[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Putting my flame suit on here. Why is it that most of the people who seem to want to judge cables with scientific testing never account for the fact that no two people are alike and that one blind test does not provide any evidence as to the nature of cables in general but simply the cables that were tested? Why also do I see so many people posting about tests that have been preformed but they never seem to post a link. I think brendon has the right idea, try it for yourself, who is more competent to judge equipment for your own rig than yourself?

Perhaps it would be best if you first understood what was the question the testing hoped to answer? It is possible to draw wrong conclusions from any set of test results and I think you are alluding to that problem. But that is not a reason to stop testing and trying to expand our understanding.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I'll point out that FireBottleRun's criticism on the current tests are one of the main points that the tests themselves aren't really scientific. Rigorous maybe, but not scientific. And at the end of the day, even if you run thousands of dbt tests, it is rigorous, but no matter how much work you put into something, if its not science, its not science.

I don't see his criticism's as proof that DBTs are not/cannot be scientific (that is, useful tools in a scientific investigation). Your comments are begging the question: what, then, do you consider to be science? However, maybe it would be a better idea to start a separate thread for that discussion?

Edit: actually, I believe that thread is over here.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif So it is contra-indicatory to those that say that Blind Tests always obscure differences heard in sighted tests.

I'm not sure anybody says that, do they?

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure anybody says that, do they?

Is your argument with the "always" or with the basic content, as expressed in this modified form: "So it is contra-indicatory to those that say that Blind Tests obscure differences heard in sighted tests?"

If with the "always", see hyperbole.

If the later, I have seen plenty of posts asserting essentially that.

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't see his criticism's as proof that DBTs are not/cannot be scientific (that is, useful tools in a scientific investigation). Your comments are begging the question: what, then, do you consider to be science? However, maybe it would be a better idea to start a separate thread for that discussion? Edit: actually, I believe that thread is over here.

Well this thread is the reason for the 6 cable example/demonstration. I don't think the question requires you to ask or redefine science, but I think its necessary to understand science's limitations, particularly with conclusions based on particular tests. Actually your previous post even supports that:

Quote:

Perhaps it would be best if you first understood what was the question the testing hoped to answer? It is possible to draw wrong conclusions from any set of test results and I think you are alluding to that problem. But that is not a reason to stop testing and trying to expand our understanding.

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).

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is your argument with the "always" [?]

Yes, I thought that what some contend is that the nature of blind tests is such that it may obscure certain differences that may be heard in sighted tests. I was not aware that anyone actually contends that, for example, you can't hear a difference between your transistor radio and your high end stereo in a blind test. Also, the fact that someone heard a difference in a particular blind test would not refute the proposition that some blind tests may not be conclusive, nor would such a finding even be particularly important, IMO. So I was just trying to understand exactly what Nick was saying.

P.S. And, as an attorney practicing for almost 30 years, I am fully aware of the meaning and uses of hyperbole. I find, however, that hyperbole generally does not assist in a discussion of complex issues, that it often obscures, and that it is often over used by people who don't have much support for their positions. But Nick is one of the more intelligent folks on this forum who takes reasonable positions and rarely uses hyperbole, which is why I wondered whether some people actually assert that all blind tests are defective

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who is "our"?

Mankind, the collective "we." I was talking about the cumulative body of knowledge that benefits all.

Quote:

My point is that it is different for everyone so maybe, just maybe, the best thing for "US" as in Head-Fier's, People looking to construct a great sounding headphone rig, is to listen and see what we enjoy most.

Got it. We are each different, so generalizations about us as a group are going to be problematic. I assume this applies to your advice to all above? </poke>

Seriously, though, it depends on the questions being asked. If I ask what sounds best to "me," it is hard to beat listening with my ears and making my own judgement. If I ask are there better cables than what I am currently happy with, using my ears to compare is one way, but it may take me a long time to compare all the cables made to figure that out. Another approach would be to see if there is a reliable way to objectively reduce the set of cables to something manageable that I could realistically acquire and compare.

I think there are different questions being asked by the group hanging out here. Those asking if there is a scientific basis for why one cable, dac, whatever sounds better than another have every right to ask that and should not be ridiculed for doing so. Those asking what sounds best to them as individuals have the same right to ask that and should not be ridiculed for choosing by using their own ears. Oh, and there are plenty of people that fall into BOTH groups I just described.

Quote:

If you are truly fascinated as to why there may be a difference then I would recommend exercising patience, years of patience, or just conclude that there will be no definitive answer in your life time.

Thank you for your friendly advice. If I choose to press on with listening tests just the same, I assume you'll be fine with that given it would just be me deciding what's best for me, right?

 

[Arjisme]

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.

Can you give an example -- what was being tested in the DBT and what conclusions were drawn from it that were unwarranted? I am not asserting it doesn't happen, wouldn't be surprised if it does, but also am not convinced the problem occurs to such a degree that the methodology must be assumed to lead to that and must, therefore, be abandoned.

Quote:

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.

That sounds like an uncharitable characterization of their motives. Do you know this is why "people" keep pushing for DBTs? Is no other explanation likely?

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif P.S. And, as an attorney practicing for almost 30 years, I am fully aware of the meaning and uses of hyperbole. I find, however, that hyperbole generally does not assist in a discussion of complex issues, that it often obscures, and that it is often over used by people who don't have much support for their positions. But Nick is one of the more intelligent folks on this forum who takes reasonable positions and rarely uses hyperbole, which is why I wondered whether some people actually assert that all blind tests are defective

Fair enough. I thought I smelled some nit picking. I was reasonably confident you understood his meaning and, knowing how hyperbole so frequently crops up in these discussions (everybody does it, afterall

) thought you might be taking too, uh, legal a view of his statement.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif . . . . knowing how hyperbole so frequently crops up in these discussions (everybody does it, afterall )

That's true. Sometimes I think this should be called the "Sounds Science & Hyperbole Forum."

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif I should have said that I dont have any problem with people kicking around ideas as to why something may sound different, my post was aimed more at the folks who like to point at a test or a body of tests and then say " Cables cant or dont affect the sound coming out the other end". Seems like that is common in cable threads. Lots of people say "Show me proof" or "I will believe it when I see scientific data" to back up the fact that some people do hear a difference. I just dont see how it can be that simple when we are dealing with so many variables that constantly change. I think some of these people should spend some time auditioning cables, maybe some of them will discover a way to enjoy their equipment more.

I find it curious that some of the biggest proponents of cables cannot tell when their Singlepower amp has a severely sagging power transformer. If their hearing is so sensitive, then why can't they detect the eminenty measurable power sag?

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you give an example -- what was being tested in the DBT and what conclusions were drawn from it that were unwarranted? I am not asserting it doesn't happen, wouldn't be surprised if it does, but also am not convinced the problem occurs to such a degree that the methodology must be assumed to lead to that and must, therefore, be abandoned. That sounds like an uncharitable characterization of their motives. Do you know this is why "people" keep pushing for DBTs? Is no other explanation likely?

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. 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."

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.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif But Nick is one of the folks on this forum who takes reasonable positions and rarely uses hyperbole, which is why I wondered whether some people actually assert that all blind tests are defective

My apologies it *was* an unguarded moment of hyperbole from me and I do recant, consider the "always" removed. In mitigation I cite (just about any journo from) Stereophile

My point, now sadly diminished M' Lud is that the stream of thought that says that DBTs do obscure differences is counter to the published highly successful use of DBT for many different audio discrimination tasks with very small differences in stimuli such as codecs and filters, if the DBT approach works with some stimuli of certain sizes why not with related stimuli of similar dimensions. However I over-egged it. I consider myself admonished.

* The faux legal terminology is due the fact that SWMBO and I have been enjoying Series One of Rumpole of The Bailey on DVD at home lately

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Because a giant sag in your wallet can lead people to lean on denial. I find it curious that someone who doesn't really care what tubes are in his amp would even have an opinion on cables. I think we both agree that tubes have a larger affect on the sound than cables right?

Yes, we can agree that tubes have a larger effect than cables.

Oh, I do care. I recently sent back a pair of tubes that were slightly gassy and had a little blue halo at the top when operating. I also care that cables are well constructed and I do think shielding is valuable. I have also spent several hundred on aftermarket cables. I didn't know if they'd work or not, so I decided to try them for myself.

The difference is that I take a look at things from an engineering standpoint - what we can know and measure is important. There might be things we don't know, but there's a lot we do. You have to get things right from an engineering standpoint first. But most who "believe" lack the skills to even turn on a DMM, let alone measure resistance. There seems to be an inverse relationship between technical knowledge and belief in cables.

I'm always shocked at how those with ears "god enough" to pick up the difference in, say, the dielectric of a cable, cannot also detect that something is drastically wrong with their amp or if a tube is about to go.

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

I beleive that it wasn't until the invention of radio telescopes in the 50s that there were measurements accurate enough for very good evidence.