[dharma]

believing (in whatever) is believing

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif When every DBT of cables has failed and sensitive equipment says that there is no difference, you need to take a hard look at yourself.

Could have not been said better, however there will still be people thinking that it has not been proven, or that their ears and brain can capture 10^-4dB differences...

 

[BIG POPPA]

nick charles, how did they sound? Were they neutral, bright, laid back, wide, tall, smooth, or soft sounding cables. And how did they match your system? xtreme4099 was at my house last night and we listend to A 14awg copper cable with Rhodium Ends and a 15awg silver plated copper cable with silver rhodium ends. They had some of the same characteristics in sound but one was centered on mids and one had a wider sound stage. We both liked a different cable the best. Last night was a blast dicussing and listening to the cables.

 

[deaconblues]

I'm sure they were neutral, just like every other cable

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif nick charles, how did they sound? Were they neutral, bright, laid back, wide, tall, smooth, or soft sounding cables. And how did they match your system? xtreme4099 was at my house last night and we listend to A 14awg copper cable with Rhodium Ends and a 15awg silver plated copper cable with silver rhodium ends. They had some of the same characteristics in sound but one was centered on mids and one had a wider sound stage. We both liked a different cable the best. Last night was a blast dicussing and listening to the cables.

The cables were sonically identical to me. All worked equally well with my system, though the cheapest cable
(77c) did have slightly more measured noise than the others but it was still inaudible. The silver cable had a slight high-mid-to-low-high *noise* bump , again inaudible and possibly due to crappy shielding.

As for sound , they were all identical sounding. but the measurements of the FRs are a much better pointer here. None gave any range a boost a drop or any change at all. They all measured as neutral and when I listend to them I did not detect that any cable added or subtracted anything relative to any other.

 

[spanimal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sometimes, memorizing every last detail won't get you through a multiple choice test. One that I'm familiar with is the MBE, or the Multistate Bar Exam. Knowing the law is not enough to pass. You have to correctly apply your knowledge. The MBE is deliberately obfuscated. Whatever a question seems to be in the beginning will transform into something else by the end. What looks like a contracts question will segue into torts. Or any of several topics. Further, you'll read the question, note the switch, then race through your memory of the topic outline and come to the correct response. But when you review the choices, you'll notice that not one of them precisely fits the answer you know is right. You then have to go through each of them to eliminate what's wrong with the answer before backing into the correct one. Sometimes you'll get a point for more than one answer. Oh, and sometimes, none of the answers are correct. Tricky and borderline sadstic, but the point is to force you to deal with conflicting answers and the possibility of no correct answer in the real world. It isn't easy. I made it through, but a lot of people don't. Which is how the world works. Sometimes, there are multiple right answers. Sometimes, you trick yourself into thinking that there's an answer when there really isn't one. How do you know whether you're even looking at things the right way? I think the point you're missing is that tests are frameworks. If you hold tight to the framework, then you miss the point. You have to gather all the evidence available, then interpret it. If evidence points to something uncomfortable to your framework, you just have to accept reality and develop a new framework that includes everything you've learned. The problem with most cable "believers" is that they refuse to take everything into consideration. Your mind plays tricks on you. Are the two circles really round? They are, but your mind screams at you otherwise. If you think there's something special going on inside a cable, you need to stop and consider that your mind isn't perfect. It says the circles aren't round, but they are. You have to account for suggestion, placebo and many other mind tricks before you can be sure that what you hear is really what is being reproduced. Raging against electrical test equipment would be like trying to find fault with someone using a compass to prove these circles are round. If you think electrical test equipment is flawed, you need to take a much closer look at human test equipment, so to speak. Humans make for a deeply flawed test apparatus. When every DBT of cables has failed and sensitive equipment says that there is no difference, you need to take a hard look at yourself.

Your analogy of why a DBT could not be submitted as evidence is better than mine.

An optical illusion will aways be labelled as such.

You would have been magnificent as Albert Einsteins father - Perhaps WMDs would fail to eventuate.

 

[deaconblues]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanimal /img/forum/go_quote.gif The reason these guys can't prove that they sound the same in their tests is because it is all in THEIR heads.

You've got it backwards buddy. It's the differences that are in YOUR head. Despite having already been presented with proof in measurements and blind test results, cable believers simply close their minds and keep saying "where's the proof?". Yet, not a single cable believer has proven his ability to tell the difference between cables by using sound as the sole criterion. The whole point behind using fancy cables is supposed to be a superior ability to transmit sound, right? Why then can nobody tell the difference when judgment is left to the ears alone?

 

[spanimal]

Agreed - the difference pereceived in MY head as transferred by the difference in variation between all my CHEAPSKATE zero cost cables (the only cables I own).

Please stop presenting the SAME TWO INDICATORS - NOT EVIDENCE, of why cables ALL sound SIMILAR. I have presented NUMEROUS, SCIENTIFICALLY REASONABLE and COMMONSENSE LOGICAL, plausibilities of why these two indicators are insufficient considering human kinds PRIMITIVE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING. I offer a take on a DBT that will prove otherwise - consisting of BLIND audio analysts ONLY. As unreasonable as that may sound, is the ONLY way to move listening tests to a more accurate level (No, I am not willing to go blind for this purpose).

This point has been proposed before but I will rephrase it. People cannot hear the difference because of:

a) INFERIOR equipment
b) INFERIOR hearing
c) INFERIOR intellect

It is OK to not always be so superior - I am sure you make up for the lack in these departments with superior expertise in OTHER fields. Just not in this one - thats all. I understand - its OK.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanimal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Agreed - the difference pereceived in MY head as transferred by the difference in variation between all my CHEAPSKATE zero cost cables (the only cables I own). Please stop presenting the SAME TWO INDICATORS - NOT EVIDENCE, of why cables ALL sound SIMILAR. I have presented NUMEROUS, SCIENTIFICALLY REASONABLE and COMMONSENSE LOGICAL, plausibilities of why these two indicators are insufficient considering human kinds PRIMITIVE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING. I offer a take on a DBT that will prove otherwise - consisting of BLIND audio analysts ONLY. As unreasonable as that may sound, is the ONLY way to move listening tests to a more accurate level (No, I am not willing to go blind for this purpose). This point has been proposed before but I will rephrase it. People cannot hear the difference because of: a) INFERIOR equipment b) INFERIOR hearing c) INFERIOR intellect It is OK to not always be so superior - I am sure you make up for the lack in these departments with superior expertise in OTHER fields. Just not in this one - thats all. I understand - its OK.

You sir are a FREAKING TROLL

First you come like the guy who just follows science "blindly", and now a week later you try some cables and they change your way of thinking completely. Obviously you have read a lot of nonsense about cables and you have FOOLED yourself in thinking there are differences.

First mistake you make is instead of approaching those "differences" from a scientific point of view (as you should have done if you had really followed science from the start) you have gone into an "oh lord, I hear a difference" state. And "then if I hear a difference, every scientific reason that states there are NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES, and that no one has passed a DBT MUST be wrong".

Just quit the trolling and don't make me laugh at your intellect...

 

[moogoob]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif You sir are a FREAKING TROLL First you come like the guy who just follows science "blindly", and now a week later you try some cables and they change your way of thinking completely. Obviously you have read a lot of nonsense about cables and you have FOOLED yourself in thinking there are differences. First mistake you make is instead of approaching those "differences" from a scientific point of view (as you should have done if you had really followed science from the start) you have gone into an "oh lord, I hear a difference" state. And "then if I hear a difference, every scientific reason that states there are NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES, and that no one has passed a DBT MUST be wrong". Just quit the trolling and don't make me laugh at your intellect...

Agreed. Here we were having a nice discussion about philosophy and perception...

 

[moogoob]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you think electrical test equipment is flawed, you need to take a much closer look at human test equipment, so to speak. Humans make for a deeply flawed test apparatus. When every DBT of cables has failed and sensitive equipment says that there is no difference, you need to take a hard look at yourself.

This is exactly what I had originally come here to post. Well said, Erik.

 

[TheAttorney]

Many people here consider DBT as the absolute listening test to prove a difference or otherwise. I don't agree at all with this premise.

Any listening test methodology has it's risks. I agree with the comments about placebo, gullibility, wishful thinking, etc. These are all valid reasons a listener may fool themselves into an incorrect judgement and you have to understand the risks in order to reliably overcome them. BUT there are also mind tricks that can occur when doing AB comparisons. For example, where A and B are similar on major parameters (volume, frequency), then your mind will have a reasonable tendency to assume they are the same - and miss the fact that there are other subtle-but-important differences. And DBT is worse still because it introduces stress into the situation.

I'm not saying that DBT or AB tests have no purpose - I'm saying that the mind tricks are a higher risk for these type of tests then the type I prefer, which is basically to listen normally to my unchanged system for a long time (months) and then insert just one new item and listen normally. Now some people (manufacturers, hi fi dealers, professional reviewers) have to learn to reliably do AB tests (not necessarily DBT) - their livelihood depends on it. But for most amateurs (myself included) it's a minefield to get such a test right.

I should add that I've no scientific proof for this. Just years of experience trying to find the most reliable way to improve my sound system without wasting money.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAttorney /img/forum/go_quote.gif BUT there are also mind tricks that can occur when doing AB comparisons. For example, where A and B are similar on major parameters (volume, frequency), then your mind will have a reasonable tendency to assume they are the same - and miss the fact that there are other subtle-but-important differences. And DBT is worse still because it introduces stress into the situation.

Possibly, yet DBT can be used to detect very small differences in frequency and volume, I've done this myself frequently testing volume, and low pass filters, I have been able to reliably detect 0.7db overall volume differences between CD players and low pass filters up to 2K below my upper hearing threshold. With cables however the differences are an order of magnitude (at least) smaller.

As for stress , that is only an issue if you make it an issue, in fact I find that by concentrating intently I do better than if I relax. It is too easy to dismiss DBT as stressful, since a level of (what we call) stress can be a good motivator in some circumstances, some folks reckon stress as such does not exist, but that is another argument...

 

[deaconblues]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanimal /img/forum/go_quote.gif This point has been proposed before but I will rephrase it. People cannot hear the difference because of: a) INFERIOR equipment b) INFERIOR hearing c) INFERIOR intellect It is OK to not always be so superior - I am sure you make up for the lack in these departments with superior expertise in OTHER fields. Just not in this one - thats all. I understand - its OK.

End of discussion guys. The troll has spoken. Scientific method has officially been replaced with spanimal's "common sense". We now know for sure that the lack of a perceived difference between cables is caused by deafness, idiocy, and poor gear.

 

[dharma]

Extensive/serious scientific research (about what everybody seems 'worshiping') is is not for poor guys, i have never read in any forum (different subjects), that anyone (from any forum members) have really copied-repeated any extensive scientific research. If i read overview about extensive/serious scientific research, then methodology and argumentation is on quite high level...
Something like:

...'Variability between listeners

One assumption behind the use of hearing models for coding is that “all listeners are
created equal”, i.e. between different listeners there are no or only small deviations in
the basic model parameters. Depending on the model parameter, this is more or less
true:
Absolute threshold of hearing:
It is a well known effect that the absolute threshold of hearing varies between
listeners and even for the same listener over time with a general trend that the
listening capabilities at high frequencies decrease with age. Hearing deficiencies
due to overload of the auditory system further increase the threshold of hearing
for part of the frequency range (see the chapter by Jim Kates) and can be found
quite often. Perceptual models have to take a worst case approach, i.e. have to
assume very good listening capabilities.
Masked threshold:
Fortunately for the designers of perceptual coding systems, variations for the
actual masked thresholds in frequency domain are quite small. They are small
enough to warrant one model of masking with a fixed set of parameters.
Masking in time domain:
The experiments described in [Spille, 1992] and other observations (including
the author) show that there are large variations in the ability of test subjects
to recognize small noise signals just before a loud masker (pre-echoes). It is
known that the capability to recognize pre-echoes depends on proper training
of the subjects, i.e. you might not hear it the first time, but will not forget the
effect after you heard it for the 100th time. At present it is still an open question
whether in addition to this training effect there is a large variation between
different groups of listeners.
Perception of imaging and imaging artifacts:
This item seems to be related to the perception of pre-echo effects (test subjects
who are very sensitive for pre-echoes in some cases are known to be very
insensitive to imaging artifacts). Not much is known here, so this is a topic for
future research.
As can be seen from the comments above, research on hearing is by no means a
closed topic. Very simple models can be built very easily and can already be the base
for reasonably good perceptual coding systems. If somebody tries to built advanced
models, the limits of accuracy of the current knowledge about psychoacoustics are
reached very soon.'...

This i can understand, not just 'science mantra'