| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#401
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Aug 2005 00:44:28 GMT, "Mark DeBellis"
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 12 Aug 2005 23:39:32 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: If Karl senses that A possesses x, and that B does not possess x, then he can tell that they are different. QED. If what you were saying were true, then why would time-distal testing be unreliable? It's not unreliable, it's less sensitive to very small changes. But that illustrates the point. If you can tell A and B apart in a time-proximate presentation but not a time-distal one, then, in the latter, you are perceiving different things but aren't able to tell *that* they're different. No Mark, you miss the point. In time-distal listening, your sensitivity to difference is reduced, so you are *not* perceiving things differently, your threshold of perception has moved. No one pretends that at some level, the two events are not different in some way, the question is whether they are *audibly* different. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#402
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#404
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: Those who experienced that cables sound different to them do not (I hope!) ascribe the causes to some mystic source, but simply some as of yet undiscovered mechanism, just like Alfred Wegener did. Except that, in the case of cables, we don't need to find some undiscovered mechanism, because we already have a well-established mechanism. It's called expectation bias. There is a principle in philosophy or science called parsimony or Occam's razor. It is usually undertsood to mean that a more complex explanation is unlikley to be true when a simpler one will do the job. The simpler explanation is that the cables are the cause. 'Expectation bias' is less likely to be true, then. That's what makes yours an extraordinary claim. There is a well-established scientific explanation, and you claim that explanation is wrong. That is extraordinary. No, not at all. Your 'expectation bias' is far more ephemeral and difficult to prove. BTW, don't forget that the burden of proof rested on Wegener, because he too was making what was, in its time, an extraordinary claim. No, it was not 'extraordinary'. You don't understand what an 'extraordinary claim' is. He did not claim that he had raised his grandfather from the dead, or that he had been abducted by aliens. He simply made the assertion that the continents had moved, and any schoolboy (as I did) would have to be blind not to notice that the continents fit together like a puzzle. He was wrong about WHY, but not THAT the continents had moved. Similarly, the burden in the cable case rests on those who argue that some mechanism other than expectation bias is at work. No, the burden is on you. The big difference between the cable believers and Wegener is that Wegener was offering a hypothesis to explain some otherwise unexplainable data. His hypothesis was wrong about the WHY. Does that invalidate his claim? In the case of cables, there is at present no unexplainable data. When you find some, let us know. I can hear the difference between $50 Monster Cable interconnect and $100 Monster Cable interconnect. bob |
|
#405
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 21 Aug 2005 15:33:22 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
However, unlike Wegener, they have totally failed to provide *any* evidence in supprt of their wild claims. Sometimes people get laughed at because their ideas really are laughable - as with the fiction of 'cable sound'. You have seem to have totally failed to understand the true meaning of the skep.dic passage which you cited. You seem to be failing to understand his logical process here Stewart. Here's how it runs: Since some unlikely things have subsequently proved to be true, then anything unlikely is certainly true. In fact if it is plain impossible, then it must be indisputable fact. Corollary - in order to be true, it must be unlikely. Now about the moon being made of cheese... d |
|
#406
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#407
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: wrote: Those who experienced that cables sound different to them do not (I hope!) ascribe the causes to some mystic source, but simply some as of yet undiscovered mechanism, just like Alfred Wegener did. Except that, in the case of cables, we don't need to find some undiscovered mechanism, because we already have a well-established mechanism. It's called expectation bias. There is a principle in philosophy or science called parsimony or Occam's razor. It is usually undertsood to mean that a more complex explanation is unlikley to be true when a simpler one will do the job. The simpler explanation is that the cables are the cause. 'Expectation bias' is less likely to be true, then. This is like saying , 'I played my lucky numbers and won the lottery. The simplest explanation is that lucky numbers work.' -- -S "God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under' |
|
#408
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Aug 2005 22:22:04 GMT, wrote: Stewart: Claiming that cables sound different to a listener is, unfortunately for you, NOT an 'extraordinary' claim. As I said before, it MAY be false (it remains to be seen), but not every false claim is extraordinary. You can repeat this as often as you like - it will still be rubbish. You do not distinguish between 'false' and extraordinary'? It is false to claim that I can run my car on lemon juice. It is false, easily disproven, and ridiculous, but NOT extraordinary. It calls on no unknown or unknowable forces or factors. Of course it does, since lemon juice is not flammable. You don't even seem to understand the meaning of an extraordinary claim. No, you don't. Trying to account for crop circles by invoking the actions of extraterrestrial alien craft when the phenomenon can be accounted for by the actions of men is an extraordinary claim. http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...xtraproof.html http://religiousmovements.lib.virgin...hgprofile.html |
|
#409
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: There is a principle in philosophy or science called parsimony or Occam's razor. It is usually undertsood to mean that a more complex explanation is unlikley to be true when a simpler one will do the job. The simpler explanation is that the cables are the cause. That's not an explanation at all. That's a hypothesis. It's as much of an explanation as your invocation of 'expectation bias'. Even if 'expectation bias' exists, it STILL can be true that cables can sound different. You have to prove that 'expectation bias' is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation, and this you have not done. This is a logical flaw in your argument. Not only that, but you must account for certain properties of my experience of hearing differences that are consistent over time. My experience with listening to various cables has shown the differences to be repeatable in magnitude and nature over several trials conducted over several days. You must account for that through some psychological mechanism. It seems less likely that any known psychological mechanism would provide for PERFECT consistency in the heard differences over time, when the alternative explanation (the cables are the cause) is more likely to provide such consistency. tghere is in science a principle called 'similar causes produce similar effects', which means that something known to produce a gven effect in one condition should produce the same or similar effects in another similar situation. Acid, when poured over flesh, can always be expected to bring about damage through the same mechanism. We don't expect it to be benign one time and harmful the next. It would be quite a feat to explain similar results over many trials invoking purely psychological causes. |
|
#410
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Pearce wrote:
On 21 Aug 2005 15:33:22 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: However, unlike Wegener, they have totally failed to provide *any* evidence in supprt of their wild claims. Sometimes people get laughed at because their ideas really are laughable - as with the fiction of 'cable sound'. You have seem to have totally failed to understand the true meaning of the skep.dic passage which you cited. You seem to be failing to understand his logical process here Stewart. Here's how it runs: Since some unlikely things have subsequently proved to be true, then anything unlikely is certainly true. It is not a question of 'unlilely' but rather of 'extraordinary'. Unlikely things happen all the time. The conecption of each of us is highly unlikely, but not extraordinary in the least. Any given sperm has a one in 10-million chance of fertilizing an egg, but there are so many of them in a given ejaculation that fertilization by one or another of them is probable. Consider also how many people there are in the world alive at the same time and of breeding age. The chances that you would be born and that you would be who you are (genetically) are one in billions. In fact if it is plain impossible, then it must be indisputable fact. Corollary - in order to be true, it must be unlikely. Now about the moon being made of cheese... d |
|
#411
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: wrote: There is a principle in philosophy or science called parsimony or Occam's razor. It is usually undertsood to mean that a more complex explanation is unlikley to be true when a simpler one will do the job. The simpler explanation is that the cables are the cause. That's not an explanation at all. That's a hypothesis. It's as much of an explanation as your invocation of 'expectation bias'. Not even close. Expectation bias is a proven phenomenon. "Cable sound" (defined as audible differences between cables that measure similarly) is not only an unproven conjecture, but it is a conjecture that runs counter to the established science of not one but two fields--psychoacoustics and physics. Even if 'expectation bias' exists, it STILL can be true that cables can sound different. You have to prove that 'expectation bias' is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation, and this you have not done. This is a logical flaw in your argument. No, it's simply a gap in your understanding of the subject you are talking about. If the only thing we knew was that various people profess to hear differences between cables, then it is true that expectation bias and 'cable sound" would both be plausible explanations. But that is not the only thing we know. We know two further things: 1. No one has ever demonstrated the ability to distinguish between two cables that measure similarly when they did not know which cable was which. 2. Given the known and well-established effect of a conductor on a signal passing through it, the measured difference between two similar cables would not be sufficient to produce audibly different output from the speakers. Once we know those two things, expectation bias becomes the only plausible explanation. "Cable sound" fails because it cannot explain the inability of listeners to distinguish between similar cables when they do not know which is which. And it runs counter to the findings of physics regarding the impact of a conductor on a signal passing through it. That's why expectation bias is the scientifically accepted explanation for reports of 'cable sound." And that, in turn, is why the burden of proof rests with those who would argue that expectation bias is not the correct explanation. Not only that, but you must account for certain properties of my experience of hearing differences that are consistent over time. My experience with listening to various cables has shown the differences to be repeatable in magnitude and nature over several trials conducted over several days. You must account for that through some psychological mechanism. It seems less likely that any known psychological mechanism would provide for PERFECT consistency in the heard differences over time, You have no evidence whatever for this assertion. Rather, it seems quite likely that, once you determined initially that two cables sounded different, expectation bias would only reinforce that determination in subsequent trials. when the alternative explanation (the cables are the cause) is more likely to provide such consistency. tghere is in science a principle called 'similar causes produce similar effects', which means that something known to produce a gven effect in one condition should produce the same or similar effects in another similar situation. Acid, when poured over flesh, can always be expected to bring about damage through the same mechanism. We don't expect it to be benign one time and harmful the next. It would be quite a feat to explain similar results over many trials invoking purely psychological causes. Quite the contrary. It would be quite trivial, as I demonstrated above. bob |
|
#412
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#413
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Aug 2005 23:47:23 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Aug 2005 22:22:04 GMT, wrote: Stewart: Claiming that cables sound different to a listener is, unfortunately for you, NOT an 'extraordinary' claim. As I said before, it MAY be false (it remains to be seen), but not every false claim is extraordinary. You can repeat this as often as you like - it will still be rubbish. You do not distinguish between 'false' and extraordinary'? Of course. You may claim that you can run a mile in less than five minutes. That would probably be a false claim, but certainly not an extraordinary one. My comment was of course related to your first sentence above, not the second. It is false to claim that I can run my car on lemon juice. It is false, easily disproven, and ridiculous, but NOT extraordinary. It calls on no unknown or unknowable forces or factors. Of course it does, since lemon juice is not flammable. You don't even seem to understand the meaning of an extraordinary claim. No, you don't. Trying to account for crop circles by invoking the actions of extraterrestrial alien craft when the phenomenon can be accounted for by the actions of men is an extraordinary claim. Of course it is - as is claiming that nominally competent cables sound different. That's what you don't seem to understand. Although of course this is only a ptetext so that you can claim the burden of proof is not on you. Sorry U238, it is, and always has been. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#414
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Aug 2005 23:48:18 GMT, wrote:
wrote: wrote: There is a principle in philosophy or science called parsimony or Occam's razor. It is usually undertsood to mean that a more complex explanation is unlikley to be true when a simpler one will do the job. The simpler explanation is that the cables are the cause. That's not an explanation at all. That's a hypothesis. It's as much of an explanation as your invocation of 'expectation bias'. Even if 'expectation bias' exists, it STILL can be true that cables can sound different. You have to prove that 'expectation bias' is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation, and this you have not done. This is a logical flaw in your argument. That is a pure strawman. You are suggesting that it's necessary to prove that kids with boards is the only possible explanation for crop circles, in order to show that it's not aliens. Expectation bias *does* of course exist, as any psychoacoustician (or doctor) will tell you. That's how placebos work - and they often *do* work. Not only that, but you must account for certain properties of my experience of hearing differences that are consistent over time. My experience with listening to various cables has shown the differences to be repeatable in magnitude and nature over several trials conducted over several days. So you claim - but then you always *knew* what you were listening to. That particular effect, as any psychologist will tell you, is called 'reinforcement'. You must account for that through some psychological mechanism. See above. It seems less likely that any known psychological mechanism would provide for PERFECT consistency in the heard differences over time, when the alternative explanation (the cables are the cause) is more likely to provide such consistency. Nope, we are perfectly capable of huge variation in what we think we perceive. This has nothing to do with the physical world. there is in science a principle called 'similar causes produce similar effects', which means that something known to produce a gven effect in one condition should produce the same or similar effects in another similar situation. Acid, when poured over flesh, can always be expected to bring about damage through the same mechanism. We don't expect it to be benign one time and harmful the next. It would be quite a feat to explain similar results over many trials invoking purely psychological causes. Not at all - indeed that's one of the problems with psy. Human variation is so massive that psy is often dismissed as a 'soft' science - sometimes even a pseudo-science. Were that not the case, we would not have continuation of conflicting theories, Freudians and Jungians, nature and nurture, etc etc. No modern scientist beloieves in Phlogiston, but ask a room full of psychologists why we people become clinically depressed, and you'll get more answers than there are people in the room.................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#415
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: It's as much of an explanation as your invocation of 'expectation bias'. Not even close. 'Expectation bias' may EXIST but it is not an EXPLANATION of any given phenomenon. Expectation bias is a proven phenomenon. Just what is it proven TO DO? "Cable sound" (defined as audible differences between cables that measure similarly) is not only an unproven conjecture, but it is a conjecture that runs counter to the established science of not one but two fields--psychoacoustics and physics. This is false. Even if 'expectation bias' exists, it STILL can be true that cables can sound different. You have to prove that 'expectation bias' is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation, and this you have not done. This is a logical flaw in your argument. No, it's simply a gap in your understanding of the subject you are talking about. False. If the only thing we knew was that various people profess to hear differences between cables, then it is true that expectation bias and 'cable sound" would both be plausible explanations. But that is not the only thing we know. We know two further things: 1. No one has ever demonstrated the ability to distinguish between two cables that measure similarly when they did not know which cable was which. Not relevant to the issue. 2. Given the known and well-established effect of a conductor on a signal passing through it, the measured difference between two similar cables would not be sufficient to produce audibly different output from the speakers. What is measurable is not identical to every conceivable difference. Once we know those two things, expectation bias becomes the only plausible explanation. False. 'Expectation bias' explains nothing. It does not account for specific phenomena heard, or for the consistency of same. It is a statistical tool, that's all. "Cable sound" fails because it cannot explain the inability of listeners to distinguish between similar cables when they do not know which is which. Not relevant to the issue. And it runs counter to the findings of physics regarding the impact of a conductor on a signal passing through it. Not relevant to the issue. That's why expectation bias is the scientifically accepted explanation for reports of 'cable sound." Not relevant to the issue. And that, in turn, is why the burden of proof rests with those who would argue that expectation bias is not the correct explanation. Nope. Burden of proof is on you. 'Expectation bias' is an extraordinary claim in this context. 'Expectation bias' proves nothing and accounts for nothing specific. Not only that, but you must account for certain properties of my experience of hearing differences that are consistent over time. My experience with listening to various cables has shown the differences to be repeatable in magnitude and nature over several trials conducted over several days. You must account for that through some psychological mechanism. It seems less likely that any known psychological mechanism would provide for PERFECT consistency in the heard differences over time, You have no evidence whatever for this assertion. My own experiences, repeated several dozen times. Rather, it seems quite likely that, once you determined initially that two cables sounded different, expectation bias would only reinforce that determination in subsequent trials. False. Not provable. Not relevant to the issue. when the alternative explanation (the cables are the cause) is more likely to provide such consistency. tghere is in science a principle called 'similar causes produce similar effects', which means that something known to produce a gven effect in one condition should produce the same or similar effects in another similar situation. Acid, when poured over flesh, can always be expected to bring about damage through the same mechanism. We don't expect it to be benign one time and harmful the next. It would be quite a feat to explain similar results over many trials invoking purely psychological causes. Quite the contrary. It would be quite trivial, as I demonstrated above. Nope. Quite the contrary. In all of the above, you are simply denying reality. I challenge you to find a perceptual psychologist anywhere who disagrees with anything I've said above. Prove to me HOW 'expectation bias' PRODUCES aural phenomena that a 1) Consistent over time with given products 2) Not co relatable to expectations before the product is auditioned 3) Detailed and elaborate 1) & 2) My experiences with each of several products (cables, RF traps, CD cleaners, etc.) have shown IDENTICAL 'performance' for each product on every trial. The cables that sounded better ALWAYS sounded better. The CD cleaner NEVER improved the sound, despite my expectation that it would. 3) The differences between the $100 Monster Cable and the $50 Monster Cable interconnect were complex and rich. It is in fact difficult to describe the differences in words, because so many things are changed all at once. It is incumbent upon YOU to clarify how 'expectation bias' (which is nothing in itself, but simply a mathematical phenomenon) EXPLAINS any of this. Simply claiming 'expectation bias' exists does not deny, in any way, that cables can sound different. It's not a "mathematical phenomenon" at all, whatever that is. It's a psychological phenomenon, related to the placebo effect. (You do believe in the placebo effect, don't you?) If you think expectation bias doesn't explain anything, then how do YOU explain the persistent tendency of listening test subjects, when asked whether two sounds are the same, to report them as sounding different even when they are identical? bob |
|
#416
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you are saying the same thing that I have been trying to say,
and you put it very well. It may be that there are differences between the presentations, but you can't detect them. It is others who have (apparently) been arguing that if you can't detect a difference, there can't *be* a difference between the presentations. By a "difference between two presentations" I would understand this to mean a difference between what you perceive in one and what you perceive in the other, not just that there is some physical difference out there. Mark |
|
#417
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
There's *no question* that the 'information' picked up in a sighted comparison is different from the information picked up in a DBT. There's also no question that in the former case, the 'information' runs a significant risk of actually being perceptual 'noise', not 'signal'. Because -- and it appears this needs to be repeated every week here at least, as long as Mr. DeBellis is around -- No, let's factor sighted comparisons out of the discussion. I'm assuming everything is blind, and don't see the need to keep repeating the qualification. You explained the problems with sighted comparison very well in an earlier post, and I indicated my recognition of this in previous posts as well. people perceive 'audible' differences even in comparisons where we can be independently certain that *nothing has changed* All the hand waving about and logic-chopping and sentence-parsing and what-ifs and let's-supposes and how-do-we-know-for-sures and special pleading in the world will not get us around that unfortunate fact of life. As long as humans are subject to fundamental errors of perception -- as long as perception remains *imperfect* -- 'blinding' will be necessary to correct it. I agree. But the fact that we often perceive illusory differences between things doesn't show that, in any particular case, they're the same either. So my question still stands, but with respect to blind, not sighted, listening. Mark |
|
#418
|
|||
|
|||
|
Buster Mudd wrote:
I think you keep harping on this notion that our perceptions of these two very different phenomena should somehow be similar. The phenomena (musical memory & audio memory) are similar only in that they are initially triggered by an auditory stimulus; beyond that they are so dissimilar, both in their own content & in the methods by which we perceive them, that to refer to them both as "information we pick up in this way" is to incorrectly characterize them. We *don't* pick up both types of information in the same way once the auditory stimulus has gotten past the ear. I have no idea if our perceptions of them should be similar or different, but given that we have tests for one kind of information, how are we entitled to rely on those tests to tell us that there are no differences in the other kind of information? Mark |
|
#419
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Aug 2005 00:44:28 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 12 Aug 2005 23:39:32 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: If Karl senses that A possesses x, and that B does not possess x, then he can tell that they are different. QED. If what you were saying were true, then why would time-distal testing be unreliable? It's not unreliable, it's less sensitive to very small changes. But that illustrates the point. If you can tell A and B apart in a time-proximate presentation but not a time-distal one, then, in the latter, you are perceiving different things but aren't able to tell *that* they're different. No Mark, you miss the point. In time-distal listening, your sensitivity to difference is reduced, so you are *not* perceiving things differently, your threshold of perception has moved. Hm... Would you agree that, for most if not all cases in which a person hears a sound, there is a certain degree of loudness that the listener perceives the sound as having? (Measurable say on the phon scale, though by "degree" I needn't mean an infinitely exact point.) Suppose you hear sound A followed immediately by sound B. There is a certain degree of loudness you hear sound A as having; call it x. There is a certain degree of loudness you hear B as having; call it y. As it turns out, you report that A was louder than B. Would you agree that here, x is not the same as y? OK, so now suppose you hear A, followed by a lot of random noise and/or silence, then B. There is a degree of loudness you hear A as having; call it x'. There is a degree of loudness you hear B as having; call it y'. In this case, let's say you have no idea which, if either, was louder. Do you want to say that here, x' = y'? Intuitively I would think that there would be many situations in which x' = x and y' = y, i.e., where the perceived loudness of each sound in the second situation was just the same as in the first situation, but where you can tell that A was louder than B only in the first situation, not the second. The argument could also be run in terms of pitch, if you don't like loudness. What do you think? No one pretends that at some level, the two events are not different in some way, the question is whether they are *audibly* different. Right, I would just maintain that a difference in what is audible is not the same thing as an audible difference. The first is a difference between properties we perceive on two occasions; the second is the detection of a difference. And we might care about the former even when we don't have the latter. Mark |
|
#420
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Aug 2005 23:48:18 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: There is a principle in philosophy or science called parsimony or Occam's razor. It is usually undertsood to mean that a more complex explanation is unlikley to be true when a simpler one will do the job. The simpler explanation is that the cables are the cause. That's not an explanation at all. That's a hypothesis. It's as much of an explanation as your invocation of 'expectation bias'. Even if 'expectation bias' exists, it STILL can be true that cables can sound different. You have to prove that 'expectation bias' is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation, and this you have not done. This is a logical flaw in your argument. That is a pure strawman. You are suggesting that it's necessary to prove that kids with boards is the only possible explanation for crop circles, in order to show that it's not aliens. No. It is suficient to show: 1) That the 'alien explanation' is an extraordinary claim in itself. 2) Even if it were not an extraordinary claim in itself, a (logically) simpler explanation exists. Ptolemaic astronomy system is not an extraordinary one. It still gives accurate results, and is still useful for navigation. It is simply more complex than Kopernican astronomy, and therefore less likely to be true if we are not concerned merely with describing the apparent paths of the planets. Expectation bias *does* of course exist, as any psychoacoustician (or doctor) will tell you. That's how placebos work - and they often *do* work. Whether 'expectation bias' exists does not matter. UNLESS you can use it to EXPLAIN, in DETAIL, the aural phenomena heard, AND account for the consistency in the aural phenomena heard, it is just another 'empty explanation' like phlogiston. At this point, I have received no such explanation from you or anyone else. The scientific work I have been able to find does not use 'expectation bias' in this way at all (see web citations posted earlier). You are therefore guilty of providing a False Analogy. Not only that, but you must account for certain properties of my experience of hearing differences that are consistent over time. My experience with listening to various cables has shown the differences to be repeatable in magnitude and nature over several trials conducted over several days. So you claim - but then you always *knew* what you were listening to. That particular effect, as any psychologist will tell you, is called 'reinforcement'. Reinforcement of WHAT, exactly? You have not provided an account HOW you can use it to EXPLAIN, in DETAIL, the aural phenomena heard, AND account for the consistency in the aural phenomena heard. You must account for that through some psychological mechanism. See above. It seems less likely that any known psychological mechanism would provide for PERFECT consistency in the heard differences over time, when the alternative explanation (the cables are the cause) is more likely to provide such consistency. Nope, we are perfectly capable of huge variation in what we think we perceive. This has nothing to do with the physical world. Proof? Proof of consistency? Proof of repeatability? there is in science a principle called 'similar causes produce similar effects', which means that something known to produce a gven effect in one condition should produce the same or similar effects in another similar situation. Acid, when poured over flesh, can always be expected to bring about damage through the same mechanism. We don't expect it to be benign one time and harmful the next. It would be quite a feat to explain similar results over many trials invoking purely psychological causes. Not at all - indeed that's one of the problems with psy. Human variation is so massive that psy is often dismissed as a 'soft' science - sometimes even a pseudo-science. Were that not the case, we would not have continuation of conflicting theories, Freudians and Jungians, nature and nurture, etc etc. So, in the face of consistency and repeatability in my experiences in comparing amplifiers, CD cleaners, and cables, HOW does this supports your position? It actually weakens it. No modern scientist beloieves in Phlogiston, but ask a room full of psychologists why we people become clinically depressed, and you'll get more answers than there are people in the room.................. Ditto comment above. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#421
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nabo:
If we have several individuals who independently of one another report hearing differences of the same kind and magnitude in cables (or amplifiers), the notion of 'expectation bias' falls flat on its face. There can be no psychological mechanism that provides such uniformity in the details. 'Expectation bias' is rather something quite different, as this web page explains: http://www.law-forensic.com/iacdl_ne...ummer_2003.htm Here, the 'expectation bias' is rather of a non-sensory sort. It concerns such things as the CONCLUSIONS about the guilt or innocense of the accused, or whether the evidence collected at the crime scene is exculpatory or inculpatory. It does not concern the evidence itself. In the broad sense, 'expectation bias' is a crude concept, and affects conclusions or results on a statistical level. There is NO basis for the claim made that 'expectation bias' can make high frequencies only SEEM to sound more extended, detailed, and vivid through one interconnect than through another, and to do so consistently from time to time in Observer A, and independently in Observer B. Nor does anything in the notion 'expectation bias' itself account for such similarity in the observers' results. 'Expectation bias' EXPLAINS NOTHING. Such a claim can be dismissed out of hand, and I do so. |
|
#422
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... wrote: It's as much of an explanation as your invocation of 'expectation bias'. Not even close. 'Expectation bias' may EXIST but it is not an EXPLANATION of any given phenomenon. Expectation bias is a proven phenomenon. Just what is it proven TO DO? "Cable sound" (defined as audible differences between cables that measure similarly) is not only an unproven conjecture, but it is a conjecture that runs counter to the established science of not one but two fields--psychoacoustics and physics. This is false. Even if 'expectation bias' exists, it STILL can be true that cables can sound different. You have to prove that 'expectation bias' is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation, and this you have not done. This is a logical flaw in your argument. No, it's simply a gap in your understanding of the subject you are talking about. False. If the only thing we knew was that various people profess to hear differences between cables, then it is true that expectation bias and 'cable sound" would both be plausible explanations. But that is not the only thing we know. We know two further things: 1. No one has ever demonstrated the ability to distinguish between two cables that measure similarly when they did not know which cable was which. Not relevant to the issue. You're quite right. It's not necessary to explain how one can tell the difference between 2 cables, blind, because nobody has ever done it. So why is this argument still going on? Norm Strong |
|
#423
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#424
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
I think you are saying the same thing that I have been trying to say, and you put it very well. It may be that there are differences between the presentations, but you can't detect them. It is others who have (apparently) been arguing that if you can't detect a difference, there can't *be* a difference between the presentations. Why must we be continuously subjected to this? How many times must you be told that no one here has ever said this to you--not once. By a "difference between two presentations" I would understand this to mean a difference between what you perceive in one and what you perceive in the other, not just that there is some physical difference out there. This makes no sense at all. "Presentation" and "perception" mean two entirely different things. bob |
|
#425
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
... let's factor sighted comparisons out of the discussion. p.s. I mean as far as what I'm saying is concerned. I realize that others on this thread are discussing sighted listening, and I don't mean to infringe on that. Mark |
|
#426
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#427
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Nabo: If we have several individuals who independently of one another report hearing differences of the same kind and magnitude in cables (or amplifiers), the notion of 'expectation bias' falls flat on its face. There can be no psychological mechanism that provides such uniformity in the details. 'Expectation bias' is rather something quite different, as this web page explains: http://www.law-forensic.com/iacdl_ne...ummer_2003.htm I think what Bob, Stewart, and others are talking about is a certain kind of influence of expectations and beliefs on perception, and I think they are quite right; it is well documented. A quick glance on the web brought up these links that look promising; no doubt there are others. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/re...pplement1.html (I am not endorsing relativism, by the way, and whether it follows from any of this stuff about perception is debatable.) http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Modules/.../visper05.html Two other things to recommend: Paul Churchland's Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, and Nelson Goodman's Languages of Art and other writings. Could also look up "perceptual plasticity" on the web. Mark |
|
#428
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
'Expectation bias' may EXIST but it is not an EXPLANATION of any given phenomenon. Of course it is. It explains why people think a Krell amp sounds better than a Yamaha. No, it is not an 'EXPLANATION'. You don't understand what an 'explanation' is. The Bernoulli effect is an explanation of why a tennis ball curves more than gavity predicts when struck with spin. You cannot simply say 'the ball curves because it is struck with spin'. The does not explain the curving path. Expectation bias is a proven phenomenon. Just what is it proven TO DO? See above. Not responsive. It's a proven effect which explains why you might *think* two cables sound different, when of course it's very easy to demonstrate that they really don't. DETAILS, please? Mechanism, please? The underlying point is that no one has ever heard any such phenomena, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary. False. Happens all the time. Your refusal to accept same is perverse. And that, in turn, is why the burden of proof rests with those who would argue that expectation bias is not the correct explanation. Nope. Burden of proof is on you. 'Expectation bias' is an extraordinary claim in this context. 'Expectation bias' proves nothing and accounts for nothing specific. Nope, the burden of proof is on you. Not even a good try................ Not only that, but you must account for certain properties of my experience of hearing differences that are consistent over time. My experience with listening to various cables has shown the differences to be repeatable in magnitude and nature over several trials conducted over several days. You must account for that through some psychological mechanism. It seems less likely that any known psychological mechanism would provide for PERFECT consistency in the heard differences over time, You have no evidence whatever for this assertion. My own experiences, repeated several dozen times. Irrelevant, as you always *knew* which cable was connected. False. I heard 'no differences' in some cases, consitently with other products when the situation was exactly the same. I hear CONSISTENT differences or consistent lack of difference, depending on the product. This vitates your claim. How can 'knowing' that I have used the CD cleaner NOT make it sound better (the product claimed it would) but 'knowing' that I have swapped cables make them sound different? How clever this 'expectation bias' must be, to appear and disappear so consistently!!! The fact that the 'improvement' correlates stongly with the use of certain products vitiates your claim. How can 'knowing' that am using a different amplifier at point A imbue it with sonic properties that are complex and rich reappear intact and undiminished six months later when the product is auditioned again? Rather, it seems quite likely that, once you determined initially that two cables sounded different, expectation bias would only reinforce that determination in subsequent trials. False. Not provable. Not relevant to the issue. Been proven hundreds of times, which is why it's in all the standard psy textbooks. Definitely relevant to the issue - that's how 'audiophile' gear gets its reputation. False. Irrelevant even if true. when the alternative explanation (the cables are the cause) is more likely to provide such consistency. tghere is in science a principle called 'similar causes produce similar effects', which means that something known to produce a gven effect in one condition should produce the same or similar effects in another similar situation. Acid, when poured over flesh, can always be expected to bring about damage through the same mechanism. We don't expect it to be benign one time and harmful the next. It would be quite a feat to explain similar results over many trials invoking purely psychological causes. Quite the contrary. It would be quite trivial, as I demonstrated above. Nope. Quite the contrary. Prove to me HOW 'expectation bias' PRODUCES aural phenomena that a 1) Consistent over time with given products Why wouldn't they be? Your knowledge of the supposed 'sound' of any given item will not have changed since the last time you listened - unless you read a different review. 2) Not co relatable to expectations before the product is auditioned The human mind is perverse, and often likes you to play the rebel. Oh no, that mid-price ABC cable is *clearly* more transparent than that ridiculously overpriced XYZ cable. Can't *you* hear the more liquid cymbal brushwork? And of course, now you can............ 3) Detailed and elaborate The human mind is extremely versatile and powerful............ 1) & 2) My experiences with each of several products (cables, RF traps, CD cleaners, etc.) have shown IDENTICAL 'performance' for each product on every trial. The cables that sounded better ALWAYS sounded better. The CD cleaner NEVER improved the sound, despite my expectation that it would. So what? Try those cables again, with the only difference being that you don't *know* which one is connected. 3) The differences between the $100 Monster Cable and the $50 Monster Cable interconnect were complex and rich. It is in fact difficult to describe the differences in words, because so many things are changed all at once. But none of it is audible....................... It is incumbent upon YOU to clarify how 'expectation bias' (which is nothing in itself, but simply a mathematical phenomenon) EXPLAINS any of this. Simply claiming 'expectation bias' exists does not deny, in any way, that cables can sound different. However, the *reality* is that they don't. That's why $5,000 has sat on the table for six years, without anyone even *trying* to collect What 'reality' are you talking about? it. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#429
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
I think you are saying the same thing that I have been trying to say, I don't think so. and you put it very well. It may be that there are differences between the presentations, but you can't detect them. You certainly reduce your ability to detect subtle differences if the presentations are far apart in time. That is why we believe that quick switching is the most effective method. It is others who have (apparently) been arguing that if you can't detect a difference, there can't *be* a difference between the presentations. If you cannot dectect a difference using quick switching under blind conditions, while you previously could detect differences under sighted conditions, then it is very likely that you simply cannot detect differences, regardless of whether there is any detectible difference. What is detectible to someone else may not be to you. And, of course, there are differences between presentations that simply are not detectible. For instance, a 0.01 dB difference in level. By a "difference between two presentations" I would understand this to mean a difference between what you perceive in one and what you perceive in the other, not just that there is some physical difference out there. No, I simply mean some physical difference in the sound waves received by your ears. Mark |
|
#430
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Aug 2005 00:18:51 GMT, wrote:
Nabo: If we have several individuals who independently of one another report hearing differences of the same kind and magnitude in cables (or amplifiers), the notion of 'expectation bias' falls flat on its face. There can be no psychological mechanism that provides such uniformity in the details. Clearly, you are unfamiliar with politics................... 'Expectation bias' is rather something quite different, as this web page explains: http://www.law-forensic.com/iacdl_ne...ummer_2003.htm Here, the 'expectation bias' is rather of a non-sensory sort. It concerns such things as the CONCLUSIONS about the guilt or innocense of the accused, or whether the evidence collected at the crime scene is exculpatory or inculpatory. It does not concern the evidence itself. In other words, the observer expects that the expensive cable will sound better than the cheap cable. As Arny would say - your gun, your bullet, your foot. Basically, you're desperately thrashing around, but have not come up with *anything* to support your claims regarding 'cable sound', and you persistently ignore the basics. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#431
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#432
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#433
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#434
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 25 Aug 2005 00:18:51 GMT, wrote: Nabo: If we have several individuals who independently of one another report hearing differences of the same kind and magnitude in cables (or amplifiers), the notion of 'expectation bias' falls flat on its face. There can be no psychological mechanism that provides such uniformity in the details. Clearly, you are unfamiliar with politics................... Not responsive. What I mean by 'independent of' is that in isolation from each other and without prior communication. Example: I audition a piece of gear and hear 'X'. Later, I read a review of the same item, and the reviewer says he heard 'X'. 'Expectation bias' is rather something quite different, as this web page explains: http://www.law-forensic.com/iacdl_ne...ummer_2003.htm Here, the 'expectation bias' is rather of a non-sensory sort. It concerns such things as the CONCLUSIONS about the guilt or innocense of the accused, or whether the evidence collected at the crime scene is exculpatory or inculpatory. It does not concern the evidence itself. In other words, the observer expects that the expensive cable will sound better than the cheap cable. As Arny would say - your gun, your bullet, your foot. ????? You show no grasp of the content of the article. Basically, you're desperately thrashing around, but have not come up with *anything* to support your claims regarding 'cable sound', and you persistently ignore the basics. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#436
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: I think you are saying the same thing that I have been trying to say, I don't think so. and you put it very well. It may be that there are differences between the presentations, but you can't detect them. You certainly reduce your ability to detect subtle differences if the presentations are far apart in time. That is why we believe that quick switching is the most effective method. It is others who have (apparently) been arguing that if you can't detect a difference, there can't *be* a difference between the presentations. If you cannot dectect a difference using quick switching under blind conditions, while you previously could detect differences under sighted conditions, then it is very likely that you simply cannot detect differences, regardless of whether there is any detectible difference. What is detectible to someone else may not be to you. And, of course, there are differences between presentations that simply are not detectible. For instance, a 0.01 dB difference in level. By a "difference between two presentations" I would understand this to mean a difference between what you perceive in one and what you perceive in the other, not just that there is some physical difference out there. No, I simply mean some physical difference in the sound waves received by your ears. OK, thank you then for the clarification. I agree with pretty much everything you say. I'm just saying something different. What matters, or might well matter to some, is whether the information derived from one source, or its perceptual effect, is the same as that from another source (in blind musical listening). Why should we assume that this reduces to a matter of detecting differences? Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener. It's really that simple. |
|
#437
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote: I think you keep harping on this notion that our perceptions of these two very different phenomena should somehow be similar. The phenomena (musical memory & audio memory) are similar only in that they are initially triggered by an auditory stimulus; beyond that they are so dissimilar, both in their own content & in the methods by which we perceive them, that to refer to them both as "information we pick up in this way" is to incorrectly characterize them. We *don't* pick up both types of information in the same way once the auditory stimulus has gotten past the ear. I have no idea if our perceptions of them should be similar or different, but given that we have tests for one kind of information, how are we entitled to rely on those tests to tell us that there are no differences in the other kind of information? We're not; but has anyone claimed otherwise? I don't recall anyone in rec.audio.high-end ever asserting that tests...be they ABX, DBT, quick switch, slow switch, monadic, any kind of tests at all...could or couldn't determine differences in our perceptions of *musical content*. Every reference to using statistical testing to identify perceived or imagined differences I've come across here has been pertaining to sonic attributes of audio components. |
|
#438
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#439
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 26 Aug 2005 00:45:57 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: 'Expectation bias' may EXIST but it is not an EXPLANATION of any given phenomenon. Of course it is. It explains why people think a Krell amp sounds better than a Yamaha. No, it is not an 'EXPLANATION'. You don't understand what an 'explanation' is. Sure I do - you just don't like the explanation. How does a response like this get approved? 'Expectation bias' is NO explanation at all. It is simply assigning a nebulous 'cause', just like saying 'topspin' makes the ball dip. This is true, but insufficient as an EXPLANATION. HOW does topspin make the ball dip? HOW? HOW does 'expectation bias' produce aural phenomena. HOW? The Bernoulli effect is an explanation of why a tennis ball curves more than gavity predicts when struck with spin. You cannot simply say 'the ball curves because it is struck with spin'. The does not explain the curving path. The difference between this and the myth of 'cable sound' is that anyone can strike a ball with spin, and observe the effect. *NO ONE* can listen to two cables and tell them apart by sound alone. I CAN! I HAVE! People ask why they can 'hear' differences under sighted conditions, and the most plausibel explanation is that they expect to hear differences, therefore they *do* hear differences. Call it 'expecation bias', call it 'placebo effect', it remains a real and readily observable effect. Not responsive. Not explicatory. (Irelevancies snipped) The underlying point is that no one has ever heard any such phenomena, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary. False. Happens all the time. Your refusal to accept same is perverse. That is simply untrue, and laughably so, which is why the $5,000 pool has remained unclaimed for six years. You'd think that at least *one* of you subjectivists would have given it a try - you can buy a lot of concert tickets with five big ones! False, argumentative, unsupportable, not responsive. What is perverse is *your* insistence that you *can* hear differences, combined with your refusal to attempt the same when you don't *know* what's connected. Why does this matter, if you *really* believe that they sound different? It's all just puff and bluster, isn't it? You don't *really* have any faith in 'cable sound' at all, do you? snip lots of violent but insubstantial arm-waving It is incumbent upon YOU to clarify how 'expectation bias' (which is nothing in itself, but simply a mathematical phenomenon) EXPLAINS any of this. Simply claiming 'expectation bias' exists does not deny, in any way, that cables can sound different. However, the *reality* is that they don't. That's why $5,000 has sat on the table for six years, without anyone even *trying* to collect What 'reality' are you talking about? The real one - all nominally competent cables sound the same. Begs the question. 'Nominally competent' is BY YOUR DEFINITION incapable of sounding different. The question is rather DO ANY cables or amplifiers sound different. The answer is blatantly, obviously, incontrovertibly, YES! Common sense says they should, physics and electrical engineering predicts that they do, and no one has *ever* demonstrated an ability to hear differences under blind conditions. Irrelevant. You are making an extraordinary claim. Prove your claim, or stop all this nonsense. No, YOU are making an extraordinary claim. You MUST provide an EXPLANATION of how 'expectation bias' (which actually means something quite different, as the links I posted earlier show) actally works to support your claim. |
|
#440
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Chung
wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: Chung wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: I think you are saying the same thing that I have been trying to say, I don't think so. and you put it very well. It may be that there are differences between the presentations, but you can't detect them. You certainly reduce your ability to detect subtle differences if the presentations are far apart in time. That is why we believe that quick switching is the most effective method. It is others who have (apparently) been arguing that if you can't detect a difference, there can't *be* a difference between the presentations. If you cannot dectect a difference using quick switching under blind conditions, while you previously could detect differences under sighted conditions, then it is very likely that you simply cannot detect differences, regardless of whether there is any detectible difference. What is detectible to someone else may not be to you. And, of course, there are differences between presentations that simply are not detectible. For instance, a 0.01 dB difference in level. By a "difference between two presentations" I would understand this to mean a difference between what you perceive in one and what you perceive in the other, not just that there is some physical difference out there. No, I simply mean some physical difference in the sound waves received by your ears. OK, thank you then for the clarification. I agree with pretty much everything you say. I'm just saying something different. What matters, or might well matter to some, is whether the information derived from one source, or its perceptual effect, is the same as that from another source (in blind musical listening). Why should we assume that this reduces to a matter of detecting differences? Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener. It's really that simple. Actually to be more fully correct, if a difference is not detected by the listener under the given test conditions, then they must sound the same under those conditions. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
| Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
