Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Ban
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

wrote:
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
"Frank O. Hodge" wrote in message
news:3z3bc.58126$JO3.36560@attbi_s04...


'What' did I expect the first time?

What had you decided that you wanted to expect? That's what.


Specifically, I mean. Your answer is hardly responsive. How did I
'create' all the sonic characters of these amplifiers?


What deserves more credit? A intelligent human being that has an
auditory imagination and powers of reason, or an inanimate object?

I'll vote for the person, with the lack of other credible evidence.


Our ears are somehow little wonders of natural engineering. The human
threshold of hearing at 2-3kHz is only a factor of 2 above the noise of
the
thermal movement of air molecules (Browns movement)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...eqloud.html#c1
These curves represent the frequency and level dependecy of the human
hearing.
The slashed curve is the absolute threshold, 0dB(at 1000Hz), every 10dB
higher doubles the perceived loudness.
We see very much unsensitivity in the deep bass region, and it has to
be so,
otherwise we would hear the bumps of our own steps very loud.
At C3 (on the piano) the sensitivity is highest (-3dB) and then to the
hights it goes down again(-15dB). This has to do with the form of the
ear-channel, some hair is absorbing, it is a physical limit.
Nobody can hear *anything* below this absolute threshold.
But this is valid only for very young people. See here the influence
of age
in fig2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolut...old_of_Hearing

We see how much the capacities of the ear deteriorates with age,
between 50
and 60 this step is big!
And now these cable and signature guys, they must be old, because you
replace the actually heard with imagination. And the imagination
creates a
*real* sound, just as the tinnitus does! So they really believe it.
And the wife hears so much better, see the blue dashed curve. And is
usually
younger as well...
I think this explaines everything.
Sorry you old guys for this painful insight.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
  #82   Report Post  
Renaud Dreyer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Le mercredi, 7 avr 2004, à 17:21 US/Pacific, Nousaine a écrit :

Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

I have purchased a few cables over the years, including
some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at
one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much
costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The
differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble
cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the
cheaper cable.


Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually
done this, have you?

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.


I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old
strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high
end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers..........

Well, maybe not the speakers! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


That is often the final argument; "When you fail to hear these obvious
improvements in sound it's because your records aren't good enough,
your
hearing isn't good enough or ..... your equipment isn't good enough."
The
Grandaddy is "You obviously dfon't care enough about music." It
always comes
out eventually. Instead of supplying credible evidence a skeptic is
dismissed
for not being a good-enough "audiophile" or not believing hard enough.


Dear r.a.h-e contributor,

Thank you for submitting your post to the newsgroup. However, the
information/opinions that you provide in your article has been posted
before. Therefore, in the interest of bandwidth conservation, I would
appreciate it if you could resubmit your article with some additional,
new material. Thanks and regards,

Renaud Dreyer
r-a.h-e moderating team

  #83   Report Post  
David E. Bath
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sorry for this (was Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!)

I accidentially posted this rejection message.

I want to sincerely apologize for posting this private message
between Renaud and Tom. It will not happen again.


In article ,
Renaud Dreyer writes:
Le mercredi, 7 avr 2004, à 17:21 US/Pacific, Nousaine a écrit :

Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

I have purchased a few cables over the years, including
some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at
one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much
costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The
differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble
cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the
cheaper cable.

Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually
done this, have you?

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.

I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old
strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high
end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers..........

Well, maybe not the speakers! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


That is often the final argument; "When you fail to hear these obvious
improvements in sound it's because your records aren't good enough,
your
hearing isn't good enough or ..... your equipment isn't good enough."
The
Grandaddy is "You obviously dfon't care enough about music." It
always comes
out eventually. Instead of supplying credible evidence a skeptic is
dismissed
for not being a good-enough "audiophile" or not believing hard enough.


Dear r.a.h-e contributor,

Thank you for submitting your post to the newsgroup. However, the
information/opinions that you provide in your article has been posted
before. Therefore, in the interest of bandwidth conservation, I would
appreciate it if you could resubmit your article with some additional,
new material. Thanks and regards,

Renaud Dreyer
r-a.h-e moderating team

  #84   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:58:53 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 4/6/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: pSGcc.84703$K91.185522@attbi_s02

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:00:04 GMT,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 4/6/2004 10:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:29:29 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
...
On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like
cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper
stuff that does.

It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a
basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same.

This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and
interconnects that sound different.

It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you
are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique
which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000
that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile'
cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected.

Do you really have 10,000 dollars to loose on such a wager


Yes. But I won't lose it.... :-)


You won't loose it because you will never make the bet you proposed.


You're arguing again, and with no point to make...............

or did you plan on
adding a several conditions if someone were to accpet the bet?


The conditions are as they have always been:

Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker
terminals

Just as I thought. You really didn't want to compare anyone's favorite
audiophile cables without messing with their sound.


Excuse me? The above limits will be met both by 12AWG zipcord and
almost any 'audiophile' cable - in more than a dozen tests, I have
*never* had to make an actual level adjustment. That criterion exists
simply to avoid someone claiming a 'win' because he compared 32 AWG
bell wire to 8 AWG welding cable.

Test protocol double-blind

Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials

As it stands you could easily loose.


I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth
is.
--


Nah, you just changed the rules as I thought you would. *As it stood* you
really weren't offering a bet.


The rules are as they have *always* been.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #85   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:20:11 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02...

This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and
interconnects that sound different.


It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you
are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique
which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000
that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile'
cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected.


Beting is not the issue. I can and do hear consistent differences
between various components.


No, you don't. And unlike you, I can *prove* what I'm saying.

'Consistent' is the key here. If I were
somehow 'creating' the phenomena, consistency would be a problem. The
consistency that I find among various products tested at large
intervals of time is fatal to your view.


No, it reinforces my view. In fact, the effect is *called*
reinforcement, and has been well-known for many decades. You are
simply choosing to ignore a *vast* amount of psy research, not to
mention numerous audio DBTs.

Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables.

Comparisons between 50 cents a foot 'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot Kimber
Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to any
reasonable person.

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. 'Unreasonable people' may
simply be the ones who have the most acute hearing.


So far, no such person has surfaced. Many of course have, like
yourself, *claimed* to be able to hear differences, but not one single
person has managed to prove this when they didn't *know* which cable
was connected.


You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove I do not hear
differences. I can and do, when using equipment of sufficient quality,
such as Stax electrostatic headphones.


I cannot prove a negative, but I can certainly prove that *you* cannot
hear the differences you claim among cables. Why are you so afraid to
try it?

Again, as we approach perfection, differences lessen between products.


Any normal cable is already functionally perfect. The only
functionally imperfect cables are those ludicrously expensive ones
with little boxes attached.........................


I have heard differences between cables that are subtle but
consistent.


No, you haven't - and I can *prove* that, if you care to *try* it,
instead of simply repeating "I heard it, so it *must* be true".

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



  #86   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On 7 Apr 2004 15:43:06 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

"josko" wrote in message news:xJFcc.200900$_w.1930145@attbi_s53...

You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good

cables, I
presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy

to
tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I

don't
mean between similar-quality products, but those of different

quality.

Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor

quality.
Expensive cable -- high quality.


The cables are physically different. Different insulation, different
braiding and internal construction, different terminals. The
differences represent qualitative improvememnts over cheaper cables.


No, the signal quality at the end of the cable is *identical* to that
of the cheap cable. This is easily demonstrated. Hence, they are *not*
qualitative improvements, simply a waste of expensive materials and
complex construction techniques. Rather like a fine mechanical
wris****ch, if regarded purely as a functional item.

Sighted test reveals, to you, that
expensive cable sounds better than the cheap cable, on some ad-hoc
measure(s) that is/are relevant to you. Not surprising really. You
start with a hypothesis that there should be a difference in sound
between the two and then you find the evidence that this indeed is the
case. Ah... Human nature. Isn't confirmatory hypothesis testing
wonderful? And quite a problem to overcome if one's goal is to

judge
equipment based on the sound alone.

What 'hypothesis' are you talking about?


Quoting you: "The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy
to tell."


That was a CONCLUSION, not an hypothesis. I had tried several
similarly-priced cables over the years, and found no significant
differences. When I splurged for the $100 cables, it was a far more
noticeable difference.


Only when you *knew* which one was connected.

Or: "When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't mean
between similar-quality products, but those of different quality," which
again implies that you think that cables of different quality sound
differently. This claim of yours also implies that you can infer
quality of cables and I kinda doubt that because you keep repeating, in
one way or another, that quality and price are perfectly correlated, and
they are not. Not even close (this is actually based on some empirical
studies of various products). It seems that you use price as the key,
if not the only, proxy for quality (the other one is possibly brand
name). Hence, a $100 Monster interconnect cable sounds better to you
than a $50 Monster interconnect cable and you would be really surprised
if that is not the case.


The $100 cable does not sound 'twice as good' as the $50 cable. It's
about a 15% improvement.


Actually, it's about *zero* when you don't *know* which cable is
connected. Quoting percentage changes is arrant nonsense - as with
Martin Colloms and his 'subjective scores' for amplifiers.

I did not start out with any
'hypothesis' that there would be or would not be any difference,


Ahhh... so common in the exchanges that I had with other audiophiles on
the same topic on RAO and RAHE: We basically live on Mars, in perfect
isolation, we do not ever communicate with other fellow
audiophiles/friends, we never read audiophile magazines and even if we
do we are able to tune out all of that.


I am much less dependent on reviews than most typical audiophiles. I
do not read reviews of cables. I use only my ears. In any event, I do
not trust anything BUT my own ears.


No, you use your eyes as well - in fact, you *refuse* to genuinely
trust *only* your ears.

I doubt that simply because a
person who considers himself to be an audiophile and entertains the idea
that there is something to be learned from sighted evaluation of two
basically same or very similar interconnects wouldn't really do that if,
at the very least, he doesn't expect the whole "experiment" to be a
valuable learning experience. The rest of the biased evaluation goes
like this: once you "detect" a difference you attentionally zero in on
it and then you "hear it" over and over again. "Frequency extremes are
cleaner" becomes a working hypothesis and every subseqent audition
reveals that indeed "the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner".


It was. No doubt about it.


Every doubt about it.

The problem is not only that you zero in attentionally on these
differences, but you probably also do not level match between listening
sessions and this lack of level matching contributes to the illuson of
cleaner frequency extremes.


I had no reason to single these factors out BEFORE listening. I
listened with considerable attention to aeverything about the sound.
In fact, the differences are hard to describe, and are more complex,
much more complex, than that description.


They are 'hard to describ'e because they have no real-world existence!

Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster
interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test
with implemented bias controls.


That guards against 'bias' of one kind, but the simple fact is that
without high-resolution transducers and high-quality sources and
amplification, no differences between cables can be heard even when
they do exist. It is also necessary to have a well-trained,
EXPERIENCED, ear. I promise you, that if you try listening through
Stax Lambdas you'll hear many more differences than you do through any
ordinray loudspeakers. EVERYTHING is heard: cables, amps, RF traps,
you name it.


Rubbish. Try it in a blind test - I *DARE* you!

In other words, it is not a matter of 'procedure' but a matter of
'equipment and experience'. A test can be perfectly unbiased and yet
be completely worthless.


And *any* sighted test is *by definition* worthless.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #87   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


No, the signal quality at the end of the cable is *identical* to that
of the cheap cable. This is easily demonstrated. Hence, they are *not*
qualitative improvements, simply a waste of expensive materials and
complex construction techniques. Rather like a fine mechanical
wris****ch, if regarded purely as a functional item.


To draw an analogy between a boutique cable and a fine mechanical watch
is a great insult to the latter . Owners of expensive watches resent that!

  #88   Report Post  
josko
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
"josko" wrote in message

news:xJFcc.200900$_w.1930145@attbi_s53...


snip


The cables are physically different. Different insulation, different
braiding and internal construction, different terminals. The
differences represent qualitative improvememnts over cheaper cables.


But do these improvements affect signal in any significant way (i.e.
above audible treshold)?


Sighted test reveals, to you, that
expensive cable sounds better than the cheap cable, on some

ad-hoc
measure(s) that is/are relevant to you. Not surprising really.

You
start with a hypothesis that there should be a difference in

sound
between the two and then you find the evidence that this indeed

is
the
case. Ah... Human nature. Isn't confirmatory hypothesis

testing
wonderful? And quite a problem to overcome if one's goal is to

judge
equipment based on the sound alone.

What 'hypothesis' are you talking about?


Quoting you: "The difference between cheap cables and good ones is

easy
to tell."


That was a CONCLUSION, not an hypothesis.


But you also expected that you would hear a difference, any difference,
at least somewhere in the back of your mind?

I had tried several
similarly-priced cables over the years, and found no significant
differences. When I splurged for the $100 cables, it was a far more
noticeable difference.

Or: "When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't

mean
between similar-quality products, but those of different quality,"

which
again implies that you think that cables of different quality sound
differently. This claim of yours also implies that you can infer
quality of cables and I kinda doubt that because you keep repeating,

in
one way or another, that quality and price are perfectly correlated,

and
they are not. Not even close (this is actually based on some

empirical
studies of various products). It seems that you use price as the

key,
if not the only, proxy for quality (the other one is possibly brand
name). Hence, a $100 Monster interconnect cable sounds better to

you
than a $50 Monster interconnect cable and you would be really

surprised
if that is not the case.


The $100 cable does not sound 'twice as good' as the $50 cable. It's
about a 15% improvement.


You are very specific here....

snip


I doubt that simply because a
person who considers himself to be an audiophile and entertains the

idea
that there is something to be learned from sighted evaluation of two
basically same or very similar interconnects wouldn't really do that

if,
at the very least, he doesn't expect the whole "experiment" to be a
valuable learning experience. The rest of the biased evaluation

goes
like this: once you "detect" a difference you attentionally zero in

on
it and then you "hear it" over and over again. "Frequency extremes

are
cleaner" becomes a working hypothesis and every subseqent audition
reveals that indeed "the bass seemed tighter and the treble

cleaner".

It was. No doubt about it.


.... and here....


The problem is not only that you zero in attentionally on these
differences, but you probably also do not level match between

listening
sessions and this lack of level matching contributes to the illuson

of
cleaner frequency extremes.


I had no reason to single these factors out BEFORE listening. I
listened with considerable attention to aeverything about the sound.


But you had to single out these factors once, and once you did that, the
rest of processing is inevitably biased for the reasons that I
described.


In fact, the differences are hard to describe, and are more complex,
much more complex, than that description.


Now, you're switching in your description of improvement in sound from
being very specific ("15% improvement", "tighter frequency extremes") to
being quite unclear. How come?

snip


but I
was willing to listen and use my own judgement about what I heard

(or
did not hear). I have purchased a few cables over the years,

including
some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables

at
one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a

much
costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others.

The
differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the

treble
cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from

the
cheaper cable.

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.


Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster
interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test
with implemented bias controls.


That guards against 'bias' of one kind, but the simple fact is that
without high-resolution transducers and high-quality sources and
amplification, no differences between cables can be heard even when
they do exist. It is also necessary to have a well-trained,
EXPERIENCED, ear. I promise you, that if you try listening through
Stax Lambdas you'll hear many more differences than you do through any
ordinray loudspeakers. EVERYTHING is heard: cables, amps, RF traps,
you name it.

In other words, it is not a matter of 'procedure' but a matter of
'equipment and experience'. A test can be perfectly unbiased and yet
be completely worthless.


However, biased test is worthless by definition, and any sighted test is
biased. I just wish that those who can detect differences between
cables and amps would really start trusting their ears alone, not their
eyes. Before that, any argument about "equipment resolution" and
"experience" is pointless.

  #89   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 4/7/2004 8:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:



The conditions are as they have always been:

Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker
terminals


Just as I thought. You really didn't want to compare anyone's favorite
audiophile cables without messing with their sound.


If you know of any audiophile cable that has trouble matching to those
numbers against a 12-ga home depot zip cord, do share that information
with us. You will be doing us a favor by exposing those cables that have
trouble passing the signal without coloration.

I have never looked into it but I recall some "objectivists" claiming that some
audiophile cables do have audible colorations. That was why I made my comment
in the first place.



Of course you realize that the cable can be constructed in such a way as
to be truly audibly different than others. Heck, simply have a resistor
in series with one of the leads; that will give you a different sounding
cable. Those intentionally colored cables, however, never were
advertized as having intentional colorations; instead they were praised
as revealing, dynamic, accurate, etc. Also the degree of coloration is
now a strong function of the speaker, so I wonder why anyone would call
something that is intentionally, uncontrollably, inaccurate "audiophile".

The conditions have always been there, and they are fair, since the vast
majority of cables satisfy that requirement easily. Without those
conditions, the bet is no longer a bet, since someone can bring in a
cable with resistors, or for that matter, a cable that is broken. We can
all tell a broken cable from a good one.

Test protocol double-blind

Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials

As it stands you could easily loose.

I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth
is.
--

Nah, you just changed the rules as I thought you would. *As it stood* you
really weren't offering a bet.


Why not? Which condition do you take issue with?


Matching at different frequencies. If a "favorite audiophile cable" has to be
EQed to sound the same then it does sound different to begin with. Stewart did
say that one could not tell the difference between zip cord and one's favorite
audiohhile cable.

Do you lose your
ability to tell cables apart once you don't know what you are listening
to?


I don't know really. I do know that the cables I have were cited blind as
having made a difference in the sound. The sample was only one though.


Who cited them different, blind?

Or are you one of those who go into a panic when they have to match
X to A or B?


I don't do my blind comparisons as ABX . I do them as simple A B comparisons. I
haven't compared cables in over a decade. Most of my comparisons are between
different issues of recordings.


Good to know that you don't a priori believe you are incapable of
comparing things blind.
  #90   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Ban wrote:

But this is valid only for very young people. See here the influence
of age
in fig2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolut...old_of_Hearing

We see how much the capacities of the ear deteriorates with age,
between 50
and 60 this step is big!


What is a lot worse (for me at least) is the deterioration in eyesight
over time.

And now these cable and signature guys, they must be old, because you
replace the actually heard with imagination. And the imagination
creates a
*real* sound, just as the tinnitus does! So they really believe it.
And the wife hears so much better, see the blue dashed curve. And is
usually
younger as well...


So "even my wife can hear it" or "even my 6-year-old daughter can hear
it" is an indication of how snobbish some audiophiles get in their old
age . They should instead say "even I can hear it"!

I think this explaines everything.
Sorry you old guys for this painful insight.



  #91   Report Post  
randyb
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

(S888Wheel) wrote in message news:VnXcc.207559$1p.2340776@attbi_s54...
From: chung

Date: 4/7/2004 8:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:



The conditions are as they have always been:

Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker
terminals


Just as I thought. You really didn't want to compare anyone's favorite
audiophile cables without messing with their sound.


If you know of any audiophile cable that has trouble matching to those
numbers against a 12-ga home depot zip cord, do share that information
with us. You will be doing us a favor by exposing those cables that have
trouble passing the signal without coloration.

I have never looked into it but I recall some "objectivists" claiming that some
audiophile cables do have audible colorations. That was why I made my comment
in the first place.

Test protocol double-blind

Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials

As it stands you could easily loose.

I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth
is.
--

Nah, you just changed the rules as I thought you would. *As it stood* you
really weren't offering a bet.


Why not? Which condition do you take issue with?


Matching at different frequencies. If a "favorite audiophile cable" has to be
EQed to sound the same then it does sound different to begin with. Stewart did
say that one could not tell the difference between zip cord and one's favorite
audiohhile cable.

Do you lose your
ability to tell cables apart once you don't know what you are listening
to?


I don't know really. I do know that the cables I have were cited blind as
having made a difference in the sound. The sample was only one though.

Or are you one of those who go into a panic when they have to match
X to A or B?


I don't do my blind comparisons as ABX . I do them as simple A B comparisons. I
haven't compared cables in over a decade. Most of my comparisons are between
different issues of recordings.


Does anyone know if tests have been made for some of these claims that
ignite the passions of objective vs. subjective by sight challenged
individuals. It would seem to me that this would be an interesting
test because some of the objections for DBT tests would go by the
wayside.







  #92   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 4/7/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: TrYcc.89464$w54.520387@attbi_s01

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:58:53 GMT,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 4/6/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: pSGcc.84703$K91.185522@attbi_s02

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:00:04 GMT,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 4/6/2004 10:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:29:29 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
...
On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like
cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper
stuff that does.

It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a
basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same.

This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and
interconnects that sound different.

It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you
are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique
which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000
that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile'
cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected.

Do you really have 10,000 dollars to loose on such a wager

Yes. But I won't lose it.... :-)


You won't loose it because you will never make the bet you proposed.


You're arguing again, and with no point to make...............


No the point was simple. You were offering a bet to someone who may not have
known about your laundry list of conditions without stipulating them. Had he
taken the bet you would have had to alter the bet as you offered it or back out
or risk loosing 10K. As I predicted, you changed the bet as it was offered. I
suggest you mind your Ps and Qs when offering such large bets to people who are
new to this forum.


or did you plan on
adding a several conditions if someone were to accpet the bet?

The conditions are as they have always been:

Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker
terminals

Just as I thought. You really didn't want to compare anyone's favorite
audiophile cables without messing with their sound.


Excuse me? The above limits will be met both by 12AWG zipcord and
almost any 'audiophile' cable - in more than a dozen tests, I have
*never* had to make an actual level adjustment


Almost being the key word here.

That criterion exists
simply to avoid someone claiming a 'win' because he compared 32 AWG
bell wire to 8 AWG welding cable.


It should be stated anytime you offer such a large bet IMO to avoid
backpeddling.


Test protocol double-blind

Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials

As it stands you could easily loose.

I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth
is.
--


Nah, you just changed the rules as I thought you would. *As it stood* you
really weren't offering a bet.


The rules are as they have *always* been.


The rules were not stated in your offer to someone who, being new here, may
noty have known those rules.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering








  #93   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

From: chung
Date: 4/7/2004 1:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung

Date: 4/7/2004 8:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:



The conditions are as they have always been:

Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker
terminals


Just as I thought. You really didn't want to compare anyone's favorite
audiophile cables without messing with their sound.


If you know of any audiophile cable that has trouble matching to those
numbers against a 12-ga home depot zip cord, do share that information
with us. You will be doing us a favor by exposing those cables that have
trouble passing the signal without coloration.

I have never looked into it but I recall some "objectivists" claiming that

some
audiophile cables do have audible colorations. That was why I made my

comment
in the first place.



Of course you realize that the cable can be constructed in such a way as
to be truly audibly different than others.


Yes, I do realize that. I also realize that Stewarts proposed bet would not
have protected him from such cables being chosen for comparison. If you re-read
my comment this should become obvious.

Heck, simply have a resistor
in series with one of the leads; that will give you a different sounding
cable. Those intentionally colored cables, however, never were
advertized as having intentional colorations; instead they were praised
as revealing, dynamic, accurate, etc. Also the degree of coloration is
now a strong function of the speaker, so I wonder why anyone would call
something that is intentionally, uncontrollably, inaccurate "audiophile".

The conditions have always been there,


They were not there in the post Stewart made that I commented upon. The person
he was addressing is new to RAHE and may not be aware of the laundry list of
assumed conditions of Stewart's bet.

and they are fair, since the vast
majority of cables satisfy that requirement easily. Without those
conditions, the bet is no longer a bet, since someone can bring in a
cable with resistors, or for that matter, a cable that is broken. We can
all tell a broken cable from a good one.


The point I was making was simple. Stewart made an offer for a bet to someone
who may not be aware of all those assumed conditions. Had the person taken the
bet as Stewart offered it, Stewart would have been in a position to either
change the bet he posted or loose 10,000 bucks.


Test protocol double-blind

Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials

As it stands you could easily loose.

I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth
is.
--

Nah, you just changed the rules as I thought you would. *As it stood* you
really weren't offering a bet.


Why not? Which condition do you take issue with?


Matching at different frequencies. If a "favorite audiophile cable" has to

be
EQed to sound the same then it does sound different to begin with. Stewart

did
say that one could not tell the difference between zip cord and one's

favorite
audiohhile cable.

Do you lose your
ability to tell cables apart once you don't know what you are listening
to?


I don't know really. I do know that the cables I have were cited blind as
having made a difference in the sound. The sample was only one though.


Who cited them different, blind?


A friend, I switched in new cables and did not tell him. Without any notice of
a change he proclaimed that a substantial improvement had come about in the
system. Could be coincidence since this was only one sample. It was truely
blind though. I had no contact with him between the time I considered
auditioning the new cables and the time he listened and made the claim of
improvement.



Or are you one of those who go into a panic when they have to match
X to A or B?


I don't do my blind comparisons as ABX . I do them as simple A B

comparisons. I
haven't compared cables in over a decade. Most of my comparisons are

between
different issues of recordings.


Good to know that you don't a priori believe you are incapable of
comparing things blind.







Not at all. I don't think I have voiced any opinion that blind testing per se
is a bad thing.
  #94   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

From: chung
Date: 4/7/2004 1:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Ban wrote:

But this is valid only for very young people. See here the influence
of age
in fig2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolut...old_of_Hearing

We see how much the capacities of the ear deteriorates with age,
between 50
and 60 this step is big!


What is a lot worse (for me at least) is the deterioration in eyesight
over time.

And now these cable and signature guys, they must be old, because you
replace the actually heard with imagination. And the imagination
creates a
*real* sound, just as the tinnitus does! So they really believe it.
And the wife hears so much better, see the blue dashed curve. And is
usually
younger as well...


So "even my wife can hear it" or "even my 6-year-old daughter can hear
it" is an indication of how snobbish some audiophiles get in their old
age . They should instead say "even I can hear it"!


Indeed, but this raises an interesting issue that is often poorly discussed. It
is one thing to hear or see something with greater acuity. It is another to
proccess it. I am far sighted. Most people have better eye sight than I do. But
my occupation is a visual one. I see real differences in my line of work that
are missed by those with better eye sight than me. I know what I am looking for
though. The same is quite true in audio. Hearing things is only part of the
task of appreciating things or discerning things.


I think this explaines everything.
Sorry you old guys for this painful insight.








  #95   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"josko" wrote in message news:C8Zcc.92430$JO3.44977@attbi_s04...

snip


The cables are physically different. Different insulation, different
braiding and internal construction, different terminals. The
differences represent qualitative improvememnts over cheaper cables.


But do these improvements affect signal in any significant way (i.e.
above audible threshold)?


Yes. The more sophisticated, better-built cables have a sound that is
less jumbled-together. All frequencies seem more distinct.

That was a CONCLUSION, not an hypothesis.


But you also expected that you would hear a difference, any difference,
at least somewhere in the back of your mind?


I had no 'expectation' one way or the other. I have auditioned other
products (CD sound enhancers) and found absolutely no effect from one
of them (a spray cleaner) and did note some change from another (the
edge marker green pen). I approach everything without any bias. If it
works, it works. If it doesn't, I'll be the first one to admit it. The
$100 Monster interconnect clearly sounded 'better' than the $50
Monster cable. I owned several cables that were almost
indistinguishable.

(snip)

I had no reason to single these factors out BEFORE listening. I
listened with considerable attention to aeverything about the sound.


But you had to single out these factors once, and once you did that, the
rest of processing is inevitably biased for the reasons that I
described.


Huh? You mean that once I found a difference, that immediately voided
my audition? What kind of science is that? Identifying the differences
takes time, depending upon the degree of difference. Once identified,
the ear can use this particular characteristic as a clue to
identification again. Just as you recognize the 'normal' sounds of
your house, any unusual sound is immediately recognized as 'wrong'. It
could be a bird walking down the gutter, or a bearing wearing down in
the furnace fan, but you can pick it out at once.

In fact, the differences are hard to describe, and are more complex,
much more complex, than that description.


Now, you're switching in your description of improvement in sound from
being very specific ("15% improvement", "tighter frequency extremes") to
being quite unclear. How come?


I don't know what you mean. If I were forced to describe the
differnces, I would say "tighter frequency extremes", but that is
somewhat misleading, just as assigning a 'number' to tasted wines in a
magazine. What does '90 points' mean? No two wines are identical. A 90
point Barolo is a completely different creature from a 90 point
Taurasi or Notarpanaro. The $100 Monster cable sounded qualitatively
better in all respects, but it was most noticeable in the frequency
extremes. The difference was not mind-boggling by any means. That's
why I used the figure of 15%, to give you a rough idea.

Just as in wine appreciation, for which it takes quite some time to
acquire the tools of judgement, the evaluation of the subtler facets
of sonic reproduction is best left to experienced 'palates'. I am
almost sure that I would not be able 'discern' the differences between
the $50 Monster cable and the $100 cable if I had just started into
audio.


snip


Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.

Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster
interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test
with implemented bias controls.


That guards against 'bias' of one kind, but the simple fact is that
without high-resolution transducers and high-quality sources and
amplification, no differences between cables can be heard even when
they do exist. It is also necessary to have a well-trained,
EXPERIENCED, ear. I promise you, that if you try listening through
Stax Lambdas you'll hear many more differences than you do through any
ordinray loudspeakers. EVERYTHING is heard: cables, amps, RF traps,
you name it.

In other words, it is not a matter of 'procedure' but a matter of
'equipment and experience'. A test can be perfectly unbiased and yet
be completely worthless.


However, biased test is worthless by definition, and any sighted test is
biased. I just wish that those who can detect differences between
cables and amps would really start trusting their ears alone, not their
eyes. Before that, any argument about "equipment resolution" and
"experience" is pointless.


It cannot be worthless 'by definition' or your argument begs the
question (I thought you knew that). You lose at once.

You have to PROVE that the bias is ALWAYS stronger than any ability to
hear ANY differences. In other words, even if I grant you that there
may be 'some' bias, (and I certainly do not grant this as a universal
truth) that does not rule out the possibility that the strength of the
difference overcomes the bias. 'Bias' could be considered just one of
many impediments to hearing the differences. Room temperature and
humidity, cleanliness of the contacts, the physical condition of the
auditor, etc, all could play a role. If I hear differences on several
separate occasions, at different times of the day, this would tend to
average out the factors, including the 'bias' you speak of. The
existence of 'bias' in and of itself in no way invalidates ALL
auditory sighted testing. That's why there is such a thing as
repetition of tests. I always do that.



  #96   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"josko" wrote in message news:C8Zcc.92430$JO3.44977@attbi_s04...

snip


The cables are physically different. Different insulation, different
braiding and internal construction, different terminals. The
differences represent qualitative improvememnts over cheaper cables.


But do these improvements affect signal in any significant way (i.e.
above audible threshold)?


Yes. The more sophisticated, better-built cables have a sound that is
less jumbled-together. All frequencies seem more distinct.

That was a CONCLUSION, not an hypothesis.


But you also expected that you would hear a difference, any difference,
at least somewhere in the back of your mind?


I had no 'expectation' one way or the other. I have auditioned other
products (CD sound enhancers) and found absolutely no effect from one
of them (a spray cleaner) and did note some change from another (the
edge marker green pen). I approach everything without any bias. If it
works, it works. If it doesn't, I'll be the first one to admit it. The
$100 Monster interconnect clearly sounded 'better' than the $50
Monster cable. I owned several cables that were almost
indistinguishable.

(snip)

I had no reason to single these factors out BEFORE listening. I
listened with considerable attention to aeverything about the sound.


But you had to single out these factors once, and once you did that, the
rest of processing is inevitably biased for the reasons that I
described.


Huh? You mean that once I found a difference, that immediately voided
my audition? What kind of science is that? Identifying the differences
takes time, depending upon the degree of difference. Once identified,
the ear can use this particular characteristic as a clue to
identification again. Just as you recognize the 'normal' sounds of
your house, any unusual sound is immediately recognized as 'wrong'. It
could be a bird walking down the gutter, or a bearing wearing down in
the furnace fan, but you can pick it out at once.

In fact, the differences are hard to describe, and are more complex,
much more complex, than that description.


Now, you're switching in your description of improvement in sound from
being very specific ("15% improvement", "tighter frequency extremes") to
being quite unclear. How come?


I don't know what you mean. If I were forced to describe the
differnces, I would say "tighter frequency extremes", but that is
somewhat misleading, just as assigning a 'number' to tasted wines in a
magazine. What does '90 points' mean? No two wines are identical. A 90
point Barolo is a completely different creature from a 90 point
Taurasi or Notarpanaro. The $100 Monster cable sounded qualitatively
better in all respects, but it was most noticeable in the frequency
extremes. The difference was not mind-boggling by any means. That's
why I used the figure of 15%, to give you a rough idea.

Just as in wine appreciation, for which it takes quite some time to
acquire the tools of judgement, the evaluation of the subtler facets
of sonic reproduction is best left to experienced 'palates'. I am
almost sure that I would not be able 'discern' the differences between
the $50 Monster cable and the $100 cable if I had just started into
audio.


snip


Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.

Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster
interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test
with implemented bias controls.


That guards against 'bias' of one kind, but the simple fact is that
without high-resolution transducers and high-quality sources and
amplification, no differences between cables can be heard even when
they do exist. It is also necessary to have a well-trained,
EXPERIENCED, ear. I promise you, that if you try listening through
Stax Lambdas you'll hear many more differences than you do through any
ordinray loudspeakers. EVERYTHING is heard: cables, amps, RF traps,
you name it.

In other words, it is not a matter of 'procedure' but a matter of
'equipment and experience'. A test can be perfectly unbiased and yet
be completely worthless.


However, biased test is worthless by definition, and any sighted test is
biased. I just wish that those who can detect differences between
cables and amps would really start trusting their ears alone, not their
eyes. Before that, any argument about "equipment resolution" and
"experience" is pointless.


It cannot be worthless 'by definition' or your argument begs the
question (I thought you knew that). You lose at once.

You have to PROVE that the bias is ALWAYS stronger than any ability to
hear ANY differences. In other words, even if I grant you that there
may be 'some' bias, (and I certainly do not grant this as a universal
truth) that does not rule out the possibility that the strength of the
difference overcomes the bias. 'Bias' could be considered just one of
many impediments to hearing the differences. Room temperature and
humidity, cleanliness of the contacts, the physical condition of the
auditor, etc, all could play a role. If I hear differences on several
separate occasions, at different times of the day, this would tend to
average out the factors, including the 'bias' you speak of. The
existence of 'bias' in and of itself in no way invalidates ALL
auditory sighted testing. That's why there is such a thing as
repetition of tests. I always do that.

  #97   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:8sYcc.89466$w54.520320@attbi_s01...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:20:11 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02...

This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and
interconnects that sound different.

It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you
are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique
which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000
that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile'
cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected.


Betting is not the issue. I can and do hear consistent differences
between various components.


No, you don't. And unlike you, I can *prove* what I'm saying.


You cannot 'prove' anything about what I can or cannot hear.

'Consistent' is the key here. If I were
somehow 'creating' the phenomena, consistency would be a problem. The
consistency that I find among various products tested at large
intervals of time is fatal to your view.


No, it reinforces my view. In fact, the effect is *called*
reinforcement, and has been well-known for many decades. You are
simply choosing to ignore a *vast* amount of psy research, not to
mention numerous audio DBTs.


Impossible. I cannot, even in my wildest dreams, conjure up the
variety of sonic signatures that those 7 amplifiers had, let alone
recreate them several months later. Your 'vast amount of psychological
research' is unconvincing, in the extreme.


Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables.

Comparisons between 50 cents a foot 'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot Kimber
Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to any
reasonable person.

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. 'Unreasonable people' may
simply be the ones who have the most acute hearing.

So far, no such person has surfaced. Many of course have, like
yourself, *claimed* to be able to hear differences, but not one single
person has managed to prove this when they didn't *know* which cable
was connected.


You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove I do not hear
differences. I can and do, when using equipment of sufficient quality,
such as Stax electrostatic headphones.


I cannot prove a negative, but I can certainly prove that *you* cannot
hear the differences you claim among cables. Why are you so afraid to
try it?


Try it? I already did it, man! Asked and answered. No cross-exmination
needed.


Again, as we approach perfection, differences lessen between products.

Any normal cable is already functionally perfect. The only
functionally imperfect cables are those ludicrously expensive ones
with little boxes attached.........................


I have heard differences between cables that are subtle but
consistent.


No, you haven't - and I can *prove* that, if you care to *try* it,
instead of simply repeating "I heard it, so it *must* be true".


I heard it, several times. You have NO grounds for contradicting me,
because you were not there. You have NO empirical data to support your
position. I do. I have a witness.

  #98   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:R76dc.219224$po.1109853@attbi_s52...
"josko" wrote in message

news:C8Zcc.92430$JO3.44977@attbi_s04...

*snip*

Just as in wine appreciation, for which it takes quite some time to
acquire the tools of judgement, the evaluation of the subtler facets
of sonic reproduction is best left to experienced 'palates'.


Since you raised the comparison to wine appreciation, how do you explain the
need for wine tastings to be blind? Might it have something to do with
eliminating the expectation bias that would come with seeing the label and
knowing what you were tasting? Would you trust your own palate to select
for purchase a case of $100/bottle wine without having engaged in a blind
tasting? Would you trust a wine review that wasn't conducted blindly? Why
do you deny yourself the same tools in the audio world?

I am
almost sure that I would not be able 'discern' the differences between
the $50 Monster cable and the $100 cable if I had just started into
audio.


snip


Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.

Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster
interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test
with implemented bias controls.

That guards against 'bias' of one kind, but the simple fact is that
without high-resolution transducers and high-quality sources and
amplification, no differences between cables can be heard even when
they do exist. It is also necessary to have a well-trained,
EXPERIENCED, ear. I promise you, that if you try listening through
Stax Lambdas you'll hear many more differences than you do through any
ordinray loudspeakers. EVERYTHING is heard: cables, amps, RF traps,
you name it.

In other words, it is not a matter of 'procedure' but a matter of
'equipment and experience'. A test can be perfectly unbiased and yet
be completely worthless.


However, biased test is worthless by definition, and any sighted test is
biased. I just wish that those who can detect differences between
cables and amps would really start trusting their ears alone, not their
eyes. Before that, any argument about "equipment resolution" and
"experience" is pointless.


It cannot be worthless 'by definition' or your argument begs the
question (I thought you knew that). You lose at once.

You have to PROVE that the bias is ALWAYS stronger than any ability to
hear ANY differences. In other words, even if I grant you that there
may be 'some' bias, (and I certainly do not grant this as a universal
truth) that does not rule out the possibility that the strength of the
difference overcomes the bias. 'Bias' could be considered just one of
many impediments to hearing the differences. Room temperature and
humidity, cleanliness of the contacts, the physical condition of the
auditor, etc, all could play a role. If I hear differences on several
separate occasions, at different times of the day, this would tend to
average out the factors, including the 'bias' you speak of. The
existence of 'bias' in and of itself in no way invalidates ALL
auditory sighted testing. That's why there is such a thing as
repetition of tests. I always do that.


Repetition of tests in the presence of bias merely serves to reinforce the
effect of the bias. You cannot be the only human involved in product
testing who is immune to sighted bias. You have proved a lack of basic
understanding of how this mechanism works. In your preceding discussion,
substitute a Coke-Pepsi taste test for the audio test and then tell me that
bias has no place in the world.

  #99   Report Post  
josko
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:R76dc.219224$po.1109853@attbi_s52...
"josko" wrote in message

news:C8Zcc.92430$JO3.44977@attbi_s04...

snip


The cables are physically different. Different insulation,

different
braiding and internal construction, different terminals. The
differences represent qualitative improvememnts over cheaper

cables.

But do these improvements affect signal in any significant way (i.e.
above audible threshold)?


Yes. The more sophisticated, better-built cables have a sound that is
less jumbled-together. All frequencies seem more distinct.


You really do not know that because you did not measure electrial
properties of these cables (R, L, C) and check the differences against
the audible thresholds.


That was a CONCLUSION, not an hypothesis.


But you also expected that you would hear a difference, any

difference,
at least somewhere in the back of your mind?


I had no 'expectation' one way or the other. I have auditioned other
products (CD sound enhancers) and found absolutely no effect from one
of them (a spray cleaner) and did note some change from another (the
edge marker green pen). I approach everything without any bias.


Wishful thinking. You're human being. I think that you had weaker or
no expectations when you auditioned the spray cleaner and the green pen.

If it
works, it works. If it doesn't, I'll be the first one to admit it. The
$100 Monster interconnect clearly sounded 'better' than the $50
Monster cable. I owned several cables that were almost
indistinguishable.

(snip)

I had no reason to single these factors out BEFORE listening. I
listened with considerable attention to aeverything about the

sound.

But you had to single out these factors once, and once you did that,

the
rest of processing is inevitably biased for the reasons that I
described.


Huh? You mean that once I found a difference, that immediately voided
my audition? What kind of science is that? Identifying the differences
takes time, depending upon the degree of difference. Once identified,
the ear can use this particular characteristic as a clue to
identification again.


That is a part of the problem. Your confirm what you think you've heard
before.

Just as you recognize the 'normal' sounds of
your house, any unusual sound is immediately recognized as 'wrong'. It
could be a bird walking down the gutter, or a bearing wearing down in
the furnace fan, but you can pick it out at once.


Bad analogy (in the context of "cable sound").

snip


In other words, it is not a matter of 'procedure' but a matter of
'equipment and experience'. A test can be perfectly unbiased and

yet
be completely worthless.


However, biased test is worthless by definition, and any sighted

test is
biased. I just wish that those who can detect differences between
cables and amps would really start trusting their ears alone, not

their
eyes. Before that, any argument about "equipment resolution" and
"experience" is pointless.


It cannot be worthless 'by definition' or your argument begs the
question (I thought you knew that). You lose at once.


I'm not sure I understand you here.


You have to PROVE that the bias is ALWAYS stronger than any ability to
hear ANY differences. In other words, even if I grant you that there
may be 'some' bias, (and I certainly do not grant this as a universal
truth) that does not rule out the possibility that the strength of the
difference overcomes the bias. 'Bias' could be considered just one of
many impediments to hearing the differences. Room temperature and
humidity, cleanliness of the contacts, the physical condition of the
auditor, etc, all could play a role.


OK and...?

If I hear differences on several
separate occasions, at different times of the day, this would tend to
average out the factors, including the 'bias' you speak of.


Not at all beacuse of something called confirmatory bias, which is an
extremely strong tendency of human decison makers.

The
existence of 'bias' in and of itself in no way invalidates ALL
auditory sighted testing.


Not all, but it invalidates all sighted testing of amps, cables, CD
players for example.

That's why there is such a thing as
repetition of tests. I always do that.


Repetition would be meaningful only if you change listening methodology
from one ocassion to another; say you switch from sighted,
level-unmatched listening to blind, level-matched listening and
correlate the results. By doing this, you'd be able to "weed out" the
bias and see its effects on judgment. If you stick to sighted testing,
your results are worthless if you're interested in real, as opposed to
imaginary, differences in sound. However, its understandable that a lot
of audiophiles care about imaginary differences for a variety of
reasons.

  #100   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:zJ6dc.90585$gA5.1139877@attbi_s03...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message

news:8sYcc.89466$w54.520320@attbi_s01...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:20:11 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message

news:5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02...

This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and
interconnects that sound different.

It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that

you
are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique
which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000
that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite

'audiophile'
cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected.

Betting is not the issue. I can and do hear consistent differences
between various components.


No, you don't. And unlike you, I can *prove* what I'm saying.


You cannot 'prove' anything about what I can or cannot hear.


Well...if you can hear a difference between green pen treated CDs and
otherwise identical untreated CDs under blind conditions, I guess you would
be able to prove what you can and cannot hear. Without a blind test, you
are simply arm waving and while it may be satisfying to you, such a test has
no more validity than the previously mentioned blind wine tasting.


'Consistent' is the key here. If I were
somehow 'creating' the phenomena, consistency would be a problem. The
consistency that I find among various products tested at large
intervals of time is fatal to your view.


No, it reinforces my view. In fact, the effect is *called*
reinforcement, and has been well-known for many decades. You are
simply choosing to ignore a *vast* amount of psy research, not to
mention numerous audio DBTs.


Impossible. I cannot, even in my wildest dreams, conjure up the
variety of sonic signatures that those 7 amplifiers had, let alone
recreate them several months later. Your 'vast amount of psychological
research' is unconvincing, in the extreme.

It has been previously explained to you, that the mechanism that allowed you
to initially 'conjure up' the various 'sonic signatures' of those 7 amps is
fairly irrelevant. It could have been your physical state at the time of
testing, your mental state, or random. The point is that you wouldn't have
engaged in a sighted "shoot out" between amps if you had a reasonable belief
that they all sounded the same. A comparison of any type seeks to identify
similarities and differences between the two items being compared. Your
amplifier listening 'test' thus presupposes that differences exist, your
protestations to the contrary.

Furthermore, once you began your listening and determined in your mind that
the first two amps sounded different, you reinforced the idea that the amps
sounded different every time you put a new amp in. At that point, you were
again listening for differences whether you think you were or not.

Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences.

Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end

cables.

Comparisons between 50 cents a foot 'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot

Kimber
Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to

any
reasonable person.

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. 'Unreasonable people' may
simply be the ones who have the most acute hearing.

So far, no such person has surfaced. Many of course have, like
yourself, *claimed* to be able to hear differences, but not one

single
person has managed to prove this when they didn't *know* which cable
was connected.

You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove I do not hear
differences. I can and do, when using equipment of sufficient quality,
such as Stax electrostatic headphones.


I cannot prove a negative, but I can certainly prove that *you* cannot
hear the differences you claim among cables. Why are you so afraid to
try it?


Try it? I already did it, man! Asked and answered. No cross-exmination
needed.


The 'it' in the above statement meant with bias controls in place, ie blind.
Now...why are you afraid to try 'it'?

*snip*



  #101   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 06:57:35 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:8sYcc.89466$w54.520320@attbi_s01...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:20:11 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02...

This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and
interconnects that sound different.

It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that
you
are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique
which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000
that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite
'audiophile'
cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected.

Betting is not the issue. I can and do hear consistent differences
between various components.


No, you don't. And unlike you, I can *prove* what I'm saying.


You cannot 'prove' anything about what I can or cannot hear.


Sure I can - just step up to the plate and try a DBT.

'Consistent' is the key here. If I were
somehow 'creating' the phenomena, consistency would be a problem. The
consistency that I find among various products tested at large
intervals of time is fatal to your view.


No, it reinforces my view. In fact, the effect is *called*
reinforcement, and has been well-known for many decades. You are
simply choosing to ignore a *vast* amount of psy research, not to
mention numerous audio DBTs.


Impossible. I cannot, even in my wildest dreams, conjure up the
variety of sonic signatures that those 7 amplifiers had, let alone
recreate them several months later. Your 'vast amount of psychological
research' is unconvincing, in the extreme.


To you perhaps, but not to those of us who have actually *tried* DBTs.
What's your problem? If your claims are accurate, then you will 'ace'
the test and collect $10,000.


Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences.
Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end
cables.

Comparisons between 50 cents a foot 'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot
Kimber
Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to
any
reasonable person.

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. 'Unreasonable people' may
simply be the ones who have the most acute hearing.

So far, no such person has surfaced. Many of course have, like
yourself, *claimed* to be able to hear differences, but not one
single
person has managed to prove this when they didn't *know* which cable
was connected.

You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove I do not hear
differences. I can and do, when using equipment of sufficient
quality,
such as Stax electrostatic headphones.


I cannot prove a negative, but I can certainly prove that *you* cannot
hear the differences you claim among cables. Why are you so afraid to
try it?


Try it? I already did it, man!


No, you have *never* tried it when you didn't *know* what was
connected. That it the whole point.

Asked and answered. No cross-exmination
needed.


Asked and evaded every time, you mean.

Again, as we approach perfection, differences lessen between
products.

Any normal cable is already functionally perfect. The only
functionally imperfect cables are those ludicrously expensive ones
with little boxes attached.........................

I have heard differences between cables that are subtle but
consistent.


No, you haven't - and I can *prove* that, if you care to *try* it,
instead of simply repeating "I heard it, so it *must* be true".


I heard it, several times. You have NO grounds for contradicting me,
because you were not there. You have NO empirical data to support your
position. I do. I have a witness.


I have the grounds that *no* human can do this, because any
*measurable* differences lie far below the threshold of human hearing.
You have a witness only to the fact that sighted testing is useless in
this context.

I repeat, if you simply *try* a DBT, you will discover that you are
just plain wrong. I am putting up $10,000 that this is true.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #102   Report Post  
Panzzi
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Hi, all...

I've been following some of the threads about cables in RAHE. Interesting
is I noticed that everytime somebody brought the cables issue up, there
are certain people/group will jump in and tried to tell these people they
were wrong!

I just don't get it? Why are they do that?

This is a free world, and thanks God we are in a free world. We have the
right to proclaim our own personal experience. By saying this cable is
better than the others, or this cable sounds better than that one would
not hurt and cannot not hurt anyone. I mean, if somebody did not agree
with that, just let it be. Why do you want to apply your proclaim to
someone else?

Personally, I absolutely didnot agree that expensive speaker cables WILL
give you better sound than cheaper speaker cables. But depends on the
material it is using, there is/are difference, it is just a matter of you
want to spend an extra few hundred dollars in return to that kind of
difference(s), some said yes, some said no. Just like, can you tell the
difference between a 14AWG and 12AWG? If yes, is it worth to spend that
extra money to get that difference?

Speaking of interconnect, it is a difference story, I personally
experience significally difference among coaxial cable, pure copper
cable, silver cable, and silver/copper hybrid cable. And once again, if
anyone doesn't agree with that, I'm sorry, but you can't say I'm wrong
because that is my experience. It is very subjective I know, but when the
world of audiophile still cannot agree on when subjective listening rule
or objective testing rule, I think I'm happy with that.

I remember once my professor told me that: Engineer should be the most
open minded professional among all, without that open minded, the world
will not and cannot progress.

Keep that in mind.

Panzzi
  #103   Report Post  
Norman Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"josko" wrote in message
...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:R76dc.219224$po.1109853@attbi_s52...

less jumbled-together. All frequencies seem more distinct.


Even if so, although I doubt it, jumbled together is the way they occur
naturally, frequencies seeming distinct is a fault.

If I hear differences on several
separate occasions, at different times of the day, this would tend to
average out the factors, including the 'bias' you speak of.


Not at all beacuse of something called confirmatory bias, which is an
extremely strong tendency of human decison makers.


Ignoring mind-play factors, I think one's hearing differs on "separate
occasions" more so than any cable difference could ever produce.

  #104   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Bruce Abrams wrote in message ...

Just as in wine appreciation, for which it takes quite some time to
acquire the tools of judgement, the evaluation of the subtler facets
of sonic reproduction is best left to experienced 'palates'.


Since you raised the comparison to wine appreciation, how do you explain the
need for wine tastings to be blind?


HUH? I never 'taste' wine, I drink it with food. It's silly. Italian
wines, especially, are meant to be drunk with food in a meal.
'Tasting' Italian wines outside of the cuisine for which they are
intended (i.e., out of context) is likely to give a false impression
of their quality. A wine that might 'taste' very harsh will taste
quite different with a plate of pasta and lamb.

'Blind' tasting is for the benefit of the makers, not the consumers,
to avoid bribes. That's all it is good for.

Might it have something to do with
eliminating the expectation bias that would come with seeing the label and
knowing what you were tasting?


No, that's not the reason. The reason is to prevent crooked reviews.

Would you trust your own palate to select
for purchase a case of $100/bottle wine without having engaged in a blind
tasting?


You don't get a $100 bottle of wine for $10. It's not possible to do.
I had a $7 bottle of Primitivo last weekend, alongside a $15
Primitivo. Care to guess which one was better? I also had a $45 bottle
of Taurino's Patriglione Rosso Del Salento that was so intense it was
almost like an Amarone.

Would you trust a wine review that wasn't conducted blindly? Why
do you deny yourself the same tools in the audio world?


I don't trsut wine reviews. Period. I trust my tongue. I don't trust
audio product reviews, either. I trust my ears.

I am
almost sure that I would not be able 'discern' the differences between
the $50 Monster cable and the $100 cable if I had just started into
audio.


snip


Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.

Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster
interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test
with implemented bias controls.

That guards against 'bias' of one kind, but the simple fact is that
without high-resolution transducers and high-quality sources and
amplification, no differences between cables can be heard even when
they do exist. It is also necessary to have a well-trained,
EXPERIENCED, ear. I promise you, that if you try listening through
Stax Lambdas you'll hear many more differences than you do through any
ordinray loudspeakers. EVERYTHING is heard: cables, amps, RF traps,
you name it.

In other words, it is not a matter of 'procedure' but a matter of
'equipment and experience'. A test can be perfectly unbiased and yet
be completely worthless.

However, biased test is worthless by definition, and any sighted test is
biased. I just wish that those who can detect differences between
cables and amps would really start trusting their ears alone, not their
eyes. Before that, any argument about "equipment resolution" and
"experience" is pointless.


It cannot be worthless 'by definition' or your argument begs the
question (I thought you knew that). You lose at once.

You have to PROVE that the bias is ALWAYS stronger than any ability to
hear ANY differences. In other words, even if I grant you that there
may be 'some' bias, (and I certainly do not grant this as a universal
truth) that does not rule out the possibility that the strength of the
difference overcomes the bias. 'Bias' could be considered just one of
many impediments to hearing the differences. Room temperature and
humidity, cleanliness of the contacts, the physical condition of the
auditor, etc, all could play a role. If I hear differences on several
separate occasions, at different times of the day, this would tend to
average out the factors, including the 'bias' you speak of. The
existence of 'bias' in and of itself in no way invalidates ALL
auditory sighted testing. That's why there is such a thing as
repetition of tests. I always do that.


Repetition of tests in the presence of bias merely serves to reinforce the
effect of the bias. You cannot be the only human involved in product
testing who is immune to sighted bias. You have proved a lack of basic
understanding of how this mechanism works. In your preceding discussion,
substitute a Coke-Pepsi taste test for the audio test and then tell me that
bias has no place in the world.


Question-begging. This is what's at issue. It cannot be the foundation
AND conclusion of your argument.


  #105   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"josko" wrote in message ...
Yes. The more sophisticated, better-built cables have a sound that is
less jumbled-together. All frequencies seem more distinct.


You really do not know that because you did not measure electrial
properties of these cables (R, L, C) and check the differences against
the audible thresholds.


Thwe differences between cables are of a different kind than between
other components. Cables are passive, and thus should be completely
without any character of their own. Amplifiers are active, and
transducers are another thing altogether.

As I said previously, the closer one approachs to perfection with
cables, the more similar they will sound.


I had no 'expectation' one way or the other. I have auditioned other
products (CD sound enhancers) and found absolutely no effect from one
of them (a spray cleaner) and did note some change from another (the
edge marker green pen). I approach everything without any bias.


Wishful thinking. You're human being. I think that you had weaker or
no expectations when you auditioned the spray cleaner and the green pen.


You 'think'? You 'think'? On what basis? Were you able to record my
thoughts?n As a matter of fact, I had no expectations of any of the
products. I just listen.


  #106   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...

No, you haven't - and I can *prove* that, if you care to *try* it,
instead of simply repeating "I heard it, so it *must* be true".


I heard it, several times. You have NO grounds for contradicting me,
because you were not there. You have NO empirical data to support your
position. I do. I have a witness.


I have the grounds that *no* human can do this, because any
*measurable* differences lie far below the threshold of human hearing.
You have a witness only to the fact that sighted testing is useless in
this context.


Question-begging. Your argument consists of this circularity: 'You
can't have heard any differences that are real because sighted testing
is worthless. Sighted testing is worthless because any differences you
hear aren't real.'
  #107   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

You don't get a $100 bottle of wine for $10. It's not possible to do.
I had a $7 bottle of Primitivo last weekend, alongside a $15
Primitivo. Care to guess which one was better? I also had a $45 bottle
of Taurino's Patriglione Rosso Del Salento that was so intense it was
almost like an Amarone.


Actually, it depends. Given the markup in most places, that $20
bottle of wine is marked up near $100, so with some shopping,
you might actually be able to get the same bottle for $15.

You can do the same in audio.
  #108   Report Post  
josko
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
"josko" wrote in message

...
Yes. The more sophisticated, better-built cables have a sound that

is
less jumbled-together. All frequencies seem more distinct.


You really do not know that because you did not measure electrial
properties of these cables (R, L, C) and check the differences

against
the audible thresholds.


Thwe differences between cables are of a different kind than between
other components. Cables are passive, and thus should be completely
without any character of their own.


So how come that "a $100 Monster interconnect is 15% better soundwise
than a $50 Monster interconnect"?

Amplifiers are active, and
transducers are another thing altogether.

As I said previously, the closer one approachs to perfection with
cables, the more similar they will sound.


I had no 'expectation' one way or the other. I have auditioned

other
products (CD sound enhancers) and found absolutely no effect from

one
of them (a spray cleaner) and did note some change from another

(the
edge marker green pen). I approach everything without any bias.


Wishful thinking. You're human being. I think that you had weaker

or
no expectations when you auditioned the spray cleaner and the green

pen.

You 'think'? You 'think'? On what basis? Were you able to record my
thoughts?n As a matter of fact, I had no expectations of any of the
products. I just listen.


I 'think' because I'm trying to be careful in voicing my opinion and
because I was not able to record your thoughts; hence, I use 'think'
instead of 'know'.

Let me rephrase what I've said: you failed to convince yourself that
green pen worked. OTOH, a lot of audiophiles think that it does work
and they reached their conclusion by listening to treated CDs on
speakers that were probably less revealing than Stax headphones (simply
because they were listening in a reverberating soundfield in which
soundwaves interacted with listening room). So, do green pens work or
not? Why didn't you hear the difference? Lack of training? Poor (i.e.
not revealing) equipment? Or simply because they couldn't possibly work
because there is no physical basis for them to "work"? Who is right,
who is wrong here? Finally, how would you methodologically resolve this
apparent lack of agreement among audiophiles regarding the usefulness of
green pens?
  #109   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Panzzi wrote:
Hi, all...

I've been following some of the threads about cables in RAHE. Interesting
is I noticed that everytime somebody brought the cables issue up, there
are certain people/group will jump in and tried to tell these people they
were wrong!

I just don't get it? Why are they do that?


You are right that you did not get it.

The issue is not whether there are real differences in cables. The issue
is someone believes strongly that since he heard those differences in a
sighted test, then those differences *must* be real, in a sonic sense.
The disagreement then, of course, is on whether perceptual bias can
affect what one believes one hears. On one side, the poster believes
that perceptual bias could never explain those differences that he knows
he hears for sure. On the other side, we have those who believe in the
effect of bias overwhelming sublte differences, and that belief is based
on personal experience as well as published research decades old.


This is a free world, and thanks God we are in a free world. We have the
right to proclaim our own personal experience. By saying this cable is
better than the others, or this cable sounds better than that one would
not hurt and cannot not hurt anyone. I mean, if somebody did not agree
with that, just let it be. Why do you want to apply your proclaim to
someone else?


I, for one, don't really care if Mr. Scarpitti believes one cable is
better than another. That's his preference, and he can spend his money
any way he wants to. But when he claims that since he heard those
differences, then those differences *must* be real in an audible sense,
that's when others come in and challenge that claim.


Personally, I absolutely didnot agree that expensive speaker cables WILL
give you better sound than cheaper speaker cables. But depends on the
material it is using, there is/are difference, it is just a matter of you
want to spend an extra few hundred dollars in return to that kind of
difference(s), some said yes, some said no. Just like, can you tell the
difference between a 14AWG and 12AWG? If yes, is it worth to spend that
extra money to get that difference?

Speaking of interconnect, it is a difference story, I personally
experience significally difference among coaxial cable, pure copper
cable, silver cable, and silver/copper hybrid cable. And once again, if
anyone doesn't agree with that, I'm sorry, but you can't say I'm wrong
because that is my experience.


I wouldn't say you are wrong, since you really believe that you heard
those differences. I would say that if you do a careful bias controlled
test, you may not hear those differences.

It is very subjective I know, but when the
world of audiophile still cannot agree on when subjective listening rule
or objective testing rule, I think I'm happy with that.


Who cares if subjective listening rules or objectively listening rules?
And what does "rules" mean? By definition,listening is subjective. In a
case like cables, or green pens, sounding different, fortunately the DBT
can answer the question of whether those differences are real audible
differences.


I remember once my professor told me that: Engineer should be the most
open minded professional among all, without that open minded, the world
will not and cannot progress.


Being open mind also means being aware of the powers of perceptual bias.
And being open mind does not mean that we will entertain any crazy
theory, like magic green pens improving sound, without asking for proofs.

Keep that in mind.

Panzzi


  #110   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Panzzi wrote:

Personally, I absolutely didnot agree that expensive speaker cables WILL
give you better sound than cheaper speaker cables. But depends on the
material it is using, there is/are difference, it is just a matter of you
want to spend an extra few hundred dollars in return to that kind of
difference(s), some said yes, some said no. Just like, can you tell the
difference between a 14AWG and 12AWG? If yes, is it worth to spend that
extra money to get that difference?


Given that $19.95 buys you a 500ft roll of 14 gauge wire and the 12
gauge is $3 more...



  #111   Report Post  
normanstrong
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Huh? You mean that once I found a difference, that immediately
voided
my audition? What kind of science is that? Identifying the

differences
takes time, depending upon the degree of difference. Once

identified,
the ear can use this particular characteristic as a clue to
identification again.


That is a part of the problem. Your confirm what you think you've

heard
before.


In fact, that's one of the big problems with Stereophile reviews. The
review task is usually assigned to someone that wants to review the
product, since he heard it at some show and was favorably impressed.
To me, this would be an indicator that someone else should do the
review. But that isn't how Atkinson sees it.

Norm Strong

  #112   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Panzzi wrote:

Hi, all...

I've been following some of the threads about cables in RAHE. Interesting
is I noticed that everytime somebody brought the cables issue up, there
are certain people/group will jump in and tried to tell these people they
were wrong!

I just don't get it? Why are they do that?

This is a free world, and thanks God we are in a free world. We have the
right to proclaim our own personal experience. By saying this cable is
better than the others, or this cable sounds better than that one would
not hurt and cannot not hurt anyone. I mean, if somebody did not agree
with that, just let it be. Why do you want to apply your proclaim to
someone else?


The argument is not about their experience. The argument is about the
significance of their experience. There are sound scientific reasons for
believing that most cables (and interconnects) on the market are sonically
indistinguishable. There are also sound scientific reasons for believing
that people often imagine differences between things that are not actually
different.

So when someone says he hears differences between two cables that are not
actually different enough to matter sonically, it is scientifically
reasonable to conclude that he imagined those differences. It is a free
world, as you say, and you are free to disagree with that conclusion.

Personally, I absolutely didnot agree that expensive speaker cables WILL
give you better sound than cheaper speaker cables. But depends on the
material it is using, there is/are difference, it is just a matter of you
want to spend an extra few hundred dollars in return to that kind of
difference(s), some said yes, some said no. Just like, can you tell the
difference between a 14AWG and 12AWG? If yes, is it worth to spend that
extra money to get that difference?

Speaking of interconnect, it is a difference story, I personally
experience significally difference among coaxial cable, pure copper
cable, silver cable, and silver/copper hybrid cable. And once again, if
anyone doesn't agree with that, I'm sorry, but you can't say I'm wrong
because that is my experience.


You're right--I can't say that you didn't experience this. But I can reach a
different conclusion about WHY you experienced this. See above.

It is very subjective I know, but when the
world of audiophile still cannot agree on when subjective listening rule
or objective testing rule, I think I'm happy with that.

I remember once my professor told me that: Engineer should be the most
open minded professional among all, without that open minded, the world
will not and cannot progress.

But he probably meant, not so open that everything falls out!

Actually, the cable critics here are generally pretty good about following
your old professor's advice. When someone asserts that he hears a difference
between cables, the typical response is, "We don't think so, but here's how
you can prove us wrong." (Admittedly, it's usually worded a bit more
strongly than that, but that's what they mean!)

We're open to new evidence. But one more guy insisting he heard something is
not, by itself, new evidence.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN
Premium!
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/m...ave/direct/01/

  #113   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On 9 Apr 2004 04:32:03 GMT, Panzzi wrote:

Hi, all...

I've been following some of the threads about cables in RAHE. Interesting
is I noticed that everytime somebody brought the cables issue up, there
are certain people/group will jump in and tried to tell these people they
were wrong!

I just don't get it? Why are they do that?


Because they *were* wrong? :-)

This is a free world, and thanks God we are in a free world.


Indeed - everyone is free to have the right to be wrong. Of course,
everyone else has the right to *tell* them that they are wrong. Ain't
freedom of speech a bitch? :-)

We have the
right to proclaim our own personal experience. By saying this cable is
better than the others, or this cable sounds better than that one would
not hurt and cannot not hurt anyone. I mean, if somebody did not agree
with that, just let it be. Why do you want to apply your proclaim to
someone else?


I canna' change the laws o' physics, cap'n....................

Personally, I absolutely didnot agree that expensive speaker cables WILL
give you better sound than cheaper speaker cables. But depends on the
material it is using, there is/are difference,


Actually no, it doesn't make any difference at all.

it is just a matter of you
want to spend an extra few hundred dollars in return to that kind of
difference(s), some said yes, some said no. Just like, can you tell the
difference between a 14AWG and 12AWG? If yes, is it worth to spend that
extra money to get that difference?

Speaking of interconnect, it is a difference story, I personally
experience significally difference among coaxial cable, pure copper
cable, silver cable, and silver/copper hybrid cable. And once again, if
anyone doesn't agree with that, I'm sorry, but you can't say I'm wrong
because that is my experience.


We can however say that there is no difference in the physical world,
and that you would understand this if you tried a DBT. We can say
this, because we have been there, done that, and have a wardrobe full
of T-shirts.

It is very subjective I know, but when the
world of audiophile still cannot agree on when subjective listening rule
or objective testing rule, I think I'm happy with that.

I remember once my professor told me that: Engineer should be the most
open minded professional among all, without that open minded, the world
will not and cannot progress.

Keep that in mind.


We do. Intriguingly, it is *always* the 'subjectivists' who wish to
ignore physical evidence, and to shut up those who disagree with them.
I believe that tells its own story......................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #114   Report Post  
Ban
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

You 'think'? You 'think'? On what basis? Were you able to record my
thoughts?n As a matter of fact, I had no expectations of any of the
products. I just listen.


Michael,
you must be of Italian heritage. We are believers and have strict customs.
These are very destinct Italian qualities.
An Italian travelling can not feel OK unless he can find Italian food, drink
Italian wine with it and have his caffe afterwards. There needs to be Oleo
piccante and Parmeggiano as well.
In fact a real Italian never even tastes an unknown food. :-)
If we see some strange food we are disgusted. Our mind can not allow us to
enjoy it.
The same is true for other things. If something goes against our beliefs, we
cannot accept it.

This concept has its pros and cons. We could preserve a lot of traditions,
but we are also unflexible.
From your answers I can see that you have put these Italian qualities into

your high-end hobby as well.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
  #115   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message

...

No, you haven't - and I can *prove* that, if you care to *try* it,
instead of simply repeating "I heard it, so it *must* be true".

I heard it, several times. You have NO grounds for contradicting me,
because you were not there. You have NO empirical data to support your
position. I do. I have a witness.


I have the grounds that *no* human can do this, because any
*measurable* differences lie far below the threshold of human hearing.
You have a witness only to the fact that sighted testing is useless in
this context.


Question-begging. Your argument consists of this circularity: 'You
can't have heard any differences that are real because sighted testing
is worthless. Sighted testing is worthless because any differences you
hear aren't real.'


Nobody has ever said that "Sighted testing is worthless because any
differences you hear aren't real." Sighted testing is worthless because it
is inherently flawed. The biases that it introduces are recognized by
virtually every field of science and any research or consumer testing that
would be done absent controls for such biases would be ignored as being
fatally flawed and consequently meaningless. There is no circular argument.
The complete argument is that "Sighted testing is worthless because of the
biases it introduces. Any audible differences that you hear during sighted
conditions, therefore, must be verified as being duplicatible with bias
controls in place (ie blind)." You have yet to answer why you are so
resistant to engaging in a blind test.

If you genuinely think that you're immune to sighted bias, congratulations.
Virtually no elements within the scientific or product testing world would
agree, however.


  #116   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

josko wrote:
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
You 'think'? You 'think'? On what basis? Were you able to record my
thoughts?n As a matter of fact, I had no expectations of any of the
products. I just listen.


I 'think' because I'm trying to be careful in voicing my opinion and
because I was not able to record your thoughts; hence, I use 'think'
instead of 'know'.


Let me rephrase what I've said: you failed to convince yourself that
green pen worked.


Actually, he said he *did* hear some effect from green markers. All the more
remarkable if , as some have claimed, the 'green pen
effect' began as a internet joke.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

  #117   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...


No, you haven't - and I can *prove* that, if you care to *try* it,
instead of simply repeating "I heard it, so it *must* be true".

I heard it, several times. You have NO grounds for contradicting me,
because you were not there. You have NO empirical data to support your
position. I do. I have a witness.


I have the grounds that *no* human can do this, because any
*measurable* differences lie far below the threshold of human hearing.
You have a witness only to the fact that sighted testing is useless in
this context.



Question-begging. Your argument consists of this circularity: 'You
can't have heard any differences that are real because sighted testing
is worthless.


More accurately it should be that sighted testing introduces known
psychological factors.
  #120   Report Post  
Norman Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:7TBdc.108492$K91.308894@attbi_s02...

In fact, that's one of the big problems with Stereophile reviews. The
review task is usually assigned to someone that wants to review the
product, since he heard it at some show and was favorably impressed.
To me, this would be an indicator that someone else should do the
review. But that isn't how Atkinson sees it.


As long (past) subscriber from that I can recall, this is not the case it
all. I've read reviewer's statements indicating that they were simply called
upon to review a product. It is to be expected that the editor assigns
reviews equitably throughout his staff and that he would neither ask nor
require someone to review anything far afield from his major interest nor
something which would be unpleasant for him/her to perform. I have found
Stereophile's reviews to be both informative and entertaining. I think
readers want to see "provacative " since that's what gets the "juice"
flowing.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hearing aids and music John Richards High End Audio 12 April 7th 04 06:29 PM
Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? Gilden Man General 4 February 3rd 04 12:33 PM
Comments about Blind Testing watch king High End Audio 24 January 28th 04 05:03 PM
Note to the Idiot George M. Middius Audio Opinions 222 January 8th 04 08:13 PM
hearing loss info Andy Weaks Car Audio 17 August 10th 03 08:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"