[maverickronin]

Quote:

Have you got any more evidence of such? I really like the idea that when we are sighted we really can hear differences that are not just placebo. Or is what you are describing just placebo in another name?

Even if that were true, I can't think of any good way to test it which means its not really science.  If anyone's got an idea about a methodology or protocol to test that sort of thing then go for it.  It sounds interesting.

 

[ffdpmaggot]

Take two amps, amp a, amp b. Use either amp and a resistor to play music back through the amp, then feed it to an ADC. Label the recordings with the respective amps they were produced with. Hypothetically speaking, the flaws in either amp should cancel each other out, and when we play recording a over amp b, and recording b over amp a, they should be exactly the same. Tell them which recording they're listening to with which amp, then make them pick which one is better. Once again, hypothetically, if they correctly identify the amps as sounding the same (and if the computer do too) then they are going based on what they're hearing, because if you tell them that the one amp is 10 k and the other is 100, they likely would lean towards the ten thousand dollar amp as sounding better if they based this on placebo effect. This would be more surefire if you found a less sciencey audiophile, rambled about pseudoscience nonsense for long enough to convince them that the 100 dollar amp will, in fact, molest the recording enough that the 10,000 dollar amp playing "pre-damaged" files would sound better. 
 
Its more of a credibility test than anything, if they "pass" this test with a "they sound the same" then they could be deemed to be less prone to placebo effect. Also, I'm pretty sure that a less experience head-fi'er like myself who doesn't know what to expect from any given amp would do more reliable sighted tests. Maybe you should just use outlandish and obscure equipment.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Letting off steam -
 
I am now banned from two forums for trying to discuss audiophile myths and claims. I have made it clear that I do believe people hear differences with cables, but that so far the evidence strongly suggests that difference is in them and not the cable.
 
I have been part of another forums debate on a thread (called cable myth or not) now locked. It sadly has followed the ususal course. As soon as I join and add evidence I am accused of being a troll. When I say I believe the blind testing covered by others I supposedly cannot make my own mind up and am lead by others, yet if I accepted all they have to say, that is somehow not being lead by others?!
 
Even though I repeatedly say I believe they do hear a difference in cables, I am accused of saying they cannot hear a difference. Even though I repeately say I am more interested in why it is they hear a difference, they say either they don't care (so why take part in the thread's discussion?) or they don't know and are not interested in the evidence (so again, why take part??)
 
Any evidence is dismissed outright whilst hardly being looked at let alone discussed, but pseudoscience and philosophy is discussed at length.
 
I had been repeatedly accused of having a closed mind, yet I do look at all of the evidence and if I ask are they open minded to the answer being the likes of placebo, the answer is no. So they are more closed minded that me.
 
It is really weird why cables have such an uncritical fortress around them. It must make the cable makers very happy indeed.
 
Rant over

 

[Syan25]

That's because cable makers are sponsors for this website.

 

[Arnaldo]

Good relations with advertisers and sponsors have an unduly and unacknowledged influence on the moderators of open forums, such as this one, as well as on editorial decisions by so-called closed sites, such as print and web publications. But the list of culprits goes well beyond cable manufacturers, to include certain darling headphone brands on this very site, as well as vinyl playback equipment on the sites of quite a few magazines...
 
Quote:

[...] It is really weird why cables have such an uncritical fortress around them. It must make the cable makers very happy indeed.

Quote:

That's because cable makers are sponsors for this website.

 

 

[Albedo]

Quote:

Even if what you're saying is all true and good, it still can't disprove actual measurements...it's not like the recording equipment has to switch between "analyzing" and "listening" mode constantly in order to measure something.

Nearly every human being (except savants) have selective attention and memory and we all see this happen in our everyday like all the time... like.. what did you say?


Quote:

Have you got any more evidence of such? I really like the idea that when we are sighted we really can hear differences that are not just placebo. Or is what you are describing just placebo in another name?

Hmm.. I saw a program on swedish television once, were they asked the subject to memorize the entire room and notice any changes. The funny thing was that they hadn't moved a thing, but the color of the wall was different and guess what..
 
Do I have links, no.. but one can google selective attention, inattentional blindness, selective exposure etc. As for CNV and arousal I find this interesting -> http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/arousal.htm
 
Evidence of an absolute subconscious pitch memory, well.. -> http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=ARLOFJ000002000003000085000001&idtype=cvips
 
The phenomenon of confirmation bias explains why people tend to ignore information which does not fit with their beliefs while they weight agreeable information more heavily. 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Thanks Albedo, this is an interesting link
 
http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/arousal.htm
 
and I see toatlly where you are coming from. The remaining difficulty for me is that if we really do hear a difference in sighted testing that somehow we miss in blind testing, we should be able to find taht difference. I see in the Swedish radio example there was an actual, verifiable and consistent difference difference. We need to find the same with cables before your theory really does explain why we hear differences sighted and blind.

 

[b0ck3n]

It's irrelevant if it doesn't measure differently, and cables don't. If we can in fact detect actual differences easier when doing sighted listening tests that's one thing, but it's not a discovery that's going to turn the world on its head.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Cable do measure differently, see Nick_James posts and others. The issue is more to do with how audible are those differences.

 

[bigshot]

But the list of culprits goes well beyond cable manufacturers, to include certain darling headphones brands on this very site, as well as vinyl playback equipment on the sites of quite a few magazines...

Vinyl seems to be the most profitable domain of hoodoo, which makes sense, because the areas that most audiophools OCD over are carryovers from the analogue days. Back then, "veils over the sound", distortion in treble, boomy or thin bass, noise and other anomalies were common. When sound went digital, redbook solved almost all of those problems, so equipment salesmen had to start going further along in microscopic decimal points and resort to more confusing electrical theories to upsell their customers. It's easier to justify for vinyl because surface noise, hum, acoustic feedback and mechanical tracking are all issues people deal with. If you collect LPs, you need to be prepared for small distortions of the presentation of the sound. If you want perfect reproduction, stick to CDs.

Ultimately, audiophiles spend too much time listening to equipment and not enough time listening to music. Audiophiles rarely have diverse tastes in music. Autism may play a big part in Internet forums as well.

 

[sean3089]

I feel a little bit better about being stuck with a Yamaha receiver now.

 

[Syan25]

Ah,,,,I like what bigshot has to say about audiophiles. It seems be to most often the case...

 

[eucariote]

As much as I believe in the corrupting power of sponsorship (see U.S. Congress), the prevalence of weak thinking and specious argumentation (see this thread) and even a few misdeeds by the moderators, I think we should give head-fi the benefit of the doubt.  Unless there is good evidence, we shouldn't accuse the site of deleting posts just because some cable manufacturers advertize on this site.  Most of us - including cable skeptics- spend a *lot* of money on gear.  We're like the Consumer Reports of Head-fi- members won't spend less money if they are swayed by the scientific method, they'll just spend it more wisely.
 
Our response to weak thinking can't be to put on tin foil hats.
 

 

[khaos974]

As much as I believe in the corrupting power of sponsorship (see U.S. Congress), the prevalence of weak thinking and specious argumentation (see this thread) and even a few misdeeds by the moderators, I think we should give head-fi the benefit of the doubt.  Unless there is good evidence, we shouldn't accuse the site of deleting posts just because some cable manufacturers advertize on this site.  Most of us - including cable skeptics- spend a *lot* of money on gear.  We're like the Consumer Reports of Head-fi- members won't spend less money if they are swayed by the scientific method, they'll just spend it more wisely.
 
Our response to weak thinking can't be to put on tin foil hats.
 

But spending 5K or 20K into a acoustically sound room doesn't profit the HiFi industry.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

I feel a little bit better about being stuck with a Yamaha receiver now.

Brilliant. The last Yamaha amp I listened to was an integrated one but to use its headphone out to try some cans. It sounded superb, so good in fact I have started recommending people who do not listen to headphones regularly stick with their integrated amps rather than fork out money on a headphone amp.