[sohels]

Quote:

I think this is just a circular definition. Accuracy is defined as "measures well"; equipment that measures well is called "accurate." It really says nothing at all.

It may be that some people happen to like the sound of equipment that "measures well" (although even that concept is nebulous---what measurements do we mean?) and they take that as confirmation that measurements are useful. But that is not a valid conclusion. It's just a coincidence.

No. What I have said is very simple - equipment that does not measure well (eg high distortion, uneven frequency response etc) will not be capable of accurately reproducing the recorded signal. Try coming up with proof by counter-example.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

You are extremely pompous and very loudly disqualifying yourself for any scientific discussion. 

His being loud or pompous doesn't disqualify anything he's said actually.  Sounds more like you want to disregard him for personal reasons - i.e. he's not nice or placating enough.
 
 
Quote:
 

Your ignorance is simply beyond belief, but you think you are god and know it all. 

 
Ignorant of what?  Your anecdotal experience?
 
If you're going to accuse someone of being something shouldn't you at least cite a specific example?  I'd say he's arrogant, yes, but that doesn't necessarily discredit him or make him wrong.

His being pompous and loud is only amplifying the preposterous misconseptions he is uttering. It emphasises that he is absolutely sure that he is right, no matter what, and that there is no reason for him to try to consider that he could be wrong.
 
His ignorance (and the ignorance of most others, bot not all here) concerns the role of science and scientific method in this matter. Has nothing to do with my anecdotal experience, but with the denial of scientific facts by someone who claims to think in a scientific way. 
 

 

[Trysaeder]

Quote:

You are extremely pompous and very loudly disqualifying yourself for any scientific discussion. Your ignorance is simply beyond belief, but you think you are god and know it all. 
 

Here's a fortune cookie to give to all cable believers.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

What is the rationale behind the prohibition of DBT discussion?

 
To stop people falling out with each other all over the forum........

 

[Shike]

Quote:

His being pompous and loud is only amplifying the preposterous misconseptions he is uttering. It emphasises that he is absolutely sure that he is right, no matter what, and that there is no reason for him to try to consider that he could be wrong.

You're going to need to cite the specific misconceptions and why they are actually misconceptions.
 
And of course he could be wrong . . . but maybe the emperor really isn't wearing any clothes so to speak.  I think the latter is more likely: cables don't make a difference but those that were fooled rather throw a fit.
 
 
Quote:

His ignorance (and the ignorance of most others, bot not all here) concerns the role of science and scientific method in this matter. Has nothing to do with my anecdotal experience, but with the denial of scientific facts by someone who claims to think in a scientific way. 

 
Which scientific facts has he denied in that post exactly?  Once again you're going to need to cite it specifically or I'm going to sum this up to a bruised ego.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Quote:

His being pompous and loud is only amplifying the preposterous misconseptions he is uttering. It emphasises that he is absolutely sure that he is right, no matter what, and that there is no reason for him to try to consider that he could be wrong.

You're going to need to cite the specific misconceptions and why they are actually misconceptions.
 
And of course he could be wrong . . . but maybe the emperor really isn't wearing any clothes so to speak.  I think the latter is more likely: cables don't make a difference but those that were fooled rather throw a fit.
 
 
Quote:

His ignorance (and the ignorance of most others, bot not all here) concerns the role of science and scientific method in this matter. Has nothing to do with my anecdotal experience, but with the denial of scientific facts by someone who claims to think in a scientific way. 

 
Which scientific facts has he denied in that post exactly?  Once again you're going to need to cite it specifically or I'm going to sum this up to a bruised ego.

Once again I'll try to point out some general misconceptions in this discussion (i and several others have tried to explain before, but nobody seems to take notice).
I'll keep it as short as possible.
 
First: scientific method gives a working model for part of our reality. A MODEL. It is not complete nor completely correct, but gives us the means to predict and control events to a certain extent.
This means that whatever is happening in the real world does not necessarily happen in the model. Since the model is not a one-on-one representation of the specific part of reality it models, you may assume that in most cases (where the model is correct) you can predict what will happen in the real world based on the behavior of the model, BUT it also means you CANNOT DO THE OPPOSITE: whatever phenomenon you encounter in reality does not have to be represented in the model. Meaning you cannot say that the phenomenon you encounterd in reality is not existent because it is not represented in the model.
AND THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING HERE ALL THE TIME. "You cannot hear the difference because science cannot measure it." is a plain wrong statement, it is complete nonsense. 
 
Second: DBT testing is not the right method to prove (or give evidence of)  the existence of anything. It is not used for that in science. It is not used that way in medicine either (thank god).
In the pharmaceutical industry DBT is used to give evidence that it is very likely that a medicine OF WHICH IS ALREADY PROVEN WITH MEASUREMENTS THAT IT ACTUALLY DOES HAVE EFFECT, is actually more effective than placebo on a large majority of people.
This situation is completely different from the audio cable situation. Cable non-believers state that the measured differences (which are there) cannot be heard, A statement that was never scientifically tested as far as I know. Thus the discussion here is about the fact if the phenomenon of audible cable differences is actually in the model or not. A fundamentally different question for which DBT cannot give you the answer.
 
  
 
 

 

[Lenni]

Quote:

...

You are extremely pompous and very loudly disqualifying yourself for any scientific discussion. Your ignorance is simply beyond belief, but you think you are god and know it all. 
 

mentally disturbed more like... 

 

[The Monkey]

 
Excellent points really.  Let me add this: I know in the case of the bodybuilder, and believe in the case of the cable-maker, that they honestly think the methods they advocate (sell) work.  They have convinced themselves.  Initially perhaps they were duped by the upstream manufacturers, but at this point they honestly -- that's the key word again, honestly -- are convinced.  Perhaps by palcebo, or flawed observation, or whatever.
 
No fraud.
 
In the case of audio cables, I don't think the proof is final yet.  The public DBTs are very flawed.

With respect to advertising and marketing claims, it doesn't matter much if the marketer "believes" in their product; rather, the basic measure is whether they have a reasonable basis for their claims. A subjective belief, without more, generally is not sufficient, but this also is heavily dependent on the claim being made. But this goes more to the question of whether certain marketing is false and misleading. One's advertising can be false and misleading without necessarily being fraudulent, which involves some intent. The honest belief probably gets one out of the fraud issue.

It's also important to remember that advertisers are responsible for all reasonable interpretations of their advertising claims. So if an advertiser implies something is proven, that advertiser would be well advised to have a reasonable basis upon which to make that claim, not just a belief.

 

[Krav]

Yeah, I must admit, I used to underestimate the explosiveness of this topic.
 
Placebo effect feels subjectively very real. Especially when a person experiencing it didn't have a chance to get educated/trained in the hard sciences and proper design of experiments. Still no need to get righteous and condescending (I'm often telling myself  
 
On the other hand, the fact-oriented geeks may not fully appreciate the emotional impact of a just-right designed piece of equipment, despite its apparent imperfections. For instance, the steering wheel of the car I drive has stitched leather and lacquered wood. I intellectually understand that it doesn't aid function, yet I prefer it to unadorned plastic anyway. 
 
Quote:

What is the rationale behind the prohibition of DBT discussion?

 
To stop people falling out with each other all over the forum........

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

Once again I'll try to point out some general misconceptions in this discussion (i and several others have tried to explain before, but nobody seems to take notice).
I'll keep it as short as possible.
 
First: scientific method gives a working model for part of our reality. A MODEL. It is not complete nor completely correct, but gives us the means to predict and control events to a certain extent.
This means that whatever is happening in the real world does not necessarily happen in the model. Since the model is not a one-on-one representation of the specific part of reality it models, you may assume that in most cases (where the model is correct) you can predict what will happen in the real world based on the behavior of the model, BUT it also means you CANNOT DO THE OPPOSITE: whatever phenomenon you encounter in reality does not have to be represented in the model. Meaning you cannot say that the phenomenon you encounterd in reality is not existent because it is not represented in the model.
AND THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING HERE ALL THE TIME. "You cannot hear the difference because science cannot measure it." is a plain wrong statement, it is complete nonsense. 
 
Second: DBT testing is not the right method to prove (or give evidence of)  the existence of anything. It is not used for that in science. It is not used that way in medicine either (thank god).
In the pharmaceutical industry DBT is used to give evidence that it is very likely that a medicine OF WHICH IS ALREADY PROVEN WITH MEASUREMENTS THAT IT ACTUALLY DOES HAVE EFFECT, is actually more effective than placebo on a large majority of people.
This situation is completely different from the audio cable situation. Cable non-believers state that the measured differences (which are there) cannot be heard, A statement that was never scientifically tested as far as I know. Thus the discussion here is about the fact if the phenomenon of audible cable differences is actually in the model or not. A fundamentally different question for which DBT cannot give you the answer.
 
  
 
 

I for one don't go around saying "if you can't measure it you cannot hear it" and I do not think that many other anti-cablers do either. I think that what you are thinking of are the pro-cabler response "so you think that if you can't measure it you can't hear it?". I do think that there is no known or shown correlation between measurement and sound quality/difference.
 
Blind tests seem to me the perfect way to test claims of a noticeable difference in sound, as DBTs remove other influences that may cause an affect, leaving only the sound. Cables are not medicines, so a slightly different test is perfectly acceptable and appropriate.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I think this is just a circular definition. Accuracy is defined as "measures well"; equipment that measures well is called "accurate." It really says nothing at all.

It may be that some people happen to like the sound of equipment that "measures well" (although even that concept is nebulous---what measurements do we mean?) and they take that as confirmation that measurements are useful. But that is not a valid conclusion. It's just a coincidence.

Math is nebulous?  Seriously?  How do you pass a math class with that kind of attitude?  Do you write down that 6 + 6 = 15 and try to wax philosophical about how we know what '6' is, if its really the same as 'six' or 'VI' and try to argure that the value of 6 is in the eye of the beholder?  That '6' can mean whatever you want it to mean based on you your personal preferences?  That the first 6 and the second 6 can mean different things and therefore you answer is correct?  That's what your arguing.
 
An input signal can be measured to a degree of accuracy far beyond what our ears and brains can manage.  The same for the output signal.  Any differences between the 2 signals is distortion.  By definition.  You can call it something else if you want, but it is still how the equipment being tested has changed the signal.  The higher the distortion, the lower the accuracy.  By definition.  You can call that something else if you want to as well.  It doesn't change what it is.  Unless you want to change the definition of accuracy to something other than the degree to which the output matches the input.  That's just plain stupid though.
 
You can't have a conversation with someone who insists on redefining random words in you vocabularly.  Communication is possible because words have meaning and those meanings stay relatively constant.  Even if we agree to change the meaning of a word, it still carries the baggage of its past meaning and muddles the conversation.  For example, what if (notice the if, this is hypothetical) I said you were dumb.  What if I then qualified my statement my saying the my definition of dumb is "someone who has a picture of a rodent as their avatar on an online forum."  That would be technically correct and it would not be an insult.  I doubt you'd want me to continue telling people you're dumb though.
 
You're doing the same thing.  You're trying to define 'accurate' as 'pleasant to my ears.'  Those in fact have little to do with each other.  Accuracy the is objectively measurable difference between input and output signals.  One piece of equipment can be objectively measured more accurate than another.  What you like is just what you like.  Its an opinion.  Its a personal taste.  Its cannot be correct or incorrect.  You are confusing the two.  The fact that you may enjoy a less accurate signal over a more accurate signal does not change the definition of accurate.  Neither does it make your preferences wrong.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

First: scientific method gives a working model for part of our reality. A MODEL. It is not complete nor completely correct, but gives us the means to predict and control events to a certain extent.

This means that whatever is happening in the real world does not necessarily happen in the model. Since the model is not a one-on-one representation of the specific part of reality it models, you may assume that in most cases (where the model is correct) you can predict what will happen in the real world based on the behavior of the model, BUT it also means you CANNOT DO THE OPPOSITE: whatever phenomenon you encounter in reality does not have to be represented in the model. Meaning you cannot say that the phenomenon you encounterd in reality is not existent because it is not represented in the model.

AND THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING HERE ALL THE TIME. "You cannot hear the difference because science cannot measure it." is a plain wrong statement, it is complete nonsense.

 
Even if it's a model, there must be evidence to prove a hypothesis at first.  Then later there must be evidence to disprove it.  Going by physics and lack of evidence from the believers we have the right to be confident that there is no difference.  We're saying you cannot hear a difference, because you have no positive evidence of it.  The null is the accepted result till there's a positive result.
 
 
Quote:

Second: DBT testing is not the right method to prove (or give evidence of) the existence of anything. It is not used for that in science. It is not used that way in medicine either (thank god).

In the pharmaceutical industry DBT is used to give evidence that it is very likely that a medicine OF WHICH IS ALREADY PROVEN WITH MEASUREMENTS THAT IT ACTUALLY DOES HAVE EFFECT, is actually more effective than placebo on a large majority of people.

This situation is completely different from the audio cable situation. Cable non-believers state that the measured differences (which are there) cannot be heard, A statement that was never scientifically tested as far as I know. Thus the discussion here is about the fact if the phenomenon of audible cable differences is actually in the model or not. A fundamentally different question for which DBT cannot give you the answer.

 

Actually, DBT is used similarly here.  Except this time it's a reaffirmation of "these cables have measured to be inaudible, but we will test them anyway".  There have been positive tests with cables, except the fact that they aligned with expected results (it was an extremely long run to a turntable cartridge, I think Nick has the link or name of it).

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Cable non-believers state that the measured differences (which are there) cannot be heard, A statement that was never scientifically tested as far as I know. Thus the discussion here is about the fact if the phenomenon of audible cable differences is actually in the model or not. A fundamentally different question for which DBT cannot give you the answer.
 

I've tested this in a crude fashion. I have DBT'd samples created from several (very) different cables and provided samples for others to try. I have measured differences in cables, and yes they are very small, but I have attempted to see if these are audible and offered that opportunity to others who may be interested. If you find my old thread I think the samples are still there.
 
I would describe myself as a cable-skeptic. I have as yet seen no good evidence for audible differences between properly functioning cables(1), I keep looking, but it won't be found in sighted tests of any kind, that is just out and out wrong I am afraid.
 
So some form of blind testing is an absolute must. Wavoman has some good ideas about variants of blind testing based on preference and using "cheats" but it is inescapable that the testing has to be blind.
 
From my knowledge of psychophysics (2 degrees in psychology) it seems **unlikely** that the measured differences (typically in the 0.001 to 0.01db range) would be normally audible but if someone can prove them audible with proper tests I will accept it.
 
1. There is one "cable" which is *almost* certainly audibly different but it is a measurably verified piece of crap, i.e adds relatively huge amounts of distortion/distortion and is decidely non flat.
http://www.stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index3.html
 
 

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Actually, DBT is used similarly here.  Except this time it's a reaffirmation of "these cables have measured to be inaudible, but we will test them anyway".  There have been positive tests with cables, except the fact that they aligned with expected results (it was an extremely long run to a turntable cartridge, I think Nick has the link or name of it).
 

[size=small]Audio Analysis VI: Testing Audio Cables Author(s): Philip Greenspun and Leigh Klotz Source: Computer Music Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring, 1988), pp. 58-64 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: [/size][size=small][size=small][size=small]http://www.jstor.org/stable/3679837 [/size][/size][/size][size=small]Accessed: 05/08/2009 10:29 [/size]

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

I think this is just a circular definition. Accuracy is defined as "measures well"; equipment that measures well is called "accurate." It really says nothing at all.

It may be that some people happen to like the sound of equipment that "measures well" (although even that concept is nebulous---what measurements do we mean?) and they take that as confirmation that measurements are useful. But that is not a valid conclusion. It's just a coincidence.

 
I've been enjoying your posts on this distortion issue immensely.  I am in full agreement with you and see exactly where you're coming from.   It makes perfect sense.  Thanks for taking the time,... and the patience.   I'm listening!!