What is the rationale behind the prohibition of DBT discussion?
post-6811497
Post #46 of 454

Ypoknons

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
28
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Posts
2,097
Likes
28
You make a good point, but you still need to argue about intent. Fraud is a term that's tied to the legal concept. You have a strong argument, but accusing someone of fraud is always going to create a lot of drama and and it is always hard to ascertain, even the artifical legal version, someone's state of mind. If you say false claim or misleading claim or negilient misrepresentation instead, there's no need to talk about state of mind, just the empericial evidence, and it is science that people in this thread want to talk about.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6811513
Post #47 of 454

kingtz

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
905
Reaction score
36
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Posts
905
Likes
36


Quote:
I think some people take the question of a DBT as an insult to there view or perception.  You are actually questioning their review process and the thread that they have started and spent time to prepare. 

Yes, they feel insulted and frustrated because not only have their outrageous claims have not been met with unanimous applause, we - the critical thinkers - actually dare challenge them. And in response, well, they have nothing to defend themselves with but circular reasoning. "I am correct because I believe so". Unfortunately, this is all to prevalent when discussing superstition (and religion) and anything that is inherently based on someone's beliefs. It is even more unfortunate that critical thinkers have to walk on eggshells so as not to offend or antagonize the believers.
 
I'm pretty new around here and I really wasn't aware of any such DBT ban. I just figured that most people were not aware of how to set up proper experimental controls, and therefore, did not incorporate them in their reviews. I didn't realize others didn't question their findings because of a ban. But after reading this thread, it now seems that we critical thinkers might be in the minority and that we, in fact, are walking on eggshells.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6811541
Post #48 of 454

Soaa-

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
418
Reaction score
44
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Posts
418
Likes
44
Quote:
You make a good point, but you still need to argue about intent. Fraud is a term that's tied to the legal concept. You have a strong argument, but accusing someone of fraud is always going to create a lot of drama and and it is always hard to ascertain, even the artifical legal version, someone's state of mind. If you say false claim or misleading claim or negilient misrepresentation instead, there's no need to talk about state of mind, just the empericial evidence, and it is science that people in this thread want to talk about.

Negligent misrepresentation, huh? I'm already liking that term. :wink: You make a good point about the legal ties of fraud; thanks for clarifying that.
 
@kingtz: I take it we feel the same way about a lot of world issues. Welcome to our depressing world, buddy. I hope we all learn to make the most of it.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6811616
Post #49 of 454

dallan

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
7,040
Reaction score
114
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Posts
7,040
Likes
114


Quote:
Yes, they feel insulted and frustrated because not only have their outrageous claims have not been met with unanimous applause, we - the critical thinkers - actually dare challenge them. 

Well yes and no because you are only challenging them if you listen to them and get different results.  They just listened and reported their conclusions as you have a right to do as well.  If they DBT then i am sure they will mention it in there process and that would add legitimacy to the claim for you to consider I suppose.
 
For the record, I have tried high end USB cables against regular USB cables and have not been able to tell the difference but others that I personally know say they can hear the difference.   To take away from my legitimacy here though, when I listened to the stock vs high end USB a/b testing and did not hear a difference, it was not a DBT.  But I did listen not just challenge for the sake of argument.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6811660
Post #50 of 454

The Monkey

Monkey See, Monkey DAC
A really sick dud
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
8,010
Reaction score
135
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Posts
8,010
Likes
135


Quote:
 

I've always thought advertising disputes would be referred to a tribunal rather than litigation, it's probably standard around the world, which makes sense.
 
 
 
NAD is just one of several good options available here.  Companies certainly can opt for full-blown litigation--and often do--by suing under the Lanham Act in federal court.  The aggrieved party almost always seeks an injunction in such instances, but the cost and threat of discovery often dissuade parties from going to court.  NAD provides a low cost, relatively fast dispute resolution system, which also allows for the protection of confidential data and trade secrets.  And while the NAD itself does not have enforcement power, it will refer repeat offenders to the FTC.  No one wants that because living under a consent order sucks. Lots of countries have some mechanism for challenging claims, but there is no standard and practices can vary greatly.
 
 
     Share This Post       
post-6811744
Post #51 of 454

sokolov91

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
2,455
Reaction score
42
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Posts
2,455
Likes
42
Regardless, challenging a humans flawed perception should not be such a sin.
 
There is so much our senses fail to capture, or our emotions skew -our state of mind, that it is entirely logical for people to have their perception challenged, or at least cross referenced with science.
 
Feeling stressed: cortisol
Feeling relaxed: endorphins
Feeling lovey dovey: oxytocin
 
and the list goes on and on.
 
So, the reviewers general mood at the time of reviewing, will effect their perception, making it flawed right off the bat. By the time we add on hearing loss, personal taste is music... you get the idea.
 
Impossible for it to be a completely accurate measurement. But, it is about enjoying music, no science. But that does not mean they cannot co exist peacefully.
 
If spending big $$$ is what it takes for your mind to break down and just enjoy the music... well I am sorry for you, but don't get offended when someone tells you that you wasted your money.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6811747
Post #52 of 454

Ypoknons

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
28
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Posts
2,097
Likes
28
Thanks. It was a bit early in the morning, I meant to say something along the lines of "probably more efficient to refer to some kind of tribunal instead of ligitation for small companies" and "many countries also prefer tribunals" - I guess I need to work on my morning lawyering.
 Thanks for the information; good to know how the US works and I'm quite aware of the limitations of the Hong Kong system.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6811771
Post #53 of 454

wavoman

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
43
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Posts
1,873
Likes
43


Quote:
...USB cables are digital, and that as long as the signal can be decoded, there is no loss of quality, AT ALL.
 
In theory (according to USB.org), a USB audio receiving module can decode a stream it receives and assert that is has decoded without error, but (if there is no re-clocking on the receiving side) there could be a timing error, since USB audio must be transmitted and decoded in real-time.  Thus some 1's in the source might be decoded as 0's (because the receive timing is off) or visa versa, and if there are enough of these the primitive error correction will not handle it, and so the DAC will have a slightly different bitstream to work with, and therefore will produce an analog signal less correct than if this timing error had not happened.
 
USB.org, an official body, claims this can happen if you use a big-ass ferrite bead around the cable (to pass various tests) which is why such cables are strictly speaking out-of-spec (Kimber and others use them nonethelss).
 
I beleive any such errors (if they actually happened in the real world, which I doubt) would be inaudible.  Besides, all audiophile DACs for sale that I know of re-clock, so this is moot.  Nonethelss, it is (slightly) wrong to think that if a digital signal is decoded without an error flag being raised, that the transmission is correct, and also (slightly) wrong to think that digital cables just have to pass ones and zeros (they have to pass them under tight timing constraints -- easy to do, but still).
 
There are many $10 USB cables that will never drop a bit or miss a timing constraint.  If you spend $1000 on a USB cable it is because you like its looks of the way it feels, or you like the way you feel when you buy something expensive, or the way it makes your buddies feel when they see it in your system.  These may be decent reasons for buying the cable for some people.  You would fail a DBT comparing the audio properties of your $1000 cable to the well-made $10 one, I have no doubt about that.
 
I bought a $1000 spdif cable on ebay for $300 for no reason other than having it to do blind tests for people vs a $2 radio shack video cable (same specs as spdif).  No one has ever passed the blind test (it is a single blind test btw, not a DBT, and does not use ABX, which I hate, but does use swindles -- false comparisons -- and other tricks; I am a professional statistician and know how to test).  I am sure if I tested USB cables I would get the same result -- no difference.
 
Nonetheless I bought a nice USB cable (not the uber expensive one) from the very manufacturer that was made fun of in this thread because (a) I needed a custom length, (b) I like the way it looks and threads thru my rack, (c) I like the dealer, he has done me some favors, and I felt good putting some money in his pocket.
 
This is a hobby.  We like custom paint jobs.  We don't think they make the car go faster.
 
 
     Share This Post       
post-6811784
Post #54 of 454
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
9,280
Location
Fukuoka, Japan
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Location
Fukuoka, Japan
Posts
16,917
Likes
9,280
Website
www.hear.reviews


Quote:
Sorry, that does not work for me for various reasons. You accept calling science a belief system can be seen as offensive, so you can accept that I think it is wrong to do so. Religion and politics have not bearing on hifi and cables, so it is not unreasonable to ban such. Finally this is a forum and as such I and others are perfectly capable of having a reasoned debate whilst ignoring flaming trolls from both sides out to mix things up.

Part of science is having faith that the experiments other scientists have done provide valid results. I have seen so many cases of scientists, content in the belief that their own views and experiments are correct, activity try and inhibit any new evidence that suggests something different.
 
Quote:
 
I would also add that one of the mistakes I see the science/DBT proponents often make is the discounting of the experience of cable believers.  There are lots of experienced members here who believe strongly that cables make a big difference.  I don't agree with that, but I also have not heard as much gear or had as much time in this hobby as a lot of members, so mine is just another opinion.  That's why I favor any type of data that would tend to confirm one way or the other.  In other words, I don't favor testing to disprove "believers."  I just would like some answers.  I would think we'd all want that.   

I'm with The Monkey on this.

 
Quote:
You mean, of course, that there are fanatics on both sides of the debate, correct?

Absolutely. Both sides inhibit rational discussion. I have a number of reasonable theories I've put forward a few times, based on actual science, but nobody seems interested in discussing them, only trumpeting their own beliefs and boosting their egos.

 
Quote:
 
I immediately noticed that my volume was louder... I mean much louder. Strange? After investigating, what was really happening was that I was getting less signal noise (and I thought my system was dead quiet before) 

Possibly, it was changing the overall tone of the music.  I've owned a set of Nordost Heimdall cables that un-mistakably added to the mid-range (or attenuated the bass and treble?) of the music.  After I discovered this, I found quite a few owners on Audiogon and elsewhere had reported the same thing.  Did you know that TV commercials, where it is illegal to broadcast them with increased volume (such as Australia, not sure about elsewhere) alter their overall tone so they can be heard more clearly by people who get up and do other things during them?  My personal theory at present is that much of the so-called improvements had by many types of gear purely relate to changes in the overall tonal balance of the music. Add some mid-bass for fun (headphones and amps), boost the treble to sound clearer (silver wire and plugs), bring the mid-range forward to make vocals sound good (all types of gear), roll-off the treble to make it sound smoother and mask distortion, etc. Changes in actual detail, that is, the lowering of distortion, are harder to spot, so a lot of gear is made to appeal through changes in tone. .  Many people don't have a clue about this stuff and nor did I when I started.  I began realising these things after some time and experimentation and questioning my own experiences.  It would make for interesting research I reckon, if there were enough sane people around to discuss it.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6811868
Post #55 of 454

magicalpig

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
125
Reaction score
10
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Posts
125
Likes
10


Quote:
"Oh my! I got my $1,200 USB cable today! I am totally sold just on the fact it looks just like a diy pc cable made by a 12 year old, but there's so much more...
First, I let it settle in a bit (every piece of audio equipment needs burn-in, even when it's digital) after connecting it as instructed. I put my music library on shuffle running through my $700 software. It was really hard but I just left the room and came back,after an hour or so, to see if my eager expectations were met.
First Impressions:
I immediately noticed that my volume was louder... I mean much louder. Strange? After investigating, what was really happening was that I was so eager to hear a difference I convinced myself the Nucleus was able to go deeper/wider, top/bottom AND blacker into my music then I ever thought imaginable! I was also getting more detail.. sure I was listening harder than I ever did considering the price of my purchase but I could hear ton's more detail and this combined with the increased blackness, made my system sounded louder. This simple observation, within just an hour of settling into my system, tells me that something very special better be happening <...>"


 
     Share This Post       
post-6812024
Post #56 of 454

dexter3d

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
127
Reaction score
16
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Posts
127
Likes
16


Quote:
 
there could be a timing error, since USB audio must be transmitted and decoded in real-time.
 

 
 
Even if this was true, could you please explain to me how such a timing error can occur due to the cable alone, if we speak of lengths within the specification?
 
 
     Share This Post       
post-6812036
Post #57 of 454

dexter3d

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
127
Reaction score
16
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Posts
127
Likes
16


Quote:
 
Nonetheless I bought a nice USB cable (not the uber expensive one) from the very manufacturer that was made fun of in this thread because (a) I needed a custom length, (b) I like the way it looks and threads thru my rack, (c) I like the dealer, he has done me some favors, and I felt good putting some money in his pocket.
 
This is a hobby.  We like custom paint jobs.  We don't think they make the car go faster.
 
 
Oh, I assure you - 1) As you've seen in that excerpt and all around their website, they CLAIM that the car will go faster, louder, darker, spacier etc. with their starwars cable 2) I am glad you have cash to spend on such stuff 'just like that', but usually people buy such stuff not for its aesthetic value - audiophile world is about sound (at least this is primary consideration), and AFAIK there is no single review even on Head-Fi, comparing and ranking the gear according to their looks ('And the winner is - this red dac! Because it is red!').
 
     Share This Post       
post-6812060
Post #58 of 454

dexter3d

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
127
Reaction score
16
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Posts
127
Likes
16


Quote:
Part of science is having faith that the experiments other scientists have done provide valid results. I have seen so many cases of scientists, content in the belief that their own views and experiments are correct, activity try and inhibit any new evidence that suggests something different.
 
 
Yeah.
First, there is no faith involved here. Scientific experiments are conducted according to scientific methodology (meaning that the experiment is repeated, controlled etc), and before it is published and before you know about it - it goes through peer review. If you were to suggest that different USB data cables make difference to sound in the limits of human hearing, you would not pass properly conducted experiment; not even speaking about your 'findings' passing peer review. You would not dare to suggest such a bullcrap in the first place to the literate audience, because you simply have no evidence..
 
Second, did I hear 'evidence'? See, that is what it's all about. What I am saying is, if you make an EXTRAORDINARY statement, which runs counter everything that we currently know about electricity, please, be nice and provide NOT LESS EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE for that! Don't keep the rest of humanity in ignorance! Who knows, maybe the Nobel prize awaits you for your findings? However, what you say is NOT evidence. Your extraordinary claims will start resembling evidence only if blind testing and volume matching is implemented.
 
 
Quote:
It would make for interesting research I reckon, if there were enough sane people around to discuss it.
 
 
Uncle Erik is the man - are you up for the challenge? :) Just you, your cables, and your music. Theories usually start from evidence, as we want to explain _something_; we do not start proving/disproving flying spaghetti monsters, until there is at least some evidence, suggesting that such exist. Prove that you hear the difference - then we will really get into this! Unless it is done, your starwars cables will be in the same category as antenae marihuana finders.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6812189
Post #59 of 454

Prog Rock Man

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
3,784
Reaction score
102
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Posts
3,784
Likes
102

 
Quote:
Ladies and gentlemen, this may cheer you up. It is taken from an 'audiophile manufacturer' website, 'testimonials' section (http://locus-design.com/testimonial.html). This is what is written about uber-expensive USB data cable (it is not supposed to be humorous!):
 

Comments Regarding Nucleus USB Cable from DJM, USA.

"Oh my! I got the Nucleus USB today! I am totally sold just on the fit and beautiful finish of the cable alone, but there's so much more...
First, I let it settle in a bit after connecting it as instructed. I put my music library on shuffle running through Amarra. It was really hard but I just left the room and came back,after an hour or so, to listen for any improvements.
First Impressions:
I immediately noticed that my volume was louder... I mean much louder. Strange? After investigating, what was really happening was that I was getting less signal noise (and I thought my system was dead quiet before) but the Nucleus was able to go deeper/wider, top/bottom AND blacker into my music then I ever thought imaginable! I was also getting more detail...ton's more detail and this combined with the increased blackness, made my system sounded louder. This simple observation, within just an hour of settling into my system, tells me that something very special is happening <...>"
 
Is there anyone in this forum who would contest that this 'reviewer' is either dumb or wicked (=is on that magic company's payroll)? Still thinking that everyone should restrain from debunking this sort of BS on Head-Fi, instantly, without mercy?

I believe that review to be one of the most accurate I have read. My theory, based on my own observations only mind, is that slight differences in volume between different cables in the same kit, cause the impression that the cable does sound better/worse. I always judged my past cable upgrades by, did my kit sound louder with the volume control set at the same level as with the previous cable? If it did I mistakenly judged the upgrade to be worthwhile. A raise in volume usually makes the music sound more dynamic and improve detail and clarity as you can hear all that is going on.
 
My knowledge of electronics is not great, so I am not sure if it is resistance, capacitance or whatever that will cause different cables to cause the volume to change between kit. But that "something very special is happening" referred to above is just a simple change in volume.
 
     Share This Post       
post-6812198
Post #60 of 454

Prog Rock Man

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
3,784
Reaction score
102
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Posts
3,784
Likes
102
Finished the thread now so;
 
here is the UK Advertising Standards Agency ruling on Russ Andrew's claims over Kimber cable;
 
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/3/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44177.aspx
 
So Russ Andrews was found to have been wrong to make such claims. I am sure he subsequently found someone to provide measurements for him to 'prove' his case, but there was a lot of criticism of what the measurements were actually supposed to prove. In any event, because the science is so vague, I can see why the ASA have not, to my knowledge tackled any other cable maker and their claims.
 
Secondly, dexter I am with you about currawong's idea of faith in the results. It is not faith, it proof and the two terms are not interchangeable.
 
Thirdly, I do agree with you currawong about tonality and the perception that adverts get louder. I find it depends on the TV and whether it has a volume equalisation as to how much 'louder' the adverts get.
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top