[liamstrain]

While I see your point - if human audibility as a measure is shown to be more or less listening condition independent (aside from lets say, base background noise levels), my statement would not elicit chuckles. Which is what I think most of the data shows. We see fairly consistent results, regardless of listening conditions (amount of time allowed, listening room set up, etc.) - which supports the null-hypothesis, the results should be inconsistent, if listening conditions contribute significantly.  
 
Unless you are arguing that our very attempt to objectively measure people (ABX or DBL) presents a sort of heisenberg uncertainty principle of audio, and negates their ability to hear equipment differences. In which case, I'd like to see support that testing automatically biases the results (especially more than the known biases introduced by sighted and casual listening). 

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

While I see your point - if human audibility as a measure is shown to be more or less listening condition independent (aside from lets say, base background noise levels), my statement would not elicit chuckles. Which is what I think most of the data shows. We see fairly consistent results, regardless of listening conditions (amount of time allowed, listening room set up, etc.) - which supports the null-hypothesis, the results should be inconsistent, if listening conditions contribute significantly.  

 
The problem is, it has not been shown listening condition independent.  It has been assumed.  That is not good scientific method.
 
I've seen no studies whatsoever which were intended to test the listening condition independency of a small datagroup with respect to the larger general population.  It is always wise to question the validity of a dataset derived from a test which has not been proven identical to that in the "wild".
 
When a human localizes a naturally occurring sound stimulus, they use the as wired and learned response.  When we try to reproduce that using two independent drivers, we rely on our ability to re-program (as it were) our brain to localize the new synthetic stimulus.
 
Nobody considers that switchover when performing tests, nor it's depth, or rate of change.  That is not consistent with good science.
 
The outcome may indeed be the same regardless, but I certainly cannot state such with any confidence.
 
j

 

[liamstrain]

Fair enough - and I agree that I should not overstate my position. However, scientific uncertainty (which is always subject to review of the best data at the time) should not be construed as an admission that the alternate position is really all that likely. Just that it cannot be entirely disproven.

 

[anetode]

Pretty broad nor helpful, I know Libraries have books on these type of audio ethical discussions and so does Google but I was pointing out since you guys seem to know all about cables not providing any difference etc and have read a lot of sources then me, could be more specific with a single source or whatever that would prove being informative to me of what the current endless discussion is all about with reference to measurements...since measurements afterall is part of science...right?

The problem is that most readily available online diatribes on the subject are written to suit a purpose, whether product promotion or mythbusting. Academic sources provide the least biased accounts of signal transmission science and the most reliable cable DBTs. Sorry to be broad but one of the reasons so many audiophile myths propagate is because people take their information from the internet.

You touch on an interesting point, these "audio ethics" debates are mainly an audiophile phenomenon. The fields of research and business ethics are vibrant and oft subject to heated debate, whereas electronics engineering is generally pretty mundane (imho). What most audiophiles argue about has more to do with consumer psychology than any great scientific controversy.

 

[anetode]

The listening tests are not designed to consider the human adaptability with respect to image generation and localization. 

...


In any statistical design where the "desired outcome" is the prediction of the general population's response, it is extremely important the design be an absolute duplicate of the normal environment. I see many audio test setups which do not meet this criteria. When the setup does not do so, the use of the statistical analysis results of the test cannot be used to describe the general population.

Does this matter in a context where the audio image is an artifice conceived in the mixing room? Sometimes the most effective tests aren't the ones that replicate the full set of natural circumstances but ones that strip all unnecessary complexity in order to more effectively isolate one variable.

 

[Chris J]

The "anti-cable camp" is almost entirely about evidence. It is the pro-cable crew that has never produced evidence. If you've gotten this far into this thread and still say this with a straight face, I don't think we can have a useful conversation.

Your arrogance is mindblowing

 

[bmiamihk]

Relax thats how it is and it will not change.
Quote:

Your arrogance is mindblowing

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

Your arrogance is mindblowing

 
So is your credulity. I've tried to be circumspect and respectful (by and large) - you have not presented one shred of useful information relating to how it is possible for a properly made cable to have any audible effect. I have posted several sources showing measurement data that demonstrate it does not seem to, which is generally backed by human abx and dbt testing as well. 
 
I may be incorrect, and if provided with good evidence am happy to revise my position. To date, I have not seen it. If you want to call my position arrogant, you are free to. But at least I have the available evidence on my side. I find it much more arrogant to expect me to believe something which goes against objective measurements and abx/dbt data because of a sighted subjective experience which didn't even give the barest of attempts to remove bias. 

 

[DNZGamer]

Quote:

What exactly would I test? Testing is not "simple" despite what you may read.  Even Nelson's setup is sub par, especially when the discussion turns to t-line.
 
Why is it "science and other things that just don't matter to the average listener"???  If you do not wish "science" to be invoked, then perhaps asking the question in the "Sound Science" forum is a mistake.
 
Do not ask a question in the Sound Science forum then state that science just doesn't matter.
 
I personally do not consider large dollar cables worth it.  Honestly, I can design and make any cable to have any inductance, capacitance, or impedance I wish, so I've no need to purchase any pre-manufactured product.
 
As to "registered electrical difference", I can discuss that both in theory and in practice.  If you wish to do so, let me know.
 
j

 
How is testing not simple? People can hear differences in headphones and amps when blind (although not always accurately but the difference is detectable in DBT conditions). Why is it so complicated to get a cable tested to see if it makes a significant difference sonically? If it is so hard to pick up then it isn't a worthy way to spend your money. 

The science on science forum is just a fallacy. There is no need to discuss this hard science in detail at all. We are looking for appreciable differences to recommend to consumers which is the discussion of the topic. 

 

[kiteki]

Comparing the Tesla T5p to the Denon D5000 today and it reminded me of how little importance a cable has.

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

Fair enough - and I agree that I should not overstate my position. However, scientific uncertainty (which is always subject to review of the best data at the time) should not be construed as an admission that the alternate position is really all that likely. Just that it cannot be entirely disproven.

Nicely stated.
 
Many take my statements as proof that a difference will always be there, and will always be audible, and that is incorrect on their part.  You have distinguished yourself as above that error.
Quote:

The problem is that most readily available online diatribes on the subject are written to suit a purpose, whether product promotion or mythbusting. Academic sources provide the least biased accounts of signal transmission science and the most reliable cable DBTs. Sorry to be broad but one of the reasons so many audiophile myths propagate is because people take their information from the internet.
You touch on an interesting point, these "audio ethics" debates are mainly an audiophile phenomenon. The fields of research and business ethics are vibrant and oft subject to heated debate, whereas electronics engineering is generally pretty mundane (imho). What most audiophiles argue about has more to do with consumer psychology than any great scientific controversy.

I disagree.  Electronic engineering is awesome...  Jackson is a page turner..

 
Seriously, it can get mundane..that's why I cross-train...mechanical, motion control, antique clock repair...gotta stimulate them neurons.
Quote:

Does this matter in a context where the audio image is an artifice conceived in the mixing room? Sometimes the most effective tests aren't the ones that replicate the full set of natural circumstances but ones that strip all unnecessary complexity in order to more effectively isolate one variable.

 

Yes it does.  Remember, the image was created on a specific set of speakers, spaced a specific distance apart, with a specific horizontal dispersion pattern, using the interchannel amplitude difference (pan pot) to position the images.  How many home systems have the exact same set of equipment, in the exact same conditions, exact same ears, exact same time-integrated sound exposure, exact same hearing acuity or training.    It is very important to understand what the test is actually designed to do, vs what the test was supposed to do.  The distinction may not be small.
 
Quote:

 
How is testing not simple? People can hear differences in headphones and amps when blind (although not always accurately but the difference is detectable in DBT conditions). Why is it so complicated to get a cable tested to see if it makes a significant difference sonically? If it is so hard to pick up then it isn't a worthy way to spend your money. 

The science on science forum is just a fallacy. There is no need to discuss this hard science in detail at all. We are looking for appreciable differences to recommend to consumers which is the discussion of the topic. 

Some of the variables I have stated above.  I could go into some heavier and more scientific detail, but you seem to be averse to science (even on a science forum).  For example, would you understand the equational and spacial relationship between two images where one had originally been placed 30 degrees to the right of a central image, then double channel time shifted 5 uSec and level shifted .5 dB with respect to the central image?..  Testing this is not simple, yet it is required in order to measure an image angular and depth placement as a result of a symmetrical system change within the arena of human capabilities.  What is even more problematic, is that the testing device (humans) have a logarithmic stimulus/response function, and the "images" we try to achieve are being created by a synthetic acoustic wavefront pattern.  Imagine for example, measuring a DC voltage using an autoranging DVM, but not being allowed to view the decimal point. 
 
Everybody seems to assume that a symmetrical change (shifting both speaker amplitude/phase/time delay response) is image invariant.  It is not.
 
You are more than welcome to ignore science, it matters not to me.  Just don't bellyache when you ask a question on a forum named as a place for science discussion.
 
Honestly, you have fixated on the vendor marketing schpiels and ridiculous prices, and consequently, are ignoring the real world.
 
The vast bulk of those marketing "white papers" are just fiction, you must get over it.
 
j
ps..my apologies for getting a tad technical..I tried to keep it as simple as possible. Sadly, my spelling errors were plentiful..

 

[KT66]

Quote:

I don't get how 2) is relevant to anything being discussed. 

First of all, it is a terrible and unfounded statement that you expect us to take your word for. Apparently no audio-engineers care about music and you have proof of this? Why are you complaining about scientific methods when your arguments aren't even founded in observable trends?

Secondly, measurements have nothing to do with music. It doesn't even have to be music. The point is whether there is an AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE of any kind and music isn't necessarily the best way to detect this.

Lastly, when has all scientific findings been limited to just audio engineers? Considering the amount of studies conducted with specifically audiophiles, musicians, regular consumers and any other relevant demographic, I don't understand why we are discussing audio engineers exclusively. 
 
Please provide evidence that:

a) audio engineers don't like music
b) people who love music could distinguish between cables. You offered what you considered proof, to play any CD. Maybe you can make me understand how my Born to Die album is clearly a demonstration of this as I clearly do not know what I am looking for.

***
 
a) listen to any CD released by a main label over the past 10 years
b) What are you talking about? I voted by buying them because I can hear a CLEAR difference.
 
this on a forum who thinks that bass boost and a smiley eq is a good thing,
 
ps I think Born to Die is a terrible record.
 
what to listen for is NOISE FLOOR, does the new cable make you want to turn it up, or do the tune dem,
 
pps Science has nothing to do with music

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

***
 
a) listen to any CD released by a main label over the past 10 years
b) What are you talking about? I voted by buying them because I can hear a CLEAR difference.
 
this on a forum who thinks that bass boost and a smiley eq is a good thing,
 
ps I think Born to Die is a terrible record.
 
what to listen for is NOISE FLOOR, does the new cable make you want to turn it up, or do the tune dem,
 
pps Science has nothing to do with music

You mean.....it isn't??

 
Of course it does.  It the means to an end.  And it must be transparent to the end user.  And, it should not be necessary for the user to understand the science. (while I believe ALL should be good in science, I am a realist.).
 
j

 

[kiteki]

Lots of talk and no cigars, just link to these cable blind tests already... positive or negative.
 
If they're negative, we can discuss if the blind test was valid or not, how extensive it was, if it was fair, etc.
 
 
Lee730 suggested he can hear a volume difference in his silver IE8 cable, Liamstrain suggested that volume can be a difference in cable material.  Rapid-switching ABX is very effective for discerning differences in volume, under 1dB.
 
The question is, is there any rapid-switching cable ABX's out there, or not....

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

Lots of talk and no cigars, just link to these cable blind tests already... positive or negative.
 
If they're negative, we can discuss if the blind test was valid or not, how extensive it was, if it was fair, etc.
 
 
Lee730 suggested he can hear a volume difference in his silver IE8 cable, Liamstrain suggested that volume can be a difference in cable material.  Rapid-switching ABX is very effective for discerning differences in volume, under 1dB.
 
The question is, is there any rapid-switching cable ABX's out there, or not....

Discussion of the validity of the test is independent of the outcome.  It can be no other way.
 
j