have reported elsewhere about anxiety dulling perception. On the other hand, some thrill to the contest and the adrenaline heightens perception so if Fremer wins, we don't know how that extrapolates to a more usual listening situation--though it would say that it can be done in at least one situation.

The identifying of recordings via broadcast or online airing of compressed recordings has many technical, situational and mental set differences from comparing one thing to another in one's usual setting with ones own equipment. Only the most talented, disciplined pros can do this sort of thing. I once witnessed a world-class wine expert at THE largest and most prestigious international wine event be challenged blind to identify 10 wines of different types and nationalities while on stage before an audience of 1000. He identified the country of origin and the type of all 10 and for most was right on more specific identification including identifying a wine from his own vineyards in Australia naming the particular vineyard the grapes came from and vintage. There may be only a handful that can perform on this level, but it is possible. I say it is the same with fine discriminations in audio.
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 12:43 AM Post #152 of 581
. . . and now we've come full circle and are starting to get into territory that the test really is needed to answer convincingly!

I really hope that they work out a protocol. I can't wait to see the results.
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 12:52 AM Post #153 of 581
Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I once witnessed a world-class wine expert at THE largest and most prestigious international wine event be challenged blind to identify 10 wines of different types and nationalities while on stage before an audience of 1000. He identified the country of origin and the type of all 10 and for most was right on more specific identification including identifying a wine from his own vineyards in Australia naming the particular vineyard the grapes came from and vintage. There may be only a handful that can perform on this level, but it is possible. I say it is the same with fine discriminations in audio.


There was once a study about Scotch focusing on whether it was possible to differentiate cheap Scotch from expensive Scotch. The results were extremely interesting. They went to a snooty country club where everyone talked about this superior Scotch vs that superior Scotch. The members of the club were given numerous brands of Scotch ranging from bargain basement to extremely expensive. With one exception, the members were unable to score any better than chance. The interesting thing is that the one person who performed well was able to nail the brand with consistency in the high 90s percentage-wise. He rarely made a mistake.

Just kind of makes you wonder about the golden ears thing.

On a similar note, I once astonished a room full of people when I saw a "subliminal" message in a movie. The movie was "The Ring"... during one part, I said "Wow, that was really cool how they threw the Ring in between the scenes." I got a roomful of puzzled looks. I hit rewind and replayed the scene. People were starting to think I was imagining things. I played the part three more times and finally got frustrated and hit pause and played it frame by frame. There was indeed one frame with this image... ONE FRAME. The image was on the screen for 1/24 of a second, but it was clear as day to me. To the best of my knowledge, this isn't "possible", and nobody else was able to notice it; I'm wondering if I have "golden eyes"...
blink.gif
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 1:12 AM Post #154 of 581
i don't think you need golden ears to distinguish between or among cables. i certainly don't have perfect hearing and clearly can distinguish my cables from one another.

another thing people go on about is the briefness of auditory memory. this may be true but is irrelevant in my opinion, as the memory at work is your long term (and not short term) memory. after spending a good while with a piece of equipment, you develop a general impression of its character and it is this that i use for comparison purposes. taking two pieces of foreign equipment and trying to point out their differences with a quick A/B is useless and i suspect that most people regardless of their hearing are able to do this.

it is for this reason, among others, that A/B tests are pointless and not the best or even a remotely suitable way to determine differences between things which by their nature are very similar in character.
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 6:01 AM Post #155 of 581
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.

There is no "long term" auditory memory. It is 5 seconds.

And earwicker, the Scotch would be the music, not the audio reproduction equipment.

The point of this test is to see if the Pear cables are any better than the monster cables.
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 6:51 AM Post #156 of 581
I have been reading about this cable dispute since the days of the “Audio Basics” underground magazines back in the early 1980’s. Even back then, it was heavily disputed. The one variable that can’t be dismissed even by time, IMHO, is that reviewers in magazines are subject to the policies and politics of their owning company and they are not going to be allowed to bite the hand that feeds them. To do so would be an automatic dismissal and smearing of whatever reputation has been built up over time. Why do I believe this? The all mighty dollar wins every time.

What I think is important here is whether or not we will walk away from the results of this test, felling compelled to change our personal views on how we put together our beloved systems. I believe that majority of audiophiles (new or old) will continue just as they have been. I’m pretty sure I will.
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 7:01 AM Post #157 of 581
Quote:

Originally Posted by Penchum /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I have been reading about this cable dispute since the days of the “Audio Basics” underground magazines back in the early 1980’s. Even back then, it was heavily disputed. The one variable that can’t be dismissed even by time, IMHO, is that reviewers in magazines are subject to the policies and politics of their owning company and they are not going to be allowed to bite the hand that feeds them. To do so would be an automatic dismissal and smearing of whatever reputation has been built up over time. Why do I believe this? The all mighty dollar wins every time.

What I think is important here is whether or not we will walk away from the results of this test, felling compelled to change our personal views on how we put together our beloved systems. I believe that majority of audiophiles (new or old) will continue just as they have been. I’m pretty sure I will.



Good point. The only reviews sites that can be anywhere-near balanced, neutral, and helpful are places like Consumer Reports, where they don't accept demos and the like, and pay for all the items themselves. Someone should make an audio review site like that. Although I doubt people would be willing to pay for reviews on audio equipment.
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 1:28 PM Post #158 of 581
Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Good point. The only reviews sites that can be anywhere-near balanced, neutral, and helpful are places like Consumer Reports, where they don't accept demos and the like, and pay for all the items themselves. Someone should make an audio review site like that. Although I doubt people would be willing to pay for reviews on audio equipment.


We have very nearly reached the point in western society where news/information has merged completely with advertisement/marketing. To be honest, I suppose I can't blame the cable believers for believing what they've read.

As a dedicated empiricist, I find the whole phenomenon disheartening, though. (Vinyl demagnetizers? come on!)
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 4:08 PM Post #159 of 581
Quote:

Originally Posted by ph0rk /img/forum/go_quote.gif
We have very nearly reached the point in western society where news/information has merged completely with advertisement/marketing. To be honest, I suppose I can't blame the cable believers for believing what they've read.

As a dedicated empiricist, I find the whole phenomenon disheartening, though. (Vinyl demagnetizers? come on!)



My eyelid aways starts to twitch when I read reviews with wording like:

"The differences concentrated on low-level retrieval which gave the treated disc both a slighty sharper, crisper mien and, reliably confirmed after multiple A/Bs, better definition of secondary or tertiary motifs embedded deeper into the musical fabric - like the synth burbling...."

Most of the time I can't decide if I should laugh, or cry.
blink.gif
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 5:07 PM Post #160 of 581
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.


Um, no, that's not true at all. I recently had custom sleeves made for my Shure IEMs and, since I was already there, asked the audiologist about this. She said that the idea that everyone's ears are the same is nonsense. She said that something as simple as the shape of the ear can have a major effect on the sound that people can hear. Some people are born able to hear a larger frequency range than others. Also, there are other psychological factors that effect the way people hear; a person who is by nature stressed tends to clench the jaw, which closes the eustachian tube and drastically lowers the amount of sound that comes to your eardrum.

Use science, not internet myths, please.
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 5:12 PM Post #161 of 581
There are variations between what people *can't* hear. Some people have hearing loss. But there isn't a super race of humans with ability to hear things that only bats can hear. When someone says, "No one has golden ears." They're referring to people with no hearing loss, and their point is that no one can hear the unhearable.

See ya
Steve
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 5:34 PM Post #162 of 581
Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Um, no, that's not true at all. I recently had custom sleeves made for my Shure IEMs and, since I was already there, asked the audiologist about this. She said that the idea that everyone's ears are the same is nonsense. She said that something as simple as the shape of the ear can have a major effect on the sound that people can hear. Some people are born able to hear a larger frequency range than others. Also, there are other psychological factors that effect the way people hear; a person who is by nature stressed tends to clench the jaw, which closes the eustachian tube and drastically lowers the amount of sound that comes to your eardrum.

Use science, not internet myths, please.



"Pretty much" might be the keyword here. We do all hear pretty much the same, compared to, say, a bat which can pick up ultrasonics or a whale who are confused by ELF signals.
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 5:37 PM Post #163 of 581
audiologist? where do you find one of those folks? if you have a quick answer please let me know. I plan to search through switchboard.com for local audiologists.
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 5:41 PM Post #164 of 581
Quote:

Originally Posted by spraggih /img/forum/go_quote.gif
audiologist? where do you find one of those folks? if you have a quick answer please let me know. I plan to search through switchboard.com for local audiologists.


Just call up your local hospital. When I was young I had problems with water getting trapped in my ears (the tube between your ears and nose) and had to visit "the vault" several times so they could gauge my hearing
frown.gif


The vault would be an interesting place to carry out listening tests. I wonder if they exist out of hospitals.
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 6:08 PM Post #165 of 581
Quote:

Originally Posted by spraggih /img/forum/go_quote.gif
audiologist? where do you find one of those folks? if you have a quick answer please let me know. I plan to search through switchboard.com for local audiologists.


I got mine through the people Shure recommend for doing their custom IEM sleeves.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top