Why pick on cables ?

[BS5711]

And the way to prove that is to verify audibility with a double blind, level matched, direct A/B switched listening test with multiple trials. Controlled testing has shown that jitter at the level it occurs in even the worst performing home audio equipment is at least an order of magnitude below the threshold of audibility. Testing has determined that the JDD for time error is around 1 to 3 ms for the frequencies between 800kHz and 8 kHz. Picoseconds aren’t diddly squat here. Unquestionably inaudible.

You can’t argue that you hear something in sound science without proving it the way science does. A controlled listening test is the put up or shut up. We don’t care what you think you hear.

Prove it can be heard and we’ll use that level as the accepted JDD. Until then..,

NEXT!

Sounds like every conversation with Mr Veterans circles all the way back to “I know what my ears tell me” and from there the rest is justification of how he hears differences that measurements say he shouldn’t but psychology can explain.

I don’t understand the mindset that hearing something sighted but knowing full well he could never pass a blind test apparently highlights flaws with the test methodology and demonstrates that sight in intrinsically linked to hearing.

The lack of evidence and even simple logic for the correlation doesn’t seem to enter into the thought process.

 

[theveterans]

The lack of evidence and even simple logic for the correlation doesn’t seem to enter into the thought process.

This is audiophilia in a nutshell BTW

 

[BS5711]

Unfortunately that is correct, doesn’t make your premise correct however.

 

[theveterans]

Unfortunately that is correct, doesn’t make your premise correct however.

I never claim my premise is correct because of subjectivity of course. Whatever makes us happy at the end of the day

 

[BS5711]

I never claim my premise is correct because of subjectivity of course. Whatever makes us happy at the end of the day

Absolutely, no argument with that.

I do however, have an argument with subjective assessment being presented as objective truth/reality.

That is something that you and pretty much all “audiophiles” tend to do more or less as a matter of course. That is apparent from your numerous recent discussions here.

I imagine that is because despite acknowledging psychological influences on sonic perception, when it comes to day to day discussion about it, that tends to be very much forgotten.

 

[bigshot]

We discuss subjective influences on sonic perception every day here when we discuss blind testing.

 

[colonelkernel8]

nvm

 

[Ryokan]

That is something that you and pretty much all “audiophiles” tend to do more or less as a matter of course. That is apparent from your numerous recent discussions here.

Thought we were all audiophiles here, in one way or another?

 

[BS5711]

Thought we were all audiophiles here, in one way or another?

I guess that is a matter of interpretation and why I used the “….” for emphasis.

I consider myself to be a headphone/IEM audio enthusiast, I dislike the association with the whole “hearing things beyond scientific understanding” bull sh..t associated with self proclaimed “audiophiles” and don’t want to associate myself with that mindset.

I want to learn with anything I get involved with and pretending I am somehow immune to psychological influences and what I “hear” is somehow more real than the psychology of perception isn’t learning anything so far as I am concerned.

I have not been involved with a lot of hobbies in my 57 years but of those I have this seems to be unique in that a lot of people are seemingly fine with burying their heads in the sand and enjoying their subjective experience oblivious to or frankly even shunning objective facts and details rather than embracing knowledge and technical understanding.

I have been involved with clay target shooting for several decades and with that people seem to either accept they don’t know a great deal about the technical nuances but are fine with that because they don’t need to be to shoot well or they embrace better understanding because if nothing else it is simply part of understanding the sport. I have never come across someone in clay target sports who shuns knowledge because their perception of what is going on with their shooting doesn’t align with technical facts despite that there is significant scope for just that given that shooting well is definitely more art than science.

I don’t know where the “subjectivist” mindset comes from in audio, perhaps it is a function of manipulative advertising because the realities of how little difference there really is between well designed modern electronics, cables etc isn’t going to sell a lot of gear.

Maybe my perception of the percentage of people that fall into the hardcore subjectivist camp is distorted because of my immersion in Head Fi forming a significant part of my frame of reference.

Regardless, I consider myself an audio enthusiast, nothing more.

---

@bigshot I think you missed my point.

 

[Ryokan]

I consider myself to be a headphone/IEM audio enthusiast, I dislike the association with the whole “hearing things beyond scientific understanding” bull sh..t associated with self proclaimed “audiophiles” and don’t want to associate myself with that mindset.

But aren't you helping reinforce that connotation, even using quotation marks? An audiophile - basically someone who loves music, let's be careful not to create sub divisions and elitism by looking down on others (not suggesting you were).

 

[BS5711]

But aren't you helping reinforce that connotation, even using quotation marks? An audiophile - basically someone who loves music, let's be careful not to create sub divisions and elitism by looking down on others (not suggesting you were).

My perception of audiophile is different to yours, nothing more complicated than that.

I think the manner I use the term and the use of “ … “ portrays my connotation which isn’t a positive one and that is my honest position. I kinda figure I am not alone in that mindset and, regardless, I am happy simply being honest. Others can see the community based on their own experiences and can use terms, connotations and labels that suit their position.

If someone objects or disagrees that is fine, my perception is based on the information put in front of me versus my own natural approach. I don’t see I have any responsibility to be especially diplomatic, tolerant and accepting of attitudes and mindsets that are alien to me other than being polite which I generally try to do.

 

[Ryokan]

My perception of audiophile is different to yours, nothing more complicated than that.

I think the manner I use the term and the use of “ … “ portrays my connotation which isn’t a positive one and that is my honest position. I kinda figure I am not alone in that mindset and, regardless, I am happy simply being honest. Others can see the community based on their own experiences and can use terms, connotations and labels that suit their position.

If someone objects or disagrees that is fine, my perception is based on the information put in front of me versus my own natural approach. I don’t see I have any responsibility to be especially diplomatic, tolerant and accepting of attitudes and mindsets that are alien to me other than being polite which I generally try to do.

Maybe 'audiophool' would be a better term to use in this instance as others can see it's a bastardised version of a bona fide term?

 

[BS5711]

Maybe 'audiophool' would be a better term to use in this instance as others can see it's a bastardised version of a bona fide term?

Maybe, but that seems like being intentionally impolite and even less diplomatic than I try to be.

I know that might sound a bit nonsensical but in my head there is a clear delineation between the two terms and I prefer to stay on one side of the line than the other. That is I would rather infer fool than openly state fool.

I am happy to be honest but I try to keep honesty on this side of rudeness.

 

[XTF1]

I have never come across someone in clay target sports who shuns knowledge because their perception of what is going on with their shooting doesn’t align with technical facts despite that there is significant scope for just that given that shooting well is definitely more art than science.

I don’t know much about clay target shooting, but compared to this hobby , there is a very important difference: an objective result—you hit the target or not. So, people can say whatever BS they want, but it’s not gonna fool anybody in the end.

There is this huge misunderstanding between “sound” (objective, measurable) and “perception” (subjective). I don’t know why so many audiophiles refuse to even acknowledge this distinction…. You almost have to compare it to religious fanatism to explain the behavior…

 

[gregorio]

So wait, you mean 1/2 of Head-Fi are wrong.

At a guess, a lot more than 1/2.

That all these people that are finding joy as just deluded and wrong?

Who here has made any assertions about “joy”? Strawman!

But of course because you can never hear a difference and modern science can not prove the difference, it is fraud?

Modern science can and does prove a difference, if there is one. If someone makes a performance improvement claim but cannot prove it and science demonstrates there isn’t a performance improvement, then yes that is fraud.

What about how with the very best of equipment modern science can not measure the Pace of music through an IEM.

Science has been able to measure pace before IEMs even existed and it’s been a free, built-in feature of DAWs for years.

They have no way to measure Stage in an IEM. The is no way to measure Timbre of an IEM........etc etc....

Of course there’s “no way to measure Stage in an IEM” because there is no Stage in an IEM. Do you also think it’s also a flaw of science that we can’t measure the 0-100kph acceleration time of an IEM, how happy the IEM is or how many pixies it contains? Timbre is mainly a function of the balance of harmonics and again, we can measure measure that and have been able to for decades.

You see these are all the things that some people hear with cables.

I can hear/perceive all those things too and all sorts of other differences with cables, for example the difference between Mozart and Motorheard. That obviously doesn’t mean the cables are the cause of those things/differences!

You are saying the differences don't exist, yet your science, your very best you can come up with science can not show these measurements.

Who is saying that differences don’t exist? The very best that we can come up with is highly accurate measurements of those differences but obviously, only when those things actually exist. IE. We can’t measure how many pixies a cable has, because pixies don’t exist!

So really we are both standing our ground, because one side says cables change things, yet the other side has no way to measure if those changes actually exist or not. Now that is not very good science is it?

We are standing our ground, you a making up a completely false “ground” and arguing that (strawman)! And again, we can measure if those changes exist, if they do in fact exist!

But maybe there is only a section of the tone from the IEM/DAP combo that we want to work on, maybe we need to thicken the note-weight and reduce brightness, a cable can do that.

No it can’t! Stop making nonsense claims unless you have reliable evidence/proof!

The fact that every member has avoided ever mentioning the truth that modern day science (with IEMs) can not test for actual tone, decays, for stage, for styles of timbre etc, etc shows that all of you are only relying on your ears for this cable debate.

Duh, we’ve avoided ever mentioning that truth because it has never been true, we’ve mentioned it numerous times as being a lie though. We absolutely can measure tone, decay, we can’t measure “styles of timbre” because that’s just BS you’ve made-up and we can’t measure soundstage because that doesn’t exist, it’s just a perception.

Again, jitter in internet packets has zero correlation to sound quality. Phase noise on the DAC clock OTOH is a meaningful parameter …

Jitter does have zero correlation to sound quality. Why is jitter on the DAC clock meaningful?

I wrote many times that not everyone perceives the same way as you. The perception that I hear can be loosely not definitive be caused by different phase noise out of a DAC clock immeasurable at the DAC analog output.

So again, why is that meaningful? How can your perception be caused by the phase noise out of a DAC clock, are you listening to the DAC clock or to the DAC analogue output?

Try to understand that Jitter measured at the analog output is NOT jitter at the DAC clock. The jitter being measured at the analog outputs of the DAC is NEVER ever the same as the jitter being measured at the clock itself.

We do understand that but so what, we never listen to the “clock itself” we listen to the analogue outputs of the DAC, that’s the whole point of a DAC, the clue is in the name!

G