[OCC7N]

A persons “feelings” about a sound difference perceived to be created by a cable are real but that doesn’t mean that the cable has done anything other than provide external stimulus that creates that “feeling”.

The perception of a difference in sound doesn’t have anything to do with the performance of the cable but can be perceived as very real by the listener.

We are raised differently. We perceive differently.

 

[BS5711]

We are raised differently. We perceive differently.

Sure, but by stating that you understand differences in our individual perception you are getting very close to acknowledging that our individual “perception” don’t necessarily have a basis in technical performance and can be purely in our heads.

How can I perceive something different to you simply because we have been raised differently when you are also saying that the thing that we are perceiving has real tangible properties that create differences in sound. If the properties are real why do you hear them but I don’t, that isn’t perception that is functional hearing, surely.

I and others keep coming back to the same thing that seems to be lost on others. Yes you perceive a sound difference between two cables but that doesn’t mean the sound difference is anywhere but entirely in your head. That is just how humans work, I have had the same perception but I understand that just because I perceive there to be a sonic difference doesn’t mean that technically there is.

 

[OCC7N]

Sure, but by stating that you understand differences in our individual perception you are getting very close to acknowledging that our individual “perception” don’t necessarily have a basis in technical performance and can be purely in our heads.

How can I perceive something different to you simply because we have been raised differently when you are also saying that the thing that we are perceiving has real tangible properties that create differences in sound. If the properties are real why do you hear them but I don’t, that isn’t perception that is functional hearing, surely.

I and others keep coming back to the same thing that seems to be lost on others. Yes you perceive a sound difference between two cables but that doesn’t mean the sound difference is anywhere but entirely in your head. That is just how humans work, I have had the same perception but I understand that just because I perceive there to be a sonic difference doesn’t mean that technically there is.

You know what you are here for. That is your intentions.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

You know what you are here for. That is your intentions.

And what might your intentions be, after all that has been said, if you had actually read any of the important bits?

 

[bfreedma]

It is all about how you f...feel. Your state of conscience. Call it what you wan´t, you can not take the moment away from people who enjoy their shieet!

No one is trying to take away your enjoyment of music. We're having a discussion around what may be audible and reasons why people perceive differences that aren't there. Do you really believe that health, mood, sleep, food intake, changes in barometric pressure and numerous other unavoidable day to day changes don't impact perceived audio? You hear the same on a day with, for example, bad allergies vs. a day where your body isn't reacting to that stimulus? Does that even sound rational?

The real question is - Why do you seem to feel threatened by a discussion where the evidence is compelling on one side and absent on another?

 

[BS5711]

You know what you are here for. That is your intentions.

My only intention is to speak a little common sense within the limits of my understanding and experience.

Feel free to hold onto your audio beliefs as you presumably install crystals on the cable you are burning in.

 

[Riccioli30]

The posts always comes to some all vs nothing silliness, when we know for a fact that both sound difference and imagined difference are possible. It comes down to the specific situation and the amount of reliable data we can get about it. I have heard quite dramatic changes myself(I'm talking several dB here and there, or so much crosstalk that we might as well say the cable was mono, but worse). And even then, I'm fairly confident that the testimonies are for the majority, people fooling themselves, because there is so much evidence of psychological bias from serious research and so little evidence of cable difference from the people who claim it, that the cautious guess must always lean toward the human fault IMO. At least until we can get some data suggesting otherwise.
Instead, we get people who are so very sure they know what's going on, which is a strong case for psychological bias if you look into who is more likely to be wrong, the confident people with little evidence or knowledge of how electricity works, are the perfect demographic for false certainty.

On the other hand, I agree that audible differences do happen and that people who spent some time trying stuff in this hobby probably encountered the situation. and we usually don't measure enough. Now, is silver always having the same sound? Some things like that give away placebo IMO.

Yes... and yet yes... and yet it would be so correct and simple to say that - between a cable in solid silver, one in silver-plated copper, and one in copper without oxygen, - the differences perceived - perceived without any doubt and without ifs or buts and with the same evidence as the six-year-old daughter of our unwary friend at the beginning of the treadh - they may depend on 1) skin effect 2) weak iteration between the silver and copper ions 3) geometry of the winds 4) directionality of the magnetic field 5) characteristics of the screen,6) length of the cable in relation to the audible frequency 7) crimping or soldering on the connectors, 8) type of metal and quantity of metal on the connectors, 9) reflections of everything said on capacitance, inductance, resistance. 10) anything else. I would have liked to understand in a science forum. But no! we don't investigate but we reply that there are no audible differences. Because for 130 years the ABC of the transmission of electrical impulses on a typical conductor has said that there are no differences. And because life is a dream and we dream these differences in an illusory space-time of a multiverse imperceptible to our senses but with immutable laws. So it's better to be deaf and live by faith. That thus speak Zarathustra.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Yes... and yet yes... and yet it would be so correct and simple to say that - between a cable in solid silver, one in silver-plated copper, and one in copper without oxygen, - the differences perceived - perceived without any doubt and without ifs or buts and with the same evidence as the six-year-old daughter of our unwary friend at the beginning of the treadh - they may depend on 1) skin effect 2) weak iteration between the silver and copper ions 3) geometry of the winds 4) directionality of the magnetic field 5) characteristics of the screen,6) length of the cable in relation to the audible frequency 7) crimping or soldering on the connectors, 8) type of metal and quantity of metal on the connectors, 9) reflections of everything said on capacitance, inductance, resistance. 10) anything else. I would have liked to understand in a science forum. But no! we don't investigate but we reply that there are no audible differences. Because for 130 years the ABC of the transmission of electrical impulses on a typical conductor has said that there are no differences. And because life is a dream and we dream these differences in an illusory space-time of a multiverse imperceptible to our senses but with immutable laws. So it's better to be deaf and live by faith. That thus speak Zarathustra.

Have you seen my measurement video (post #345)? Absolutely, there exist people who perceive differences between cables in sighted listening conditions, but you would see from my measurements that include the headphone transducer and my physical ears as well as the frequency response up to 96 kHz that regardless of the differences in construction and any claimed physical factors, the magnitude and phase response differences are well below audible (in the sense of blind listening conditions). there are likewise no appreciable differences in frequency response when playing complex waveforms such as a 1/12 octave pink spectrum multitone signal. Therefore, the perceived differences are unlikely to be due to the cables' properties. Maybe these differences in construction will matter beyond 100 kHz, but that is well beyond audio frequencies.

You are theorizing causes for effects that are immeasurable within the audio band. And if the human mind has "measured" effects not detected by electronics, they are most likely psychological and social in cause.

 

[gregorio]

Before you can measure anything, from any perspective you have to measure perception......of an individual.

There we go, I can’t think of any better way of you proving that you don’t even know what measurements are, perfect! As we can’t measure the perception of an individual, then according to your assertion we can’t measure anything and therefore digital audio could not and does not exist. Great, I’m sure everyone who owns digital audio and digital audio equipment are grateful to you for explaining that it doesn’t exist. I’m curious though, if we have to measure the perception of an individual before we can measure anything, where do you suggest we put the ashes of that individual, when we measure say the manifold temperature of a jet engine? lol!

The problem with just making up false assertions and then trying to defend them is that inevitably you’ll end up having to make up ever more ridiculous nonsense!

You experts can keep bringing the same numbers from the same machine …
It simply does not work.

What do you think an ADC (or DAC) actually is and does? What evidence do you have that they “simply do not work” and why do we have so many ADCs/DACs in the world, 70 years after they were first commercially implemented, if they “simply do not work”?

That is exactly what the experts are trying to make this hobby.

Wasn’t it Joseph Goebbels who came up the the AiM, “Accusation in a Mirror” strategy (accuse your enemy of what you are guilty of)?

You’re not presenting a logical or even vaguely convincing argument, all you’re doing is posting insults and proving you don’t even understand the fundamental basics of what science is and why it was invented. The “experts” are not trying to make audio/audio equipment into a religion or a cult! The “experts” (and in fact any rational people) are doing the opposite, making the point that it’s of course all based on science. It hardly requires an especially high level of education to realise that audio/audio equipment is technology and technology is the practical application of science, it’s NOT the application of a religion or a cult and ADCs, DACs and cables, etc., are NOT religious artefacts! How is any of this not laughably obvious? lol

You can choose to still be ignorant and act like you don´t know what perception is to you.

And again, AiM! The thread/discussion is about the use of copper vs silver in analogue audio cables. If we’re measuring the performance of copper and silver analogue cables (or indeed audio itself or any audio component/equipment) we obviously cannot measure human perception, feelings or opinions because none of these things have any. You’re not seriously claiming that copper or silver wires/cables have human perceptions or feelings are you? Assuming you’re not, why are you choosing “to still be ignorant and act like you don’t know” this obvious fact and doing what you’re falsely accusing us of??

G

 

[Merkurio]

It's quite funny to see how someone ridicules himself when he goes against the most basic logic.

You don't even need to resort to insults or disqualifications as they do, it's like the magic they believe in!

 

[Hiker816]

You are theorizing causes for effects that are immeasurable within the audio band. And if the human mind has "measured" effects not detected by electronics, they are most likely psychological and social in cause.

I generally agree that asserting that a perceived difference exists objectively without any evidence isn't advancing the ball. However, your comment above exhibits the same type of hubris. Our ability to detect effects electronically is not what determines if they actually exist. If it did, that would mean, for example, a rolled-off treble didn't exist before we invented electronics capable of detecting that. And that's clearly not true. What we can say with confidence is that a perceived difference either (1) is measurable; (2) is not measurable with our current ability to measure but might be later; or (3) is wholly or partly subjective/psychological. Unless you're in category (1), you can't definitively discount the possibility that either (2) or (3) could be true. Even suggesting (3) is more likely than (2) strikes me as dangerous since we have no reason to believe we've invented the ability to electronically measure all relevant effects that people perceive.

Edit: This is supposing the test at issue didn't provide affirmative evidence that the perceived difference is in fact wholly subjective/psychological. For example, if test subjects can no longer perceive any difference/effect with controlled blind testing, that would be evidence that (3) is more likely.

 

[BS5711]

I generally agree that asserting that a perceived difference exists objectively without any evidence isn't advancing the ball. However, your comment above exhibits the same type of hubris. Our ability to detect effects electronically is not what determines if they actually exist. If it did, that would mean, for example, a rolled-off treble didn't exist before we invented electronics capable of detecting that. And that's clearly not true. What we can say with confidence is that a perceived difference either (1) is measurable; (2) is not measurable with our current ability to measure but might be later; or (3) is wholly or partly subjective/psychological. Unless you're in category (1), you can't definitively discount the possibility that either (2) or (3) could be true. Even suggesting (3) is more likely than (2) strikes me as dangerous since we have no reason to believe we've invented the ability to electronically measure all relevant effects that people perceive.

Edit: This is supposing the test at issue didn't provide affirmative evidence that the perceived difference is in fact wholly subjective/psychological. For example, if test subjects can no longer perceive any difference/effect with controlled blind testing, that would be evidence that (3) is more likely.

That is of course reasonably sound logic.

I think the difference is that those on the side of science are basing their comments on current best scientific evidence that hasn’t changed for decades so seems solid while also understanding the other two options even if they consider that option 2 is far less likely than option 3.

The cable believers, however, adamantly stick to their guns with no supporting scientific evidence at all simply because they state they “hear differences” when option 3 provides evidence for why those perceived differences exist. They rely solely on the idea that they hear things that science cannot substantiate with no acknowledgment of option 3 at all.

I perceive differences with cables sometimes but when I really objectively assess what I actually hear those differences strangely vanish.

 

[Merkurio]

That is of course reasonably sound logic.

I think the difference is that those on the side of science are basing their comments on current best scientific evidence that hasn’t changed for decades so seems solid while also understanding the other two options even if they consider that option 2 is far less likely than option 3.

The cable believers, however, adamantly stick to their guns with no supporting scientific evidence at all simply because they state they “hear differences” when option 3 provides evidence for why those perceived differences exist. They rely solely on the idea that they hear things that science cannot substantiate with no acknowledgment of option 3 at all.

I perceive differences with cables sometimes but when I really objectively assess what I actually hear those differences strangely vanish.

It's the audiophile's kryptonite; as soon as they have to isolate all their other senses (especially sight) and listen only with their golden ears, they completely lose the ability to find those HUGE differences they boast about.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

It's about time that we stop feeding the troll.

 

[BS5711]

It's about time that we stop feeding the troll.

I agree, it seems that pointless debate is exactly what he is trying to encourage.

I find it otherwise hard to imagine that anyone could be so utterly full of sh..t.