[mbd2884]

Quote:

Originally Posted by endless402 /img/forum/go_quote.gif it's not 1 cable that costs 700, its many that brings it to a toal of 700... you dont just get a cable and say that's the one that works with my system, you have to test out different cables. i'm in the process of changing my speakers which means i have to find out which cables work the best what kind of crap equipment do you use?

This is the kind of stuff that gets people really shaking their heads outside of this community. Or maybe laughing so hard they can't even sit up.

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Cables are easy to try, let me know where to go to try the teleportation tweak and then maybe we can talk about that.

You don't go anywhere, you simply pay and they give you a call, and you keep the phone in your listening room and it magically makes the sound better. I wonder if you even read the link...

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif You know if your posting was less personal and more factual then your writings would improve and someone might take you seriously for once. You continuously moan about personal attacks but I have never seen one substantial down to earth common sense post from you,

Depends on who is defining common sense. Common sense never equates to truth - in the early 1900's, it was common sense that smoking tobacco had no health risks, and people claiming that it caused cancer were laughed at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif but hey, thats because you are obsessed with proving me wrong about something and it causes you to say things that are not well thought out or grounded with common sense. Not everything in life is subjective dude.

I've never stated that everything is subjective (there you go putting words in my mouth) - I've stated time and time again that properly controlled testing is as objective as humanly possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Common sense refers to those beliefs or propositions that seem, to many people, to be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge.

Which is exactly why common sense, while a useful tool in many cases, is not enough to determine the truth of something. Notice how the definition you quoted said "seem" and "to many people," despite the fact that what seems to be the case for a lot of people is not necessarily true.

BTW, curiously enough, one of the reference links at the bottom of the wiki page you cited leads to:

Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Appeal to tradition, also known as proof from tradition, appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the "is/ought" fallacy, is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way.""

Look at that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the number of people who have experience and do hear a difference puts us squarely in the the definition of common sense.

So agreeing on something makes it true? See above, with cigarettes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif I also think people who proclaim things they could not possibly know could not have used prudent and sound judgment. One day when you grow up you will realize how useless it is to worry about what people think of you, even if its for one second. Say what you want but you know I am right. After all its common sense.

Oh, No! It's Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run! | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeroibis /img/forum/go_quote.gif To get back on track is not the current debate over the validity of DBT when applied to a subjective source. I will have to look some stuff up to see if artistic quality in any forum has ever been subjected to DBT for cross reference purposes. However I believe that at this point we should ask our selves a few quick questions (I will insert my personal answers). 1. Is what we are attempting to judge subjective (yes)

Agreed so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeroibis /img/forum/go_quote.gif 2. Do and can DBT apply to something that is subjective (probably not)

Here's where I don't disagree. DBT is used all the time for subjective experience, namely (see below) in pain medication. Pain is probably the most elusive of qualia that humans can experience and discuss, and it's likely THE most subjective experience that we feel in our existence (you can describe to someone in rudimentary terms how some tonal qualities sound, such as warm, bright, rolled-off, etc. but how can you describe to someone what pain feels like without referencing some other painful experience?), and yet DBT works perfectly well and is an industry standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeroibis /img/forum/go_quote.gif 3. What can cause the above problem and can that be corrected (Well this is likely due to people being different from one another, therefore because two individuals are not likely to be the exact same they are not likely to have the exact same reaction to the same thing especially if the given thing is subjective in nature) I would like to point out that at the current level of this debate the real question is of a more psychological nature. Also I am tired and going to bed, also Red Wings kicked ass!

I think the major disputes for DBT is that it's stressful and there's not enough time to test, but the DBT protocol says nothing about either of those disputes. There's no reason why the test can't be taken over months (or years if you feel especially determined or batty). The most frequently cited "perfect" (sighted) way to determine differences is to listen to a system for a long time, and then switch out a cable, and then listen for some more time, noting differences.

But here's my question: why can't one do all of the following, same equipment, same time, same listening room, but instead of you switching out the cable, you have a neutral person switch them out in a random order? Do this 10 times, see the results, and you have a DBT (so long as volumes are matched, etc).

About individuals being different from each other, I agree, which is why I'll take just ONE properly conducted DBT that turns up a statistically significant positive result. If someone can show me just ONE individual who can reliably tell the differences between cables, then I (and I think all of the skeptics) would claim that cables can and do make a difference to at least some people. You're right, in that no number of negative DBTs can show definitive proof - but given how many DBTs have failed, and how not a single proven DBT has ever shown up (because let's face it, if such a thing existed it would be circulated among head-fi, as well as the audiophile community at large, with excitement and fervor), I'm going to hedge my bets and go with the slightly inconclusive proof than the other side which has no proof at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeroibis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Experience should generally be preferred over theory regardless of how good the reasoning is. See: problems with early Greek logic when applied to reasoning.

I don't think many people will disagree with you on this - the real question (that I think many people are ignoring) is: what experience is of value, and what experience is not?

There's a reason why pharmaceutical companies test against a placebo - it's because someone with "experience" that solely consists of them having a headache, taking a pill, and feeling better, is totally useless experience. We can't glean any useful information from that experience because we don't know if the action of taking the pill caused a difference, or if the active ingredient of the pill was the causal factor. Without that knowledge, we can't say that tylenol is effective at reducing pain - we need to control for the placebo effect and test in an experimental setting, where nobody knows whether or not they're taking a placebo or acetaminophen, and see what the result of the pill is above and beyond the placebo effect. If there's no statistical significance, then acetaminophen makes no difference in the subjective realm of pain reduction.

Applying that analogy to the current debate, doing sighted tests are useless because we have no way of distinguishing whether or not any claimed differences are due to the cables, or merely some psychological bias stemming from the cable purchase. And so, analogously, if under properly controlled testing circumstances, there's no statistically significant improvement, then the cables make no difference in the subjective realm of audio.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't go anywhere, you simply pay and they give you a call, and you keep the phone in your listening room and it magically makes the sound better. I wonder if you even read the link... Like I said, no common sense and no substance, thanks for making my point. Depends on who is defining common sense. Common sense never equates to truth - in the early 1900's, it was common sense that smoking tobacco had no health risks, and people claiming that it caused cancer were laughed at. A) This is not 1900 so that has no bearing on this conversation and B) Common sense is defined by the masses and you and some of the other assuming, inexperienced, zealots are most definitely not the majority on this one. I've never stated that everything is subjective (there you go putting words in my mouth) - I've stated time and time again that properly controlled testing is as objective as humanly possible. "Depends on who is defining common sense."<~~You never say that anything is subjective do you? You dont even seem to realize the lack of implications the testing you speak of has on this cable debate. Which is exactly why common sense, while a useful tool in many cases, is not enough to determine the truth of something. Notice how the definition you quoted said "seem" and "to many people," despite the fact that what seems to be the case for a lot of people is not necessarily true. No comments about everything being subjective huh? BTW, curiously enough, one of the reference links at the bottom of the wiki page you cited leads to: Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Appeal to tradition, also known as proof from tradition, appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the "is/ought" fallacy, is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."" Look at that. So agreeing on something makes it true? See above, with cigarettes. <~~Like I said before, this is not 1900. Oh, No! It's Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run! | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Is there a point in your post? I dont see one. Accept that you always come back to everything being subjective when your wrong. Do you ever post factual information in your writings?

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is the kind of stuff that gets people really shaking their heads outside of this community. Or maybe laughing so hard they can't even sit up.

You seem to be all by yourself on that one. No one else seems to find humour in his post but you.

 

[royalcrown]

Because you replied inside one big quote bubble, head-fi lopped the entire thing off, so I'm going to try to approximate it the best I can. In the future, if you could respond outside of the quotes like I did, I'd appreciate it - it makes it much easier to organize and respond to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Like I said, no common sense and no substance, thanks for making my point.

What? You asked where to go to try the teleportation tweak, and I responded explaining that you just have to pay them and they call you. How is that lacking substance? It's a very clear and factual response to your question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif A) This is not 1900 so that has no bearing on this conversation and B) Common sense is defined by the masses and you and some of the other assuming, inexperienced, zealots are most definitely not the majority on this one.

The example still applies, regardless of whether or not you baselessly assert that it has no bearing - just because a bunch of people believe in it, doesn't mean that their belief is true (that's substance, and I'd like to see you or anyone prove that the majority believing in something makes it necessarily true).

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif <~~You never say that anything is subjective do you? You dont even seem to realize the lack of implications the testing you speak of has on this cable debate.

Again trying to twist my words. Read my original post again - I said I never claimed that everything is subjective, which is exactly the phrasing you originally used. There's a world of a difference between "anything" and "everything".

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif No comments about everything being subjective huh?

This has nothing to do with subjectivity - this is about the fact that a lot of people believing in something (the definition of common sense) doesn't make it true. Furthermore, the key that you seem to disregard here, is that what's "common sense" varies over time - in the 1900's what was common sense is laughable to us now, and in 10 years it could very well be the case that what is now "common sense" would be considered laughable in the future. This is why "common sense" is a terrible metric for determining truth, and also why something that isn't common sense could very well be true. Again, I'm repeating myself to make this exceptionally clear (although you'll probably ignore these parts like you normally do): this has nothing to do with subjectivity vs. objectivity and everything to do with belief vs. truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is there a point in your post? I dont see one. Accept that you always come back to everything being subjective when your wrong. Do you ever post factual information in your writings?

... the point was that common sense means nothing because it doesn't determine truth. This is actually a fact (that common sense doesn't determine truth), and is a very simple and concise point. Just because you refuse to acknowledge its existence doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif Because you replied inside one big quote bubble, head-fi lopped the entire thing off, so I'm going to try to approximate it the best I can. In the future, if you could respond outside of the quotes like I did, I'd appreciate it - it makes it much easier to organize and respond to. What? You asked where to go to try the teleportation tweak, and I responded explaining that you just have to pay them and they call you. How is that lacking substance? It's a very clear and factual response to your question. The example still applies, regardless of whether or not you baselessly assert that it has no bearing - just because a bunch of people believe in it, doesn't mean that their belief is true (that's substance, and I'd like to see you or anyone prove that the majority believing in something makes it necessarily true). Again trying to twist my words. Read my original post again - I said I never claimed that everything is subjective, which is exactly the phrasing you originally used. There's a world of a difference between "anything" and "everything". This has nothing to do with subjectivity - this is about the fact that a lot of people believing in something (the definition of common sense) doesn't make it true. Furthermore, the key that you seem to disregard here, is that what's "common sense" varies over time - in the 1900's what was common sense is laughable to us now, and in 10 years it could very well be the case that what is now "common sense" would be considered laughable in the future. This is why "common sense" is a terrible metric for determining truth, and also why something that isn't common sense could very well be true. Again, I'm repeating myself to make this exceptionally clear (although you'll probably ignore these parts like you normally do): this has nothing to do with subjectivity vs. objectivity and everything to do with belief vs. truth. ... the point was that common sense means nothing because it doesn't determine truth. This is actually a fact (that common sense doesn't determine truth), and is a very simple and concise point. Just because you refuse to acknowledge its existence doesn't mean it's not there.

Blah Blah Blah

 

[olblueyez]

mbd2884, when are you going to fess up to being a hypocrite? These are your headphones right? With the aftermarket cable right? With upgraded nylon right? With the upgraded Furutech connector right? With the upgraded viablue splitter right?

Do you have the balls to admit that you contradict yourself on a regular basis?

Quote:

"This is the kind of stuff that gets people really shaking their heads outside of this community. Or maybe laughing so hard they can't even sit up."

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Blah Blah Blah

Oh, No! It's Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run! | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[number1sixerfan]

I just wanted to make a random note.

Failing to acknowledge how the mind can alter DBT results is no different from failing to realize how the mind can alter impressions of differences of cables. Therefore, DBT is a flawed "ultimate answer" in my very humble opinion.

No matter how cliche it is, "using your own ears" really is the only way to go.

 

[m3guy]

Quote:

Failing to acknowledge how the mind can alter DBT results is no different from failing to realize how the mind can alter impressions of differences of cables. Therefore, DBT is a flawed "ultimate answer" in my very humble opinion.

I haven't read the whole thread but I doubt any objectivist would call DBT an "ultimate answer." The results of a cable DBT show the pool of subjects were or were not able to identify the audible differences of the test at the time of the test. It doesn't prove or disprove audible differences of all cables or even just the cables used for the test.

I have been on the fence about cable for about a decade. I choose to believe that someday I will hear a difference. But as of today I have not been able to identify the difference between 14 gauge home depot zip cord and my Audioquest Gibraltar. This is likely due to the fact that the cables connected to my receiver has cost me more money that my receiver itself. (i.e. I haven't spent enough yet.)

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by number1sixerfan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Failing to acknowledge how the mind can alter DBT results is no different from failing to realize how the mind can alter impressions of differences of cables.

Could you explain to me exactly how the mind alters DBT results?

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif Could you explain to me exactly how the mind alters DBT results?

He's thinking...

 

[m3guy]

Quote:

Could you explain to me exactly how the mind alters DBT results?

I think what he means is that some people who are subjects for DBT may have a bias that cables are not audibly different. Therefore they will probably be less likely to detect any difference, if there are any. I disagree with people who believe that theory. It is just as likely that there would be people in that same group that have a bias that cable do sound audibly different.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by m3guy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think what he means is that some people who are subjects for DBT may have a bias that cables are not audibly different. Therefore they will probably be less likely to detect any difference, if there are any. I disagree with people who believe that theory. It is just as likely that there would be people in that same group that have a bias that cable do sound audibly different.

When Masters and Clark did their blind tests of amplifiers back in the 1980s they had several listeners , some were amplifier beleivers and some were amplifier skeptics, although neither group managed a difference detection that was statistically significant the skeptics actually did slightly better than the believers.

Here is a thing to consider if the difference is so small that a bias can hide it, is it worth worrying about?.

In controlled conditions humans can detect differences in level of between 0.1 and 0.2 db , when I tested my 4 CD players (which I thought all sounded the same) there was 1.7db difference between the quietest and the loudest which was easily detectable, there was 0.7db between the quietest and the next quietest also easily (though less so) detectable in a blind test. When I level matched to 0.1db I was unable to detect a difference any more.

When I did tests on cables I found differences in the 100ths and 1000ths of a db level between cables in the audible range, using cables that cost between 77 cents and $139.

The only notable difference I found was that both my 77c copper stranded and my Silver stranded cables ($72) were noiser , not audible to me but definiely noisier. Though my $2.19 cables were as quiet as any of the other more expensive ones exclding the Siler cable.