[beeman458]

Well you know people can joke do you?
 
And I caught the humor of it and it was good.....and dark German beer......is good too.

 
And then we shall continue our discussion.
 
We'll have to continue sans the tests as I don't have time for tests, tests and more tests.
 
5. Don't cheat. (JOKE)
 
Don't worry, I'll be honest.  I pay for all my cables.
 

 
FWIW, I recently purchased what I consider to be an uber expensive power cable.  The net result was major disappointment as the uber expensive ($200.00 USD) ten foot power cable sucked the emotional life out of the listening experience and I had to go back to the old computer power supply cable (came with the computer) that I had been using.  The point, I have no trouble stating for the record when something doesn't do what I expect it to do as I'm not a bias personality.
 
The only swappable exterior cable in the system will be the HD-650 headphone cable as I'm using a computer power supply, using power cables supplied with the PSU, coupled to an ASUS Essence STX sound card.  I wouldn't want to do any switching of these cables as it quite literally, could harm the headphone connections.  Not good.
 
You'll find that it's not about what you can hear as it's about the sub-conscious mind's emotional reaction to the music that counts.  Short of going to the likes of HD-800, I don't know if it gets much better but when those cables arrive, I'll find out the truth.
 
Currently listening to Johnny Cash's last studio recording: "CASH; American VI: Ain't No Grave."  It's an album work that'll knock your headphones off.
 

 
 
 

 

[Shike]

Responses in bold.
 
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SP Wild /img/forum/go_quote.gif

This is not an isolated incident, as a borderline objectivist I'd be loathed to call myself one if only to avoid association with the many impolite members I have interacted with that also claim to be as such.
 
This is silly - there's just as many impolite believers.
 
Religion has nothing to do with "self-righteousness" - it is a pyschological state of mind that reinforces an individuals sense of self worth in order to cover other deeper rooted insecurities in the ego.  You may think whatever you like in regards to my individual morals, I'll let all members judge me by my actions in any way they choose - after all we are what we do.  To make it easier, I'll state right here and right now that I have never claimed to be a saint, angel or demon.
 
 
I was getting at your specific references of saintly and good book.  You don't have to donate to charity and remove your favored hobbies to be morally accepted by society.

Quote:

 
You only have your biased and flawed tests to back up your ideas and nothing more.
 
Well, I believe that's posh - DBT is about as reliable as it gets at this point.  Still, we have absolutely NO proof that cables make difference, DBT, measured, or otherwise.  Burden of proof states it's you that must prove there IS a difference, not vice-versa.
 
Agreed.  And nobody is making anybody buy anything they don't want to buy.  If you don't want sexy cables, then don't buy them and no, I don't have a lot of money but I do need to be entertained as life without "vim," is no life at all.  Does it upset you that folks spend their money on expensive watches, sports cars, clothing, jewelery or really big houses?
 
Depends - if the watch made extreme claims like saying it could grant you better sleep or vitality, then yes I'd have an issue with it.
 
And so far, what I've done to my system, has done exactly that, given me better sound.
 
 
Prove it?
 
A sign I have no trouble with and whole heartedly agree with; "buyer beware."  But where I have trouble, is folks using their bias', backed up by their flawed testing evaluation models as if they're fact when in fact, they're fiction. 
 
And pro-cablers have zero evidence of their claims WHILE having the burden of proof.  As far as the scientific community is concerned interconnects of a certain quality are going to sound the same - this is FACT today.  When and if someone comes along with proof contradictory and it is peer reviewed THEN the fact gets changed, not because someone with a bunch of cited impressions says so.
 
When somebody comes up with testing methods that take into consideration the analogue nature of the human sensory system, then you'll get my attention.  Until then, I'll make up my own mind on the matter and share with others the opinion of my findings.  Come on, how many times do the learned have to be proven wrong, before you anti-cable guys learn to walk a bit slower in your pronouncements and condemnations of those who disagree with you?
 
How long does it take before snake oil buyers admit they got scammed by false claims?
 
Over the last couple of decades, I've run my own tests, in my own fashion.  The difference between you guys and your phony DBT and what I've done, I've worked with the innocents of children and measured their responses to changes.
 
What's phony about DBT?  Oh I get it, it doesn't prove your point.
 
 
The beauty of children, they don't know what's what so they have no ax to grind and they're not out to please me either as I just play what I play and then asked them what they think.  I'm careful to not feed them hints as in this is what I expect.  I don't try to fool them by not presenting them with changes.  And yes, I control my body language.  They haven't a clue what's going on.  Based upon their response comments, you can tell the validity of the changes they're discussing.  Try getting some six and eight year olds together and see what you come-up with.  My opinion, you'll be surprised.
 
Actually, you'd be surprised.  Children DO pick up expectations better than you'd think.  Also, you're not consciously feeding them hints (supposedly), but what about subconsciously?  The variables in your test are too drastic - we could just DBT the children.
 
How much benefit will be taken by a set of cables?  That's subjective reasoning.  How much to spend and how far to push the envelope, that's an individual decision which each person needs to answer for themselves.  In the USA, some 40k people are killed in automobile accidents each year.  I'd submit that automobiles are a major threat to America's safety when compared to the dire warnings regarding the shenanigans of cable manufactures.  Nobody says to not buy and drive a car because they're a death trap.  In the US, medical practitioners are responsible for about a 100k deaths each year, but nobody says don't go to medical practitioners because there's a chance you'll be killed.  Medicine?  I've seen medicine get a positive nod with only a twenty or thirty percent improvement in the trial group.  The point, you anti-cable guys are aggrandizing your altruistic warnings when compared to real threats and real science, in day-to-day life that you could be banging the warning gong about.  But you don't.
 
Red herring much?  You're saying "Because other things are more dangerous this should be swept under the rug", and quite frankly it's silly.
 
Trust me when I write, no rational person is going go into cable buying with ignorance as their guide.
 
I disagree.  How many people buy a cable just because the guy at Best Buy told them they needed it?  How many people fall to impulse buys because they see "sale" or are told it's a great deal?  It happens all the time.
 
You "think" they are, but they're not.  And trust me, folks spend according to both what their budget allows and base continuation of the behavior on the reward they're getting for the expenditure.  What you and others are missing or don't want to accept, we're not babe's in the woods, waiting to be fleeced by the big bad cable wolves.  And I find that proven science is constantly being proven wrong and taught thinking is changed far to often to put my complete and total faith in science.  Especially an aspect of science that can be spotted for the con that it is, from half a world away.
 
 
We aren't trying to protect you - just the people you perpetuate the con towards.  You either hear a difference or you don't, that's the purpose of DBT.  It's not a con, it's a simple fact that if you can't do it you can't tell a difference unless aided by visual cues which allow you to exaggerate claims that may have absolutely no merit whatsoever.  What has you so bitter about DBT I don't know, but it's getting tired.

Edit:
 
If you don't have time to test and don't want to hear about tests than this isn't the thread or sub-forum to be in.  It's really that simple.

 

[beeman458]

Well, I believe that's posh - DBT is about as reliable as it gets at this point.
 
Only if you're a believer as you haven't a bit of verifiable fact to back the above up, other than the word of other believers who don't think the analogue nature of the human sensory system should be considered in tests of this kind.  How convenient.  Sorry, the rules of the scientific community, in regard to DBT, don't pass the smell test; taught thinking equals bias thinking.
 
Prove it?
 
Oh, that's easy, I'm happy with the sound characteristics.  Now, prove that I'm not happy.
 
What's phony about DBT?
 
As I've written, it doesn't take into consideration the analogue nature of the human sensory system.
 
Actually, you'd be surprised.  Children DO pick up expectations better than you'd think.
 
Not if you don't give them any expectations.
 
Also, you're not consciously feeding them hints (supposedly), but what about subconsciously?
 
Because I prescreened my thoughts, body language and facial reactions.
 
The variables in your test are too drastic
 
No they're not.
 
- we could just DBT the children.
 
 Aaaaaah, yes, back to those bogus DBT's which don't take into consideration the analogue nature of the human sensory system.  I get it.
 
I disagree.  How many people buy a cable just because the guy at Best Buy told them they needed it?
 
Okay, I'll give you the above.  Darn!
 
We aren't trying to protect you - just the people you perpetuate the con towards.
 
Now you're being inflammatory as I'm not perpetuating a con, just because you think it's a con.
 
If you don't have time to test and don't want to hear about tests than this isn't the thread or sub-forum to be in.  It's really that simple.
 
Yes, how mature, play by your rules or don't play at all.  Riiiight!  But you have to admit that nowhere did I write that I didn't want to hear about tests.  What you've seen me write is that the tests are bogus and I'm awaiting somebody to come forth with a DBT that takes into consideration the analogue nature of the human sensory system.  Until then, all the DBT's that apply to cables is bias and the result interpretation is based upon bogus parameters; fail.
 

 

[JB197]

 
 
Quote:

I'm gonna call you out on this one

 
 
You appear to have slipped into talking like an adolescent. Oh well.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[aimlink]

 
 
Quote:

And pro-cablers have zero evidence of their claims WHILE having the burden of proof.  As far as the scientific community is concerned interconnects of a certain quality are going to sound the same - this is FACT today.  When and if someone comes along with proof contradictory and it is peer reviewed THEN the fact gets changed, not because someone with a bunch of cited impressions says so.

 
What is a fact today may not be a fact tomorrow.  Wow!! 

  Now I better understand where you in particular are coming from.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

 
What is a fact today may not be a fact tomorrow.  Wow!! 

  Now I better understand where you in particular are coming from.

It's true though.  There are those dedicated to trying to disprove former mathematical proofs and to add and change scientific theories to improve them.  Science is open to change all encompassing, just like history may be rewrote when new facts come up (guilty being proven innocent in hind-sight).  Actually, that example works very well to convey my point.  Someone is found guilty thus history considers them guilty, unless something new comes to light (which it can, it may be rare, but it can happen).  The same is true to science.  Science is progress that undergoes constant change, revision, and tuning so to speak.

 
Quote:

Only if you're a believer as you haven't a bit of verifiable fact to back the above up, other than the word of other believers who don't think the analogue nature of the human sensory system should be considered in tests of this kind.  How convenient.  Sorry, the rules of the scientific community, in regard to DBT, don't pass the smell test; taught thinking equals bias thinking.
 
 
It takes into consideration the hearing of the subject.  To tell if there's an audible difference that's all you need.  What beyond hearing do you need to tell if there's an audible difference, since you're arguing that impairing other sensory perceptions somehow impacts this.
 
Oh, that's easy, I'm happy with the sound characteristics.  Now, prove that I'm not happy.
 
This wasn't what I was getting at, and I'm pretty sure you know it.  Prove they make an audible difference - your happiness is external to this.
 
As I've written, it doesn't take into consideration the analogue nature of the human sensory system.
 
You need to see the cable to tell the difference?  Really?  Then that would go against the differences being honestly audible now wouldn't it?
 
Not if you don't give them any expectations.
 
Which you're assuming you're doing - body language can betray us no matter how well you think you control it.
 
Because I prescreened my thoughts, body language and facial reactions.
 
Very few (if any) people are able to control all of these perfectly.  If you claim children are as perceptive as they are this obviously wouldn't be enough for the majority of the population, and I doubt you.
 
No they're not.
 
Yes they are.  Rather than hearing we now have to depend on you being able to control your actions perfectly.  If the children are able to view the cables their already able to form a bias over what they themselves like in terms of audio jewelry - not sound.
 
 Aaaaaah, yes, back to those bogus DBT's which don't take into consideration the analogue nature of the human sensory system.  I get it.
 
What, they need visual cues to tell a difference?  Doesn't that just make the point for us as this point?
 
Okay, I'll give you the above.  Darn!
 

 
 
At least one got through

 

[beeman458]

It takes into consideration the hearing of the subject.  To tell if there's an audible difference that's all you need.  What beyond hearing do you need to tell if there's an audible difference, since you're arguing that impairing other sensory perceptions somehow impacts this.
 
Do you understand what the analogue nature of the human sensory system is?
 
???
 
since you're arguing that impairing other sensory perceptions somehow impacts this.
 
No I'm not.  Never mentioned the impairment of any other sensory perceptions.
 
Very few (if any) people are able to control all of these perfectly.
 
I've been chided for controlling these behaviors when totally blitzed.
 
If the children are able to view the cables their already able to form a bias over what they themselves like in terms of audio jewelry - not sound.
 
Nobody said they could see the cables or what I was doing.
 
What, they need visual cues to tell a difference?
 
Okay, we're back to the visual cues that they were never getting.
 
At least one got through
 
Nothing got through.  You made a valid point and it would be wrong of me to not show my agreement with your comment.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Do you understand what the analogue nature of the human sensory system is?
 
Since you're going to keep beating this drum, feel free to define it.  Unless we're talking placebo and perception from things beyond hearing I fail to see what you're getting at.
 
 
No I'm not.  Never mentioned the impairment of any other sensory perceptions.
 
That's what DBT is though.  You remove visual confirmation of what cable is playing and try to identify a from b consistently.
 
I've been chided for controlling these behaviors when totally blitzed.
 
Unless you're totally blitzed around the kids that's really irrelevant, not to mention only an anecdote.
 
Nobody said they could see the cables or what I was doing.
 
I said "if" for that reason.
 
Okay, we're back to the visual cues that they were never getting.
 
So they didn't view you or the cables, or you both had no knowledge of what cables were being played?  That's the only way to eliminate all possibility of visual cues.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

It's true though.  There are those dedicated to trying to disprove former mathematical proofs and to add and change scientific theories to improve them.  Science is open to change all encompassing, just like history may be rewrote when new facts come up (guilty being proven innocent in hind-sight).  Actually, that example works very well to convey my point.  Someone is found guilty thus history considers them guilty, unless something new comes to light (which it can, it may be rare, but it can happen).  The same is true to science.  Science is progress that undergoes constant change, revision, and tuning so to speak.
 

I, and I think many others here, would consider facts as always facts.  True facts will remain facts. However, our understanding of phenomena based on experimentation is always subject to change.  Some of our understanding may well turn out to be factual.  However, so much isn't and are unfortunately construed as such for various reasons.  When current understanding is construed as fact, it unjustly places such understanding above reproach and anyone who challenges such an understanding is deemed to not respect science and its methods or to not respect 'the facts'.  They are said to be in denial etc.
 
It is so important that when we discuss matters as these that what we say and the terms we use  refer to the same things.  I now understand what you would call fact and in light of this, I don't know why you would vociferously defend the validity of information that could well be proven wrong in the future merely on the basis that current evidence supports its validity.  IMO, such rabid advocacy would be more appropriate for understanding and information genuinely above reproach and not possibly subject to change in the future.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

I, and I think many others here, would consider facts as always facts.  True facts will remain facts. However, our understanding of phenomena based on experimentation is always subject to change.  Some of our understanding may well turn out to be factual.  However, so much isn't and are unfortunately construed as such for various reasons.  When current understanding is construed as fact, it unjustly places such understanding above reproach and anyone who challenges such an understanding is deemed to not respect science and its methods or to not respect 'the facts'.  They are said to be in denial etc.
 
 
The argument is that a fact should always try true, and to this point it has.  Our understanding of the universe and the beginning of it, while decent, is still very small.  Our understanding of physics can change and grow better.  Generally though the progress of science at this point is to merely refining the understanding, not changing it entirely.
 
The point is the current fact is there is no difference.  Those that test to disprove theories day and night realize the current fact, but try to prove it wrong.  Until they do a certain fact stands.
 
It is so important that when we discuss matters as these that what we say and the terms we use  refer to the same things.  I now understand what you would call fact and in light of this, I don't know why you would vociferously defend the validity of information that could well be proven wrong in the future merely on the basis that current evidence supports its validity.  IMO, such rabid advocacy would be more appropriate for understanding and information genuinely above reproach and not possibly subject to change in the future.
 
So much is subject to change that we take for granted every day.  A true scientist acts like an agnostic atheist IMO.  Currently we can't prove the existence of a Christian deity for example, but if undeniable proof showed up on our doorstop we would accept it.  Till then the fact science will hold true is the null - there is no Christian god.  This can be applied to other creatures like faries, flying spaghetti monsters, etc.

 

[beeman458]

Since you're going to keep beating this drum, feel free to define it.
 
It's simple, like an analogue radio signal, the human sensory system becomes weaker and weaker to the point where dependability becomes flaky but yet the dependability of the flaky nature of the sensory system, is still valid.
 
Seeing into shadows. Peripheral vision.  Sensitivity to light.   Sense of touch, sense of feel; vibration, heat, cold, pain.  This also includes hearing to the point where the mind locks changes out such as smell or acclimating to irritations, adaptability.
 
When one wishes to put together an honest set of tests that take the above into consideration, there's no validity to the current crop of DBT's being offered.
 
That's what DBT is though.  You remove visual confirmation of what cable is playing and try to identify a from b consistently.
 
Sorry, misunderstood your meaning.  I thought you meant sensory impairment such as removing hearing or feel from the equation.
 
Unless you're totally blitzed around the kids that's really irrelevant, not to mention only an anecdote.
 
No, it means that I have such good control over my body language that even when under the heavy influence of alcohol, I have full control of my body language in that if I don't want you to know what I'm thinking, you're not going know as.
 
I said "if" for that reason.
 
Again, sorry as I missed the "if."  It wouldn't be a valid test if I was feeding answers to the kids or showing them what I was doing or if I took the time to explain why I was doing what I was doing.  Also, if the child isn't facing you, then there's no body language issues and yes, now we have to deal with the vocal inflection questions.  The whole idea of the exercise was to take a totally nieve child because they weren't sophisticated and contaminated with taught, bias thinking.  The other idea I worked on was to keep them uninformed and ask them as neutral of a question such as: "What do you think?"  And, "I'm going play it again.  What you think about what you heard this time."  And when asked why, I gave a sort of adult, just please do it response.
 
What I got in return were surprisingly insightful answers regarding clarity, a more open sound quality and comments about tonal responses when I hadn't mentioned any of these qualities.  I was floored by the responses as they were spot on.
 
My sample was an unscientific pool of two children.  But their separately given tests, at separate times, gave identical responses.  You may need more, I don't as for me, that was clearly sufficient for my needs.
 
That's the only way to eliminate all possibility of visual cues.
 
Or, you can simply have them turn around so they can't see you and not tell them what you're doing in the process so as to eliminate questions and answers.  That why the child thing is such a good thing.

 

[Shike]

 
 
Quote:

 
It's simple, like an analogue radio signal, the human sensory system becomes weaker and weaker to the point where dependability becomes flaky but yet the dependability of the flaky nature of the sensory system, is still valid.
 
Seeing into shadows. Peripheral vision.  Sensitivity to light.   Sense of touch, sense of feel; vibration, heat, cold, pain.  This also includes hearing to the point where the mind locks changes out such as smell or acclimating to irritations, adaptability.
 
When one wishes to put together an honest set of tests that take the above into consideration, there's no validity to the current crop of DBT's being offered.
 
You're still not making complete sense, the only thing being impaired in a DBT is ability to identify the cable beyond audibility.  No one is impairing any sense so to speak, just removing the ability to identify without audible cues.  How is that invalid?
 
Sorry, misunderstood your meaning.  I thought you meant sensory impairment such as removing hearing or feel from the equation.
 
Nope, in fact no sense is really being impaired so to speak - it's just relying that they can identify the cable by what they hear.
 
No, it means that I have such good control over my body language that even when under the heavy influence of alcohol, I have full control of my body language in that if I don't want you to know what I'm thinking, you're not going know as.
 
Or so you say.  We could talk about vocal inflection among other things.
 
Again, sorry as I missed the "if."  It wouldn't be a valid test if I was feeding answers to the kids or showing them what I was doing or if I took the time to explain why I was doing what I was doing.  Also, if the child isn't facing you, then there's no body language issues and yes, now we have to deal with the vocal inflection questions.  The whole idea of the exercise was to take a totally nieve child because they weren't sophisticated and contaminated with taught, bias thinking.  The other idea I worked on was to keep them uninformed and ask them as neutral of a question such as: "What do you think?"  And, "I'm going play it again.  What you think about what you heard this time."  And when asked why, I gave a sort of adult, just please do it response.
 
Glad to see you brought inflections into the question.  You underestimate the children's ability to perceive these nuances of your vocal inflections, but expect them to find even harder ones in cables.  Doesn't that bother you or others somewhat?  I know it bothers me.
 
What I got in return were surprisingly insightful answers regarding clarity, a more open sound quality and comments about tonal responses when I hadn't mentioned any of these qualities.  I was floored by the responses as they were spot on.
 
My sample was an unscientific pool of two children.  But their separately given tests, at separate times, gave identical responses.  You may need more, I don't as for me, that was clearly sufficient for my needs.
 
However, each time they hear it they can easily focus on different things.  You effectively tried to do a DBT, but gave them a signal that there should be some changes.  If they're able to quantify the differences, then it shouldn't be hard to identify cable a from b should it?  After all, you're saying they're able to identify audible differences effectively in the end aren't you?
 
Or, you can simply have them turn around so they can't see you and not tell them what you're doing in the process so as to eliminate questions and answers.  That why the child thing is such a good thing.
 
That's why I asked if they were able to view you or the cables.  I still dislike your overall testing methodology - it's based on asking for a responses that will likely change rather than accurately identifying the cable itself.  It adds a level of complexity that should be dealt with after a DBT.

 

[beeman458]

You're still not making complete sense, the only thing being impaired in a DBT is ability to identify the cable beyond audibility.
 
Human analogue senses has nothing to do with impairment in a DBT.  Human senses are equivalent to you standing in a road way, as fog density changes and you're expected to count the number of individuals sprinting across the road.
 
Depending on your sensitivity to the fog (noise), will depend on your accuracy.  Your accuracy suffers due to the fog but you're not guessing as you are seeing sprinters crossing the road.  Your accuracy, expectedly suffers due to the density of the fog, but it doesn't mean you're guessing.  There are sprinters there, no question as reasonably, you're accuracy suffers due to the noise floor: fog.  That's in essence what DBT demands.  Either you're above seventy percent, or you're guessing.  How ridiculously convenient when you are hearing transients. DBT's have no room for noise levels or the analogue nature of humanity's sensory system.  Even double-blind, placebo controlled, peer review medical tests allow for twenty/thirty percent improvement rates and nobody calls fail.
 
Nope, in fact no sense is really being impaired so to speak
 
I realize that.  That's why I wrote that it was a misunderstanding.
 
Or so you say.
 
No, that's what those around me say and yes, I use it to my advantage by not saying stupid things when I've had too much.  Never been cut off in a bar.
 
You underestimate the children's ability to perceive these nuances of your vocal inflections,
 
Actually, it's the other way around, you over rate a child's abilities.  They're six and eight years old.  they're not jaded by forty-five years of life's experience.  Their awareness is very limited at that age.  If it wasn't, they wouldn't need school-in.  But yes, it's quite popular, out of convenience, to bestow awareness on children, far above their ability.  As to vocal inflections, I wasn't being queried by a pretty lady (a personal weakness) and I wasn't being threatened with being thrown off a cliff as I don't like heights.
 
One day, while at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, my wife and I ran across three very aware street kids who were taking advantage of their grandmother's doddering mental state of mind.  I tugged my wife's arm to have her follow me as we were involved in other distractions.  I stopped at a distance from the kids and quickly brought her up to speed as we closely followed these very aware street kids and yet they didn't have a clue we were onto them.  It was very entertaining to watch these kids in action and to know that we were as close to them as we were and they didn't have a clue.
 
Doesn't that bother you or others somewhat?  I know it bothers me.
 
That's your mind at work not mine as there was no reason to worry about vocal inflections as I watched their body language and monitored their responses.
 
You effectively tried to do a DBT, but gave them a signal that there should be some changes.
 
No, I changed cables and asked them what their response was to the music.  I wasn't worried about accuracy and I wasn't worried about what cables were in or out as I was worried about their spoken responses.  If they were hearing a difference, they would quantify the differences in their own words, without provocation.  And the differences they quantified, matched with the cables; accuracy.  The test was about their responses, not about the cables.
 
After all, you're saying they're able to identify audible differences effectively in the end aren't you?
 
Don't recall shying away from this point.
 
I still dislike your overall testing methodology - it's based on asking for a responses that will likely change rather than accurately identifying the cable itself.
 
The changed cable responses were revealing in that they accurately responded with what would be expected and this, without leading style questions.  The questions were simple, describe what you heard and nothing more.  And the visceral responses were telling as to honesty of content.
 
 It adds a level of complexity that should be dealt with after a DBT.
 
Maybe you should do that.
 
???
 
Can't do these ever expanding tit-for-tat exchanges of yours.  You need to shorten them up a bit.
 
Thanks!
 

 

[Shike]

 
Quote:

 
Human analogue senses has nothing to do with impairment in a DBT.  Human senses are equivalent to you standing in a road way, as fog density changes and you're expected to count the number of individuals sprinting across the road.
 
Depending on your sensitivity to the fog (noise), will depend on your accuracy.  Your accuracy suffers due to the fog but you're not guessing as you are seeing sprinters crossing the road.  Your accuracy, expectedly suffers due to the density of the fog, but it doesn't mean you're guessing.  There are sprinters there, no question as reasonably, you're accuracy suffers due to the noise floor: fog.  That's in essence what DBT demands.  Either you're above seventy percent, or you're guessing.  How ridiculously convenient when you are hearing transients. DBT's have no room for noise levels or the analogue nature of humanity's sensory system.  Even double-blind, placebo controlled, peer review medical tests allow for twenty/thirty percent improvement rates and nobody calls fail.
 
First, I'd appreciate you citing these peer reviewed medical studies you keep bringing up.  Furthermore, if you don't have at least some accuracy then what do you have?  If you can't accurately identify cables then how can you accurately tell differences?
 
If you can't accurately tell the number of sprinters then your ability to perceive them or the differences is much too small to worry.  Equally the differences in cables is usually much to small.  Equally, there's an assumption in your example that there will be sprinters - there may very well be none ultimately.  Your example fails to account for the fact that one may guess when there is or isn't one - and thus may eventually just guess correctly.  That's what DBT tends to handle though, to show how much you may ultimately be guessing.
 
 
No, that's what those around me say and yes, I use it to my advantage by not saying stupid things when I've had too much.  Never been cut off in a bar.
 
So?  You get quiet when you're drunk, what does that have to do with anything?

Actually, it's the other way around, you over rate a child's abilities.  They're six and eight years old.  they're not jaded by forty-five years of life's experience.  Their awareness is very limited at that age . . .
 
I shortened this as I don't care for anecdotes in regards to teens I presume.  I'd say children are more perceptive when needing to learn social interaction, whereas adults have already gotten beyond this (to a certain point).
 
That's your mind at work, not mine as there was no reason to worry about vocal inflections as I watch their body language and monitor their responses.
 
This anecdote stuff is getting tedious - it's not a valid methodology of testing.
 
No, I changed cables and asked them what their response was to the music.  I wasn't worried about accuracy as I was worried about their spoken responses.  If they were hearing a difference, they would quantify the differences in their own words.  And the differences they quantified, matched with the cables; accuracy.
 
So you can remove their reactions and get them to do a  true DBT then couldn't you?  You're claiming your test provides accuracy, and that since their ability to tell the differences were accurate their ability to attribute difference to cable A or B is exceptional.  After all; you're saying they got past the metaphorical fog to catch the differences aren't you?
 
Don't recall shying away from this point.
 
Then a DBT wouldn't be an issue would it?  Yet you're saying at the core of the issue it is.  This is quite contradictory . . .

The changed cable responses were revealing in that they accurately responded with what would be expected and this, without leading style questions.  The questions were simple, describe what you heard and nothing more.  And the visceral responses were telling as to honesty of content.
 
Then a DBT would be able to distill this into a response of A or B very easily.
 
Maybe you should do that.
 
???
 
I've done DBT's and can't find changes, I've done it on others and they couldn't find a difference.  However It's not me making a claim of existence of differences, and beyond that you could merely blame our hearing.
 
Can't do these ever expanding tit-for-tat exchanges of yours.  You need to shorten them up.
 
I don't need to do anything honestly, it's your choice to respond.  Personally I'm finding this ever circular as most of these dissolve into and will probably step out of the debate should this continue as I've already made my points.  Anyone following this can make their own conclusions at this point as we have already made ours.

 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Beeman458, your analogy of sprinters in the fog does not work for me. If you claim to be able to identify something by sight and then I try to prove you are wrong by obscuring your sight, then my proof is wrong.
 
But in the case of cables you claim to be able to hear a difference, but I say that it is you having sight of the cables, not hearing is what makes the difference. So I do a test where you cannot see the cables anymore to find out if you really can hear a difference, then my proof is correct.
 
That is why DBT/blind tests are valid and your claims, which are not linked to any evidence are not.