[haloxt]

Silly rabbit, gravity exists and cable differences exist. But exactly how gravity exists and how cable differences occur are not completely understood.

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove /img/forum/go_quote.gif This implies that cables are used for equalizing the sound... A high-end professional EQ would probably be better suited to such a task I think (as well as more versatile).

Sorry poor choice of words. lets go with, "I can't hear that as clearly as with that other cable" or, "I hear something that makes the sound unnatural, perhaps some artifact in the sound"

anyone have a quick link to Nick_charles' conclusions/tests? I did a quick search but I couldnt find a thread that he started, maybe it was a reply instead which is a bit harder to search for.

 

[royalcrown]

No, it's not the end of the thread, because there's some property that differs between cables that we can't measure but that we can hear. Blind tests also don't reveal them, only sighted auditions do.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't want to be rude, but why does anyone with an understanding of science bother entering into these debates with people who obviously totally ignorant of basic electronic or scientific principles.

Well, you are being rude. I don't know why you have to say something like this. We're having a discussion, and although there's some strong disagreements, and you may strongly disagree with several folks, there's no reason to characterize them as "totally ignorant of basic electronic or scientific prinicples."

Furthermore, if some people don't have the knowledge of science that you supposedly do, or others do, is that really a reason to say no one should discuss these issues with them? Really? I suspect you don't know everything about everything, or even everything about audio, but we're stilling wiling to engage you in a dialogue.

 

[ThePredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Silly rabbit, gravity exists and cable differences exist. But exactly how gravity exists and how cable differences occur are not completely understood.

Bad analogy. We can quantify gravity to a large degree (we have managed to approximate the gravitational constant to (6.67428 +/- 0.00067)*10^-11m^3/kg s^2, an astoundingly accurate number) furthermore anyone can come up with an experiment that would show an attractive force dependent on mass. For cables all attempts to quantify differences put them well below the human threshold of hearing, and attempts to even qualify them are wildly inconsistent. Sorry, but the two have no relationship in their scientific status.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif anyone have a quick link to Nick_charles' conclusions/tests? I did a quick search but I couldnt find a thread that he started, maybe it was a reply instead which is a bit harder to search for.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/my...rprise-405217/

 

[Filburt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I claim a particular experience or observation, I do have the burden of proof to do something. But is that something necessarily the prove that it exist? While what I perceive is particularly subjective, the subjectivity isn't the real issue, it is in the limitations of science itself that prevents me from using science to prove the existence of such a subjectivity (as I outlined in my previous post). While you believe this may not be of any importance in the current cable debates, it is important in breaking down the current arguments against the pro-cablers. the non-cabler claims and relies on the name of science to disprove the claims of the pro-cabler and the pro-cabler is illustrated as an individual who has very little concept of science and are thus making arguments based on hearsay and nothing more. But based on my analysis of the "science" used by the non-cabler, we see that they are not using science, or at the very least they are misusing it. That is tremendous. You can't simply gloss over that because now the pro-cabler and non-cabler cant utilize the name of science to make their arguments any better than the other. I think the issue here is that because the claim and the causal relationship is ultimately empirical, you state that it must be in the realm of science. Unfortunately, for the reasons outlined with the scientific methodology it is beyond the scope of science. And your argument that it may simply be the methodology that is at fault is not enough because of the contradictions and lack of fruitful knowledge from it. As Bacon stated, the new method (science) must not only deal with the mundane experiment but it must, more importantly, lead to fruitful search in knowledge. When you do experiments or scientific research there is this issue in the back of your mind, this requirement to move beyond where you are currently at. As I demonstrated in my previous post, you cannot move beyond "I assume the phenomenon exists so I test it by...." And that is not science. The course of action that the claimer must demonstrate the existence of the phenomena is strictly that, a demonstration of the existence of the phenomena. At this point I would now ask, how do you prove a subjective/personal observation? Perhaps if you can provide me with a counter example or a concrete way of proving that my perception exists, then that would clearly demonstrate that what I am saying is wrong, particularly if it is done through science.

I'm not going to provide an example or analogy because I don't like arguing on the basis of analogy or example. People tend to get involved in tremendous digressions over such things and it ends up making it extremely difficult to actually make it through the discussion. I realise that it may help in an illustrative sense, but the risk of us arguing over the example rather than the concept is too high for me to pursue that. Sorry.

Secondly, I apparently am not getting the point across. I am trying to make it exceedingly clear to you that I am not arguing that the task at hand is the proof or disproof of a subjective experience. As I noted earlier, there are two general classes of proposition contained in your statement, and the only concern in a debate over cables is that of the latter, which is a patently empirical matter. The subjective component is irrelevant to me; I don't care because it tells me nothing vis-a-vis the issue of whether changing cables materially alters the sound. You are simply mistaken if you believe that the concern in this debate is whether you are actually having the subjective experience you claim to have.

 

[haloxt]

ThePredator, it makes me sad that the analogy I made beautiful has been given the grim visage of concrete facts again. But there are great mysteries stemming from our incomplete understanding of gravity that have grave implications. Likewise I haven't seen anyone pin down the truth of cables and this is a question that ranks up there with the best questions. You may describe certain aspects of cables and gravity but in both cases the absolute truth does not reside within the framework of current scientific understanding. The fact that we don't know the truth about gravity means our understanding of other fundamentals may be flawed, likewise, and the fact that we don't know conclusively the truth about cables means maybe our understanding of how to apply scientific method or our understanding of placebo is flawed. Whether or not we fully understand cables, opinions may differ, but me personally I want more evidence.

 

[ThePredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif ThePredator, it makes me sad that the analogy I made beautiful has been given the grim visage of concrete facts again. But there are great mysteries stemming from our incomplete understanding of gravity that have grave implications. Likewise I haven't seen anyone pin down the truth of cables and this is a question that ranks up there with the best questions. You may describe certain aspects of cables and gravity but in both cases the absolute truth does not reside within the framework of current scientific understanding. The fact that we don't know the truth about gravity means our understanding of other fundamentals may be flawed, likewise, and the fact that we don't know conclusively the truth about cables means maybe our understanding of how to apply scientific method or our understanding of placebo is flawed. Whether or not we fully understand cables, opinions may differ, but me personally I want more evidence.

That is too easily applied to so much else. Fact is we don't conclusively know the truth about Russel's teapot; we don't conclusively know about Bigfoot; we don't conclusively know about astrology.

If there was a scientific basis, at least a good demonstrative basis, then of course more evidence would be in demand; but cables are currently in the same position as Bigfoot and astrology, all we have to go on are wildly inconsistent personal experiences and people profiteering from the ambiguity of the situation (yes, I did just suggest that cable vendors do the same thing as astrologers and Tom Biscardi).

 

[haloxt]

Without a doubt if there was consensus that cables made a difference then many aftermarket cable companies would be put out of business by the minions of mass-production. But you and I have different degrees of understanding on the topic. For example when Sony and Sennheiser use special cables, I don't think of them as being shady like astrologers etc. I think we just need more understanding of the scientific method and/or placebo.

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not going to provide an example or analogy because I don't like arguing on the basis of analogy or example. People tend to get involved in tremendous digressions over such things and it ends up making it extremely difficult to actually make it through the discussion. I realise that it may help in an illustrative sense, but the risk of us arguing over the example rather than the concept is too high for me to pursue that. Sorry. Secondly, I apparently am not getting the point across. I am trying to make it exceedingly clear to you that I am not arguing that the task at hand is the proof or disproof of a subjective experience. As I noted earlier, there are two general classes of proposition contained in your statement, and the only concern in a debate over cables is that of the latter, which is a patently empirical matter. The subjective component is irrelevant to me; I don't care because it tells me nothing vis-a-vis the issue of whether changing cables materially alters the sound. You are simply mistaken if you believe that the concern in this debate is whether you are actually having the subjective experience you claim to have.

I agree that the subjectivity doesn't matter, I stated that in my previous post. And I am not asking for an example with respect to how do you prove an observation. I am quite literally asking, how do you prove an observation. Because it seems to me, for the reasons I have listed, that science, and the empirical method, fails to do so (based on a tautological and otherwise fruitless pursuit of knowledge).

And once again the objection I have is with the empirical proof of an observation. I claim that it cannot be done, or at the very least it cannot be done due to some lacking ontological property in science. And I don't think you've addressed that issue. A quick counter example, or perhaps if you'd rather not use an example, simply disprove/discredit the criticisms I have listed with regards to the improper use of science or if you can explain how we are not in fact engaging in a tautological search for knowledge when we try to prove an observation would suffice in shooting down the crux of my argument.

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif ThePredator, it makes me sad that the analogy I made beautiful has been given the grim visage of concrete facts again. But there are great mysteries stemming from our incomplete understanding of gravity that have grave implications. Likewise I haven't seen anyone pin down the truth of cables and this is a question that ranks up there with the best questions. You may describe certain aspects of cables and gravity but in both cases the absolute truth does not reside within the framework of current scientific understanding. The fact that we don't know the truth about gravity means our understanding of other fundamentals may be flawed, likewise, and the fact that we don't know conclusively the truth about cables means maybe our understanding of how to apply scientific method or our understanding of placebo is flawed. Whether or not we fully understand cables, opinions may differ, but me personally I want more evidence.

and from thepredator:
Quote:

That is too easily applied to so much else. Fact is we don't conclusively know the truth about Russel's teapot; we don't conclusively know about Bigfoot; we don't conclusively know about astrology. If there was a scientific basis, at least a good demonstrative basis, then of course more evidence would be in demand; but cables are currently in the same position as Bigfoot and astrology, all we have to go on are wildly inconsistent personal experiences and people profiteering from the ambiguity of the situation (yes, I did just suggest that cable vendors do the same thing as astrologers and Tom Biscardi).

Sorry to interject but perhaps the point that I am trying to make is too subtle, or at the very least I wrote it up in such a bad way that it is difficult to see and understand. The idea in all this is that current scientific methodologies in the audio world to "prove the existence of the phenomena" are in fact not scientific at all. Other folks in another one of these threads that I've brought up about science stated that there are varying degrees between those who know about science, those who practice it, and those who live it. Think of it a long the lines of this saying "Where the novice sees a thousand ways, the master sees only but one -the correct one."

Thepredator, I understand that you're looking for more data and information, particularly with a big nod from science that cables sound different. Unfortunately, so long as people keep stating that DBT on cables are acceptable methods to test cables, then they are at fault of what you criticized my arguments (due to my poor wording of the first post i admit) -they are doing something tautological. The idea that the head-fi community says "I assume he can hear the differences in cables, so now I will test if he can hear the difference in cables." Then when we look at the conclusions, we quickly realize that, if they are in fact able to differentiate between cables, then we've learned nothing more than what we started with. If they fail, then are we able to conclude anything as well? Because all that we see is that "if A is true, then the experiment shows A is not true." This is better hashed out in a previous post. But it is here that your previous comments regarding the tautology apply, and exactly why people cannot use science to prove/disprove a EDIT: an observation. As you state they can only demonstrate it. I think that you understand that, and the real issue and consequence of all this is now we realize that the pro-cabler and the non-cabler are standing on the same ground, the non-cabler can no longer reach up to science to tell the pro-cabler that they're wrong. Furthermore, it shows us that science is in fact limited to giving us more information about the phenomenon, and we should use our methodologies to learn more about the phenomenon (assuming of course, a big assumption for now, that an individual can in fact differentiate between cables).

haloxt, I think that the misunderstanding and lack of knowledge that you speak of in terms of placebos and the scientific knowledge, while valid, is a point that most of the non-cablers will simply dismiss. In many ways we can all continue to throw our hands up and say "oh forget it, its all in your head" And while true, it could never lead us to any real information, or the truth. And we end up back with the current top of the lung shouting matches between the pro and non-cabler. Based on how I've designed the hypothetical test, I think it should reduce all matters of placebos to nothing. Look at the exam closely

1. Every minute the song sample is played
2. A compute randomizes which cable it will send the signal through
*note that computer can chose to continue sending it to the same cable minute after minute.

I would agree that a placebo takes place if the test subject knew which cable was getting used, or saw a cable being changed. But let us assume that he is completely unaware of which cable is used, if it was even changed. I think that should have easily quelled placebo arguments, my apologies for not bringing it up earlier (twas busier with other arguments).

At this point, I Think this thread is getting a bit massive and my initial arguments need to get updated. I'll read everyone's comment up to a particular point, and rehash the argument to incorporate all of the criticisms and suggestions. So thank you all for participating in this dialogue, I hope that you will all continue to participate and point out anything that is difficult to understand, or is faulty in nature.

 

[haloxt]

Having a computer randomly switch the cable will not eliminate the possibility of placebo, or to be more precise, illusions of perception that can either make one see a difference where there is none or not see a difference where there is one. And more importantly it does not address the main argument of most pro-cablers, that DBT's need to be in an environment conducive to people being able to tell the difference between cables. It's like trying to get endangered animals to mate when they don't feel like it.

 

[Filburt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree that the subjectivity doesn't matter, I stated that in my previous post. And I am not asking for an example with respect to how do you prove an observation. I am quite literally asking, how do you prove an observation. Because it seems to me, for the reasons I have listed, that science, and the empirical method, fails to do so (based on a tautological and otherwise fruitless pursuit of knowledge). And once again the objection I have is with the empirical proof of an observation. I claim that it cannot be done, or at the very least it cannot be done due to some lacking ontological property in science. And I don't think you've addressed that issue. A quick counter example, or perhaps if you'd rather not use an example, simply disprove/discredit the criticisms I have listed with regards to the improper use of science or if you can explain how we are not in fact engaging in a tautological search for knowledge when we try to prove an observation.

It seems as though what is going on is that you are under the impression that the subject of a scientific experiment is your perception; it isn't. In a scientific experiment testing for whether there is a causal connection, the phenomenon to be tested is entirely observable; that you are able to differentiate between the cables on the basis of some prescribed mode of observation. Therefore, the presence or quality of the attendant subjective phenomenology is irrelevant; it isn't what is being tested, and it isn't germane to the debate over cables.

Put another way, although this is simply a restatement of what I said before...

When we're talking about a phenomenon of this sort, it contains two propositions (a) that something has been perceived, and (b) that this perception is causally connected to a particular phenomenon. You are focusing on (a) as the subject of a scientific experiment, when it is simply not what is being tested; (b) is. (b) is entirely an empirical matter; it's a standard causal proof. Perhaps what is creating the confusion is you believe that there is no way to get at (a) per working with (b), but this is simply not the case. Unless you wish to claim that you differentiate on the basis of something other than perception, (a) is supervenient upon (b).

Look, I realise this isn't exactly the most intuitive explanation possible. I'm trying my best to get the point across. I think probably also part of the problem is I am simply not aware of all the sorts of 'scientific' or science-like arguments you've encountered, because I do not tend to follow the cable/anti-cable discussions very closely. I am simply not very interested in the flamewars and so forth that tend to develop. So, you may have in mind some fallacious or methodologically suspect arguments that you've encountered in the past, and I am failing to anticipate those concerns adequately. There really isn't a whole lot I can do about that.

Nonetheless, this is a hobbyist forum in which people seek means of improving their audio experience through improving the quality of their equipment. In doing so, the only relevant concern is that sort of issue at hand in (b) above. While (a) is certainly important to us from our own perspective, it isn't important from the perspective of making an educated decision about what to spend money on, in terms of the attendant proof methodology. Therefore, the subject of the debate is properly a matter of empirical, and thus scientific inquiry.

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt /img/forum/go_quote.gif When we're talking about a phenomenon of this sort, it contains two propositions (a) that something has been perceived, and (b) that this perception is causally connected to a particular phenomenon. You are focusing on (a) as the subject of a scientific experiment, when it is simply not what is being tested; (b) is. (b) is entirely an empirical matter; it's a standard causal proof. Perhaps what is creating the confusion is you believe that there is no way to get at (a) per working with (b), but this is simply not the case. Unless you wish to claim that you differentiate on the basis of something other than perception, (a) is supervenient upon (b).

Ok I agree. And as stated (a) cannot be touched by science. But my point is when people deal with DBT or other cable tests, they are conducting tests on (a) rather than (b). I will concede that (b) is the important, empirical, and testible component because you are actually testing a property of this phenomenon (once again by assuming the existence of the phenomenon). But the issue is that none of the dbt tests actually test the phenomenon, they are doing what they can to determine its existence in other words they are in fact testing (a) -something which you cannot do. And if it is the case that these scientific tests are dealing with the causal connection between the two then the point still stands that science cannot tell people that they are not observing a difference in the cables (because this cannot be one of the conclusions if they are infact testing the causal connection itself).

If I test the connection between antioxidants and cancer, and I fail to find a causal connection between antioxidants and cancer my conclusions lie along the lines of
1. antioxidants cause cancer
2. antioxidants do not cause cancer
3. antioxidants reduce the possibility of cancer
4. antioxidants do not show any correlation with cancer

No where in my tests can I conclude anything else.

So if people are testing the causal connection (similar to the antioxidant example above) then they still cannot turn around and say "the phenomenon does not exist." And if they are not testing the causal connection, they fall back to the previously stated argument.

The issue then becomes, why do you state the non-existence of the phenomenon rather than trying to use science to find out more information about the phenomenon?

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, you are being rude. I don't know why you have to say something like this. We're having a discussion, and although there's some strong disagreements, and you may strongly disagree with several folks, there's no reason to characterize them as "totally ignorant of basic electronic or scientific prinicples." Furthermore, if some people don't have the knowledge of science that you supposedly do, or others do, is that really a reason to say no one should discuss these issues with them? Really? I suspect you don't know everything about everything, or even everything about audio, but we're stilling wiling to engage you in a dialogue.

Yes I was rude but I was being ironic as well.

Do you think joining a blog about sound science when you know nothing about basic physics, and telling others what can and can't be done is a little rude?

I do have a basic knowledge of electronics. I Studied it till i was 18 then I spend 10 years in a sound measurement laboratory, but I certainly do not claim to be an expert. I did however spend many hours studying for it as have millions of people over the last two hundred years to establish a vast body of scientific facts that have enabled electronics to develop to where it is today.

When someone totally ignorant to this subject, states on a forum like this, that something can't be done (eg measurement of differences between cables) when they know nothing about it, it is THEIR level of ignorance makes me bloody angry.

In fact I will go one step further and state for the above reasons that IMO this forum is a total bloody waste of time. Anyone with any knowledge will just give up trying to talk sense to these people, and in the end the forum just evolves to a 'majority blogger is correct' concensus regardless of the facts.