Quote:
Originally Posted by eucariote /img/forum/go_quote.gif
...So you could exactly fit the techniques and statistics of that paper to a test of two cables delivering emotionally significant music and arrive at an answer of cable efficacy in conscious, unconscious and aesthetic experience. Maybe you'll even get it published in Nature
|
The example you cited is a good example of the point I'm trying to make. The subject in your example couldn't consciously tell the two houses apart:
Quote:
She judged that the drawings were identical; yet when asked to select which house she would prefer to live in, she reliably chose the house that was not burning. |
One can easily imagine an analogous scenario in cable testing where a listener cannot consciously discriminate the two cables but subconscious processes react to them differently. And maybe no one has passed a cable ABX because no ABX has asked the question "Which of these cables would you rather live in?"
But you see what I'm saying - what's the magic question? Is there one?
It goes without saying that if the experiment you cited had been done using typical ABX methodology, she would simply have been asked to distinguish the two houses, she would have have failed (as she did), and the paper would be published in The Audio Critic as irrefutable proof of all houses being the same (so long as they're built to regulations).
There's no sense in using a test we know to be an unreliable correlate of subconscious effects, and hoping that something bubbles up to the surface enough that we might detect it via the conscious discrimination of the listener. An example of much better methodology is the paper I cited by Oohashi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif
One could say that this phenomenon wouldn't apply since most testimonials of those, including myself, who hear differences aren't claiming differences that they can't explain or perceive directly
[snip]
|
It's also worth noting that no two opinions on any one thing are the same
Take any cable, DAC, headphone, anything, and opinion will spread the gamut. I think this is indicative of either the entire thign being an illusion, or it could be due to an attempt at trying to rationalise or correlate something that's sensed with the reason that's expected to be causing that sense. Something like being strongly compelled to solve a puzzle when only given one piece. Different people could come up with almost anything, but that doesn't mean that one piece of the puzzle doesn't exist. I hope that makes sense, I'm trying to keep this brief due to this being a +1000 Wall of Text of Doom.