If you are getting enjoyment because of that bottle of wine you're drinking, it doesn't make sense to recommend a particular interconnect as being the source of the better sound. Solipsist impressions are fine for you. They mean jack diddly to me. The only things we can share are objective facts... or perhaps a glass of that wine you're drinking.
WOW! Back so soon! Welcome back. If you do a blind test, you can share how you conducted it. Other people can replicate your results. That's how science works! Blind tests aren't hard to do. You just have to have a switch box, a way to balance the line level, and a friend to help flip the switch for you. The switch box and level adjustment is easy. You have a friend, don't you?
Why would I do that? According to your list, Greg is not
* A digital signals processing scientist
* A digital signals engineer
* A digital audio products designer
* not even an electrician
So sure, he's super qualified to comment on exactly what I said: a non-scientific opinion on what system configurations he's used and what he heard. that would be super useful! As it is, if he's not heard a particular cable - has no practical experience with it - he's not qualified to discuss it ... and even if he has, he's not qualified to offer a scientific opinion.
Be careful of criticizing other people's credentials. Someone may demand the same of you. Personally, I don't care about resumes. I can tell from what people say whether they know what they're talking about. Fair warning... You are being judged by your words and the degree of respect you receive will vary accordingly. When it comes to bullying behavior, ye shall reap just what you sow. I get along fine with people who are polite and respectful and listen to what other people say. But I don't suffer fools gladly.
I
But you're conflating understanding and discussing science (and technology) with offering professional advice. We can do the former without doing the latter.
What we CAN say is:
* In my experience with X cable in X system ...
* I conducted a study with this methodology and it found that ...
* I read X research linked here that concluded that ...
What we CAN'T say is:
* It's impossible for an expensive USB cable to affect audio because science because
(a.) everyone here is an amateur, and
(b.) every human is an amateur compared to nature.
If you're an experienced engineer working in any industrial setting, then every single week of your career at least one thing happened that nobody can explain ... which is the wise never rule anything out.
I see the USB cable argument going the same route as using balanced connections. At first only balanced connections were important for long long cables. There was no proof about balanced headphone cables adding any improvements. If there was proof stated it was argued about. Then slowly in the night balanced headphone amplifiers and balanced headphone cables started to become widely introduced in the community to the point SS does not concern themselves with the subject.
Just like fancy USB cables, they cost more and are a fairly new thing with questionable ways of measuring audio improvements.
In 10 years audiophile USB cables will be more common.
FYI I didn't criticize anybody's credentials, I factually stated what those credentials are NOT. and neither you nor greg are digital signal scientists or engineers so neither of you are in any way qualified to offer anything other than experiential opinions to anybody. That doesn't mean you might not have some great experiences to share, or some excellent studies you've read, it just means you're hobbyists only.
So the point is, in any posts where you state scientific conclusions, be ethical and add that you're amateurs only, thus any "science" conclusions you've drawn are of the lowest possible scientific standard, which is to say the guesswork of an amateur.
I see the USB cable argument going the same route as using balanced connections.
Just like fancy USB cables, they cost more and are a fairly new thing with questionable ways of measuring audio improvements.
In 10 years audiophile USB cables will be more common.
Love this - much the same as with supplements in fitness and body building; most don't offer much if any benefit (and many are harmful) but some originally derided as killers, aren't and are effective for many, and others have become medically recommended staples (like whey protein).
The problem with USB cable research is, at the end of the day, your ears, your system, your music.
People know what they hear. The idea that's a delusion is it's own reverse delusion! "Prove to me with data/reports/studies I can hear something - once I intellectually believe, then I'll hear it"
We all know instantly the difference between live music and a speaker, no matter the quality of the speaker, in virtually any location or setting. Most can easily even instantly point out live music played through speakers, like electric guitar, versus a CD of the exact track.
This arrogant notion that all of sound reproduction science is understood and measurable would be laughable if there weren't so many people here that think seeing data allows them to hear things.
While one may attain a hobbyist / amateur's level of awareness of other's research (of digital signal science and audiology in this case), that amateur's awareness in no way qualifies them to offer conclusive, global advice based on "science" truisms.
This is why civil pilots, accountants, lawyers, doctors, stock brokers, et al, all have accreditation standards - bad advice can feck up your life - thus it's both unethical and illegal for anyone not accredited to provide advice.
I'm suggesting posters halt the unethical practice of doling out conclusive advice based on their amateur's-level awareness of digital signals and psychoacoustics science and/or research.
Again, disclaiming what you don't know and why you're not qualified is common courtesy.
There are literally hundreds of posters driven out of this sub-forum by the bullying tactics, so how about everyone knock it off - you're not scientists and you're not qualified. Offer opinions, share research, but offer no conclusions because it's ethically irresponsible and metaphysically impossible for you to have any.
@amirm for example, may be controversial, but he shares his actual empirical data and experiences. We can disagree, but he's open about what he's seen, why, and how.
@chef8489 for another example, I don't agree with him, but he shares his actual empirical data and experience.
on one hand you've made all those posts based on half understood electrical principles, and your self powered belief that anything you feel sighted comes from sound. on the other hand you troll others for talking theory without being lead scientists in the domain they're trying to discuss... such double standards make it hard to take anything you say seriously.
about the forum and bullying, the assumption in this section is that we should work on evidence based models. TBH I wish I could apply a rule like on Hydrogen and simply forbid and delete objective claims made from sighted impressions. that would solve so many issues and clarify so many kitty fights.
this section is the only allowed place to discuss placebo and blind testing on the forum, those who disregard both, like you clearly do, should logically post somewhere else. if I go and keep bringing up blind tests in a headphone impression topic, I'll soon be bullied just the same by people telling me to shut up and crawl back to my section. and a few times when I insisted to counter false claims, I got locked out of the topic by moderation. so let's not pretend that this is something unique to this section. when one decides that "I know what I heard" provides objective facts about a cable. first, it really doesn't. second, wrong section!
you're lucky that Brooko isn't a modo anymore or you'd probably have experienced first hand what being "driven out of this sub-forum" feels like . right now I'm inclined to show a little more tolerance because I remember how this topic got beamed up in Sound Science by Mr Sulu without warning. you didn't ask to be here and I can appreciate that. but it's been some time now, we're here, and when in Rome...
if someone believes in his idea, he should do what he can to provide evidence so that people who do care about facts can take the evidence into account when forming their own opinions. fighting it out with rhetoric and putting worlds in other people's mouth is certainly not the answer.
People know what they hear. The idea that's a delusion is it's own reverse delusion! "Prove to me with data/reports/studies I can hear something - once I intellectually believe, then I'll hear it"
We all know instantly the difference between live music and a speaker, no matter the quality of the speaker, in virtually any location or setting. Most can easily even instantly point out live music played through speakers, like electric guitar, versus a CD of the exact track.
It would be more accurate to say that people tend to believe what they perceive, because they're not aware of the subconscious cognitive processes involved in creating those perceptions and they (we) have the sense that those perceptions 'mirror' reality. There's ample literature going back decades which discusses how past experience, expectations, etc. shape perception. I suggest doing some reading about visual illusions, and try some of them yourself.
This doesn't mean that we can never tell a difference between two sounds that are actually physically different. But it does mean that we can perceive differences in sounds that are physically the same.
if someone believes in his idea, he should do what he can to provide evidence so that people who do care about facts can take the evidence into account when forming their own opinions.
Thanks for supporting me! I couldn't agree more except to add that "he" should also disclaim when giving advice whether they're doing so as a trained, experienced digital signals scientist or purely as a hobbyist. As you point out, I've provided all of the evidence to back up every claim I've made: I heard it, and told you my understanding of why it happens. I even included pictures! If you believe that to be only half understood,please provide the other half! Feel free to reply to my post with the pictures and fill in the blanks ...
Maybe the completed result could even be a product of this sub-forum we share to help others?
As to "when in Rome", isn't this the Sound Science public forum? Because what you described sounds like a private forum where those invited are screened for beliefs and behaviors.
Sounds you'd be more comfortable in a private forum where all share like beliefs and opinions? Maybe I didn't understand what you meant ...
It would be more accurate to say that people tend to believe what they perceive, because they're not aware of the subconscious cognitive processes involved in creating those perceptions and they (we) have the sense that those perceptions 'mirror' reality. as far as I've read and in my amateur's opinion
This doesn't mean that we can never tell a difference between two sounds that are actually physically different. But it does mean that we can perceive differences in sounds that are physically the same.
maybe, but that would presume we can fully, accurately, and completely "physically" measure sound, and that we're perfect interpreters of those measurements and that we further perfectly understand how the human ear works and we perfectly understand how the human brain interprets those ear functions.
That kind of accuracy and understanding doesn't sound plausible to me - does it to you?
maybe, but that would presume we can fully, accurately, and completely "physically" measure sound, and that we're perfect interpreters of those measurements and that we further perfectly understand how the human ear works and we perfectly understand how the human brain interprets those ear functions.
That kind of accuracy and understanding doesn't sound plausible to me - does it to you?
As I've myself argued in this forum, I don't think we can assume that a given set of measurements will necessarily capture all differences in signals or equipment which could be perceived by listeners.
But at the same time, we need to consider all of the factors which could contribute to our perceiving differences between things. The research (by specialists, not amateurs) shows clearly that one of the biggest factors in that variation is our cognitive processing involved in perception. Again, that cognitive processing can be highly influenced by factors such as expectations, without our even being aware of that influence.
Take a look at how powerful these visuals illusions are: http://brainden.com/visual-illusions.htm. Even when you *know* your perception is fooling you, it's difficult to override your perception and not be fooled by it. A main reason why these perceptions fool us and work as illusions is because of our expectations of how things are in the world.
you're lucky that Brooko isn't a mod anymore or you'd probably have experienced first hand what being "driven out of this sub-forum" feels like . right now I'm inclined to show a little more tolerance because I remember how this topic got beamed up in Sound Science by Mr Sulu without warning. you didn't ask to be here and I can appreciate that. but it's been some time now, we're here, and when in Rome...
All I'm asking for is common decency and for people not to hide behind a wall of ignorance and write their own rules.
You have one poster writing about subjective findings, but then declaring all science based finding as null and void (based on qualifications). When questioned/refuted by someone with knowledge, he gets to dismiss out of hand. He can post what he wants, and then can dismiss everyone else's. When they provide information he can say that they are ordinary laymen (something he himself admits), plus he can then attack them.
Some of Greg's credentials have already been provided, showing he is a professional in his field, he has years of experience in a production environment (so has practical knowledge of the differences of cables) - and at least as much subjective experience as our "learned friend". Whats more - Greg has backed up with the fact that he for "6 years I was a Senior University Lecturer and Course Leader (in Music/Digital Audio Technology), responsible for providing that "scientific education, training and experience" to others!"
In most peoples eyes, this qualifies Greg as the expert with far more knowledge than most of us in this field. I still have not seen any apology from said gentleman - and he still continues to troll the thread without accepting the expert opinion of the person who actually knows.
Yes - you are right CoA - if I was still Moderating, said member would have been given a warning by now. And its not about trying to silence a POV which does not align with my own. Its about having a facts based discussion in the Sound Science section. There was a time once when that was encouraged ....... sadly I see the standards somewhat slipping.
As I've myself argued in this forum, I don't think we can assume that a given set of measurements will necessarily capture all differences in signals or equipment which could be perceived by listeners.
But at the same time, we need to consider all of the factors which could contribute to our perceiving differences between things. The research (by specialists, not amateurs) shows clearly that one of the biggest factors in that variation is our cognitive processing involved in perception. Again, that cognitive processing can be highly influenced by factors such as expectations, without our even being aware of that influence.
Take a look at how powerful these visuals illusions are: http://brainden.com/visual-illusions.htm. Even when you *know* your perception is fooling you, it's difficult to override your perception and not be fooled by it. A main reason why these perceptions fool us and work as illusions is because of our expectations of how things are in the world.
Thanks you. And to add to that - the line in my signature is very apt:
“Sometimes, the truths are those things you want to hear, and sometimes what we call truths are habitual lies we're comfortable with.”
Are you a "digital signal scientist"? I don't think you have any qualifications whatsoever other than being a customer of snake oil. In case you haven't been paying attention, Gregorio is a recording engineer and has even taught the subject. He is perfectly qualified to offer an opinion, and you could learn something from him if you actually listened instead of marching around like a poser. Get a clue.
This joker shows up every six months to a year, chimps out for a week or so and then disappears again. He's a troll. There's nothing to discuss with him because he isn't interested in the subject of this forum, he's only interested in stirring up crap. I am now going to start talking past him to all of the rest of you. I'm not going to quote him any more.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
. right now I'm inclined to show a little more tolerance because I remember how this topic got beamed up in Sound Science by Mr Sulu without warning. you didn't ask to be here and I can appreciate that. but it's been some time now, we're here, and when in Rome...
