[jellojoe]

I think he has mentioned that he doesn't want other "boxes" on his desktop so he might be listening out of the soundcard.
 
Quote:

Could you then tell us what amp you're using?  It has nothing to do with "that's not resolving enough" nonsense, I promise.

 

[beeman458]

The DBT test is not designed to ensure failure, it has no agenda, it is just a family of techniques that are as good or bad as the administrators and the exact protocol used and of course the magnitude of difference under study. There are numerous positive DBTs out there. Clark has done some, matrixhii have done some, Nousaine has done some, Kruger has done some, Blech and Yang had some positive DBTs. A recent peer rviewed AES journal paper had some positive results on sampling rates (44.1 vs 88.2). I've done my own DBTs on codecs and filters and several here have positively DBT'd lossless vs 320K.
 
Being aware of what you write, regarding it simply being a "family of techniques," based upon the standards set forth by the anti-cable crowd and how these standards are "inaccurately" applied in regard to the human sensory system and listening for changes, yes the tests are designed to insure fail and yes, since they're being promoted by the anti-cable crowd, yes, they are agenda driven.  One only needs to read through a thread of this kind to see how agenda oriented they are.  You may be so kind as to give the anti-cable crowd a pass as if they're innocents, but I'm not so naive to believe anything other than what I've written.
 
No, rational people who can hear a difference may also ask "is this difference real", I cannot hear above 15K but I do not think that others cannot, that is absurd.
 
Sorry, you're now aggrandizing human nature in your above.  Rational people simply enjoy.  The only time a "rational" person is going question their behavior is when somebody challenges them to their statement and says; "I can't hear it, so you can't hear it.  Prove you can hear it."  A crazy person goes around questioning everything because they've lost their frame of reference (reality) and most likely, unless chemically imbalanced, it's because they're easily influenced by another's suggestion; weak of mind, unable to shake off feelings of doubt, insecurity.
 
Ex:  "Are you really here?  How do you know you're not in a pod somewhere like in the Matrix?"
 
I won't expand on my above as doing so will become a "huge" tangent discussion regarding Philosophy, Ethos and Existentialism and how "easily" humanity is duped by others.  And please, yes, I know part of the anti-cable crowds message is; "You're being duped, we have our proof and we're here to save you from yourself."
 

 

 

[beeman458]

Could you then tell us what amp you're using?  It has nothing to do with "that's not resolving enough" nonsense, I promise.
 
The key to understanding a got-cha question, is when someone writes, "Trust me."
 

 
That's a check you can cash 24/7.  If what amp I use doesn't matter, you'd have dropped the question.  What amp I currently use, or have used in the past, regarding this thread, doesn't matter.
 

 

[Uncle Erik]

How could DBT be "designed" to ensure failure of cable tests when the DBT procedures were established before specialty audio cables were introduced to the market? If DBT is "biased," then why does it work with everything but pseudoscientific claims? You also find a lot of howling in quack medicine.

Further, I don't see why there's an incentive to disprove cables, for that matter. Even in the absence of evidence, cables make money for a lot of people. Face it, profits are the only reason aftermarket cables exist. So if there's money to be made, why would anyone deliberately discredit them? It makes zero sense. If anything, the market is too small at the moment. Many audiophiles don't take cables seriously. The general population rolls their eyes and calls BS when they see a $500 cable. Now, if you could demonstrate evidence, the rest of the audiophiles would come around and you'd be able to gain traction at Best Buy and other retailers. There are, literally, tens of millions of dollars to be made. Hell, I would not mind making millions off cables. I bet lots of others feel the same way. So why deliberately discredit them? It makes no sense when there's so much money to be earned.

The same applies to quack medicine. If crystals really do heal, then why not nail it down and rake in the money?

This is where the tinfoil hat onspiracies usually turn up. Big Pharma or someoneorother is "suppressing" the truth. That's horsefeces. If a development has economic potential, it always gets developed. People would rather eat crow and make money, which is a more logical position than "suppressing" something for whatever reason and not getting any money.

It is economically irrational that someone would deliberately "suppress" evidence that cables work. The only reason things are as they are is because there isn't any evidence and people are capitalizing on cables anyway.

 

[n3rdling]

Quote:

Could you then tell us what amp you're using?  It has nothing to do with "that's not resolving enough" nonsense, I promise.
 
The key to understanding a got-cha question, is when someone writes, "Trust me."
 

 
That's a check you can cash 24/7.  If what amp I use doesn't matter, you'd have dropped the question.  What amp I currently use, or have used in the past, regarding this thread, doesn't matter.
 

I was just curious to see if your amp has any input selector, since it'd be a switch and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between cables with a switch in the path.  Your theory, not mine.

 

[Uncle Erik]

You might be onto something, n3rdling. Both the Zana and Si2A3 have Alps input selectors. Maybe that's the reason I can't hear the difference between cables on them. I wonder if I should open them up and bypass the switches. That would raise an additional problem of whether they could be bypassed with the "ordinary" solid core copper wire I use or if I'd have to use a specialty wire. Or, for that matter, rewire the entire amp. Which would then be a problem because the transformers are wound with ordinary copper wire... as are my headphones' voice coils. Not to mention the leads on the caps and resistors. I have no idea what kind of "cheap" materials are used in the pins of the tubes are made of, or the elements inside.

 

[beeman458]

Uncle Erik wrote:
 
How could DBT be "designed" to ensure failure of cable tests when the DBT procedures were established before specialty audio cables were introduced to the market?
 
Simple, it's being misapplied as it fails to take into consideration the analogue nature of the human sensory system and by nature, creates it's own brand of obfuscating audio-confusion.  It matters not when the procedure was created.  What matters is the appropriateness of the application of the test.  In this case, the DBT procedure is being misapplied to serve a purpose; self-serving bias.
 
If DBT is "biased," then why does it work with everything but pseudoscientific claims?
 
Since this isn't a "pseudoscientific" claim, I can't answer your question.
 
You also find a lot of howling in quack medicine.
 
You also find a lot of howling in the scientific community.
 
And?
 
You'll note, that as much fun as "straw man" arguments are, I stay away from them for a reason.
 
On a side note, doing so sure does take the entertainment factor away.
 

 

 

 

 
Further, I don't see why there's an incentive to disprove cables, for that matter.
 
I do, and I've openly stated what these many reason are, several times, in this thread.
 

 
The general population rolls their eyes and calls BS when they see a $500 cable.
 
In real terms, the general public couldn't tell you who the Vice President of the United States is let alone acknowledge that there are $500.00 audio cables to be had.
 
Now, if you could demonstrate evidence, the rest of the audiophiles would come around and you'd be able to gain traction at Best Buy and other retailers.
 
FWIW, you do realize that I poo-poo Monster Cables?
 
So why deliberately discredit them? It makes no sense when there's so much money to be earned.
 
That's simple, those who don't plan on going into the business are more than happy to sell their brand of negativity.  I'm sure if you were going go into business, you'd change your tune as only in politics can you sell the idea of don't vote for me because.
 
The same applies to quack medicine. If crystals really do heal, then why not nail it down and rake in the money?
 
Don't know about crystals so you're on your own there.

This is where the tinfoil hat onspiracies usually turn up. Big Pharma or someoneorother is "suppressing" the truth. That's horsefeces.
 
FWIW, anybody who's paying attention to the daily news knows that "Big Pharma" is suppressing the truth.  Additionally, both crystals and big pharma are straw man.
 

 
n3rdling wrote:
 
I was just curious to see if your amp has any input selector, since it'd be a switch and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between cables with a switch in the path.  Your theory, not mine.
 
Then how about asking the question in the fashion above and yes, it has electronic switching involved and no, I don't use any of the electronic switching and yes, the electronics are integrated as opposed to a separate (additional) box with added cables.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

How could DBT be "designed" to ensure failure of cable tests when the DBT procedures were established before specialty audio cables were introduced to the market?
 
Simple, it's being misapplied as it fails to take into consideration the analogue nature of the human sensory system and by nature, creates it's own brand of obfuscating audio-confusion.  It matters not when the procedure was created.  What matters is the appropriateness of the application of the test.  In this case, the DBT procedure is being misapplied to serve a purpose; self-serving bias.
 
How do you explain the positive DBTs that have been done in the audio field if the protocol is consistently misapplied ?

 

[beeman458]

nick_charles wrote:
 
How do you explain the positive DBTs that have been done in the audio field if the protocol is consistently misapplied ?
 
I can't.  Why?  I'm not familiar with the tests you mentioned, so I haven't a clue what's what.  Maybe you can explain the positives when the anti-cable side claims there's not a single positive to be had and they have their uncollected million dollar award to back their claim up with.
 
???

 

[h.rav]

Quote:

Could you then tell us what amp you're using?  It has nothing to do with "that's not resolving enough" nonsense, I promise.

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/510744/headphone-amp-dac-for-budding-audiophile/15#post_6906535

 

[n3rdling]

Quote:

You might be onto something, n3rdling. Both the Zana and Si2A3 have Alps input selectors. Maybe that's the reason I can't hear the difference between cables on them. I wonder if I should open them up and bypass the switches. That would raise an additional problem of whether they could be bypassed with the "ordinary" solid core copper wire I use or if I'd have to use a specialty wire. Or, for that matter, rewire the entire amp. Which would then be a problem because the transformers are wound with ordinary copper wire... as are my headphones' voice coils. Not to mention the leads on the caps and resistors. I have no idea what kind of "cheap" materials are used in the pins of the tubes are made of, or the elements inside.

Just want to make it clear I don't believe what I wrote - I was just pointing out a fallacy in beeman's logic.
 
When you mentioned bringing that cable test to the next CJ I knew somebody would try to use the cop out that a switch box would somehow lose just enough fidelity to no longer be able to hear a difference between cables.  If this were the case then those people should have one input and one output on every device, the best volume pots money can buy, etc.  
 
Here's a way to watch them add another rule to your test: if they believe a switch box will make that drastic a difference, have them blind test if they can hear the difference between a cable going through one switch box and two switch boxes.  Hell, I'd even say run it through 10 and see if they can hear a difference.  It should be obvious to them.  If they can't hear a difference that says everything and your test has to be valid in their eyes.

 

[Yoga Flame]

What if it was a cryo'd silver directional switchbox? Maybe it would enhance the sound in that case. 

 

[beeman458]

The key to understanding a got-cha question, is when someone writes, "Trust me."
 
n3rdling wrote:
 
Just want to make it clear I don't believe what I wrote -
 
That's okay, neither did I.

 
Here's a way to watch them add another rule to your test: if they believe a switch box will make that drastic a difference, have them blind test if they can hear the difference between a cable going through one switch box and two switch boxes.  Hell, I'd even say run it through 10 and see if they can hear a difference.
 
That's sure a lot of effort for something you don't believe in, doesn't affect you, nor plan on buying in the future.
 

 

[n3rdling]

Reread my posts

 

[tmars78]

Quote:

Reread my posts

 
He'll just tell you that the test you proposed is one designed to fail.  He's been saying it this whole thread, and I doubt it will change.