[deadlylover]

@Nightslayer
 
Ahh I see, but this place isn't 'consumer watch' (I made that up, does that exist?), this is primarily a place for people to converse in the enjoyment of audio gear.
Yeah we can't help but feel bad for the poor lad who has wasted a hundred dollars on a cable. But as he didn't notice a difference, he could either return the cable for a refund or perhaps even sell it here on head-fi for minimal loss.
Luckily, it doesn't seem like cables get worse over time (some argue they burn in), so I don't think they would be too difficult to sell it here if things don't work out with the vendor (again, most vendors are cool with returns).
So it's not like buying a cable is an eternal soul binding contract with the devil, it's just gear.
 
But in the case of a person who once enjoyed their cable (for a time longer than the returns date), but realized that they no longer do because they've finally come across DBT, they could either try to sell it to recoup funds or take a full loss and chalk it up to learning experience. That would be a very mature thing to do because you know what they say, experience is the best teacher but she don't come cheap.

 

[Nightslayer]

Quote:

@Nightslayer
 
Ahh I see, but this place isn't 'consumer watch' (I made that up, does that exist?), this is primarily a place for people to converse in the enjoyment of audio gear.
Yeah we can't help but feel bad for the poor lad who has wasted a hundred dollars on a cable. But as he didn't notice a difference, he could either return the cable for a refund or perhaps even sell it here on head-fi for minimal loss.
Luckily, it doesn't seem like cables get worse over time (some argue they burn in), so I don't think they would be too difficult to sell it here if things don't work out with the vendor (again, most vendors are cool with returns).
So it's not like buying a cable is an eternal soul binding contract with the devil, it's just gear.
 
But in the case of a person who once enjoyed their cable (for a time longer than the returns date), but realized that they no longer do because they've finally come across DBT, they could either try to sell it to recoup funds or take a full loss and chalk it up to learning experience. That would be a very mature thing to do because you know what they say, experience is the best teacher but she don't come cheap.

None of your arguments support the banning of DBT nor give reason for its exclusion from the forum. And the hoards of people who blast Dr. Dre and Bose everyday testify to my opinion on head-fi and consumer-watching But keep in mind international shipping, the fact that people might not want your equipment, the necessity to mark down secondhand products and price it competitively enough to entice buyers and restocking fees, and recouping your losses might not seem as simple as you make it sound.
 
Though I am satisfied at the direction this thread is taking, more opinions and standpoints would greatly be appreciated. Any lurkers out there who would like to vehemently oppose DBT in a civilised discussion?
 
Actually to draw an analogy from the oft-used Bose/Dr. Dre example, the average layman out there would, given the advertising and reputation these headphone makers have acquired, consider them the pinnacle of audio performance. So why do we head-fiers as a community (in general, yes I know there are exceptions) lambast these headphones for their poor sound quality and ruin the average consumer's enjoyment of their gear, but yet promote aftermarket cables without a second thought?

 

[BlackbeardBen]

 
Quote:

 
 
 
The testing you are talking about is simply another way of discerning any differences in stimuli. Because the end result of that test is one where the listener will either find an audible difference or not.
It does not, and it cannot actually find a difference in 'enjoyment'. You need to look at the results for what they are.
 
See, that's where you're wrong.  In an audio blind test, the listener is slave only to his own ears.  If you compare two different speakers in a blind test and ask the listener which one he likes more (or just describe each), speaker A or speaker B, and qualify his statement, the listener can do that if there is indeed a difference audible to him.  The listener isn't limited only to differentiation (although that is certainly the easiest result statistically to analyze) - the listener could be questioned on any number of measurable (or not easily measurable things, if you're just comparing them) things concerning speaker A and speaker B - frequency response, distortion, dispersion, etc, etc...
 
I'm trying to tell you that enjoyment has nothing to do with the physical aspects of sound, but for some reason, because you guys are all sciency (=P), you feel that differences in enjoyment can only come from changes in sound, physically.
 
Differences in enjoyment can certainly had by such frivolous upgrades - but they do not affect your sound perception alone - only your sound perception combined with your other senses.
 
Think of it this way:  When you're informed and assess all the evidence and understand that no boutique cable (except a deliberately flawed one) is going to have an audible effect on your headphones, etc., you gain a level of satisfaction of not having spent any more money and having the same measured "amazing" sound that a cable believer has.  You've avoided a scam and have the same level of audio quality.
 
 
 
 
Again, you need to look at the testimonials of various cables for what they are, "This cable made so and so more awesome than the stock cable", what that actually reads is "I enjoy this more than the stock one".
You can't expect that person to actually MEAN that the soundstage increased, or the bass had more control. Yes, they really do mean it, because that is exactly what they experience.  This person felt a higher level of enjoyment, and his perception of sound changed along with it, which is why that person said those things. Because obviously, in our current understanding of the physical world, the cable made absolutely no flippin' difference to the sound! (physically of course)  Regardless, that doesn't make it right or make it ethical.  If you were a druggie, wouldn't you be mad if a dealer sold you LSD or whatever and you got high off of it - only to be told it a placebo later when you took it to your druggie chemist friend and found out it was 99% sugar?  That's what this is.  Harmless, but still not ethical.
 
If it's sold as a sugar placebo pill, that's all fine and dandy - and if it's a real sugar placebo pill during a clinical trial (which is A. free, and B. part of a blind test to do just we want to do - separate the real from the imagined), that's fine.  You pay nothing, know that you may be getting a placebo (or perhaps not, I don't know exactly how drug trials work), and perhaps benefit from it.
 
But once you start swindling people and start charging them large sums of money for what is known to science to be a placebo yet you hawk as more than such, that's unethical.  If you only make claims as to build quality or whatever, fine, but to not explain the science behind why such cables will not make a difference and idly sit by and profit from others' stupidity is going along the same lines although not to the same extremes.  If you won't tell people that your cables won't make a difference beyond build quality on your website, you're not likely to tell them in person.
 
And yes, that does mean many, many companies do unethical things.  I do too - we all do.  But the repeated nonsense is the real infraction.  It never stops; there are no limits, and it's done shamelessly.
 
Look, to be fair here, I apologize in not looking very far indeed at all the cable companies and whatnot, I just took a quick glance at whiplash and ALO, which seem to be some of the more popular choices around here, and they just seem to advertise about cable construction and materials.
I will concede to your point for the companies out there that use fancy marketing pizazz to intentionally deceive customers, it's still the customer's fault of course, but even I will see that as being very low.
In audio, very rarely does this deception become harmful (physically, in terms of health and such), which is why I held my previous stance about it not being unethical and whatnot.
I was only trying to understand why you thought it was unethical, since at the end of the day, it depends on an individuals perspective. I'm sorry if it looked like I was trying to change your views or anything silly like that.
 
 
@Nightslayer
If the cable companies say that the cables are up to placebo, and we assume that no human being want's to be treated like a fool, then nobody will actually buy the cable of course! So perhaps in this case, no enjoyment will be 'given' to anybody, and there will be no "winning" in this situation.
But if you look at it from a more...."positive" point of view, it's because the companies don't say that, there are some who may find greater enjoyment from their cables, and there's nothing wrong with that now is there? ahaahahah
I'm sure all the cable guys know about DBT already, they just don't give a damn eh? So there's no need to invade their home hehe.
 
 
I think we're forgetting the bigger picture here, everything we do here is nothing but an attempt at trying to increase our enjoyment from music. The science does not actually matter. Let people go at it in different ways, the destination is still the same, all is well in the world. Ahhhhhh...... if only =P.

 

 

[Antony6555]

 
oops delete
 
 

 

[Antony6555]

 
Quote:

 
Yes, maybe they don't care for sound quality in an objective sense, but sound is ultimately subjective is it not?
 
No sound is not subjective, but taste is. Some people prefer a colored sound, some a more neutral sound.
 
There may be some increased enjoyment in using so called "boutique" equipment, and not only does it make them feel special and unique, but at the end of the day, this equipment just made things sound better, regardless of whether or not there was any difference at all, or perhaps even a 'worse' change in terms of sound quality in an objective sense. And the purpose of buying new equipment is to get an increase in sound quality, or enjoyment, is it not? It is not fair to label these people as idiots or anything of the sort.
 
But why does it sound better? Likely because of placebo affect, which means that their enjoyment is derived from the fact that, at some point, they were deceived. Some people do prefer the sound of analog distortion. I see nothing wrong with this, but I do have a problem with them declaring that it is objectively better or more accurate.
 
As for those buy purely due to placebo, perhaps they do feel more enjoyment in the short term, but ultimately they will probably feel dissatisfied again and feel the need to upgrade; after all, fashion is always changing. I would argue that ultimately the obsession with fashion and subjective "upgrades" makes people less satisfied in the long run. They're listening to their gear or simply gaining pleasure from consumption. They're not really allowing themselves lost in the pleasure of the music, lost in the moment, as they perhaps did when first gained an interest in the hobby.
 
They're not idiots necessarily, but they are misinformed. As a previous poster noted, it's ironic how Bose and Dre. Beats get bashed so much on this forum, yet overpriced boutique equipment marketed on similarly subjective lines is embraced. The reality is most audiophiles, though they may have listened to better equipment, don't know much more about audio reproduction than the buyers of Bose, despite what their egos may tell them.
 

And that's why there is such conflict between the two sides, as they are automatically trained to think that the cable guys MUST be wrong, that's a poor attitude isn't it.
 
Even you seems to admit that they are wrong, in their contention that such upgrades create material changes to the sound. Sometimes we have to accept the truth, even if it makes us uncomfortable and threatens our previously held views. Ultimately, this is what being an adult means.
 
 

 
 

 

[Uncle Erik]

DBT is a horrible, awful thing.

Before I started insisting on objective reality, an invisible unicorn used to come visit me in the back yard. I'd feed him carrots and sugar cubes and we had a great time. But I haven't seen him since I started putting cables on the 'scope and asking questions.

Same thing with the crystal I used to heal myself with. Any time I felt sick, the crystal made me feel better.

Shame it doesn't work any more. There were no co-pays or anything.

But there are benefits.

Some years back, I lived in a sleazy apartment in downtown Los Angeles. At night, my little friends would have a party in the kitchen. It got to where I enjoyed turning on the light and watching the roaches scatter.

I don't have that problem any more, but it's still lots of fun to turn on the light and watch snakeoil salesmen run for cover. Start asking the hard questions and they skitter off underneath the refrigerator. If only I could send my cat after them....

Anyhow, incredible claims require incredible evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

They know it, but they always try to throw the argument back at anyone wanting evidence. The word "hate" gets used a lot and the slippery evasion of science and basking in the "unknown" is fun to watch. They have nothing and are completely aware they have nothing. It is always amazing what people will say when they're chasing dollars.

Finally, audio is damned cheap these days. Seriously. Cut out the snakeoil and status symbols, and you can get superior sound for under $1,000. Spend $2,000-$3,000 and you have the equivalent of about the best in the world. Without the bragging rights, of course, but you'll really enjoy your music. I want to see people enjoy their music. And it's still a blast to watch roaches scatter.

 

[Nightslayer]

Quote:

DBT is a horrible, awful thing.

Before I started insisting on objective reality, an invisible unicorn used to come visit me in the back yard. I'd feed him carrots and sugar cubes and we had a great time. But I haven't seen him since I started putting cables on the 'scope and asking questions.

Same thing with the crystal I used to heal myself with. Any time I felt sick, the crystal made me feel better.

Shame it doesn't work any more. There were no co-pays or anything.

But there are benefits.

Some years back, I lived in a sleazy apartment in downtown Los Angeles. At night, my little friends would have a party in the kitchen. It got to where I enjoyed turning on the light and watching the roaches scatter.

I don't have that problem any more, but it's still lots of fun to turn on the light and watch snakeoil salesmen run for cover. Start asking the hard questions and they skitter off underneath the refrigerator. If only I could send my cat after them....

Anyhow, incredible claims require incredible evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

They know it, but they always try to throw the argument back at anyone wanting evidence. The word "hate" gets used a lot and the slippery evasion of science and basking in the "unknown" is fun to watch. They have nothing and are completely aware they have nothing. It is always amazing what people will say when they're chasing dollars.

Finally, audio is damned cheap these days. Seriously. Cut out the snakeoil and status symbols, and you can get superior sound for under $1,000. Spend $2,000-$3,000 and you have the equivalent of about the best in the world. Without the bragging rights, of course, but you'll really enjoy your music. I want to see people enjoy their music. And it's still a blast to watch roaches scatter.

I wuv unicorns! It's no wonder DBT got banned, and for good reason too. I can't imagine my world without them pretty lights and sounds.
 
Anyway offtopic but what is this $3000 setup you happen to be getting at? I am interested, even though it might be out of my budget at this point in time.
 
 

 

[Willakan]

Amen to world-class sound under 3K dollars (does the AKG K-1000 happen to feature in that setup BTW?).
 
The thing that worries me is that arguing that selling products that make differences that don't exist is considered rational by even some objectivist audiophiles. Just goes to show how totally insane the world of audiophilia really is. I start selling stuff that does nothing in any other industry, whilst claiming it does something, at large price tags - I get locked up/sued into ground. We need more litigious music lovers: someone suing an audio company for misleading sales literature (NO, YOUR CABLE ELEVATORS WILL NOT GIVE ME MORE SOUNDSTAGE) would really make my day 

 

[svyr]

Amen to world-class sound under 3K dollars (does the AKG K-1000 happen to feature in that setup BTW?).
 
The thing that worries me is that arguing that selling products that make differences that don't exist is considered rational by even some objectivist audiophiles. Just goes to show how totally insane the world of audiophilia really is. I start selling stuff that does nothing in any other industry, whilst claiming it does something, at large price tags - I get locked up/sued into ground. We need more litigious music lovers: someone suing an audio company for misleading sales literature (NO, YOUR CABLE ELEVATORS WILL NOT GIVE ME MORE SOUNDSTAGE) would really make my day 

yea some of that sh@@ should be removed from the shelves citing consumer protection legislation, more specifically - misleading and deceptive advertising. What's the going fine rate for that again in aus ?

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

The reason it is banned is because it gets to a point where every time someone proclaims that they hear some difference which is nigh impossible for them to have heard unless you put it down to placebo/cognitive bias, someone will suggest that they prove it with a DBT.
 
This makes the subjectivists very upset and generally leads to giant undignified arguments, which begin with giant dollops of facts from one side and pseudoscience from the other. As there is hence actually nothing to argue about, the subjectivists get even more upset and start a new argument, attacking science itself. These arguments invariably completely miss the point and get caught up in the philosophy of science/quantum relativity/your ears suck and so on.
 
Thus, to protect the subjectivists from the horrors of science and to save the mods a helluvalot of work, most audio forums have restrictions on DBT mentioning. 

Lol, that is so true!
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

None of your arguments support the banning of DBT nor give reason for its exclusion from the forum. And the hoards of people who blast Dr. Dre and Bose everyday testify to my opinion on head-fi and consumer-watching But keep in mind international shipping, the fact that people might not want your equipment, the necessity to mark down secondhand products and price it competitively enough to entice buyers and restocking fees, and recouping your losses might not seem as simple as you make it sound.
 
Though I am satisfied at the direction this thread is taking, more opinions and standpoints would greatly be appreciated. Any lurkers out there who would like to vehemently oppose DBT in a civilised discussion?
 
Actually to draw an analogy from the oft-used Bose/Dr. Dre example, the average layman out there would, given the advertising and reputation these headphone makers have acquired, consider them the pinnacle of audio performance. So why do we head-fiers as a community (in general, yes I know there are exceptions) lambast these headphones for their poor sound quality and ruin the average consumer's enjoyment of their gear, but yet promote aftermarket cables without a second thought?

Very true, the hypocracy alone is worth challenging. Otherwise I think that in this day and age we have become too dismissive of proper scietific testing and too likely to believe psudeoscience. Such should always be challenged.

 

[WrxSTI]

I'm really surprised no one took this yet:
 
http://gizmodo.com/305549/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better
 
Wonder why...

 

[deadlylover]

 
Quote:

yea some of that sh@@ should be removed from the shelves citing consumer protection legislation, more specifically - misleading and deceptive advertising. What's the going fine rate for that again in aus

?

Funnily enough, I think Optus just got fined like $170k-ish for false advertising just the other day =P.
 
Yeah my reply post got lost in the nether because of the stupid editor, I'm too lazy to type it again ahahah.
 
I just want to make it clear that I pretty much agree with you lot completely, I'm anti-cables myself (I study analytical chem too). I was just trying to (poorly) demonstrate the reasoning in which why cables 'work' for those guys.
Sticking up to what you believe in as a scientist(?) may be completely correct, but that is not how you advance. it's only by challenging what we believe in, which will eventually let us figure it out.
Because in my point of view, labeling the cable guys as unicorn believing deluded idiots is not good enough, I thought the whole point of science is to try and develop understanding of what's actually happening before us, and eventually, being able to explain the previously unknown.
 
I <3 both the cable guys and the anti-cable guys, but my grasp of the English language is too pathetic to even attempt to break the divide between the two, or so to speak.
And I guess it is kinda difficult going against people who believe in the exact same thing you as yourself. It makes me feel a greater deal of respect for the geniuses of their time, who pretty much stood up against the whole scientific community at the time.

 

[Nightslayer]

Quote:

 

Funnily enough, I think Optus just got fined like $170k-ish for false advertising just the other day =P.
 
Yeah my reply post got lost in the nether because of the stupid editor, I'm too lazy to type it again ahahah.
 
I just want to make it clear that I pretty much agree with you lot completely, I'm anti-cables myself (I study analytical chem too). I was just trying to (poorly) demonstrate the reasoning in which why cables 'work' for those guys.
Sticking up to what you believe in as a scientist(?) may be completely correct, but that is not how you advance. it's only by challenging what we believe in, which will eventually let us figure it out.
Because in my point of view, labeling the cable guys as unicorn believing deluded idiots is not good enough, I thought the whole point of science is to try and develop understanding of what's actually happening before us, and eventually, being able to explain the previously unknown.
 
I <3 both the cable guys and the anti-cable guys, but my grasp of the English language is too pathetic to even attempt to break the divide between the two, or so to speak.
And I guess it is kinda difficult going against people who believe in the exact same thing you as yourself. It makes me feel a greater deal of respect for the geniuses of their time, who pretty much stood up against the whole scientific community at the time.

They stood up against them with credible evidence to back them up, and they knew for a fact that they were right while the scientific community was wrong in that they possessed imperfect/only a partial amount of knowledge. And yeah it's been pretty clear as to your opinion on the results of DBT tests and that you're arguing the ethics of them instead of their reliability. It's good that you brought up the detriments of sarcasm though, and even though I tend to go overboard myself it's a good idea to keep this as civilised and level headed as possible, which is the only way to discuss a topic where proponents of both sides believe the others as idiots. I think it's not so much the language you use however, but the way that you go about it. In my opinion the only way to break such a polarized divide is to work together to settle on a consensus agreed on by both sides, even though that seems highly improbable at this point in time. But well that's what ideals and ambitions are for.
 

 

[svyr]

 

Funnily enough, I think Optus just got fined like $170k-ish for false advertising just the other day =P.
 
Yeah my reply post got lost in the nether because of the stupid editor, I'm too lazy to type it again ahahah.
 
I just want to make it clear that I pretty much agree with you lot completely, I'm anti-cables myself (I study analytical chem too). I was just trying to (poorly) demonstrate the reasoning in which why cables 'work' for those guys.
Sticking up to what you believe in as a scientist(?) may be completely correct, but that is not how you advance. it's only by challenging what we believe in, which will eventually let us figure it out.
Because in my point of view, labeling the cable guys as unicorn believing deluded idiots is not good enough, I thought the whole point of science is to try and develop understanding of what's actually happening before us, and eventually, being able to explain the previously unknown.
 
I <3 both the cable guys and the anti-cable guys, but my grasp of the English language is too pathetic to even attempt to break the divide between the two, or so to speak.
And I guess it is kinda difficult going against people who believe in the exact same thing you as yourself. It makes me feel a greater deal of respect for the geniuses of their time, who pretty much stood up against the whole scientific community at the time.

I'm open enough to do SBT or DBT on cables for the lolz, or to look at RMAA results with/without . Generally the former turn up a complete inability of participants to distinguish between the fancy and cheap cables, or participants thinking the control cheap cable or the cheap cable is the fancy one (despite both being the same ) , and the later show minute differences attributable to either extraneous variability or some strange impedance phenomena that certainly shouldn't be audible (0.1-0.2 db differences in a specific band in music certainly aren't to me)... and this is for analog signal cables. It's no wonder they don't want to test power ones and digital ones or 'maple vibration stands'