[The Jester]

I'm not sure that's accurate. A hypothesis is a possible explanation of a given phenomenon, which is a scientific hypothesis if it can be tested by observations and/or experiments--i.e., it is falsifiable. That hypothesis can become a scientific theory if it is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations--so you're right, after researching and testing. The theory can be more or less supportable and accepted depending on the extent of that testing. At no point does the theory become a fact, however. A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation. It is not the explanation for that observation, however. Rather, the theory is.

@bigshot , fair enough. But I don't think anyone on this thread has been "proved wrong." Nor does proving someone wrong seem like a particularly laudable goal. Seeking the best explanation certainly is, though. That's why you won't see me criticizing ideas presented here to further experiment to try to determine if the OP's daughter did truly discern a difference, and if so, why.

Hypothetical is the adjective of hypothesis …

 

[BS5711]

It never ceases to amaze me that people will reach for the argument that there might be stuff about human hearing that we simply don't understand or that just because a frequency response graph is the same (and thus a null test would indicate no difference) that doesn't mean the frequency response indicates all that we can hear.

They are more willing to believe that than just accept that the human mind if very easily tricked into hearing differences that are simply not there.

I can just think about the criticism in reviews of an IEM that I am listening to rather than just enjoy the music and all of a sudden the IEM don't sound as good. Everything sounds better on a sunny day when life is good and we are not dealing with problems. The mind is easily tricked into hearing differences but people don't seem to want to understand that, they are happy buying into all the audiophile BS that gets yacked on about here every day, some forums are rife with it, seems like at least half the 'community' believes that stuff to the point of people spending literally thousands of dollars on a cable because it makes such a dramatic change to the sounds. I have frequently spend a couple hundred dollars on a nice cable mostly just because it looks cool but I have never genuinely heard a change in sound.

 

[The Jester]

Ok, as far as I can see several prophets have come here before me with similar assertions in different aspects and that is why there has been some aggressiveness in the comments. Let's leave that behind, it's a forum, we are adults and sometimes things are said that may upset.

It is my first contribution (I think) in this subforum and first I apologize because I did not imagine that it was taken so seriously. I would never post a test-game like this in the Scientific American magazine forum, to give an example (no idea if there is such a forum, LOL), I thought this subforum was like the rest of Head-Fi, with personal opinions and assessments and not proven facts.

I accept (from several posts ago in fact) that I may have made several mistakes that allowed my daughter to choose the wire so acuratly.

Until this thread I had little idea that there were such opposite sides of the audiophile coin, I thought there were users who noticed more or less difference in these things and who placed more or less importance on cables.

For me for example, a Fiio K7 sounds the same (in quality) as a high end Vioelectric... I notice the difference between tubes and transistors, but between different transistors DAC's I find it very difficult. If the source is clean and powerful, there may be a slight change in profile, but nothing "better or worse".

With cables I thought similar but lighter audible, being silver and copper different materials. I myself think I hear a very very small difference, but maybe it's suggestion.

So, read my post more as an ignorant father proud of his daughter who thought her young ears could hear that profile change more than as a false prophet of the cables.

That said... why did my daughter always respond at the same point in the song, when the voice and drums became more present? Any clues?

And looking ahead to Christmas, when I do this fun experiment again with her grandfather, I welcome recommendations to make it as thorough as possible, though remember she's a little girl and it has to be fun. I don't want to be left guessing.

Maybe have a look at the construction of the cables if possible, the most common headphone cable could be two signal wires inside a shield so that the L/R channels use the shield as a common return for both channels, others are 4 independently wound cables with no external shield as well as two shielded coax cables with the shields connected together only at the amp connection, at least then you’re comparing “apples with apples” ..

 

[Hiker816]

Ignorance isn’t the same as humility. Just because you have no clue about this stuff and go by subjective feelings, it doesn’t mean that science hasn’t studied and quantified these things.

Seriously? More staggering assumptions here. And you're demonstrating the very hostility I noted earlier. You can do better.

You should listen more and argue less. Other people might know about things you don’t and you can learn from them if you don’t argue with them about things you don’t know. That’s my friendly advice.

I was trying to convey precisely this same advice to you in my earlier posts, only nicer. Are you committed to sound science or not? The scientific method involves testing hypotheses. What I am seeing instead is you asserting "facts" as a way to shut down having those assumptions tested. (And characterizing as unscientific someone calling you out for not being scientific is just projecting). Let's all listen more and argue less--and let's all stop assuming we know so much.

It never ceases to amaze me that people will reach for the argument that there might be stuff about human hearing that we simply don't understand or that just because a frequency response graph is the same (and thus a null test would indicate no difference) that doesn't mean the frequency response indicates all that we can hear.

They are more willing to believe that than just accept that the human mind if very easily tricked into hearing differences that are simply not there.

Based on the admittedly incomplete information I've seen, I think that we both lack a comprehensive understanding of human hearing and that the human mind can be very easily tricked into hearing differences. You feel you have enough information to have a complete understanding of human hearing, and are thus confident that all perceived differences are actually mental trickery? Again, I've very envious if that's true. I wonder if any scientist who has focused exclusively on human hearing would say the same. If so, wouldn't they be out of a job? Nothing left to test or learn?

At any rate, this thread was about the OP's experiment with his daughter, for which he was attacked. Very little of this thread addressed how to tweak the experiment to verify or disprove the results. It's the sound science subforum; why not focus on scientific discovery? Let's get the thread back on track (I'll accept my part of the blame for derailing it, and I'll stop engaging in the debate about what science is).

 

[bigshot]

I prefer to remain more humble about the extent of my knowledge.

That shouldn't be too difficult.

This is our tag team troll pair again. Same argument from ignorance and "you aren't scientific enough" digressing into generalized sidetracks on the scientific method instead of the facts at hand. If it isn't the same pair, they're cloning them in a secret lab somewhere.

 

[BS5711]

I think saying he was attached is overstating it a bit.

Anyway, we have all had a say, I know what I am happy believing for the moment based on my understanding on the current science and my own experiences.

 

[BS5711]

I think that we both lack a comprehensive understanding of human hearing ................. You feel you have enough information to have a complete understanding of human hearing, and are thus confident that all perceived differences are actually mental trickery?

I am going to have one last crack at making sense of this with you.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed, there is a perfectly rational explanation as to why people hear changes in sound that science indicates doesn't exist.

I don't need to personally have an in depth knowledge of human hearing to reach a perfectly logical conclusion that mental trickery is a far more likely reason to have 'perceived' a sound difference than some currently unknown and unstudied hearing ability that seems to only be gifted only to 'audiophiles' that love to chat about the stuff on internet forums, oh and 6 year old girls it seems.

 

[Riccioli30]

Hi Floks!

Today, I received a high-purity, balanced copper cable handmade in Poland. I decided to compare it with my existing silver-plated cable as a fun activity with my daughter. She thoroughly enjoyed the process, and the results were quite surprising.

We used the same equipment, maintained the same volume, and played the same 15-second song clip. My daughter wore a mask throughout the experiment.

The equipment we used included an iBasso DC04 Pro connected to an iPhone, a Meze 109pro playing a song on Tidal. Both cables were terminated with Pentacon 4.4 connectors. One was the original Meze silver-plated cable, and the other was the pure copper cable from Poland.

I took great care to minimize noise when changing the cables. I also ensured that she couldn’t touch or feel either cable. I am 100% confident that she couldn’t identify which cable was in use at any given time.

I set up a random test using a die. The sequence of cables used was: C - S - S - S - C - S (C represents the Copper wire and S represents the silver-plated wire).

She correctly identified the cable each time, all while maintaining a smile on her face. She noted that the differences were subtle and that it was a challenging test. According to her, the silver wire produced more pronounced vocals and cymbals, while the copper wire enhanced the boom-boom (she is six years old ).

I was quite surprised by the outcome. While I think I can discern the subtle differences, I’m not sure if I could pass this test as flawlessly as she did.

Have you ever tried a similar game with your young children?

just to add my two cents. what your daughter feels, mine feels too and, importantly, I feel it too. That I'm not young. Audio Note Anvx silver cable, vs Transparent/Mit/StraightWire/. and to a lesser extent vs Kimber/Nordost. Same sensations. There is certainly an explanation (different parameters of capacity, inductance, geometry etc, etc... I'm not really interested in knowing).

 

[bigshot]

It is simple to create a wire that conducts with perfect audible transparency. Amazon and Monoprice are able to do that with a few dollars worth of copper, insulation and plugs.

A wire cannot conduct better than another wire designed for the same purpose. It can only conduct worse. It either passes the signal across faithfully, or it degrades the signal in some way because of improper manufacture or design. If there is an audible difference between cables, one isn’t good and the other is better… in truth, one is doing the job, and the other one isn’t performing to spec.

When you hear differences between cables, the question you should be asking is, which one is defective? That is simple to determine. Just get an Amazon or Monoprice cable and compare it to both. The one that doesn’t match the plain Jane wire is the one that is defective. Simple logic.

 

[bigshot]

“I’m not interested in knowing.” isn’t a comment that inspires much confidence that the speaker knows what he’s talking about. It’s fine for the rest of head fi, but it won’t fly in sound science.

It amazes me that people will invest so much time and money in a hobby and have no basic understanding of how it works. It’s an abrogation of responsibility that snake oil salesmen are more than happy to exploit. If it’s a hobby that interests you, why are you too lazy to gain even a cursory knowledge of how to judge quality?

 

[gregorio]

I had no idea how cultish the forum could get.

In a sense, of course it is. This is the Sound Science subforum, so obviously the “cult“ here is science. However, science isn’t a “cult” of course, as a cult is based on belief and the whole point of science in the first place is to get to the facts and eliminate belief.

I thought it was a safe place to share experiences about sound and headphones, without all this PS3 vs Xbox 360 era level crap or worse.

This is the Sound Science subforum, not the “Share your Experiences” forum. It can be a safe place to share your experiences if you are asking a question or making assertions about them which agrees with the established science. However, it’s not going to be such a safe place if you’re going to make assertions that are contrary to the science and you have “nothing scientific”, no reliable evidence to support your assertions.

I'm not sure your original comment is wholly accurate. I gave a shot at revising it above. A scientific explanation is not a fact. It's a hypothesized explanation, which is always subject to revision to reflect new information. I think we would all be better served if that distinction were more acknowledged.

How would a science discussion forum be served by acknowledging a distinction which is not entirely/always true and not applicable in this case even when it is true? The ONLY thing that would be served by that fallacious distinction is the financial interests of those who peddle audiophile snake oil (based on false marketing/misinformation), certainly not science! Take for example pretty much the oldest science we have; 1 + 1 = 2. Is that not a fact? When has it ever been revised, at what point in recorded human history has 1 + 1 ever equalled anything other than 2? Your revision is inaccurate!

I'm not sure that's accurate. A hypothesis is a possible explanation of a given phenomenon, which is a scientific hypothesis if it can be tested by observations and/or experiments--i.e., it is falsifiable. That hypothesis can become a scientific theory if it is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations--so you're right, after researching and testing. The theory can be more or less supportable and accepted depending on the extent of that testing. At no point does the theory become a fact, however.

Again, that is incorrect. A theory can indeed become a fact, for example, it can become a scientific “Law”. Additionally, even a Theory can effectively become a fact, given long enough, a large enough body of supporting evidence and no reliable evidence to the contrary. For example, the Theory of Evolution is effectively a fact, because we have such a huge body of supporting evidence and the probability of it being incorrect is so tiny that it’s veracity is far beyond any reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, your argument is the same old fallacious, pseudo-scientific argument that’s been presented for nearly half a century, since audiophile cables were first introduced and debunked by the engineering/scientific communities. Most of what you’ve argued is simply an irrelevant “red herring”, because we’re not dealing with some “scientific hypothesis”, we’re not even dealing with a Theory! It was scientific hypothesis around 200 years ago but then it was proven by George Ohm and others, was COMPREHENSIVELY codified by James Clerk Maxwell and then reformulated by Oliver Heaviside into what are called the 4 “Maxwell’s Laws”, and not coincidentally, Heaviside was a cable engineer (for a telegraph company). This was all proven by the late 1880’s, it IS fact and it cannot be “falsified”! And if that’s not already more than enough, there’s probably nothing in human history more demonstrated in practice. The whole world is connected with cables and in fact was already circumnavigated with cables well over a century ago. There are and have been countless millions of kilometres and countless billions of cables and never in all this time has one been found that violates Maxwell’s Laws or even hints at a possibility that Maxwell/Heaviside might have been somehow wrong.

You're assuming you know all there is to know about all human ears and all properly manufactured and designed headphone cables.

How is he/we assuming that? That’s just another fallacious argument. Another example of such a fallacious argument; do we know everything there is to know about mathematics? … As we obviously don’t, then we can’t know for a fact that 1 + 1 = 2! We don’t need to know all there is to know about human ears, we just need to know the human hearing thresholds and compare them to the actual differences in the signal that cables can induce. In fact, in all but the most pathological cases we don’t even need to know that much, because the differences in the signal are typically too small to even be resolved into sound differences by transducers. So if there’s no sound/acoustic difference to hear, it doesn’t matter how superhuman your hearing is!

I prefer to remain more humble about the extent of my knowledge.

Clearly that’s not true. If it were true, you wouldn’t be trying to convince us how “we would all be better served” or be arguing about (irrelevant/inapplicable) scientific hypothesis and theory or (again irrelevant/inapplicable) limitations of scientific knowledge, and you certainly wouldn’t be doing that in an actual science discussion forum!

just to add my two cents. what your daughter feels, mine feels too and, importantly, I feel it too.

What you, your daughter and someone else’s daughter feel is not important at all. Wouldn’t you agree that the performance of cables is not affected by what you or anyone else “feels”?

G

 

[Riccioli30]

“I’m not interested in knowing.” isn’t a comment that inspires much confidence that the speaker knows what he’s talking about. It’s fine for the rest of head fi, but it won’t fly in sound science.

It amazes me that people will invest so much time and money in a hobby and have no basic understanding of how it works. It’s an abrogation of responsibility that snake oil salesmen are more than happy to exploit. If it’s a hobby that interests you, why are you too lazy to gain even a cursory knowledge of how to judge quality?

undoubtedly a respectable point of view. And I confess that I would like to have the technical knowledge to be able to argue what my ears and my head perceive. But I realize that talking about "sensations" here is not the right place. Perhaps in a philosophy or art forum it would be more appropriate.

 

[The Jester]

In a sense, of course it is. This is the Sound Science subforum, so obviously the “cult“ here is science. However, science isn’t a “cult” of course, as a cult is based on belief and the whole point of science in the first place is to get to the facts and eliminate belief.

This is the Sound Science subforum, not the “Share your Experiences” forum. It can be a safe place to share your experiences if you are asking a question or making assertions about them which agrees with the established science. However, it’s not going to be such a safe place if you’re going to make assertions that are contrary to the science and you have “nothing scientific”, no reliable evidence to support your assertions.

How would a science discussion forum be served by acknowledging a distinction which is not entirely/always true and not applicable in this case even when it is true? The ONLY thing that would be served by that fallacious distinction is the financial interests of those who peddle audiophile snake oil (based on false marketing/misinformation), certainly not science! Take for example pretty much the oldest science we have; 1 + 1 = 2. Is that not a fact? When has it ever been revised, at what point in recorded human history has 1 + 1 ever equalled anything other than 2? Your revision is inaccurate!

Again, that is incorrect. A theory can indeed become a fact, for example, it can become a scientific “Law”. Additionally, even a Theory can effectively become a fact, given long enough, a large enough body of supporting evidence and no reliable evidence to the contrary. For example, the Theory of Evolution is effectively a fact, because we have such a huge body of supporting evidence and the probability of it being incorrect is so tiny that it’s veracity is far beyond any reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, your argument is the same old fallacious, pseudo-scientific argument that’s been presented for nearly half a century, since audiophile cables were first introduced and debunked by the engineering/scientific communities. Most of what you’ve argued is simply an irrelevant “red herring”, because we’re not dealing with some “scientific hypothesis”, we’re not even dealing with a Theory! It was scientific hypothesis around 200 years ago but then it was proven by George Ohm and others, was COMPREHENSIVELY codified by James Clerk Maxwell and then reformulated by Oliver Heaviside into what are called the 4 “Maxwell’s Laws”, and not coincidentally, Heaviside was a cable engineer (for a telegraph company). This was all proven by the late 1880’s, it IS fact and it cannot be “falsified”! And if that’s not already more than enough, there’s probably nothing in human history more demonstrated in practice. The whole world is connected with cables and in fact was already circumnavigated with cables well over a century ago. There are and have been countless millions of kilometres and countless billions of cables and never in all this time has one been found that violates Maxwell’s Laws or even hints at a possibility that Maxwell/Heaviside might have been somehow wrong.

How is he/we assuming that? That’s just another fallacious argument. Another example of such a fallacious argument; do we know everything there is to know about mathematics? … As we obviously don’t, then we can’t know for a fact that 1 + 1 = 2! We don’t need to know all there is to know about human ears, we just need to know the human hearing thresholds and compare them to the actual differences in the signal that cables can induce. In fact, in all but the most pathological cases we don’t even need to know that much, because the differences in the signal are typically too small to even be resolved into sound differences by transducers. So if there’s no sound/acoustic difference to hear, it doesn’t matter how superhuman your hearing is!

Clearly that’s not true. If it were true, you wouldn’t be trying to convince us how “we would all be better served” or be arguing about (irrelevant/inapplicable) scientific hypothesis and theory or (again irrelevant/inapplicable) limitations of scientific knowledge, and you certainly wouldn’t be doing that in an actual science discussion forum!

What you, your daughter and someone else’s daughter feel is not important at all. Wouldn’t you agree that the performance of cables is not affected by what you or anyone else “feels”?

G

Brave call there on evolution, I agree but there’s plenty of creationists out there too … remember what happened to the Beatles after John Lennon’s quip about being more popular than Jesus …
“Fact” is open to various interpretations,
Indisputable fact …ie: your date of birth, there were eye witnesses .. and if you can’t believe your Mum ..
Proven fact .. every attempt to disprove it failed similar to the “beyond reasonable doubt” in law..
Accepted fact … similar to the above but conceding future research may reveal new evidence ..

 

[KinGensai]

@gregorio, a slight nitpick. You said science is supposed to get to the facts and eliminate belief, which is hard for me to reconcile with the fact that science would not exist if not for the existence of human consciousness.

Human consciousness is prone to constant error and mistaken conceptions based on incomplete data. The discipline of science is an offshoot of natural philosophy concieved of to achieve the aim of philosophy in a regimented way, which is to ascertain the truth.

Truth does not exist in actuality, it is a measure of the accuracy of reality to actuality, thus a product of belief, if not at the phenominological level, then at the epistemological level.

Given thus, science is a discipline pursuing proper alignment of the beliefs of it's creators and practitioners to actuality, so I argue that science is actually heavily involved in belief at a foundational level.

 

[bigshot]

I confess that I would like to have the technical knowledge to be able to argue what my ears and my head perceive.

The purpose of knowledge isn’t to argue what your subjective senses perceive. It’s to understand how it all works, so you can tell the difference between perception and reality.

Some of what we perceive is real and can be quantified and explained. That’s the part involved with fidelity and relative quality. But as humans, we also perceive things because of bias and perceptual error. Those things have nothing to do with DACs, amps or wires. Without knowledge and understanding, bias and perceptual error can make us spend money on things that have absolutely no impact on fidelity or sound quality.

I don’t understand how someone can be so intellectually lazy about a subject they claim to be interested in that they refuse to do a little bit of research so they aren’t flat out wrong. Or worse yet, cherry pick information from bad sources like high end audio salesmen or people who know even less than them to back up their bias and perceptual error.

Don’t argue what your perception tells you, understand the limits of perception. Human ears have limits. Don’t waste money or time on sound you think you can hear but you really can’t. That’s my pholosophy lesson for the day.

Now for my practical advice for the day… Apply logic and solid information so you’re not a sucker feeding off snake oil lies. And don’t let your ego make you try to justify or bolster your ignorance. Get smart. Arguments aren’t about being right. They’re about testing your knowledge against someone else’s in hopes of learning from them.

Sound science is a place to learn, not a place to argue with people who know things you don’t. If you’re arguing instead of asking questions, you’re doing it wrong.