[Spelaeus]

 
Quote:

Speleaus wrote:
 
I think that I was getting caught up in his "analogue sensory system" terminology which makes my inner neuroscience nerd angry.
 
Now, now, there's plenty of beer for everybody.  You'll find that if you take the time to get past your bias', you'll find that my thoughts are on "terra ferma," including my comments regarding the analogue nature of the human sensory system.
 
Google: "analogue nature of the human sensory system."
 
http://vintageelectronicsrepair.com/?p=65
 
Everything you hear is analog. This is because the human ear is an analog sensory system.
 
---snip---
 
But hearing requires analog raw data for the ear to function.
 
I found the below article to be relevant regarding emotional responses.
 
http://musicbrainerblogger.blogspot.com/2008/12/music-structure-and-emotional-response.html
 
I'm not whiffing anything in my characterization of the human condition.

We hear analog sound, yes. And we experience things in an "analog way." But the system itself is very much digital, as hinted at in the first article you posted. A neuron either fires or it doesn't. Even neuronal relationships as mentioned there which may seem analog have underlying digital mechanisms. In effect, you have a digital process which creates the illusion of an analog system by combining series upon series and level upon level of complexity. Though I suppose the same could be said of all of reality. What seems like an analog phenomenon often becomes digital when you examine it on a sub-atomic level. But without rambling on for too long... Is sound an analog experience? Of course. Is the auditory system an analog one? Eh... That terminology causes some problems.
 

 

[beeman458]

Here  and here are little wikipedia articles...
 
Links are broken.
 
Boo, Hoo.
 
Anyways, have some beer for standing in what you believe in, I respect that!
 
Thanks!  Trying to not come off as a troll.
 
I'm tired of editing this post
 
FWIW, I have a headache also.
 

 
Speleaus wrote:
 
A neuron either fires or it doesn't.
 
And yes, I read and made note of this point but it's the analogue nature of sound (think waning nature of sound), that needs to be included in the discussion; before sound is converted to neuro-transmission.
 
Of course. Is the auditory system an analog one? Eh... That terminology causes some problems.
 
I have no problem with fuzzy logic in that you have analogue reception and a pseudo digital transmission.  I say pseudo in that the use of the digital descriptor fails to include the intensity of the impulse of the sound waves being converted into neuro-sensory form; intensity of signal at any one time and point.  A sort of piezoelectric effect, how hard does the pooch get kicked.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
It doesn't matter that a person can't see the cables.  The evaluation standards of plus seventy percent correct identification guarantees fail.  Human senses, when at the extremes of their abilities, might exhibit only ten or twenty percent accuracy before they fail completely.  When you set the bar so high, that it exceeds the rational analogue nature of the human sensory system to detect a difference, you guarantee the results will come back fail.  No where in the world is this standard accepted as rational work place conditions but some how this standard applies here.
 
What I find galling, is that you so called "sound science" types aren't calling people on this point.  It's common knowledge that humans have an analogue sensory system.  It's common knowledge that as the sensory system is stressed, the level of one hundred percent detection drops in an analogue fashion.  And it's also common knowledge that human detection ranges will dependably drop into the ten or twenty percent range before total fail occurs   And yet, with this as common knowledge and the fact that the bar is set unrealistically high, coupled with the fact that you guys don't call foul, shows that you're wanting fail to occur, thereby showing extreme prejudice of nature, or bias.  Talk about walking into a load of who-ie.
 
When you guys want to come up to where reality meets the road, then you'll have some play.  Until then, you're just a bunch of bias test givers who have some sort of pseudo science agenda going on to make you guys fell good about yourselves.
 

You are incorrect on a number of materials issues. Firstly there are plenty of positive DBTs which reach bettter than the 70% criteria, I have done a few myself witrh different codecs, so have other members here,  but there are studies out there which show positive DBTs on Amps, CD players, and even in one case on interconnect cables !! - granted there are more negative than positve but it is false to say all DBTs are null, if you search HA there are a few. I was just reading a Canadian study (published by the AES) of 44.1khz vs 88.2khz sampling which showed some (tentatively) positive results. Secondly with bigger aggregated samples you can bring the % correct responses down way below 70% for significance. The 70% is a little arbitrary but is only required for small n trials.
 
I am going to need to ask you to explain exactly what you mean by the " rational analogue nature of the human sensory system" , my understanding was that our sensory system starts with the generation of discrete electrical impulses and proceeds to the firing of neurons in an electrochemical fashion, neither analog or digital are really useful metaphorical terms for this kind of activity, certainly this activity is not truly continuous as I understand it ???

 

 

[Shike]

Quote:

 
Thanks!  Trying to not come off as a troll.

Then it's probably best not to say we're trying to teach lies, BS, and are severely biased by education and knowledge as mentioned in your post here:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/503846/all-music-lovers-should-take-a-look/90#post_6811089
 
Libelous claims aren't tolerated around here.

 

[beeman458]

Nick_Charles wrote:
 
You are incorrect on a number of materials issues. Firstly there are plenty of positive DBTs which reach bettter than the 70% criteria, I have done a few myself witrh different codecs, so have other members here,  but there are studies out there which show positive DBTs on Amps, CD players, and even in one case on interconnect cables !! -
 
Being true to the OP, I was referring only to interconnects.
 
my understanding was that our sensory system starts with the generation of discrete electrical impulses and proceeds to the firing of neurons in an electrochemical fashion,....
 
Our "receptors" are analogue in nature as sight, sound, temperature, etc., are analogue in nature and what they receive are then converted to electrical energy for transmission purposes. Once inside, to me, it's a bit sketchy in that you have firing synapses but they're simply a transmission device of an original analogue signal conveying analogue intensities in rapid pulse form to recreate the analogue experience in your conscience.
 
neither analog or digital are really useful metaphorical terms for this kind of activity, certainly this activity is not truly continuous as I understand it ???
 
Sorry, for a lack of better metaphors, it's all I got.

 

[Roger Strummer]

Quote:

 
Our "receptors" are analogue in nature as sight, sound, temperature, etc., are analogue in nature and what they receive are then converted to electrical energy for transmission purposes. Once inside, to me, it's a bit sketchy in that you have firing synapses but they're simply a transmission device of an original analogue signal conveying analogue intensities in rapid pulse form to recreate the analogue experience in your conscience.
 

You might be right (maybe not, I'm kind of tired to think thoroughly about that). But that does not invalidate the practice of DBT or statistical tests, it might influence it and make the probability of error greater, but just as nick_charles said you can bring that probability down anyways by increasing sample size (it is important a good selection of the sample, very important actually). My point is that your problem is with interpretation and maybe some particular experiment, but not with DBT's and Statistics in general(and the why is what I've tried to explain in my last two or three posts).

 

[beeman458]

Shike wrote:
 
Then it's probably best not to say we're trying to teach lies, BS, and are severely biased by education and knowledge as mentioned in your post here:
 
But it's what the facts bear out as to BS.  And it would help to keep your above to my singular comments so as to maintain context of my comments.  I was clear as to the nature of my use of the word BS and there was no mention of lies and yes, professors are highly bias in nature from personal experience.
 
The prejudicial and myopic nature of America's higher education system is a publicly well discussed subject and considering how quick academia is to cast condemnation and character aspersions on anybody whom doesn't agree with them, they, or you, shouldn't be upset when someone punches back.  And yes, agreed, it's hard to write honestly while being critical of accepted dogma and not cause offense in matters of this kind.  FWIW, educators aren't above either criticism or condemnation.
 
Roger Strummer wrote:
 
My point is that your problem is with interpretation and maybe some particular experiment, but not with DBT's and Statistics in general(and the why is what I've tried to explain in my last two or three posts).
 
That's a hard one to answer.  I'm not against double blind tests but I am against double blind tests which don't take into consideration the analogue nature of the human sensory system.  So I guess you could say I'm conflicted.  So to be easy, I'll agree with your above if you promise not to beat me with this comment in the future.

 

 

[Roger Strummer]

Quote:

 
But it's what the facts bear out.  And it would help to keep your above to my singular comments so as to maintain context of my comments.  I was clear as to the nature of my use of the word BS and there was no mention of lies and yes, professors are highly bias in nature from my personal experience.
 
The prejudicial and myopic nature of America's higher education system is a publicly well discussed subject and considering how quick academia is to cast condemnation and character aspersions on anybody whom doesn't agree with them, they, or you, shouldn't be upset when someone punches back.  And yes, agreed, it's hard to write honestly while being critical of accepted dogma and not cause offense in matters of this kind.  FWIW, educators aren't above either criticism or condemnation.

Just to make my point more clear, even though what you say might be true (hell, for argument's sake lets assume it is true). Then your problem might be with the interpretation of said people of results, and maybe by the experiments performed (badly designed, insufficient sample size). But that in no way discredits the theory behind DBT and Statistics that lets us formulate at this point in time: there is no evidence until now that people can hear difference due to cables. If you see the conclusion that one draws from this tests it is pretty unassuming and innocent.
 
It doesn't tell you there is, but since false negatives are preferable to false positives the position to take (reinforced by more than one test) is that there is no difference (remember, scientific positions get changed when proved by evidence). Now there is a good reason for preferring a false negative, if one says that there is no difference the consequence is that people will spend less money in cables and little research will go into them. But a false positive will lead to people spending in something useless (remember it is a false positive when I say this) and research goes into cables, but since research is limited other more productive areas of research are left without it due to the false positive.

 

[Roger Strummer]

Once again we posted almost at the same time... I won't beat you, in fact your critique is not bad, only misguided by trying to discredit DBT and Statistics themselves. Remember than even in the best test ever (statistical tests obviously) there is still chance of error, its just deciding on which horse to bet, the one with probability 0.8 to win or the one with 0.2, both can win but scientists won't take their chances due to the reasoning of my post above.

 

[aimlink]

Again, great responses.
Quote:

 
Feel free to give us references to that analogue nature you are talking about, remember we scientists are one of the most open minded people (we are wrong way more often we would like

), but without references or clear definitions a scientist cannot work.
 
The last paragraph you say is not scientifically valid (which says nothing about it being true), so I won't say anything about that.
 
I want to clarify, a Null Hypothesis test does not require that  particular individual has more than 70% correct, it is all about the average, because by seeing the average you control the risk you mention of being wrong (although it never discards it completely). First to be statistically valid it cannot be a test performed by only one individual, but by many, so the fact that one only gets a low percentage (say 50%) good proves absolutely nothing, neither that other one has 100%, but is the average what is important (and is related to the law of large numbers). Basically you are trying to minimize the risk that the result you are seeing was just a guess (that is why the freaking coin appears, lets just forget that).
 
That is why statistical hypothesis tests deal with probabilities, even with an awesomely well performed experiment there is risk of error (the famous p-value), technically speaking you cannot say the null hypothesis is accepted, but it casts doubt to whether it is not true (just as correlation is not causation, but hints at something happening). Yeah, that is why the result is to say: there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis, that is very important.
 
So scientifically I'll repeat: there is no evidence (statistically significant) to say that people hear differences in cables, that's it, no more. I never said there can be no difference, but the results give me doubts, and with doubts a scientist prefers to err in the side of accepting the Null hypothesis since false positives generally are more much damaging than false negatives (the idea is that its better to set free a guilty guy than to imprison an innocent).
 
Here  and here are little wikipedia articles (which is easy-ish and not that thorough, but not bad at all), there are (valid) critiques to the method (it was the reason why I mentioned the Bayesian Statistician thing), in case you are interested. Anyways, have some beer for standing in what you believe in, I respect that!
 

 (I just saw your last post with some references, so disregard what I said about that earlier, I'm tired of editing this post)

I'm pretty sure that I fully understand you and agree.  Very nicely stated.  This is an important post.
 
Quote:

You are incorrect on a number of materials issues. Firstly there are plenty of positive DBTs which reach bettter than the 70% criteria, I have done a few myself witrh different codecs, so have other members here,  but there are studies out there which show positive DBTs on Amps, CD players, and even in one case on interconnect cables !! - granted there are more negative than positve but it is false to say all DBTs are null, if you search HA there are a few. I was just reading a Canadian study (published by the AES) of 44.1khz vs 88.2khz sampling which showed some (tentatively) positive results. Secondly with bigger aggregated samples you can bring the % correct responses down way below 70% for significance. The 70% is a little arbitrary but is only required for small n trials.
 
I am going to need to ask you to explain exactly what you mean by the " rational analogue nature of the human sensory system" , my understanding was that our sensory system starts with the generation of discrete electrical impulses and proceeds to the firing of neurons in an electrochemical fashion, neither analog or digital are really useful metaphorical terms for this kind of activity, certainly this activity is not truly continuous as I understand it ???
 

The problem here isn't with a test that successfully demonstrates an audible difference.  The statistical thresholds are that rigid that a positive result can be taken on face value.
 
It's the test that fails to demonstrate an audible difference that needs scrutiny.  Can you seriously conclude that there's no audible difference.  It's not all the time that increasing the numbers of test subjects will necessarily prove validity.
 
As to analog vs digital hearing.  I think what beeman is getting at here is:
If you send a complex stimulus to a robot with sensors, it will always register the stimulus in the same way.  As a result, an detected stimulus will always be detected as such and in the same way, every time, once the stimulus remains the same.  This is far from the truth for human perception and hearing.  We listen to the same stimulus in different ways when it's presented to us.  We will hear something in complex sound in one pass and not hear it in another.  The more subtle the sound stimulus is, the more likely it is that we may not notice it on each pass, especially if it's embedded within a complex sound presentation.  This is why I'm not surprised that those who pass DBT's often have to train themselves to do so.
 
Now, if someone fails a DBT, how does the DBT differentiate between someone who is just guessing and guesses correctly 25% of the times vs one who genuinely hears a real difference only  25% of the times because it's difficult to hear for whatever reason.   Are we really saying here that you are truthfully seeing/hearing something only if you see/hear it all the time when the stimulus is presented, no matter how transient.  However, I do realize that by experimentation and statistical analysis one could not make a solid claim unless one is sure it could not be guessing that's underway.  Unfortunately, we take this obvious requirement for conclusive evidence to erroneously assume that if a DBX does not prove an audible difference between two cables, it then means that there cannot be an audible difference.  We cannot do this in a subjective/analog environment of hit and miss depending on a lot of factors peculiar to the sense of hearing and how we perceive sound.

 

[beeman458]

Then your problem might be with the interpretation of said people of results,,,,
 
My beef, in the case of DBT of cable users is with the rules of interpretation but it's not a problem.  Problem to me, in this case, assumes error of understanding on my part.
 

 

[beeman458]

Roger Strummer wrote:
 
its just deciding on which horse to bet, the one with probability 0.8 to win or the one with 0.2, both can win but scientists won't take their chances due to the reasoning of my post above.
 
I guess you've never handicapped the ponies before as science has nothing to do with a capable pony winning or losing as it has to do with owners running to win or just running for conditioning.  Many other parameters come into consideration, does the horse hang up in the gate, does the jockey fall off, does the horse run off the track and over the rail and even, does the horse breakdown.  The variables regarding conditioning are many; track type, distance, breeding, track condition, class of race, shipping, physical condition of the horse such as did a stallion come across a mare in heat or get backed down by another horse, etc.
 
I could get it down to the top three choices, 70% win rate over hundreds of races, but was lousy at money management.  Had to give it up and find something else to do with my life as I lacked a mentor to help get me over the top.
 
Boo, Hoo.

 

[ROBSCIX]

 
Quote:

ROBSCIX: This is the sound science part of the forum, and while the first post was a bit obnoxious, we generally try to base our claims on facts. With that in mind I don't quite see how your post contributes with anything we haven't heard a few times earlier...
 
I've read a lot about different DBT, but what I would like to see is what happens if we remove the human factor. In other words simply see if there are any differences through making various measurings (I don't know what kind of measurings, FR graph perhaps?). Does anyone know if such testing has ever been performed? And I'm not just talking about measuring the cables' capacitance, impedance etc. but actually measuring the sound that comes out of the speaker Surely if we can't measure any differences between using a wire hanger and expensive speaker cables, no one can hear it? If it's the other way around we will probably keep discussing this for centuries anyway

Just offering my opinion that same as anybody else here.
 

 

[Roger Strummer]

Quote:

Again, great responses.

I'm pretty sure that I fully understand you and agree.  Very nicely stated.  This is an important post.
 
Thanks

 , after all I'm a Mathematician, I'm supposed to know and dominate at least this level of things.
 

The problem here isn't with a test that successfully demonstrates an audible difference.  The statistical thresholds are that rigid that a positive result can be taken on face value.
 
It's the test that fails to demonstrate an audible difference that needs scrutiny.  Can you seriously conclude that there's no audible difference.  It's not all the time that increasing the numbers of test subjects will necessarily prove validity.
 
No, you conclude that there is no evidence to say that there is a difference, which is different than stating that there is none categorically. 
 
 
As to analog vs digital hearing.  I think what beeman is getting at here is:
If you send a complex stimulus to a robot with sensors, it will always register the stimulus in the same way.  As a result, an detected stimulus will always be detected as such and in the same way, every time, once the stimulus remains the same.  This is far from the truth for human perception and hearing.  We listen to the same stimulus in different ways when it's presented to us.  We will hear something in complex sound in one pass and not hear it in another.  The more subtle the sound stimulus is, the more likely it is that we may not notice it on each pass, especially if it's embedded within a complex sound presentation.  This is why I'm not surprised that those who pass DBT's often have to train themselves to do so.
 
Correct. In other word you are saying that there is non zero variance between human observations. That not only does not go against DBT (and a rigorous statistical hypothesis test), but is the very reason why statistics is used (will detail in next paragraph, which I decided to split).
 
 
Now, if someone fails a DBT, how does the DBT differentiate between someone who is just guessing and guesses correctly 25% of the times vs one who genuinely hears a real difference only  25% of the times because it's difficult to hear for whatever reason.  
 
Correct, even if you hear differences there is a good chance you won't get it right 100% of the time, there are lot of variables that affect, even time of the day and mood of the participants.
 
Are we really saying here that you are truthfully seeing/hearing something only if you see/hear it all the time when the stimulus is presented, no matter how transient.  
 
No, we are not saying that.
 
However, I do realize that by experimentation and statistical analysis one could not make a solid claim unless one is sure it could not be guessing that's underway.  Unfortunately, we take this obvious requirement for conclusive evidence to erroneously assume that if a DBX does not prove an audible difference between two cables, it then means that there cannot be an audible difference.  We cannot do this in a subjective/analog environment of hit and miss depending on a lot of factors peculiar to the sense of hearing and how we perceive sound.
 
One cannot conclude that. There are various reasons.
 
First this is statistics, all is chance, as I've stated before even the best tests can be wrong (although unprobable, but possible and it happens). Think about this way, the probability that one very good test is wrong is very small, but the probability that at least one test is wrong is actually bigger than what one believes, just as you need only 23 people so that the probability that 2 have the same birthday is more than half.
 
Second the conclusion that a negative results gives you is NOT to say that there is no difference. Is to say that there is no evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis, ie there is no evidence to say that cables make a difference, it is VERY important that distinction, since this conclusion is supported and is open to be proven wrong by further studies or results.
 
Third the results of a DBT of a single person are NOT statistically relevant for science, whether he gets 50% or 100% correct. The probability of error with a sample size of one is kind of huge, you need more than one subject to discard that the subject has super hearing, or that he is the luckiest guy on earth, or he was in a good mood, or that the stars suggested the result or whatever other factor there is, including the analogue nature of hearing as is being told by beeman. The selection of a really random sample is VERY important to reduce the probability of error due to all the factors, the more factors the bigger sample size you need. Note that this doesn't say anything about the validity of a single person's DBT for that person.
 
But as I stated before, the focus is that generally saying an innocent is guilty is worse than releasing free an assassin, so with the conclusion that there is no evidence to discard the Null Hypothesis science operates with the probably safer choice of assuming the Null Hypothesis.
 
 
 
 

So the scientific position right now due to the not so successful results of DBT studies so far is to assume that there is no perceivable difference. And seeing how some people are so pro-cable differences having a post like the OP is great to put things in perspective for people new to the forums.

 
Quote:

Roger Strummer wrote:
 
its just deciding on which horse to bet, the one with probability 0.8 to win or the one with 0.2, both can win but scientists won't take their chances due to the reasoning of my post above.
 
I guess you've never handicapped the ponies before as science has nothing to do with a capable pony winning or losing as it has to do with owners running to win or just running for conditioning.  Many other parameters come into consideration, does the horse hang up in the gate, does the jockey fall off, does the horse run off the track and over the rail and even, does the horse breakdown.  The variables regarding conditioning are many; track type, distance, breeding, track condition, class of race, shipping, physical condition of the horse such as did a stallion come across a mare in heat or get backed down by another horse, etc.
 
I could get it down to the top three choices, 70% win rate over hundreds of races, but was lousy at money management.  Had to give it up and find something else to do with my life as I lacked a mentor to help get me over the top.
 
Boo, Hoo.

I was using the horses as analogy, the horses are the hypothesis, I wasn't talking about racing literally. Science has to bet to one of the hypothesis (either the Null or the alternative), so without evidence to discard the Null hypothesis one bets in the Null Hypothesis not being false, but knows there is a (small) probability of being wrong.

 

[Shike]

 
Quote:

But it's what the facts bear out as to BS.  And it would help to keep your above to my singular comments so as to maintain context of my comments.  I was clear as to the nature of my use of the word BS
 
Yes, very clear like the one posters use of ". . ." when referring to "neck" (supposedly - I don't believe so as the context betrays it).  You can put (bias) all you want, the connotations still exist.  If all you meant was bias you'd say bias, trying to claim a well known acronym is something else isn't going to help your point.
 
 
and there was no mention of lies
 
Uhuh - what did you mean by " It's pretty bad when you have to make things up and then teach this BS to others so as to get your way" (which, BTW shows the underlined context of your use of BS).  So what you're saying is "I'm not saying your lying, I'm just saying you're not telling the truth and telling others it is true".  Just like the guy that says "I'm not calling you a wife beater, I'm just saying you hit your wife".
 
Your "context" betrays you on multiple levels.  Rather than make excuses maybe owning up to your actions, apologizing for the rude behavior, and listening to other individuals may behoove you.
 
and yes, professors are highly bias in nature from personal experience.
 
So are you.  Bias is formed by any human, no matter how grounded you think you are.
 
The prejudicial and myopic nature of America's higher education system is a publicly well discussed subject and considering how quick academia is to cast condemnation and character aspersions on anybody whom doesn't agree with them, they, or you, shouldn't be upset when someone punches back.  And yes, agreed, it's hard to write honestly while being critical of accepted dogma and not cause offense in matters of this kind.  FWIW, educators aren't above either criticism or condemnation.
 
No single person is above criticism or condemnation, but the sweeping generalizations you make should honestly stop.  Character assassination based on false claims (libel) irritates me to no end and is against the TOC of the site.
 
In regards to education system biasing individuals, higher education teaches critical thinking skills so that one can form their own conclusions (and inherent bias).  However, even those without higher education can form their own conclusions (and inherent bias), though may not be as informed.  As such education isn't the problem, it's the human element will be biased regardless thanks to any formed conclusions - the only way to avoid bias is testing that removes the ability to bias for or against something.  DBT isn't biased, but you can argue interpretations all you want.  The testing method is established and has held up to scrutiny over the years.  Those that have studied stats have made this point multiple times over.

EDIT:
 
Also, the "Boo, Hoo" in some of your posts is distinctly snide.  For someone not wanting to be mistaken for a troll it's probably a poor choice of actions.