Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well for DBT testers to state "Cables don't make a difference" is not a conclusion that you can make. It goes beyond the boundaries of what you can conclude.
|
I agree with this statement, but I can't help but feel as if this is an issue with the wording of the claim rather than the substance of it - if I were to modify the claim to "It's highly unlikely that cables make a difference" or "it's very likely that cables do not yield audible differences" would you be ok with that? I don't think making those claims goes beyond the boundaries of what you can conclude thanks to the statistical sciences, and when people claim that "cables don't make a difference," I think most people mean "it's highly unlikely that cables make an audible difference."
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Since DBTs are limited to the individual person that's taking part in it, then you can only conclude, "Person A cannot distinguish between these cables." As the OP stated, his uncle could distinguish between 6, so the ability is out there and a DBT for him would state "My Uncle can distinguish between these cables" But notice that this can only lead to the conclusion "DBT on cables show that cables do make a difference" in so far as the other DBT testers can conclude "DBT on cables show that cables do not make a difference."
|
This is only true for tests that only have one subject, but there are several tests out there that have tests with larger bodies of people. I don't remember the specific sampling methodology, and if you PM me I can quote the portion of the study I'm referring to, but there was at least one study that had a large sample size of mainly audiophiles, which does allow the study to generalize (to some degree of probability) the sample to a larger population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif
People keep pushing for DBTs because they think it works, and a scientific , REAL scientific falsification is one that is not questionable. Think of the falsification of einstein's theory of general relativity. In Eddington's 1919 experiment, einstein's theory predicted the EXACT amount of bending in light. It was a test that would either make or break einstein's theories, should he fail, then he failed, no saving grace no complaints. Should he succeed, well I think we can all figure out what happened there. DBT's if truly conclusive as a test for cables, should not lead to so many additional comments as "oh this was a placebo, no this was not the right environment" and so on and so fourth. A true scientific test is a definitive one not one that you can continue to question. And I don't think that's too radical.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif
And the issue I would raise is that people are drawing conclusions that far exceed what they are in fact testing with DBT's. And I would disagree, that you should stop testing, not to stop entirely, but to change your methodology. Here's the thing, since people haven't seen anything wrong with DBT's they continue to push for it, over and over again because it is coming up with a favorable result for their side. So maybe take a step back, re-examine what it is that you're looking for and redesign your methodology. You don't really expand your understanding if you keep doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result -last time I checked that was the definition of insanity or was it lunacy? Either way do something different, dbt's can't be that scientifically conclusive if people are still debating (thats not a real argument but I hope it comes across more of a superficial recognition of a problem).
|
You have a valid point, but I wonder how applicable it is to the debate at hand. For one, claiming that we should doubt test methodologies solely because "something" could be wrong with them is not a useful way to conduct research - using your example, if scientists pre-Einstein claimed "well there could be something wrong with Newton's theory, so we should hold out against Newtonian physics because something better might come along," they would probably be right, but were terrible scientists. Imagine all of the useful advances we made with Newtonian physics - we (as the human species) have done great, useful work, creating new technology and scientific discoveries, on what is at its roots an incorrect theory of physics.
Now, this also isn't to say that we should just blindly accept Newton's theories as right and never work to falsify them. Rather, we should look to specific critiques of the methodology, and tweak them appropriately, if and only if that critique of the methodology is falsifiable and demonstrable. A great example of this came up awhile back - someone suggested that DBTs as currently conducted may be flawed because quick-switching cannot reveal differences as well as casual, laid back listening. I then posted a link to an article that tested the criticism, and it turns out that quick-switching is, indeed, more accurate than casual relaxed long-term listening at spotting differences. This was a productive critique because it was specific, falsifiable, and demonstrable. Claiming, conversely, that "we must keep changing our methodology" without specifically claiming what we need to change about it, why we should change it, and (most importantly) demonstrating empirically how the methodology is flawed, is not very constructive.
Finally, as for your claim that "dbt's can't be that scientifically conclusive if people are still debating," I know it's not a real argument but I don't think it's even a superficial recognition of a problem.
The Flat Earth Society
This forum is chock full of people who come up with critique after critique of how the earth is flat, and not round as we think it is. This isn't just one troll - this is a forum full of people who are probably trolls, but I really wouldn't be that surprised if some people actually believe in this.
Now, to make myself absolutely clear: I do not think that cable believers are equatable to flat earth believers. My previous statements do not imply this in any way. My previous statements, however, do challenge the claim that if people are debating about something, that there actually is something wrong. I'm not saying that nothing is wrong with current test methodologies, just that if people are debating one side or the other, this does not even suggest that there actually is something wrong with it, just that, well, people are debating about it. Rather, the focus should be on the merit of the claims made by the people debating. There's probably no merit to the claims of the flat earth society. That doesn't mean that there's no merit to the claims of cable believers either, it just means that we have to actually discuss the merits of each objection rather than just assuming that those objections have merit without analysis.
Also, I know we're all audiophiles here and most of us are willing to spend more than the market value to achieve that sound we are looking for. But seriously, 100-200+USD cables and sometimes even more? Even if there is a repeatable distinction of difference in audio quality from high-end cables, I would rather spend that money tweaking either the headphones, amp and/or dac (which I believe would produce more sound difference and offer a higher potential of increased audio quality) than just buying high quality strands of metal in a nifty package/shielding. 
Not to mention, a lot of us will agree that high priced audio gears does not necessarily translate to us preferring it more since our musical taste are very subjective. That's just my two cents and if some people can sleep better at night having those expensive cables in their system then so be it. One of the things I like about this hobby is you need not to justify your rig other than to yourself
