Objective cable testing

[tmars78]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If you cannot tell the difference between a real Picasso and the same Picasso but with blotches of color added in a DBT in twenty minutes, you may need an hour, or a day, or a year. It would depend on if you are first physically able of seeing the colors, and assuming that you are, it is simply a matter of time isn't it? 

By your own admission the differences in sound with different cables are so nil as to require literally days or even months of individual study under very tight controls that eliminate or diminish most other factors. By applying Occam's razor to your argument we can logically demonstrate that these cables do not offer the world-changing differences that are purported by some in the audiophile community, or by the companies that make them.

Occam's razor would suggest nothing as there is no explanation with less assumptions. Cables making no difference assumes that capacitance, dielectric propagation velocity, conductance, inductance, impedance, RFI/EMI rejection, connector stability (in a physical sense), valence and conductance bands of intermolecular orbitals, eddies and eddy currents, and many other issues have no significant effect. Cables making a difference assumes that the differences are there but are not yet proven. In my opinion Occam would go in the making a difference camp. 
 
However, I don't think that anyone would suggest intentionally that a cable will change the entirety of your sound making ipod earbuds into Orpheus or the like. Companies are allowed to claim whatever their opinion is, but it is not their fault for people believing everything they read. I think there is a child book where the babysitter takes every single one of the written instructions literally and ends up in peril all the time.
 
(EDIT: I probably should share my thoughts on everyone, but I should instead say that from what I have seen around the forum, many posts suggesting that cables make a difference imply that it is a slight difference and should be done as the last upgrade). 
 
I am not necessarily stating that differences require days or months under strict controls, just that with subtle differences in complex data there may be more time required than DBTs have to offer. Also I am suggesting that pressure in DBT situations may cause errors in the study. As I said I think if there are differences, it may take a listener who is untrained (in no way am I stating that I am trained or anyone is trained to do this) time in a relaxed environment to find differences. 
 
To say that small differences that take time to find are not differences, as I found somewhat passively suggested in your text, is false. 
i.e. 1.00000001 is still not 1 and suggesting that it is 1 is false. 
 
If you are looking for my own admission: I have not given one. Mine looks something like this, to my ears and mind; cables make a small but nice difference. I will admit the differences are small, and to some may not be worth the investment, but then again I would recommend people upgrade everything else first and if they want to try cables. I am not necessarily entrenched as a cable believer for the rest of my life, but at this time, with the data from studies I have read and conducted, my current understanding of physics, transmissions, chemistry, and math, and what I "hear", I do believe cables make a difference.
 
Dave

I am only responding to the part in which I bolded. Around this forum you see people saying its only a small difference? I beg to differ, usually when the anti-cable crowd shows up then do people say its small and the last upgrade. Most threads people will talk about "day and night" differences. I have never listened to expensive cables, as I don't think my meager system warrants them, but I have seen plenty of people claim amazing differences. Check out the "best interconnect in the world thread". I would love for someone to DBT those interconnects, it should be EXTREMELY easy seeing the praise heaped upon them. It would be quite interesting to say the least, and would hope that the people heaping the praise could hear the differences without knowing which cable was being used. It would be groundbreaking given all that I have read about cable DBTs. 

 

[Trysaeder]

PROOF
believers
 
 
Get it? The burden of proof is on the believers.
 
Same with religion. Asserted without proof = Dismissed without need of proof.

 

[ProjectDenz]

Gotta agree with Trysaeder here.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If you cannot tell the difference between a real Picasso and the same Picasso but with blotches of color added in a DBT in twenty minutes, you may need an hour, or a day, or a year. It would depend on if you are first physically able of seeing the colors, and assuming that you are, it is simply a matter of time isn't it? 

By your own admission the differences in sound with different cables are so nil as to require literally days or even months of individual study under very tight controls that eliminate or diminish most other factors. By applying Occam's razor to your argument we can logically demonstrate that these cables do not offer the world-changing differences that are purported by some in the audiophile community, or by the companies that make them.

Occam's razor would suggest nothing as there is no explanation with less assumptions. Cables making no difference assumes that capacitance, dielectric propagation velocity, conductance, inductance, impedance, RFI/EMI rejection, connector stability (in a physical sense), valence and conductance bands of intermolecular orbitals, eddies and eddy currents, and many other issues have no significant effect. Cables making a difference assumes that the differences are there but are not yet proven. In my opinion Occam would go in the making a difference camp. 
 
However, I don't think that anyone would suggest intentionally that a cable will change the entirety of your sound making ipod earbuds into Orpheus or the like. Companies are allowed to claim whatever their opinion is, but it is not their fault for people believing everything they read. I think there is a child book where the babysitter takes every single one of the written instructions literally and ends up in peril all the time.
 
(EDIT: I probably should share my thoughts on everyone, but I should instead say that from what I have seen around the forum, many posts suggesting that cables make a difference imply that it is a slight difference and should be done as the last upgrade). 
 
I am not necessarily stating that differences require days or months under strict controls, just that with subtle differences in complex data there may be more time required than DBTs have to offer. Also I am suggesting that pressure in DBT situations may cause errors in the study. As I said I think if there are differences, it may take a listener who is untrained (in no way am I stating that I am trained or anyone is trained to do this) time in a relaxed environment to find differences. 
 
To say that small differences that take time to find are not differences, as I found somewhat passively suggested in your text, is false. 
i.e. 1.00000001 is still not 1 and suggesting that it is 1 is false. 
 
If you are looking for my own admission: I have not given one. Mine looks something like this, to my ears and mind; cables make a small but nice difference. I will admit the differences are small, and to some may not be worth the investment, but then again I would recommend people upgrade everything else first and if they want to try cables. I am not necessarily entrenched as a cable believer for the rest of my life, but at this time, with the data from studies I have read and conducted, my current understanding of physics, transmissions, chemistry, and math, and what I "hear", I do believe cables make a difference.
 
Dave

I am only responding to the part in which I bolded. Around this forum you see people saying its only a small difference? I beg to differ, usually when the anti-cable crowd shows up then do people say its small and the last upgrade. Most threads people will talk about "day and night" differences. I have never listened to expensive cables, as I don't think my meager system warrants them, but I have seen plenty of people claim amazing differences. Check out the "best interconnect in the world thread". I would love for someone to DBT those interconnects, it should be EXTREMELY easy seeing the praise heaped upon them. It would be quite interesting to say the least, and would hope that the people heaping the praise could hear the differences without knowing which cable was being used. It would be groundbreaking given all that I have read about cable DBTs. 

 
That is one. I have read many threads of it being recommended as the last upgrade in a chain, more so than it being night and day. This may only be my experience, but it is the only one I can speak from.
I am in no way confronting you on your experiences as your mileage may vary.
 
 


Quote:

PROOF
believers
 
 
Get it? The burden of proof is on the believers.
 
Same with religion. Asserted without proof = Dismissed without need of proof.

I am not sure how much I would agree with this.
 
Look at examples from science where it is often hypothesis on both sides before proof. String theory advocates say there must be something smaller than quarks and leptons etc. therefore it may be possible that matter exists as resonating energy or whatever it is technically (I am not a physicist), but those against string theory would say maybe its loop quantum gravity that explains "everything". 
 
Or from chemistry, why does stearic hindrance in bulky bases occur? It is explained through Frontier Molecular Orbital Theory investigations but that is still a theory and is not yet proven and there are arguments against FMO theory.
 
My point is that often times ideas and experiences come before proof and that it is often the investigations of both believers and non-believers that provide the proof for something is or something else is, i.e. string theory is or quantum loop gravity is, because it goes that if one is the other is not, therefor disproving the other. By that logic, if cable advocates of both camps, for and against, prove either of their cases, the other must be wrong. More simply, if people for cables prove that they make a difference it nullifies the disbelievers just as if the group against cables prove that they make no difference nullifies the believers. 
 
It seems a lax attitude at best to wait for the other camp to do the leg work, especially while disseminating ones opinion that has not been proven, when the proof of the opposing position provides just as strong an effect.
 
In no way am I saying that you are disseminating false information or necessitating that your attitude is lax. This is just my opinion.
 
Dave

 

[Trysaeder]

Unexplained things occur when a field or theory is new and/or difficult.

 

[Uncle Erik]

There's nothing particularly new or difficult with cables.

Prior art goes back for more than a century.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

I can tell the difference between blue heaven cable and free copper cable that came with my speakers. the amp whent in to protection though. when i hooked up a different set of speakers to the same amp using the same blueheaven wires the change was noticable again, but something about the combination worked really well and the amp ran normally. you can argue all you want why, truth is that it happend.  so can speaker wires make a diference? in my system so much so they prevented the system functioning, wich was noticable cause the music stopped !!!

That does not correspond to claims of different cables sounding different. There is no doubt that a cable which does not work is different from one that does. Speaker cables, speakers and amps are known to be affected by impedance.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

PROOF
believers
 
 
Get it? The burden of proof is on the believers.
 
Same with religion. Asserted without proof = Dismissed without need of proof.

I would rather that both sides contribute proof. We are not in court.

 

[Trysaeder]

Pink unicorns exist. Source: http://images.clipartof.com/small/39227-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Pink-Unicorn-With-Golden-Hooves-And-Horn-And-Sparkly-Purple-Hair.jpg
 
You can try to prove otherwise.
 
 
I have no idea how this concept is so hard to understand. If I claim something new and untested, it is my duty to provide the necessary materials to convince the scientific community that it is true, not the people's duty to prove that it is false.
 
Our unconscious minds are all linked together and is the cause of gravity.
 
Viruses are controlled by the pheromones of insects that have been persecuted by humans.
 
The first organic cells were formed when a meteorite and lightning bolt simultaneously struck a carbon rich rock.
 
The consumption of red carrots improve short term memory.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Pink unicorns exist. Source: http://images.clipartof.com/small/39227-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Pink-Unicorn-With-Golden-Hooves-And-Horn-And-Sparkly-Purple-Hair.jpg
 
You can try to prove otherwise.
 
 
I have no idea how this concept is so hard to understand. If I claim something new and untested, it is my duty to provide the necessary materials to convince the scientific community that it is true, not the people's duty to prove that it is false.
 
Our unconscious minds are all linked together and is the cause of gravity.
 
Viruses are controlled by the pheromones of insects that have been persecuted by humans.
 
The first organic cells were formed when a meteorite and lightning bolt simultaneously struck a carbon rich rock.
 
The consumption of red carrots improve short term memory.

 
 
If I want to prove that say string theory is false, I could prove that loop quantum gravity was true. 
 
If I want to prove that adding H-Br and a Peroxide to a basic alkene provides Markovnikov products is false, then I could prove that it provides anti-Markovnikov products. 
 
I am not saying that it is always the case for both sides to have to prove their argument, but in certain situations it is beneficial.
 
Say for your example "Our unconscious minds are all linked together and is the cause of gravity" I could prove that is false if I were to prove that it is in fact the interaction of mass in space-time that causes gravitational attractions (I do not know if that is true or not but it illustrates the point). 
 
As I said before if one is interested in the subject then it seems lax to wait until someone proves that, lets say, our unconscious minds linked together cause gravity and until then I will believe otherwise. That attitude would not provide proof for alternatives, such as mass/space-time yada yada, which may be true. 
 
I would say that you are correct for proving something in an ultimate sense, such as your pink unicorn. However, that does mean that those against it shouldn't do anything.
 
For example, if someone ventured to find all the species (impossible to know but play along) and found a pink unicorn, then they proved that they do exist. My point being that if the other side doesn't just look for data to prove their point, they can help look for data in general which may lead to conclusions for either side. 
 
In the cable argument if those against cables try to solidify their ground by doing say binaural micing, it would be the same way someone trying to prove that cables do make a difference would conduct the experiment. The prejudice of the person conducting the experiment shouldn't (this being the operative word) affect the results and would substantiate that cables do/don't make a difference depending on the results.
 
I think that the terms prove/proof/proven all need to be defined, and in this conversation in a non-ultimate sense. What I mean is that no one can really "prove" anything in a philosophical way. Such as if I want to prove that the keyboard I am typing on is "real", I can't. I can only say it exists in the same manner that I exist. The type of "proving" in this sense is providing more evidence for one side than another. In that way it would be agreed that a single DBT with null results doesn't "prove" anything, but 10,000 well conducted DBT's all with null results "prove" something. 
 
To that end, people on either side of the fence can find and present evidence for or against their "party". Because an idea is new does not preclude those against the idea from looking into it, for interesting topics I would say that it is actually beneficial for skeptics to conduct experiments and look for negative results.
 
In regards to defining "prove" in the way above, the more evidence the better, no matter which side it is on. 
 
Dave

 

[Trysaeder]

My whole point was that you don't have to say a thing, and I would still be wrong (without proof).
 
Sure you could, but it doesn't change the fact that I am wrong.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

My whole point was that you don't have to say a thing, and I would still be wrong (without proof).
 
Sure you could, but it doesn't change the fact that I am wrong.

 
You wouldn't necessarily be wrong. 
 
If without proof any hypothesis was wrong then there would be no point in experimentation to try to find proof and anything new would also be wrong. 
 
Just because something is not proven yet does not make it wrong.
 
For example, (to my knowledge) no one has proven the mechanism for how osmonium oxide and a peroxide react with alkenes. Doesn't make the results that people say wrong. 
 
Dave

 

[Trysaeder]

Except in this case there is ZERO proof, only human testimonials that are questionable at best.