Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 $1,000 a foot Kimber Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to any reasonable person. Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. 'Unreasonable people' may simply be the ones who have the most acute hearing. So far, no such person has surfaced. Many of course have, like yourself, *claimed* to be able to hear differences, but not one single person has managed to prove this when they didn't *know* which cable was connected. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove I do not hear differences. I can and do, when using equipment of sufficient quality, such as Stax electrostatic headphones. I cannot prove a negative, but I can certainly prove that *you* cannot hear the differences you claim among cables. Why are you so afraid to try it? Try it? I already did it, man! Asked and answered. No cross-exmination needed. Again, as we approach perfection, differences lessen between products. Any normal cable is already functionally perfect. The only functionally imperfect cables are those ludicrously expensive ones with little boxes attached......................... I have heard differences between cables that are subtle but consistent. No, you haven't - and I can *prove* that, if you care to *try* it, instead of simply repeating "I heard it, so it *must* be true". I heard it, several times. You have NO grounds for contradicting me, because you were not there. You have NO empirical data to support your position. I do. I have a witness. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:R76dc.219224$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 $1,000 a foot Kimber Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to any reasonable person. Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. 'Unreasonable people' may simply be the ones who have the most acute hearing. So far, no such person has surfaced. Many of course have, like yourself, *claimed* to be able to hear differences, but not one single person has managed to prove this when they didn't *know* which cable was connected. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove I do not hear differences. I can and do, when using equipment of sufficient quality, such as Stax electrostatic headphones. I cannot prove a negative, but I can certainly prove that *you* cannot hear the differences you claim among cables. Why are you so afraid to try it? Try it? I already did it, man! Asked and answered. No cross-exmination needed. The 'it' in the above statement meant with bias controls in place, ie blind. Now...why are you afraid to try 'it'? *snip* |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 06:57:35 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:8sYcc.89466$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Hearing aids and music | High End Audio | |||
Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? | General | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
hearing loss info | Car Audio |