Let's Prove The Null Hypothesis

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundogan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Think there're quit some tests where they show the measurable differences between cables/amps (for example: 1st hit on google: Speaker Cable Reviews - Faceoff 2 — Reviews and News from Audioholics).

That test involves speaker cables, and speaker cables carry enough current where there could at least possibly be an audible difference. That is a different case than low-signal interconnect cables, power cables, etc. And even at that, the fact that test equipment can resolve a difference doesn't necessarily mean that humans can.

.

 

[terriblepaulz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif A person's observations, i.e., what they saw or heard, is "evidence" within the generally accepted meaning of the word -- including in a court of law. It may not be conclusive, and it may be refuted by other evidence, but it is still "evidence." To put it another way, it is probative of the existence or non-existence of a fact. Although I am not a scientist, it's my understanding that scientists also rely in part on observations. Again, they may not be conclusive, or they may be refuted by other evidence, but I think they are still considered. Of course, one can always stack the deck by saying: "I will only consider certain types of evidence to be valid in my search for truth," but that does not seem to be a reasonable way to reach a conclusion about the existence of non-existence of a fact. Indeed, it seems sort of comical, or at least ironic. EDIT: And was suggested in the same thread in the Amps forum by someone else, nobody (not even the most diehard DBT types) really contend that all amps sound the same. The contention is that certain amps (i.e., SS amps, or amps that measure the same) sound the same. In fact, there is an older thread somewhere on this forum which includes a lengthy quote from one of the very knowledgeable and well-known proponents of DBT's and the proposition that SS amps of certain type sound the same to the effect that tube amps (and perhaps some other amps also) used with headphones do not sound the same due in part to impedance issues (as I recall).

I don't know whether this is deliberately obtuse. "Evidence" that consists solely of the perceptions of individuals is bad evidence, in a court of law or otherwise. Scientists try, as much as possible, to limit the role of their own observations and perceptions (hence the utility of objective measuring devices, often used by scientists in their work). And anybody who doesn't "stack the deck" by giving more weight to good evidence over bad evidence is just silly.

 

[71877]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif That test involves speaker cables, and speaker cables carry enough current where there could at least possibly be an audible difference. That is a different case than low-signal interconnect cables. .

True true, but he didnt ask what kind of cables at #1

And it was an example (like I said, the 1st thing of google

).

 

[bobsmith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do me a favor and read the entire David Clark stereophile amp test and then read the Richard Clark Amp Challenge. It won't take long. Take from it what you will and we will be done.

I have read the entire Richard Clark challenge. What it tells me is NOT that all amps sound the same, in fact, quite the opposite. What it purports to say is that given certain very specific conditions and limitations, including, but not limited to, limits on noise level, volume level, impedance, frequency response, possible insertion of an EQ in the circuit, any two amps can be made to sound confusingly similar to the human ear.

His is an arguably valid, but not particularly helpful point. It is basically saying "any two amps that are made to sound the same under certain conditions will sound the same under those conditions."

Two other important points:

1) Richard Clark explicitly acknowledges that all amps do NOT objectively measure the same. His intro states "It is very easy to measure large differences in the performance of amplifiers. This is true in nearly every known specification, including power, noise, distortion, etc. My experience has led me to believe that even though these differences can be easily measured, hearing those differences may not be so easy." Thus, the only purpose of his test is to see whether human hearing is sensitive enough to pick up the differences in sound that do in fact measurably exist.

2) The very fact that the challenge imposes conditions and limitations on the amps is quite strong evidence that all amps DO NOT sound the same under all conditions. If all amps sounded the same under all conditions, there would be no need to have ANY conditions in the test. As Phil pointed out, no one seriously contends that all amps sound the same under all conditions. So, for this discussion to be meaningful, I really think you need to narrow down exactly what it is you are trying to prove...

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by terriblepaulz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know whether this is deliberately obtuse. "Evidence" that consists solely of the perceptions of individuals is bad evidence, in a court of law or otherwise.

I've been a lawyer for almost thirty years, and I can tell you the evidence that consists of the perception (i.e., observations) of individuals is not considered bad evidence in a court of law. In fact, it is often considered some of the best evidence. And I would submit it is also pretty good evidence in terms of making decisions in our daily lives if you don't want to refuse to make a decision until a Nobel Peace prize winning scientist has weighed in on the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by terriblepaulz /img/forum/go_quote.gif And anybody who doesn't "stack the deck" by giving more weight to good evidence over bad evidence is just silly.

Of course, one should weight "good" evidence more than "bad" evidence. I didn't say anything to the contrary. What I said was than an open-minded person trying to find the truth about something should probably evaluate all the evidence before he comes to a conclusion -- not just the evidence he decides in advance -- based on his prejudices -- that he or she will accept.

 

[bobsmith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by terriblepaulz /img/forum/go_quote.gif "Evidence" that consists solely of the perceptions of individuals is bad evidence, in a court of law or otherwise.

This is completely incorrect as written, at least as to law. In a court of law, direct testimony of witnesses about what they saw or heard is among the strongest forms of evidence that exists.

Perhaps you meant to say that evidence that consists solely of opinions of individuals is bad evidence. In that case, you _may_ have a better point, depending on the level of expertise of the individual in question.

Edit: beaten by Phil.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's really very easy folks... either you can tell the difference under controlled conditions (meaning those designed to eliminate one's imagination from the process), or you can't. Everything else is psychobabble.

And once again, you resort to your old song. Anybody who questions the conclusions of DBT's or offers up evidence based on their own observations is nuts.

P.S. It's pretty ironic. The "believers" who often are accused of accepting that there are audible differences based solely on "faith," often tend to be more open-minded than quite a few "skeptics" who, favoring a more scientific approach, would presumably be more open-minded to considering all the arguments and evidence, pro and con. Certain skeptics don't just discount observations because they believe they are flawed or because they believe the contrary evidence outweighs observations -- they categorically reject observations (and contrary points of view) with a passion that almost seems to reflect a distaste for our humanness. Indeed, I would submit that some of the skeptics belief in the absolute infallibility of blind tests smacks of as much "faith" as any believer has ever been accused of possessing.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif And once again, you resort to your old song. Anybody who questions the conclusions of DBT's or offers up evidence based on their own observations is nuts.

And you are up to your old song of putting words in my mouth. Please either quote me accurately or don't quote me at all.

Quote:

P.S. It's pretty ironic. The "believers" who often are accused of accepting that there are audible differences based solely on "faith," often tend to be more open-minded than quite a few "skeptics" who, favoring a more scientific approach, would presumably be more open-minded to considering all the arguments and evidence, pro and con. Certain skeptics don't just discount observations because they believe they are flawed or because they believe the contrary evidence outweighs observations -- they categorically reject observations (and contrary points of view) with a passion that almost seems to reflect a distaste for our humanness. Indeed, I would submit that some of the skeptics belief in the absolute infallibility of blind tests smacks of as much "faith" as any believer has ever been accused of possessing.

Resorting to the old rhetorical trick of 'argue the controversy, not the facts' changes nothing. Either you can tell the difference in an objective test or you can't, and no matter how hard you try you can't talk your way out of that simple reality.

.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure there is... the simple fact that no one can tell them apart in blind tests. It's really very easy folks... either you can tell the difference under controlled conditions (meaning those designed to eliminate one's imagination from the process), or you can't. Everything else is psychobabble.

Hah, so if I set up a test where all of the candidates are blind and ask them to discern what color the screen is, none of them would be able to do it. Thereby no one can discern color differences right?

Individual ability is just one issue with testing. That is purely qualitative also, we need numbers here not a thousand testaments of it sounds wooly or it sounds bright or it sounds the same. I offered up what I had in terms of electrical effects, I know nick charles did an experiment a while ago that showed miniscule differences between sounds, I know George Cardas did an experiment measuring differing mechanical resonance a while back.

I do not believe numbers can convey everything. Looking at a FR chart for a headphone is fairly pointless IMO. It may be very accurate to the individuals perception of the phone, or the individual may perceive the phone as being totally different. The glass is half full, The glass is half empty, who is right?

Lets say someone even imagines they hear a difference, the brain is telling them they hear a difference so they do. Thereby cables sound different even by placebo effect. No one stated that cables had to sound different because of what they do to the current moving through them.

Dave

 

[bobsmith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Either you can tell the difference in an objective test or you can't, and no matter how hard you try you can't talk your way out of that simple reality.

Telling (or failing to tell) the difference in an "objective" test is meaningless if the test methodology itself is flawed.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif And you are up to your old song of putting words in my mouth. Please either quote me accurately or don't quote me at all.

I quoted exactly what you said. I used the quote function. Yes, I interpreted what you said in your quote, but I think my interpretation was fair. If you do not, perhaps you don't realize what you are conveying with some of your statements.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Resorting to the old rhetorical trick of 'argue the controversy, not the facts' changes nothing.

Pointing out the prejudices and apparent hypocrisy of certain individuals or viewpoints is relevant to the discussion, IMO. It helps one evaluate the competing arguments -- and this applies regardless of which side is guilty of the prejudice or hypocrisy.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Resorting to the old rhetorical trick of 'argue the controversy, not the facts' changes nothing. Either you can tell the difference in an objective test or you can't, and no matter how hard you try you can't talk your way out of that simple reality. .

Sound is a hugely detailed sensory perception, I recall that olblueeyes posted a picture of a monet painting and though this is not it, here is an example.

Picture 1:

Picture 2:

I assure you there is a difference.
In a time dependent atmosphere distinguishing it becomes very difficult to pick them apart, imagine this as sound.

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pointing out the prejudices and apparent hypocrisy of certain individuals or viewpoints is relevant to the discussion, IMO.

No, not really... personal opinions as to who may or may not be prejudiced is just another diversionary digression. All that matters is whether you can objectively identify a difference a not, the rest is side commentary.

.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

In a time dependent atmosphere distinguishing it becomes very difficult to pick them apart

That has nothing to do with the validity of the test, just set it up to be less time-dependent if you like. You can set up a test to distinguish a difference over short periods of time, or long periods, or whatever makes it easiest for the test subject. But in the end you will still be able to identify a difference, or you won't.

.