[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif It seems like cables are a favorite whipping boy. I wonder if some people would make the same arguments if we were talking about amps or DAC's.

Don't know why it only "seems" like this. They are a favorite whipping boy. However, I have seen some efforts to expand the discussion beyond just cables. Regardless, they are the apex of the controversy. Even if there were no debate about other components, there is still a debate about cables. Not sure I am getting your point...

Back OT: OP, DBTs are not a substituted for you deciding what you like or not. You can use them that way, of course. But they are really an investigative tool to help researchers isolate where the differences probably are.

 

[Zanth]

There are plenty of sites that attack SS amps as well as DACS and CDPs as all sounding the same so long a they measure the same.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not sure I am getting your point...

I guess my point is that lots of people, for various reasons, have a gut reaction that people cant' hear differences between cables. So when folks argue about DBT's in the context of cables, some people say, "yeah, DBT's are valid, as they are showing that cables don't sound different, and that's consistent with what I believe."

OTOH, some of the same folks who believe cables don't sound different believe that CD players or DAC's sound different. And if you were to argue about DBT's in that context, some would say "wait a minute, the results of these DBT's are not consistent with what I believe I've heard, and therefore, maybe I ought to look at the issue of the validity of DBT's more closely."

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif They why dont people kick that horse to death on HF?

Because there is legitimate debate on that point and several tests have provided evidence that some very different amps and CD players and DACs may sound identical in blind level matched tests.

We can measure some electrical differences to a much higher precision than we can possibly ever hear them, for instance I can reliably measure 0.001 db differences in cables, differences that are well beyond human discriminatory powers.

 

[thisbenjamin]

I think cables come up because they're a much finer change then say, a different DAC or AMP - most people, regardless of familiarity with audio gear can tell the difference between various dac/amp/speakers.

 

[Zanth]

Not such differences but cost. I think that if all cables were in the sub $100 category folks wouldn't freak out as much. But when a pair of cables is $25k and CD player is $500 the notion that some wire + sheath + insulation + connectors somehow translates to something that can be remotely cost considerate is insane, at least to the detractors.

Do I personally think that cables should cost $1k let alone 20k? No. Do I think cables can sound different? Yes, given connections, wire used, inductance values etc.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess my point is that lots of people, for various reasons, have a gut reaction that people cant' hear differences between cables. So when folks argue about DBT's in the context of cables, some people say, "yeah, DBT's are valid, as they are showing that cables don't sound different, and that's consistent with what I believe." OTOH, some of the same folks who believe cables don't sound different believe that CD players or DAC's sound different. And if you were to argue about DBT's in that context, some would say "wait a minute, the results of these DBT's are not consistent with what I believe I've heard, and therefore, maybe I ought to look at the issue of the validity of DBT's more closely."

OK, so in sum you are questioning the objectivity of "some people" in this debate. Presumably, there are some who don't think cables sound different but do think, say, two DACs sound different, but when DBTing on those DACs shows they cannot differentiate between the two, they insist the DBT is flawed. I'm not sure who those people are, but if anyone falls into that characterization I would agree they are not being objective.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif OK, so in sum you are questioning the objectivity of "some people" in this debate.

If by some people you mean some "objectivists," noooo, I would never suggest such a thing. Can't imagine that some objectivists are not entirely objective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif Presumably, there are some who don't think cables sound different but do think, say, two DACs sound different, but when DBTing on those DACs shows they cannot differentiate between the two, they insist the DBT is flawed. I'm not sure who those people are, but if anyone falls into that characterization I would agree they are not being objective.

No, I'm saying there are some who think (more or less) that there are no issues with DBT's in any application, yet in their arguments re DBT's, they always refer to cables. At the same time, some of these folks would concede that some other things (e.g. DAC's) actually do, or might, sound different (even though the differences in their measurements should not be audible) and and even though the DBT evidence would suggest that they do not sound different. In other words, with respect to pronouncing DBT's as dispositive on the issue, it's an easier argument to make with cables, and they ignore aspects of the issue that are somewhat more complicated.

I think that's what I'm trying to say. Probably could be said better by others.

 

[tomelex]

why hasn't anyone taken up that million dollar offer to prove they can hear differences between cables (alluded to in a recent post)?

in a well designed system, with a low source impedance and reasonable input impedance, your cables would have to be wildly and insanely strangely built to bring out the attendant extreme frequency response differences....but then of course you could hear a difference....but they make things called tone controls to do that for you!

audio is what you hear, not what you see!

 

[Zanth]

That cable contest is not open to the general public if I recall correctly. Also, when attempted, James backed out.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif That cable contest is not open to the general public if I recall correctly. Also, when attempted, James backed out.

It never even made it to the "attempted" stage.

And Randi didn't simply back out. He disingenuously WEASELED out. If you're talking about the Fremer incident that is.

I lost every bit of respect I ever had for Randi after that. The man's a !@#$% weasel.

Edit: By the way, check on rec.audio. There was once a monetary prize offered there some years ago.

se

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the biggest problem with DBT is that believers cannot accept that they don't hear a difference. Thinking about this, it'd probably be best to run tests designed to demonstrate that human hearing is unreliable. The way I'd do it would be to allow a believer to choose, say, five cables for evaluation. The believer could spend whatever time they want listening to them - sighted - while taking extensive notes on the sound of each. They could choose whatever associafed equipment they want. The second phase would add five other cables to the mix. I'd include coathangers, cables soaked in saltwater for a month, stuff like that. Allow the believer to listen to these - again, sighted - as long as he wants and to make extensive notes. Then, I'd have 20 blind listening sessions with the ten cables, at random. Each cable will be played once, though some may get three plays. Again, allow unlimited listening time. The believer would again take extensive notes on the sound of each. After, compare the written notes of each cable between sighted and blind listening. I'd wager that the differences in impressions would be wildly inconsistent. This is the only way to settle this debate. If you look at the scientific tests - with instruments and DBT - the evidence against cables is damning. However, no matter how carefully done, believers refuse to accept the results. The only way to settle this debate is to prove that believers' ears aren't as good as they think they are.

This is a good way to do dbt... only add that you have to give the listeners some rest time. maybe a few hours to a day before starting to write the notes on the cables they can now see. Sometimes placebo is stronger than the ears when you can see what you are listening to so you must make sure the brain/ear is in perfect condition before starting with this difficult task.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif It never even made it to the "attempted" stage. And Randi didn't simply back out. He disingenuously WEASELED out. If you're talking about the Fremer incident that is. I lost every bit of respect I ever had for Randi after that. The man's a !@#$% weasel. Edit: By the way, check on rec.audio. There was once a monetary prize offered there some years ago. se

By attempted I meant Fremer was going to make a go of it. And yep! that is indeed the one I am referring to. I didn't read all the specifics so I didn't want to come out too strong stating that Randi had weaseled out. I had heard something of the sort but just knew he had backed out. What were the specifics?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif By attempted I meant Fremer was going to make a go of it. And yep! that is indeed the one I am referring to. I didn't read all the specifics so I didn't want to come out too strong stating that Randi had weaseled out. I had heard something of the sort but just knew he had backed out. What were the specifics?

Pear , who were going to provide the cable backed out as well, in fact they did this first and put Fremer in an impossible position where he would have to pony up several $K for the cables himself.

Randi framed the challenge to equalize all normal parameters so that the "differences" would be due to paranormal i.e unmeasurable properties, which is of course what his bag is debunking magical claims...

 

[ford2]

The biggest problem is that doubts exist in both camps.