[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dharma /img/forum/go_quote.gif What, no comment? Scientists - any???

Sigh... he doesn't know the the only difference is the amont of ringing. And besides, in the context of DBT it doesn't matter what is or isn't measurable by test equipment, only whether an audible difference can be objectively demonstrated. I really don't get what is so hard to understand about all of this...

 

[dharma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sigh... he doesn't know the the only difference is the amont of ringing. And besides, in the context of DBT it doesn't matter what is or isn't measurable by test equipment, only whether an audible difference can be objectively demonstrated. I really don't get what is so hard to understand about all of this...

Have you used this particular amplifier with those filters? So what's your point? Just theoretical ...

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...he doesn't know that the only difference is the amount of ringing...

It's not the amount (which is about the same), but the characteristic. And yes, there's a difference in phase response, too. But to conservative/objectivist standards that matters just as little.

[size=xx-small].[/size]
The ones in question are filter 2 and 3.



[/off-topic]
.

 

[Hirsch]

A measurement is also a placebo. Placebo effects are based on expectation, and equivalent measurements suggest that differences will not be audible. So, anyone who thinks everything that measures the same is going to sound the same has to deal with the same "placebo" effect as those who hear consistent differences. The expectancies are different, but the psychology is the same.

If you think that you're going to understand expectancy effects without doing some heavy reading in perceptual processes, psychophysics, and the psychology of perception, you're wrong.

If you think that you're going to understand DBT without some heavy reading in experimental design and statistics, you're also wrong.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif What's surprising is that people who are so derisive of test equipment and procedures think of themselves as adequate test equipment.

John Atkinson has been trying for years to measure all equipment reviewed in Stereophile. The idea has been to identify the underlying measurements that predict whether or not a piece of gear will actually sound good. So far, he has not succeeded. You can have all the test gear that you like. Until you know what to test, it's not going to help figure out if something sounds good, unless of course expectancy effects kick in (see above).

Since the end point, at least for me, is the enjoyment of music, the only known instrument that predicts this accurately is my own reaction to the music played over a piece of gear, over time.

Until those measurements that reliably predict musical enjoyment are known, what's surprising to me is the number of people who seem to think that they need measurements to tell them what they like.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Again (not sure how many times it is possible to repeat this) objective testing is not intended to tell you what sounds good, only what sounds different.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...objective testing is not intended to tell you what sounds good, only what sounds different.

Neither is subjective testing. Its goal is to detect differences, and, if there are some, chose the characteristic you prefer. If you do the test several times and get 100% consistent results, it serves the purpose 100%.
.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Neither is subjective testing. Its goal is to detect differences, and, if there are some, chose the characteristic you prefer. If you do the test several times and get 100% consistent results, it serves the purpose 100%. .

I guess this is all beyond my poor abilities to explain, but again... objective testing has nothing to do with what characteristic you prefer, and if that's what you're looking for then of course subjective testing is appropriate. But if you're trying to demonstrate whether any difference exists all all (without respect to preference or any other subjective facet) then objective testing is used. The two types of tests are trying to determine two completely different things.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess this is all beyond my poor abilities to explain, but again... objective testing has nothing to do with what characteristic you prefer, and if that's what you're looking for then of course subjective testing is appropriate. But if you're trying to demonstrate whether any difference exists all all (without respect to preference or any other subjective facet) then objective testing is used. The two types of tests are trying to determine two completely different things.

No. They serve the same purpose: detecting differences. The preference part is optional.
.

 

[ILikeMusic]

I officially give up.

 

[CodeToad]

Fortunately for me I prefer the cables that usually come with my amps, sound cards etc. Good enough and the sound is awesome. I'm happy at this point (subject to change).

I did splurge on a set of BJC "ten white" speaker cables...just in case I needed to put my speakers 200 feet away 3 houses down the street for some reason. You never know.....

 

[vapman]

MPD, Behringer UCA202 to Etymotic HF-5 or NAD 3155/B&W DM5. couldn't be happier with it. the stereo is my dad's old system.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Until those measurements that reliably predict musical enjoyment are known, what's surprising to me is the number of people who seem to think that they need measurements to tell them what they like.

But isn't that a mischaracterization of the debate? I don't think people are saying they need some form of measurement (aka DBT) to tell them what they like. They are saying if we want to build a body of knowledge of what things you can do to a system to perceptively change its sound, then you need some objective way to verify that. Once we know something changes the sound within our ability to perceive it, each person can decide for themselves if the change is for the better or not.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif Once we know something changes the sound within our ability to perceive it, each person can decide for themselves if the change is for the better or not.

That's a problematic approach: establishing rules for what's allowed to be heard and what's not.
.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a problematic attitude: to establish rules about what's allowed to be heard and what not. .

It is not to establish rules forbidding or allowing something, it is understanding why some changes are plausible and others just happen in our heads. Then, sharing the results that have a scientific basis and a test "less flawed" than just subjective opinion.

A problematic approach is to try and convince other people that changing cables will change SQ when the only thing to back up those ideas are subjective opinions (that can be easily flawed), denying any scientific proof and having fear over DBT.

When you do a DBT between cables or sources you remove the idea of one being better than other due to price/aesthetics/personal liking/reviews, etc... If a DBT is properly done you arrive to the test zone without knowing anything about the equipment being tested, only that one is A and the other is B, then using you own ear you try to find out which one sounds better to you. However when you have no clue on what sounds better you just guess, and guessing is not knowing. If you do that same test with more people (trained, untrained, good hearing, and even "golden ears"), and no one clearly spots a difference -just guesses- then there is NO difference.

No one has passed a DBT between different cables. They all guessed. Measurements with equipment more precise than our ears show us that there is no audible difference between cables. So how come some people claim there are differences between cables?
Pretty easy, placebo, their test is flawed, trying to justify price, mood, aesthetics, etc...

Conclusion: Cables claiming SQ changes are snake oil.

And we "non believers" know that using cheap or extremely expensive cables will give us the same SQ, then we will be happy listening to our rig, having spent way less money that the "believers", and knowing our hearing capabilities are the same, better or worst than theirs, but we are not leaving anything behind.