[Steve Eddy]

On this forum there are many posts concerning the sonic superiorty of Steve Eddy's cables. I think that is great- people reporting what they hear in their system with his cables. Reading Steve's posts he should be complaining as his customers are making sonic judgements without scientific proof.

Apparently you haven't been reading my posts.

As I said previously, there's no arguing peoples' subjective experiences. Not unless you're prepared to call them liars. If someone is simply relating their subjective experience, there can be no legitimate demand for any "scientific proof." So I don't see why you think I should be complaining about people simply sharing their subjective experiences.

It's only when objective claims are made that there is a legitimate demand for scientific proof.

Once the tear down photos were posted and the construction of this thing was revealed, the discussion centered on the objective issue of whether or not this thing could have any more effect on the signal passing through it than a jack/plug simply wired together without the rocks and the foils. And there's no earthly reason to believe that it can.

Then you were critical of me for not having listened to it first, as if that would somehow answer the question. But it would not have as our subjective perceptions are embarrassingly unreliable.

If his Cable sounds better than the Radio Shack cable is that expectation bias? If his cable sounds better than a three thousand cable is that a reverse expectation bias? I can't find any proof that these cables test better than others.

I've no idea what it would be, and I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion.

However his cables are the only cables in the world to be constructed with "French Silk" as he has gotten a trade mark for this term.

Not the only cables in the world. A competitor ripped off both the design and the trademark.

It seems that Steve Eddy is not immune to a bit of marketing hype.

I don't see how French Silk is any sort of marketing hype. It doesn't speak to anything having to do with their technical performance, like Headphone Optimized Transducer, or Uniform Energy Field "technology."

It's just a simple trade name. The sleeving on the cables is silk, and we buy it from a company in France. Also, my favorite desert is French Silk chocolate pie, and that's how I came to choose the trade name French Silk. I don't see that it's any more marketing hype than the trade name "Tide" for laundry detergent. Perhaps you can explain.

Steve Eddy has offered to send me his cables with a thirty day trial...

Just to be clear, they would be sent to you after you purchased a pair.

...but if I like what I hear I am a fool because I have no proof they must sound better. If I don't like what I hear I am a fool as I must be some expectation bias.

You would only be a fool if you assumed that if something sounds better, that it must be due to the device or whatever altering the signal in such a way as to actually be audible.

Speaking for myself, when it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music, I'm wholly subjectivist. I go with what gives me the greatest pleasure and enjoyment regardless of any of the reasons behind it.

But I don't fool myself into believing that if something sounds better or just different, it must be because of any actual audible difference.

Tyll Hertsen at Innerfidelity.com is an avid and long time headphone user. Go to his web site. He does all kind of headphone measurements and struggles with the frequent discrepancy between his measurements and what he hears.

There will always be discrepancies. That's because we are subjective beings and our subjective perceptions aren't any sort of accurate reflection of the objective reality. To assume that it is our subjective perceptions that are always correct and we're just not "measuring the right things" is sheer nonsense. But that "argument" is routinely made in this industry.

se

 

[Bogart24]

There is a lesson here even for people who smelled a rat on this "product" from the very start... It's clear that for some audiophiles there is *no* acceptable level of evidence that will make them realize that their subjective impressions might not be a good reflection of reality. We have one poster here who has seen the blatantly obvious tear down photos and is "waiting to audition it for himself" and another who has seen clearly that this is an inert plug extender who still believes that it is a "[COLOR=444444]major improvement in all areas of headphone performance". That's like a husband coming home and finding his wife in bed with another man and brushing it off saying, "Well maybe they were both sleepy and that was the only bed available..."[/COLOR]

[COLOR=444444]The real lesson here is how pervasive and how deeply entrenched outright fakery is in the high end audio business. It doesn't matter if the snake oil comes with a 30 day guarantee, it's still snake oil. Those who are interested in getting good sound out of their systems should take this as an object lesson to learn from. The things it teaches us is that subjective descriptions of "major improvements" like "tighter bass, better detail, extended decay of notes, and improved soundstage" can be based on nothing but expectation bias. A subjective impression isn't proof that a product is worthwhile... it's a claim that requires supporting evidence as proof.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=444444]This is a 14k gold plated example of expectation bias in action. It's also a 14k gold plated example that high end audio manufacturers and dealers are not necessarily your friends, even if they smile and act polite while they are cashing your check. If I had even a scrap of faith left in stereo salesmen, the first thing I would do is to check to see if any dealer I do business with stocks products by Synergistic Research. If they do, I would send them an email with a link to this thread. If they still list Synergistic Research products in their catalog in 30 days, I would make it a point to never do business with them again.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=444444]Boy howdy! You can say that again![/COLOR]



[COLOR=444444]By the way... would you be willing to refund me the $300 for the HOT in the photo? I've gotten all the learning from of this educational event that I possibly can now.[/COLOR]

(not expecting to get a "yes" on that)

[COLOR=444444]I'm hoping the $300 loss taken on this little tear down project opens other people eyes and helps them save tens of thousands of dollars. If it does, it's worth it.[/COLOR]

All we need to do is blind tests with multiple subjects who have no particular expectations. I wish I could bring one to the NY meet this weekend, but it would probably not get here on time.

 

[Bogart24]

Look at this thread. You have a person here who has *seen* the teardown pictures with his own eyes and still is willing to offer "impressions" on the effectiveness of an inert plug extender to tightening up bass, improving clarity and making the soundstage wider and deeper. Does that sound like consistent satisfaction to you? It sure does to me.

There are millions of people in the world who have claimed to see ghosts and UFOs. I have no doubt that they truly believe they have. But I'm not going to believe them based on their reports. I want to see documented proof- in audio, that's things like measurements, controlled tests, hard facts. Subjective impressions are nice, but they weren't accurate in the case of HOT and I don't expect them to be any more accurate with the rest of Synergistic Research's products... or any other audio products for that matter.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

You can't measure what you don't understand, and the history of science teaches us that it would be foolish indeed to assume we understand everything that might affect an individual's perception of music.

 

[warrenpchi]

A bit off topic, but...
 

 
I am looking forward to the Southern California CanJam March 28 and 29 to have some exciting subjective listening and to visit with some wonderful headphone enthusiasts.

Amen to that!  

 

 
I'm afraid I won't be at the get together

 
Why?  

  

 

[Steve Eddy]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

You can't measure what you don't understand, and the history of science teaches us that it would be foolish indeed to assume we understand everything that might affect an individual's perception of music.

That's a nice little logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance." It's a common device used by the anti-science movement.

se

 

[Uncle00Jesse]

  This thread is clearly tainted now, but for the non-conspiracy theorists out there here are a few pictures. I just got it today. If anyone without malicious intent wants to hear some impressions I can do that. I haven't posted on head-fi in a while, I've just been peacefully listening to my setup behind the scenes. Pleasure to be back. One thing that really pisses me off is snake oil and I'd be the first one in line to point it out when I see it. 
 

 
Between last night and today, I've put in about 6 hours of listening with the HOT and without. To my ears there is no discernible difference in the sound whatsoever. I'm not getting the out of head experience that sold me on it, smoother highs or more holographic sound. I ran it through the whole gambit. Rock, live Rock, Jazz, well recorded Bill Evans Trio albums, crazy stuff like Sufjan Stevens etc. Maybe my ears are failing me as I'm getting old and your mileage may vary. A few months ago I couldn't tell the difference between the stock Audeze cable and a $450 Cardas Clear so again this may be just me. I hate to pile on in a thread already spinning out of control, however I wouldn't consider myself a true audio enthusiast like you guys if I didn't voice my opinion. 

 

[Claritas]

I have absolutely no doubt that people making inaccurate subjective impressions believe that they are stating what they experience.

They're stating what they're actually experiencing, not what they merely believe they're experiencing. That's what a subjective claim is. It's not a claim about the world itself apart from one's experience of it. And I don't know if a person can be wrong about that. "I'm hearing a slight increase in soundstage." Yes, that's what the person is hearing.

If they infer some fact about how the world itself works apart from their experience of it, that would be an objective claim. And a person can certainly be wrong about that. "I'm hearing a slight increase in soundstage because of the sand crystals in this plug." That objective claim can be either true or false, and requires an explanation of how the sand crystals cause him to hear the increase in soundstage (which he is hearing regardless of whether he's right or wrong about the cause).

 

[Steve Eddy]

Between last night and today, I've put in about 6 hours of listening with the HOT and without. To my ears there is no discernible difference in the sound whatsoever.

It needs more time to break/burn in.

No, wait, you're deaf.

No, wait, your Schiit is crap.

No, wait...

se

 

[esldude]

They're stating what they're actually experiencing, not what they merely believe they're experiencing. That's what a subjective claim is. It's not a claim about the world itself apart from one's experience of it. And I don't know if a person can be wrong about that. "I'm hearing a slight increase in soundstage." Yes, that's what the person is hearing.

If they infer some fact about how the world itself works apart from their experience of it, that would be an objective claim. And a person can certainly be wrong about that. "I'm hearing a slight increase in soundstage because of the sand crystals in this plug." That objective claim can be either true or false, and requires an explanation of how the sand crystals cause him to hear the increase in soundstage (which he is hearing regardless of whether he's right or wrong about the cause).

Oh how cute.   So I plug this thing in and hear an increase in soundstage.  Somehow that doesn't imply the increase is due to the plugging in of this thing to the point of claiming I am hearing an increase in soundstage from this thing.  No the person wouldn't be wrong to subjectively experience the increased soundstage.  His actual subjective experience of reality due to this real thing he plugged in is in error however if there is no change in the perceptual cues he is getting. 

 

[Bogart24]

That's a nice little logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance." It's a common device used by the anti-science movement.

se

I'm not anti-science.  I'm anti-arrogance.  People claiming that science is on their side frequently seem to forget is that science is a long process of discovery, and trying to explain everything on the basis of what is currently understood while dismissing anything they cannot explain as therefore false, is actually contrary to the lessons of the history of science.  A real scientist balances a healthy skepticism with an appreciation of the limits of present knowledge.

 

[esldude]

  I'm not anti-science.  I'm anti-arrogance.  People claiming that science is on their side frequently seem to forget is that science is a long process of discovery, and trying to explain everything on the basis of what is currently understood while dismissing anything they cannot explain as therefore false, is actually contrary to the lessons of the history of science.  A real scientist balances a healthy skepticism with an appreciation of the limits of present knowledge.

Please you are embarrassing yourself.  If one took your approach, science could not use anything to go further because they don't yet know everything.  That isn't how it works.  You use evidence, and work from there.  Subjective evaluation is not good reliable evidence.  And there is plenty of rational knowledge to back that up. 

 

[Bogart24]

 
Please you are embarrassing yourself.  If one took your approach, science could not use anything to go further because they don't yet know everything.  That isn't how it works.  You use evidence, and work from there.  Subjective evaluation is not good reliable evidence.  And there is plenty of rational knowledge to back that up. 

Thanks for your concern, but I don't feel the least bit embarrassed.  Yes--science uses evidence; it also uses theories and, crucially, imagination and insight.  The argument that a healthy respect for the unknown somehow paralyzes science is ridiculous and certainly does not follow from what I said.
 
Your assertion is that if you cannot explain or measure something you can categorically say that it does not exist.  This is patently absurd.  In the past, scientists could not imagine things like radiation and microbes.  
 
Don't misunderstand me.  I do not take the contrary position that subjective experience alone can establish the validity of a phenomenon.  However, if that subjective experience is widely shared and can be confirmed in blind tests, I'm not going to let the fact that engineers can't explain it trouble me.  (Not that this is the case here--I have no opinion on the Hot.)

 

[esldude]

  Thanks for your concern, but I don't feel the least bit embarrassed.  Yes--science uses evidence; it also uses theories and, crucially, imagination and insight.  The argument that a healthy respect for the unknown somehow paralyzes science is ridiculous and certainly does not follow from what I said.
 
Your assertion is that if you cannot explain or measure something you can categorically say that it does not exist.  This is patently absurd.  In the past, scientists could not imagine things like radiation and microbes.  
 
Don't misunderstand me.  I do not take the contrary position that subjective experience alone can establish the validity of a phenomenon.  However, if that subjective experience is widely shared and can be confirmed in blind tests, I'm not going to let the fact that engineers can't explain it trouble me.  (Not that this is the case here--I have no opinion on the Hot.)

Yes if confirmed by blind tests it would be something believable.  How many times do we see this widely shared experience that fails to pass blind testing.  So, everything known about propagation of electronic signals says this does nothing.  If it did something measurably important that would mean something too.  Until more evidence (measured or tested blind) is offered everything known which is a very reliable guide about such things says it does nothing.    So why the appeal to ignorance?  We gain nothing from it.  

 

[Bogart24]

 
Yes if confirmed by blind tests it would be something believable.  How many times do we see this widely shared experience that fails to pass blind testing.  So, everything known about propagation of electronic signals says this does nothing.  If it did something measurably important that would mean something too.  Until more evidence (measured or tested blind) is offered everything known which is a very reliable guide about such things says it does nothing.    So why the appeal to ignorance?  We gain nothing from it.  

If you take what I have written to be an appeal to ignorance, there is really no point in continuing to engage.  I do not believe that is a reasonable interpretation of what I have written.  It is simply inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[sonitus mirus]

What are some widely shared subjective experiences that have been confirmed with reliable blind testing that has scientists and engineers so discombobulated?