[spartan123]

Afterall, in this entire business you have to trust your ears or else you'll obsess over and confuse yourself about a lot of stuff regarding headphones, amps, dacs etc.

perfectly said

 

[Publius]

This is really a matter of two conflicting paradigms - and I mean paradigm in the correct meaning.

One of the key features of such a conflict is that both paradigms, to each of their adherents, can adequately explain everything that we observe and measure. Thus, rational argument is useless: both sides can explain any fact which is presented. One side only begins to win over the other, in such conflicts, when the other side is compelled to use worse and worse explanations for what is seen in reality.

Unlike a lot of upended scientific paradigms, there hasn't really been a terribly clear "winner" or "loser" in the 30-odd years this debate has been going on.

 

[Shark_Jump]

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular but the concept of winning and loosing is best kept out of the science threads. If your thinking along these lines then chances are objectivity is going to go out the window not soon after.

This is the Sound Science forum not the Olympics. There is no winning and loosing, only right and wrong.

Shouldn't we be determining truths based on the application of known facts?

If you're not interested in the objective truth, or are not prepared to consider facts with an open mind if they challenge your preconceptions, then I don't know why you would be looking at the science forum.

Also IMO if anyone really cares about the head fi science forum, unproven subjective opinions stated as a fact based on golden ears etc. should be barred, just like DBT is on the other threads.

 

[anetode]

A fine barrage of condescension, truisms and sophistry we've got cooking here.

I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, except to the curious OP: consider discussing the methodology, beginning with the simplest shared ideas, rather than the outcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif The time for disinterested research is long past, all you have are people who are entrenched in their fanaticism to disprove or prove cables with method and analysis flawed by their irrational interest in being right

You would not believe how many people don't give a flying fig, so long as they are paid to participate in a study.

 

[Publius]

"Objective truth" does not exist in this discussion.

There are observations, and then there are the truths which are derived from those observations. The former are accepted by everybody; the later are entirely in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius /img/forum/go_quote.gif "Objective truth" does not exist in this discussion. There are observations, and then there are the truths which are derived from those observations. The former are accepted by everybody; the later are entirely in the eye of the beholder.

So where does this leave ABX.

If I can't tell the difference between two cables in a properly conducted blind test taken hundreds of times.

Surely if I don't give the results of this some credence I shouldn't really be posting on the science forum.

And if I can't be bothered to take the test I shouldn't be boring everyone else on the science forum with my hokus pokus subjective opinions.

 

[Publius]

The results of the ABX test are not questionable, by either side. X out of 16 is X out of 16. That's a physical description of reality, like snapping a photograph or something.

The interpretation of the those facts - and whether or not the facts reflect deeper insights about audibility and hearing - very much are questioned. You have one side saying, well, the most rational interpretation of <insert p>0.05 result here> is that the null hypothesis is true and the difference between A and B really is inaudible; and the other side saying, well, that's not true, because of <X>, <Y>, and <Z>.

The point I'm trying to get at is that EVERY fact can be, and is, questioned in that way. Each side generally interprets the facts towards completely different conclusions, and yet does so in an entirely self-consistent way. If that wasn't the case, the people doing the interpreting would be idiots. (And hardly anybody is an idiot.)

In such an environment, the concept of "objective truth" can get you into trouble, because the only things that may possibly be agreed upon by both sides - the physical facts (eg results of listening tests etc) - weren't even under debate in the first place.

Quote:

If I can't tell the difference between two cables in a properly conducted blind test taken hundreds of times. Surely if I don't give the results of this some credence I shouldn't really be posting on the science forum.

Exactly - but if somebody else takes the test, it's not as compelling anymore, is it?

That shouldn't be the case if we were purely rational creatures. But it is.

 

[Leny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker /img/forum/go_quote.gif I, personally hear ginormous differences in cables and burn-in affects

I wish you every success Mr. immtbiker.

 

[freakydrew]

Do Coat Hangers Sound As Good Monster Cables? - The Consumerist

needed a repost

 

[eucariote]

Funny that there is a debate - especially when it is so imminently solvable. In my field (neuroscience/medicine), there is almost universal agreement over many thousands of factual hypotheses, on issues that are far more complicated than audio cables. Sure people propose new ideas that are not immediately accepted, require revisions of old ideas, or are eventually proven wrong. But after enough replications, tests to rule out alternative explanations, etc. issues really do get settled. And believe me, the collective interpretation of these facts do no injustice to their deeper meaning.. *

The reason for this consensus is that there really is a technique for answering empirical questions (hypothesis testing and statistics)

so nothing is ever based on opinions. And if people fabricate or misinterpret data, etc. the consequence is that carreers are ruined and patients will DIE.
Which pretty much keeps people in line.

* for example, pick up any issue of Nature Neuroscience, read an article, read all the references in that article so you get what they're saying and read the article again, and prepare to have your mind blown.

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eucariote /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure people propose new ideas that are not immediately accepted, require revisions of old ideas, or are eventually proven wrong. But after enough replications, tests to rule out alternative explanations, etc. issues really do get settled. And believe me, the collective interpretation of these facts do no injustice to their deeper meaning..

Audio, unlike medicine, is ultimately about art and emotion, for better or worse. That's why we're here. We like listening to music.

 

[Leny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius /img/forum/go_quote.gif Audio, unlike medicine, is ultimately about art and emotion, for better or worse. That's why we're here. We like listening to music.

Very true Publius, but cable is very often about little more than money and / or psychology!

Good luck with your discussion. Time for me to quit the thread...

 

[JaZZ]

It's refreshing to see this thread developing rather towards tolerance instead of mud-wrestling – despite the provoking title.

I for one can't get convinced that cables don't make a difference. And this not because I've halfways passed a headphone-cable blind test (9/12), but because cables do exactly what I want from them in practice: reliably and consistently alter the sound in subtle doses – not so much in terms of better or worse, but rather by different characteristics, enabling the fine-tuning of the audio system. From a skeptic's point of view: it's as if the changes were real, not in my mind.

So as far as I'm concerned, I'm perfectly happy with my «decision» to take cables seriously as an audio component. That wasn't always the case. In fact a negative experience with «audiophile» cables has managed to change my mind. Since then I have made numerous cables myself, with really good results (despite their partly «unprofessional» look). I didn't have to justify a financial expense. Of course there was quite a bit of work involved. But on the other hand I realized that my cable recipes weren't as good as some of the commercial manufacturers', at least under certain sonic aspects. I would have liked the opposite, since I consider myself an audio skeptic as well (although not in an «objectivist» way).

Currently I'm in the process of exploring and enjoying my two new HD 800 cables (one copper, one silver). Although the stock cable really isn't bad (unlike the HD 600/650 counterparts), the two aftermarket cables offer some sonic benefits which are worth the considerable expense to me nonetheless. I would say the HD 800 sounds at least as much better as the additional cost.

I've always understood the skeptics'/objectivists' attitude. I could be one of them – if my mind was just a little bit differently shaped. But as it is, the purely brain/reason-oriented approach falls short in my book. Of course I would like to know the physical mechanisms behind the perceived differences. Nevertheless, I don't need scientific confirmation to take them seriously. It's not a question of belief, but of self-confidence. Since I consider myself a skeptic, I've always taken placebo effects into consideration. But if it's really nothing more than those and they really manage to lead me to my audio goals in such a reliable manner, so be it! (In all seriousness: I highly doubt the latter scenario.)
.

 

[tvrboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eucariote /img/forum/go_quote.gif Funny that there is a debate - especially when it is so imminently solvable. In my field (neuroscience/medicine), there is almost universal agreement over many thousands of factual hypotheses, on issues that are far more complicated than audio cables. Sure people propose new ideas that are not immediately accepted, require revisions of old ideas, or are eventually proven wrong. But after enough replications, tests to rule out alternative explanations, etc. issues really do get settled. And believe me, the collective interpretation of these facts do no injustice to their deeper meaning.. * The reason for this consensus is that there really is a technique for answering empirical questions (hypothesis testing and statistics) so nothing is ever based on opinions. And if people fabricate or misinterpret data, etc. the consequence is that carreers are ruined and patients will DIE. Which pretty much keeps people in line. * for example, pick up any issue of Nature Neuroscience, read an article, read all the references in that article so you get what they're saying and read the article again, and prepare to have your mind blown.

That's because nobody except cable sceptics WANT the problem to be solved. Cable boys love to play with their cables. They love to read cable reviews, switch them, burn them in, make their own, and dream about someday owning The Zero. It's enjoyment for them. They don't want a definitive answer, positive or negative. The debate needs to continue for them to have their fun. Even if there was a positive answer, yes this type of cable makes an audible difference, then they would be forced into only buying that one type of cable. Instead, they want to make up their own minds about things.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvrboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's because nobody except cable sceptics WANT the problem to be solved.

I would have thought 'Thats because only Cable Boys want the problem NOT to be solved' would be more accurate.

Outside the closed world of the Head Fi cables forum I would think the silent majority would look at some of the claims made about cables with bewildered amusement, but to call them cable sceptics is a bit strong.

I agree with what you say afterwards though, cables are a hobby for some after all. There is no problem, just ABX your cable to see if a perceived change is placebo or not before you start posting on the science forum. If more 'cable boys' bothered to do this they may be surprised what a warm reception they got.