[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't seem to have a problem with sighted results, should I?. All of my experiences were sighted except one, where the Benchmark and Stello were compared. We switched cables and inputs so much that I lost track of which DAC was in which input. It didn't matter. Neither of us could tell them apart under meet conditions. Regarding my sighted experiences, the results were more often than not opposite my expectations, like your Radio Shack cable test. USG

My unexpected reaction to the Radio Shack was actually a blind impression. I suspect that had I done it sighted I would have trash-talked the Radio Shack.

"Sighted" usually means that you know what you are listening to. That also implies you know when you've switched something, so you have an expectation that something has changed. I think that psychological experiments have demonstrated convincingly that expectation can influence perception so much that you could easily "hallucinate" differences that aren't there.

As you say, these differences were against your conscious expectations, but that is not proof you didn't hallucinate them. People have unconscious expectations too. Or maybe people just have a random first impression when they switch, and then their brain "goes with it". That's what seemed to happen to me in the fourth blind trial I did, where I got the ordering of the 3rd and 4th cables incorrect.

I wish I had references to studies for all this stuff. I tend to remember general impressions from articles I've read in the New York Times science section but I never save the links.

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wish I had references to studies for all this stuff. I tend to remember general impressions from articles I've read in the New York Times science section but I never save the links.

Speaking of the NYT, one thing that I've been thinking a bit about is the idea of psychological priming.

There probably are a number of things beyond expectation bias that could influence our first person subjective listening judgment.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Rather than get bogged down with definitions, I would say any "reasonable evidence" that supports subjective claims.

Yes, you keep saying that, but it seems like you have some criteria or conditions for reasonable evidence that you are employing. Let me ask you two questions to try to advance the discussion a little:

1. Is there any evidence allegedly supporting the subjective view that you currently accept as reasonable?

2. What evidence do you currently understand to be alleged to support the subjective view that you do not believe to be reasonable? And why (briefly)?

Maybe that will help us better understand what you're looking for, and then we can identify some other evidence that might constitute "reasonable evidence."

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, you keep saying that, but it seems like you have some criteria or conditions for reasonable evidence that you are employing. Let me ask you two questions to try to advance the discussion a little: 1. Is there any evidence allegedly supporting the subjective view that you currently accept as reasonable? 2. What evidence do you currently understand to be alleged to support the subjective view that you do not believe to be reasonable? And why (briefly)? Maybe that will help us better understand what you're looking for, and then we can identify some other evidence that might constitute "reasonable evidence."

Hiya Phil

Unfortunately I have not collected enough evidence to be able to make any assessments, that's why I asked you for the body of evidence you had accumulated over the years as a subjectivist.

Therefore, I'll accept any and all evidence that is presented to me as reasonable.

USG

Edit: Unreasonable would be a manufacturer's claim, either directly or indirectly through associates.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unfortunately I have not collected enough evidence to be able to make any assessments, that's why I asked you for the body of evidence you had accumulated over the years as a subjectivist.

Ok, so thus far, I've given you (in the other thread) some of the evidence I have relating to my personal experiences. In addition, as you know from reading other threads on this forum, reading audio reviews, etc. that there are many who report hearing audible differences between DAC's, CDP's, cables, whatever. I'm not sure you would characterize that as two items of evidence, or one (depends on whose point of view it is, I guess).

In addition, you have the evidence from your own experience, which would seem to constitute some evidence supporting the subjectivist viewpoint (although I understand that it may be contradicted in part by other evidence from your personal experience).

I think this is what we have so far (described in very summary fashion).

So that would seem to put us at the point of (1) people identifying other evidence that does not fall within the above categories (e.g., a DBT that gave a positive result), or (2) people expanding on the evidence above, either to clarify it, provide further examples, etc.

Does that make sense?

 

[upstateguy]

Data reposted from another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy Originally Posted by upstateguy Have you heard cables that sound different enough from each other to be able to hear the differences on a WAV recording from the headphone out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Originally Posted by mike1127 I don't know. Cable differences are comparable to DAC differences which means they are probably very small differences in the signal---but more than that, they are differences that aren't characterized well by measurements of DAC performance. So they probably wouldn't be recorded accurately by an ADC, unless perhaps it was a very, very high quality 24/96 ADC. This is speculation, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazz I can somewhat confirm this speculation. I have digitized (24 bit/44.1 kHz) the same track from an LP by means of WaveLab and the E-MU 1212M – once with full Silver-Dragon cabling, once with full Zu-Gede cabling (in front and behind the Creek OBH-15 Pre with OBH-2 PS). After digitization I couldn't distinguish the two recordings, whereas in my headphone system the two cable types make a distinct difference (to my ears).

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I suspect that any distortion introduced by the recording masks (or even overwhelms) differences in cable behavior. -Mike

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Data reposted from another thread:

A lot of that isn't data, or even observations. It's opinion.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok, so thus far, I've given you (in the other thread) some of the evidence I have relating to my personal experiences. In addition, as you know from reading other threads on this forum, reading audio reviews, etc. that there are many who report hearing audible differences between DAC's, CDP's, cables, whatever. I'm not sure you would characterize that as two items of evidence, or one (depends on whose point of view it is, I guess). In addition, you have the evidence from your own experience, which would seem to constitute some evidence supporting the subjectivist viewpoint (although I understand that it may be contradicted in part by other evidence from your personal experience). I think this is what we have so far (described in very summary fashion). So that would seem to put us at the point of (1) people identifying other evidence that does not fall within the above categories (e.g., a DBT that gave a positive result), or (2) people expanding on the evidence above, either to clarify it, provide further examples, etc. Does that make sense?

I'm looking for all evidence. The more first hand reports we collect and the circumstances they were collected under, the better the data base becomes.

Regarding audio reviews: I'm very cautious about those... there would have to be no hint of a profit motive.

USG

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif A lot of that isn't data, or even observations. It's opinion.

Another way to look at it might be as interpretations.

....I felt the thought process was worth reposting.

USG

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Regarding audio reviews: I'm very cautious about those... there would have to be no hint of a profit motive.

I understand your caution on that. But then again, we allow paid experts to testify in court in both criminal and civil matters. They have a profit motive, and yet we accept their evidence. The profit motive may go to credibility, but I don't think it's appropriate to exclude the evidence entirely. Or as they often say, "It's goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility."

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I understand your caution on that. But then again, we allow paid experts to testify in court in both criminal and civil matters. They have a profit motive, and yet we accept their evidence. The profit motive may go to credibility, but I don't think it's appropriate to exclude the evidence entirely. Or as they often say, "It's goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility."

We're going to have to differ on that one. In court, if you fib, regardless of whether you have been paid to testify or not, there is another lawyer there to cross examine you on the spot. If you fib in your magazine review, you've influenced people, there's no one to dispute what you've said and you've made some easy money.....

 

[PhilS]

^ Pretty good point USG. I'm going to have to give that one to you.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

If one wants to believe, or wants not to believe in a matter without concrete proof, that desire is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since there is not sufficient proof to decide the matter definitively, the person in question will simply frame the matter to fit their preference. Only the open-minded, lacking a desire to believe, or not, would be able to actually evaluate the evidence properly.

Thus my statement, that if one wants to believe, the decision has already been made, hence the war won, and now the search for justification begins.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif If one wants to believe, or wants not to believe in a matter without concrete proof, that desire is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since there is not sufficient proof to decide the matter definitively, the person in question will simply frame the matter to fit their preference. Only the open-minded, lacking a desire to believe, or not, would be able to actually evaluate the evidence properly. Thus my statement, that if one wants to believe, the decision has already been made, hence the war won, and now the search for justification begins.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I want to believe in elves and leprechauns. I think it would be cool if they really existed.
Same with magic or UFO's. I think contact with extraterrestrial intelligence would bring about a mindset shift and be a major step in the evolution of human consciousness. So I really want to believe but I just need more evidence than what is out there. Same with cables.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif If one wants to believe, or wants not to believe in a matter without concrete proof, that desire is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since there is not sufficient proof to decide the matter definitively, the person in question will simply frame the matter to fit their preference. Only the open-minded, lacking a desire to believe, or not, would be able to actually evaluate the evidence properly. Thus my statement, that if one wants to believe, the decision has already been made, hence the war won, and now the search for justification begins.

You have a point ID, so I made some changes to the thread to better reflect its original intent, which was to compile Subjective experiences without bias.

USG