| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
chung wrote in message news:WOBdc.106144$w54.751724@attbi_s01...
(snip) 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. You have it backwards. The others claim that I *must* be mistaken, simply because I saw what I was listening to. That is surely, absolutely unsupportable, and THEY *must* be wrong if they say I *must* be mistaken. I *may* be mistaken (though the likelihood is remote) but not because I saw what I was listening to. The reason wine-tastings are blind is not because anyone believes that seeing the label will affect his ability to taste. Seeing the label may affect the score he gives to what he tastes. The wines of a winery with a high reputation may be scored higher even though those wines may not be any better, because the judges' evaluation may be affected, not their taste. 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. You need a different kind of test. You need a large sample of *qualified* people to listen to two products and offer their opinions. By 'qualified', I mean people who are experienced in listening to high-quality audio equipment. If 75% of those queried hear a difference, then that is significant. 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. No, DBT cannot. All it can tell is whether the issue is indeterminate. A negative result in a DBT is an indeterminate result. 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. These (if they exist) are not infinite. There is *some* point at which these supposed factors no longer override the audible. 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 |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"chung" wrote in message
news:WOBdc.106144$w54.751724@attbi_s01... 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 Being open minded should also mean a willingness to examine the test being used and to concede that it has never really been given a proper control test for evaluative listening and then going about setting up such a test, obtaining the results, and subjecting them to peer-review. That is the difference between being a scientist and being a "believer". |
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:AWBdc.101228$gA5.1352998@attbi_s03...
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? :-) Not so fast. If you insist I *must* be wrong based merely on the fact that I saw what I was listening to, your argument is without foundation. I *may* be mistaken, but it is not true that I *must* be mistaken. If you say I *must* be mistaken, you are going beyond what you may conclude. Such a statement of yours *must* be false. It is not true that I *must* be mistaken. 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.................... What makes you think you know what they are? Is that not the very question at issue? You're begging the question, again. 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. Begging the question. 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. Not true. You have no basis for that claim. Prove it! 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...................... The only 'physical eveidence' is what I can hear and see. You offer nothing but empty proclamations. |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message ...
"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. You cannot be serious. 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. I am talking about amplifiers and interconnect. So, if the components sound the same (not the same as each other, but the same way each did the first time) that strongly supports that there is a real difference. You actually support my assertion. The amplifiers have such strong characters that they overcome my mood, mental state, bias, expectations, philosophical beliefs, and attitudes. |
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
chung wrote in message news:WOBdc.106144$w54.751724@attbi_s01... (snip) 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. You have it backwards. The others claim that I *must* be mistaken, simply because I saw what I was listening to. Actually, you are not reading correctly what the others are saying. They are saying that if you saw what you are listening to, then your ability to differentiate subtle differences will be affected. You may not be mistaken, but you cannot say that you are for sure *not* mistaken (and that seems to be what you were saying). There is a fine, but important difference there. That is surely, absolutely unsupportable, and THEY *must* be wrong if they say I *must* be mistaken. It's actually like this: you must be wrong if you say that you cannot be mistaken. Although in the case of magic green pens, I would say that you *must* be mistaken if you can hear differences  .I *may* be mistaken (though the likelihood is remote) but not because I saw what I was listening to. That's one of the key points of the debate. We believe a very good reason for you to be mistaken is if you know what you are listening to. And you seem to think that you are above that. snip 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. You need a different kind of test. You need a large sample of *qualified* people to listen to two products and offer their opinions. By 'qualified', I mean people who are experienced in listening to high-quality audio equipment. If 75% of those queried hear a difference, then that is significant. Well, how exactly would you conduct this kind of test? What is the sample size? Who declares the tester "qualified"? How do you do level matching and other things to make sure that you are really comparing only two things? And why would you need a different kind of test? Isn't it the most important to you whether *you* can tell the difference? And why are you so concerned about making the test blind? 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. No, DBT cannot. All it can tell is whether the issue is indeterminate. A negative result in a DBT is an indeterminate result. A negative result means you cannot tell the two things apart. Why is that indeterminate, especially given how easy you can tell them apart in sighted testing? And a positive result would mean that there are indeed sonic differences. Hey, you can tell those skeptics that they are wrong after all, that the green pen really works! Isn't that priceless? 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. These (if they exist) are not infinite. There is *some* point at which these supposed factors no longer override the audible. Sure, that's why DBT's of speakers are rather moot. But cables? You can be sure that the powers of perception will overcome the subtle differences, if any exist. |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
From: Walter Bushell
Date: 4/9/2004 10:05 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: Snip 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. Snip Removing and replacing cables will do the same thing. It cleans the contacts on RCA type plugs for example. I think this is the advantage of gold on gold. Both the old and new cables were gold on gold contacts. I also clean my connections with reasonable regularity. |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On 10 Apr 2004 05:05:03 GMT, Walter Bushell wrote:
In article , wrote: snip You are asking us to accept you are an exception to what has been so far totaly repeatable in listening alone tests,ie. identify wire different then the level of guessing. Confirmation oppertunities have been offered with cash motivation to demonstrate you are an exception. Stax has no majic so brandishing a brand name about is not confirmation to your claimed exception that your repeorted experiences aren't due to the perception process and not inherent in some factor of the wire. Why should we accept that you are an exception? Snip Isn't it possible that some audiophile wire acts as tone controls? IIRC some was shown to have inductive and capacitive amounts that could reasonable be audible between some components. The extreme ends of this in commercial cable are Alpha-Core 'Goertz' MI cable (highly capacitive, very low inductance), and Naim NACA5 (fairly high inductance, low capacitance). I have compared these cables directly, using low-impedance (3 ohms) speakers, and I heard no differences whatever, although there was a measured 1.5dB droop at 20kHz with the Naim cable. Such a result should not come as a surprise to anyone with a basic knowledge of electronics, and some experience of listening tests. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
chung wrote in
news:WOBdc.106144$w54.751724@attbi_s01: 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. Thank you Chung for your reply. You brought out a very interesting point (at least to me though): If someone can make a cable that visually lead to another beleive that it is better than the others, don't you think they are quite successful? And as a matter of fact, when I picked up a speaker cable, I would not know what is inside, what material or technology they claimed they used. If that is the case, how can that affect my judgement? Would it be the packaging of cables? Or the appearance of the cables? 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. But in a "normal" world, do we have to do a DBT like 20 times before we can open our eyes to see what cables we just plug into our system? I mean, in a testing environment, it might work; but for everyday life, how can you do that. I mean, even you go to Home Depot to pick up the ugly looking 12AWG zip- cord, you will need to see them, right? But would that affect your ability to "distinguish" it from the "other" cables since you have seen it already, one way or the other, how can ensure yourself would not bias on that zip-cord against another speaker cables? 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. By saying "rule", I mean whether subjective or objective will become the mainstream of cable testing? Should we rely on the characteristic (number) of the wire like the L, C, R, say if A wire has lower L than B wire, then A is better than B. Or if I plug in A wire for you to listen, and then plug in B wire afterward (signted most likely), you like B, then B is better than A for you; I like A, then A is better than B for me. Nobody should or can say, "hey, you are wrong! Because both A and B are the same." I mean, I like A, it doesn't matter that you like A or B or even C, that doesn't really concern you, right? 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. I tell you what, name any present technology was not started from "crazy theory". Fifty years ago, if I told you you can carry a 3" x 2" little box and talk to your grandma in England, would you think it is a crazy theory? Forty years ago, when you walk into a 200 sq.ft. room full of flashing light equipment that you can only communicate with it through a 1" width paper tape, if I told you you can "shrink" all these and place on your lap and communicate with it through your own voice, would you think it is a crazy theory? And the example can go on and on and on... Think about it. Panzzi |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:0GZdc.4895$_K3.29330@attbi_s53...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 04:49:00 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I don't trusut wine reviews. Period. I trust my tongue. I don't trust audio product reviews, either. I trust my ears. Well now, that's the problem, isn't it? You do *not* genuinely *trust* your ears, since you insist on *knowing* which cable is connected. Why are you so outwardly confident in your beliefs, yet so afraid to really *trust* your ears in a blind test? Unfortunately, I have no easy way to do that. I always test products by bringing them home to test, and there is no-one who can make the swaps for me. I simply put one component in, and listen for a while, then put the other one back in. If I hear a difference that's favorable, I keep the product. If not, I take it back. Have I ever rejected anything? Of course! I listened to a JVC CD player that was 'supposed' to be better than my Sony. It actually was inferior in most regards. I insist that it is very difficult to evaluate a new component except in very familiar surroundings, in a system that you know quite well. Only then can any change stand out. In your own home, you know the 'sound' of the room and you can factor that out in the case where speakers are employed for testing. Trying to listen at a salon is hopeless. You're not dealing with 'armchair quarterbacks' here, at least three of your opponents used to believe just as you did, but then we *tried* blind testing, and discovered our errors. Why are you so convinced that *you*, alone of all humanity, are incapable of error? I am capable of error, but to say I could listen to 7 amps, ALL of which sounded different from each other and that this occurred *through my error*, strains even the most generous standards of credibility. And your constant repetition of this claim, which by no means adds any strength to your position, is another fallacy: ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM Description: The incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseum" is one that employs constant repetition in asserting a truth. You are also guilty of: BIFURCATION Description: Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation is the presentation of a situation or condition with only two alternatives, whereas in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. Do you see how this applies? You are also guilty of: SPECIAL PLEADING Description: Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. Special pleading typically happens when one insists upon less strict treatment for the argument he/she is making than he or she would make when evaluating someone else's arguments. Why? You are unwilling to consider even the *possibility* that I can hear the differences between cables in my own home, saying I *must* be mistaken, when you apply a much looser standard of proof to the contrary position. |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
S888Wheel wrote:
While no one is immune, I think the effects are being overstated here.Sure biases *can* affect human perception. Human perception is not entirely reliable even with biases removed. One does not need 100% reliability for a listening experience to have some worth. One does not have to become a research scientist to be an audiophile and form opinions based on experience that, while not totally reliable, (not possible in the real world anyways) are not neccessarily entirely worthless either. That is why there are quite a few companies still in business selling "snake-oil" for exorbitant prices. Japonese wooden blocks used as feet, German varnish, green pens, equipment racks, you name it. It is similar to the esoteric market, which sells christals and magnets for healing purposes, and exactly works the same. I mean it *really* works, because our mind creates quite a lot of sensations out of warm air. In medicine this is known as "placebo" effect. It is not a bad thing either(at least nobody is harmed), exept for the poor believer who not only gets stripped of his cash, but makes a laughing stock out of himself for those who know. And this is what has happened with the high-enders, when you ask in the engineering society. Constructing audio equipment is seen as kind of unscientific hobbyist approach, not like Radar or automation. So unfortunately a few charlatans have discredited a whole market segment and have driven quite a few capable engineers away from it. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:kGZdc.7610$rg5.31195@attbi_s52...
Isn't it possible that some audiophile wire acts as tone controls? IIRC some was shown to have inductive and capacitive amounts that could reasonable be audible between some components. The extreme ends of this in commercial cable are Alpha-Core 'Goertz' MI cable (highly capacitive, very low inductance), and Naim NACA5 (fairly high inductance, low capacitance). I have compared these cables directly, using low-impedance (3 ohms) speakers, and I heard no differences whatever, although there was a measured 1.5dB droop at 20kHz with the Naim cable. What was the equipment used in the test? Such a result should not come as a surprise to anyone with a basic knowledge of electronics, and some experience of listening tests. Ad hominem argument. Irrelevant. |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
chung wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: chung wrote in message news:WOBdc.106144$w54.751724@attbi_s01... (snip) 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. You have it backwards. The others claim that I *must* be mistaken, simply because I saw what I was listening to. Actually, you are not reading correctly what the others are saying. No, sir I am not. They are saying that if you saw what you are listening to, then your ability to differentiate subtle differences will be affected. Prove that! You may not be mistaken, but you cannot say that you are for sure *not* mistaken (and that seems to be what you were saying). There is a fine, but important difference there. No, they are saying I am and *must* be mistaken, because all cables sound alike, (they say), and that claim is supoorted by the claim that if I do hear differences I must be mistaken! That is surely, absolutely unsupportable, and THEY *must* be wrong if they say I *must* be mistaken. It's actually like this: you must be wrong if you say that you cannot be mistaken. I *could* be mistaken (in principle) but it is NOT true that I *must* be mistaken. Although in the case of magic green pens, I would say that you *must* be mistaken if you can hear differences .On what grounds? That is an empirical claim, is it not? It cannot be true that I *must* be mistaken unless there is a flaw of logic. There is no contradiction in saying I heard differences with a green edge pen, now is there? I *may* be mistaken (though the likelihood is remote) but not because I saw what I was listening to. That's one of the key points of the debate. We believe a very good reason for you to be mistaken is if you know what you are listening to. And you seem to think that you are above that. The existence, degree, and effectiveness of this 'bias' is not established to my satisfaction. You cannot exclude, a priori, the possibility that I can hear differences between $100 Monster cable and $50 Monster cable interconnect. You cannot merely claim that because I can see which one is which that makes any perception of sonic differences completely false. That strong a claim is not supportable. I find it surprising that when listening to 7 different power amps, I heard 7 distincly different sonic signatures. Of these, i was 'expecting' the best performance from the Harman Kardon. It was, in fact, one of the worst. Any 'bias' hypothesis has a severe problem with such an outcome. It is in fact a counter-example, and that alone is enough to discredit the hypothesis altogether. snip 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. You need a different kind of test. You need a large sample of *qualified* people to listen to two products and offer their opinions. By 'qualified', I mean people who are experienced in listening to high-quality audio equipment. If 75% of those queried hear a difference, then that is significant. Well, how exactly would you conduct this kind of test? What is the sample size? Who declares the tester "qualified"? How do you do level matching and other things to make sure that you are really comparing only two things? These are not difficult questions. If anyone is interested, he can arrange for such an experiment. I have no interest in doing so. And why would you need a different kind of test? Isn't it the most important to you whether *you* can tell the difference? Absolutely. I could not care less what anyone else thinks. And why are you so concerned about making the test blind? Who said anything about blind? I would simply say to repeat the kind of listening test I conducted with a greater number of people. 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. No, DBT cannot. All it can tell is whether the issue is indeterminate. A negative result in a DBT is an indeterminate result. A negative result means you cannot tell the two things apart. Under what conditions? With what kind of equipment? With my Stax electrostatic headphones (driven by the power amp) I can hear all kinds of things that might not be audible listeing to speakers. Most speakers offer far less resolution that Stax Earspeakers. It is easy to imagine that the negative result simply reflects the fact that the system being used to test the component is insuficiently transparent. Why is that indeterminate, especially given how easy you can tell them apart in sighted testing? It was not 'negative'. I heard the differences. And a positive result would mean that there are indeed sonic differences. Hey, you can tell those skeptics that they are wrong after all, that the green pen really works! Isn't that priceless? I am certain that I heard the improvement on *some* discs. I do not know why. The effect was subtle (basically, less noise) and did not occur with all discs. This means that there are some aspects of the way some discs are recorded or manufactured that are susceptible to excess noise that the green edging in some way minimizes. It seemed to have more effect on poorly-recorded discs. 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. These (if they exist) are not infinite. There is *some* point at which these supposed factors no longer override the audible. Sure, that's why DBT's of speakers are rather moot. But cables? You can be sure that the powers of perception will overcome the subtle differences, if any exist. Begging the question. That is the question at issue, and no evidence supports your claim. I have, as noted above, a counter-example that explodes this hypothesis. |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"josko" wrote in
: Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor quality. Expensive cable -- high quality. 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. I totally agree with you that cheap cable doesn't necessary mean poor quality; expensive cable doesn't necessary mean high quality. But what you tried to say (if I understand it right) is because somebody start up "wanting" to distinguish sonic difference between two cables, then he/she already bias? What about somebody start up "wanting" to prove that there is no sonic difference between two cables, then he/she is not bias? And could somebody correct me if I am wrong... Proved something not true doesn't always directly means that it is true? I don't get it... Panzzi |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:6jYdc.112088$w54.789263@attbi_s01...
On 10 Apr 2004 05:12:50 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: chung wrote in message news:WOBdc.106144$w54.751724@attbi_s01... (snip) 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. You have it backwards. The others claim that I *must* be mistaken, simply because I saw what I was listening to. That is surely, absolutely unsupportable, and THEY *must* be wrong if they say I *must* be mistaken. I *may* be mistaken (though the likelihood is remote) but not because I saw what I was listening to. The likelihood is far from remote, indeed it is almost certain regarding cables, and is *precisely* because you knew what you were listening to. Unfortunately, you cannot prove this. You have been told this many times by many people, but you absolutely refuse to take any notice of anything outside your own beliefs. I have no 'beliefs'. I have reported merely my 'experiences'. This is not a good way to progress through life, IME. Perhaps your compatriot is right, and that it's 'hardwired' into the Italian psyche. Personally, I prefer to think that this is not so, and that there is still hope! ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM Description: An argument that a proposition is true because it has not been shown to be false, or vice versa. Ad ignorantium arguments are also known as "appeals to ignorance." This fallacy has two forms: 1. P is true, because it has not been proven false. 2. P is false, because it has not been proven true. Do you see how this applies? The reason wine-tastings are blind is not because anyone believes that seeing the label will affect his ability to taste. Seeing the label may affect the score he gives to what he tastes. The wines of a winery with a high reputation may be scored higher even though those wines may not be any better, because the judges' evaluation may be affected, not their taste. You are quite wrong in your above statement regarding wine tasting. No, I certainly am not. In professional wine tasting, the *opinion* of the wine's quality may be influenced by the label, but no-one has ever claimed that the label affects one's taste buds. This is not even *plausible*. The proof lies in a classic 'Candid Camera' episode in which several wine glasses were set in front of open bottles of wines of wildly varying price and reputation. The glasses were then filled *from one bottle*, and the unwitting 'tasters' duly commented on many well-known aspects of the wines contained in the bottles behind the glasses. Note that it was *impossible* for taste to have varied here, and yet the tasters reported many conflicting things about the same wine in the different glasses. This is yet another prime demonstration that sighted testing is useless for the determining of subtle differences. This was not 'one' taster, now was it? |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Walter Bushell wrote:
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. Were those DBT tests? Yes they were. You see - all you have to do is backtrack the wire itself to the source(insulation types are moot at audio frequencies). All wire comes from the same few smelting plants. They ship out slabs of 99.99% pure copper to the entire industry - from wire to copper for pots to jewelery to... it ALL comes from the same source. The metal is identical. No company re-smelts the copper, as that would require bigger and more complex equipment than the original smelting plant. They use the 99.99% pure copper and extrude it into miles of wire(giant spools) From there, it's made into hundreds of types of wires(this is how Belkin and everyone else I know of does it). Configuration is moot at audio frequencies(stranded vs solid), and insulation is the same. Now, at T.V. or Radio or for a Mic cord, yes, differences are apparent. But that's Mhz or high-gain as opposed to a few Khz for audio. Yes, it really IS just marketing and looks. Does that surprize you that the bums are knowingly selling snake oil? The recent piece on car financing on 60 Minutes shows just the tip of the marketing sleaze out there. |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Back in the 90s, there was a publication - CD Review, which was owned by
Wayne Green. He actually advertised a green marking pen for CDs. It was called "Balonium". I believe it sold for $3.50. The name of the product as well as the name of the seller (Green) should tell you something about the validity of the product. Face it - It was a spoof. Anyone claiming to hear a difference was deluded by the power of suggestion. -MIKE |
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Panzzi wrote:
"josko" wrote in : Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor quality. Expensive cable -- high quality. 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. I totally agree with you that cheap cable doesn't necessary mean poor quality; expensive cable doesn't necessary mean high quality. But what you tried to say (if I understand it right) is because somebody start up "wanting" to distinguish sonic difference between two cables, then he/she already bias? What about somebody start up "wanting" to prove that there is no sonic difference between two cables, then he/she is not bias? And could somebody correct me if I am wrong... Panzzi, you are right. Every evaluation should be done totally neutral, that is why DBT is used. Of course the testing has to be done honestly, i.e. when you hear a difference it should be also noted down. It is one preposition of scientific approach to only valuate objective criteria, which is why DBT has been developed. Even if the sensation is a subjective quality, applying a technique like DBT objectizes the results. Furthermore only a significant number of testers will validate the results. Proved something not true doesn't always directly means that it is true? I don't get it... I do not get your logic either, you meant: it isn't Panzzi -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:Hr6ec.9443$_K3.48405@attbi_s53... *snip* ... They are saying that if you saw what you are listening to, then your ability to differentiate subtle differences will be affected. Prove that! This has been proven over and over to you through the experience of many listening tests. If you can hear a difference while sighted, and fail to discern under blind conditions, the sighted test must be flawed. In order for this to be proven to your satisfaction, apparently you will have to engage in a blind listening test yourself, and you have thus far refused to entertain the possibility. This is what we call self-defeating. *snip* It's actually like this: you must be wrong if you say that you cannot be mistaken. I *could* be mistaken (in principle) but it is NOT true that I *must* be mistaken. You have yet to admit that you could have been mistaken. The reason you were likely to have been mistaken was the well know psycological effets of bias. Although in the case of magic green pens, I would say that you *must* be mistaken if you can hear differences .On what grounds? That is an empirical claim, is it not? It cannot be true that I *must* be mistaken unless there is a flaw of logic. There is no contradiction in saying I heard differences with a green edge pen, now is there? If you listened to 2 CDs that were physically identical and claimed to hear a difference between them, would you agree that you were mistaken in what you thought you heard, or would you insist that something must have been changed between the disks? (Perhaps one was subjected to lower temperatures during shipping, etc.) As regards as a green pen treated CD, there is no physical property that can account for a change in sound any more that in the example of the 2 identical CDs. I *may* be mistaken (though the likelihood is remote) but not because I saw what I was listening to. That's one of the key points of the debate. We believe a very good reason for you to be mistaken is if you know what you are listening to. And you seem to think that you are above that. The existence, degree, and effectiveness of this 'bias' is not established to my satisfaction. You cannot exclude, a priori, the possibility that I can hear differences between $100 Monster cable and $50 Monster cable interconnect. You cannot merely claim that because I can see which one is which that makes any perception of sonic differences completely false. That strong a claim is not supportable. As has been said many times, it may not invalidate a priori what you thought you heard, but that fact that you used an inherently unreliable testing protocol means that the test results require validation via a reliable (ie blind) testing protocol in order to be validated. Why do you continue to deny this requirement? I find it surprising that when listening to 7 different power amps, I heard 7 distincly different sonic signatures. Of these, i was 'expecting' the best performance from the Harman Kardon. It was, in fact, one of the worst. Any 'bias' hypothesis has a severe problem with such an outcome. It is in fact a counter-example, and that alone is enough to discredit the hypothesis altogether. This has again been explained to you ad-nauseum. Go back and re-read either this or any other related thread to find out how this works. Bias is not limited to meaning "you heard what you expected to hear", and since you claim you had no expectations, you were therefore immune to bias. It doesn't work that way. *snip* You need a different kind of test. You need a large sample of *qualified* people to listen to two products and offer their opinions. By 'qualified', I mean people who are experienced in listening to high-quality audio equipment. If 75% of those queried hear a difference, then that is significant. Well, how exactly would you conduct this kind of test? What is the sample size? Who declares the tester "qualified"? How do you do level matching and other things to make sure that you are really comparing only two things? These are not difficult questions. If anyone is interested, he can arrange for such an experiment. I have no interest in doing so. And why would you need a different kind of test? Isn't it the most important to you whether *you* can tell the difference? Absolutely. I could not care less what anyone else thinks. So why don't you construct a blind test with someone doing the product switching for you? Put the question of what you can and can't hear to bed once and for all? *snip* No, DBT cannot. All it can tell is whether the issue is indeterminate. A negative result in a DBT is an indeterminate result. A negative result means you cannot tell the two things apart. Under what conditions? With what kind of equipment? With my Stax electrostatic headphones (driven by the power amp) I can hear all kinds of things that might not be audible listeing to speakers. Most speakers offer far less resolution that Stax Earspeakers. It is easy to imagine that the negative result simply reflects the fact that the system being used to test the component is insuficiently transparent. Why is that indeterminate, especially given how easy you can tell them apart in sighted testing? It was not 'negative'. I heard the differences. A statistically meaningful negative result in a dbt would, in fact, prove that you couldn't hear any differences. Explain how again that would be indeterminate? And a positive result would mean that there are indeed sonic differences. Hey, you can tell those skeptics that they are wrong after all, that the green pen really works! Isn't that priceless? I am certain that I heard the improvement on *some* discs. I do not know why. The effect was subtle (basically, less noise) and did not occur with all discs. This means that there are some aspects of the way some discs are recorded or manufactured that are susceptible to excess noise that the green edging in some way minimizes. It seemed to have more effect on poorly-recorded discs. See previous discussion of green pens above. Please answer the following question to be sure we all understand your position. You are given two identical in appearence CDs. Upon listening to them, you decide that they sound different. Perhaps one seems to have more air around the instruments. Please explain this phenomenon. *snip* |
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 10 Apr 2004 05:05:03 GMT, Walter Bushell wrote: In article , wrote: snip You are asking us to accept you are an exception to what has been so far totaly repeatable in listening alone tests,ie. identify wire different then the level of guessing. Confirmation oppertunities have been offered with cash motivation to demonstrate you are an exception. Stax has no majic so brandishing a brand name about is not confirmation to your claimed exception that your repeorted experiences aren't due to the perception process and not inherent in some factor of the wire. Why should we accept that you are an exception? Snip Isn't it possible that some audiophile wire acts as tone controls? IIRC some was shown to have inductive and capacitive amounts that could reasonable be audible between some components. The extreme ends of this in commercial cable are Alpha-Core 'Goertz' MI cable (highly capacitive, very low inductance), and Naim NACA5 (fairly high inductance, low capacitance). I have compared these cables directly, using low-impedance (3 ohms) speakers, and I heard no differences whatever, although there was a measured 1.5dB droop at 20kHz with the Naim cable. Such a result should not come as a surprise to anyone with a basic knowledge of electronics, and some experience of listening tests. Key word there is that *you* "heard" no difference, even though you measured one. |
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
snip I find it surprising that when listening to 7 different power amps, I heard 7 distincly different sonic signatures. Of these, i was 'expecting' the best performance from the Harman Kardon. It was, in fact, one of the worst. Any 'bias' hypothesis has a severe problem with such an outcome. It is in fact a counter-example, and that alone is enough to discredit the hypothesis altogether. I have heard differences in some amps that I own. My Carver 1.5t does not sound the same as my Onkyo M510 or the Counterpoint SA220. I was giving a friend the Onkyo (didn't need 3 amps and just had the Carver serviced and spec'ed), so we hooked it up to my Acoustat 1+1's medallion mod speakers. We listened between the Onkyo and Counterpoint. They both sounded very good. I would have thought that the SA220 would have 'destroyed' the Onkyo considering the price difference. The Onkyo cost me $160, the Counterpoint, $2500. I would probably be hard pressed to say which was better if my eyes were closed,or even if I could say which was which. We only listened briefly. Possibly, with a more detailed listening session, differences might have been heard. But, for that brief session, the Onkyo and Counterpoint sounded the same. I gave him the Onkyo. The Carver sounded 'different'. It was readily apparent. Nothing subtle. I even hooked my Pioneer Elite receiver, then my JVC receiver to the speakers, and *anyone* could hear the difference. These are all products with vanishing low distortion and wide frequency responses, yet they sound different. I have no ax to grind with those that can't hear a difference. Good for you. You can save a lot of money and buy a competent receiver, Home Depot speaker wire and Radio Shack gold interconnects, decent efficient speakers and live in audio bliss. I wish that were the case for me. Having the opportunity to audition different components in my home has showed me that some cables do sound different. Some amps do sound different. Some pre amps do sound different. The choice is which sound the 'best' to me and what I can afford. And, it won't be a competent receiver with RS gold interconnects, HD speaker wire and my Von Schweikert VR4's or Acoustat 1+1's. Been there, done that. Got many tee shirts. |
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Panzzi wrote:
chung wrote in news:WOBdc.106144$w54.751724@attbi_s01: 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. Thank you Chung for your reply. You brought out a very interesting point (at least to me though): If someone can make a cable that visually lead to another beleive that it is better than the others, don't you think they are quite successful? Financially for him, yeah. But is it successful because he made a cable that really sounded better, or because he managed to fool a customer into thinking it sounded better? That makes a difference to some of us. And as a matter of fact, when I picked up a speaker cable, I would not know what is inside, what material or technology they claimed they used. If that is the case, how can that affect my judgement? Would it be the packaging of cables? Or the appearance of the cables? Could be anything. Could be something you read about them, or something the salesman told you about them, or something you ate for breakfast. Simply knowing that two cables are different is enough to prompt you to expect them to sound different. Your mind can play all kinds of tricks on you, as psychologists learned a long time ago. 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. But in a "normal" world, do we have to do a DBT like 20 times before we can open our eyes to see what cables we just plug into our system? I mean, in a testing environment, it might work; but for everyday life, how can you do that. You could if it mattered enough to you. Alternatively, you could learn a little about the technology involved. You'd find out just what characteristics of cables affect signals at audio frequencies--and how much they do. Then you'd learn a little about the known thresholds of human hearing, and you'd discover that--for most cables in most systems--the differences aren't large enough to be audible. I mean, even you go to Home Depot to pick up the ugly looking 12AWG zip- cord, you will need to see them, right? But would that affect your ability to "distinguish" it from the "other" cables since you have seen it already, one way or the other, how can ensure yourself would not bias on that zip-cord against another speaker cables? "Sighted" is a term of art here. It does not mean that you have never seen the cables you are comparing. In fact, you can see the cables you are comparing while you are conducting a blind test. You just can't see the back of the speakers or amplifiers, to know which ones are connected at any given time. 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. By saying "rule", I mean whether subjective or objective will become the mainstream of cable testing? Should we rely on the characteristic (number) of the wire like the L, C, R, say if A wire has lower L than B wire, then A is better than B. Well, given that L, C and R are in fact the only characteristics of cables that can affect the sound, yes you should rely on them. Shouldn't you? Or if I plug in A wire for you to listen, and then plug in B wire afterward (signted most likely), you like B, then B is better than A for you; I like A, then A is better than B for me. Nobody should or can say, "hey, you are wrong! Because both A and B are the same." I mean, I like A, it doesn't matter that you like A or B or even C, that doesn't really concern you, right? Nope, doesn't concern me. And if you want to say that A sounds better to you, go right ahead. But don't tell me that your saying so proves they sound different. Because they probably don't. 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. I tell you what, name any present technology was not started from "crazy theory". No present technologies were started from crazy theories. They were started from plausible theories. There's a difference. Given everything we know about cables, and everything we know about human hearing, "cable sound" is not plausible. It's the other thing. Fifty years ago, if I told you you can carry a 3" x 2" little box and talk to your grandma in England, would you think it is a crazy theory? Forty years ago, when you walk into a 200 sq.ft. room full of flashing light equipment that you can only communicate with it through a 1" width paper tape, if I told you you can "shrink" all these and place on your lap and communicate with it through your own voice, would you think it is a crazy theory? And the example can go on and on and on... But there are even more examples of crazy theories that *didn't* pan out. Alchemy. Laetrile. On and on and on... bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp |
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:28:41 GMT, Panzzi wrote:
(S888Wheel) wrote in news:MFZdc.7606$rg5.31187@attbi_s52: So I guess that makes nearly every speaker audition worthless. Gosh I guess that makes normal home listening in general worthless. Goosh! I wonder who will do a DBT on speakers, power amplifier, pre-amp, cd-player before purchase any of the above? I certainly do on amps and CD players, but not on speakers. You can't just walk into a store blind-folded and start doing switching speakers 20 times before buying a pair of speakers, right? I wouldn't... Then, does that qualified as "sighted test". Well, I don't get it is why you can do sighted test on other components but you can't do it on cables? I just don't get it... It's very simple. Differences among speakers are very large, so a blind test would give 100% results in each case, and is therefore a waste of time. OTOH, differences among competent (i.e. not SET) amplifiers and CD polayers are very small, and audible differences among cables are noon-existent. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#150
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
In article , chung
wrote: Snip Sure, that's why DBT's of speakers are rather moot. But cables? You can be sure that the powers of perception will overcome the subtle differences, if any exist. Snip So if your funds are limited put your money into things that survive DBT. Better speakers rather than expensive cable, for example. BTW Radio Shack solid core cable 18 guage gets an OK rating from "Sterophile". 3.99 60ft spool. Next cheapest cable is like $10 ft. Highly recommended cables go for $12K for a 12 foot pair. [April 2004 pp. 153] I'd love to have 6K to spend on speakers. Knowing Radio Shack it's no better than it should be so more or less any cable should work. |
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
chung wrote in message ... Michael Scarpitti wrote: chung wrote in message news:WOBdc.106144$w54.751724@attbi_s01... (snip) 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. You have it backwards. The others claim that I *must* be mistaken, simply because I saw what I was listening to. Actually, you are not reading correctly what the others are saying. No, sir I am not. They are saying that if you saw what you are listening to, then your ability to differentiate subtle differences will be affected. Prove that! So you have not read any of the references provided on this subject? You may not be mistaken, but you cannot say that you are for sure *not* mistaken (and that seems to be what you were saying). There is a fine, but important difference there. No, they are saying I am and *must* be mistaken, because all cables sound alike, (they say), and that claim is supoorted by the claim that if I do hear differences I must be mistaken! That is surely, absolutely unsupportable, and THEY *must* be wrong if they say I *must* be mistaken. It's actually like this: you must be wrong if you say that you cannot be mistaken. I *could* be mistaken (in principle) but it is NOT true that I *must* be mistaken. So, to cut to the meat of the debate, do you now believe that you could be mistaken when you said those cables sound different? Or that the green pens make a difference in sound? You didn't before. (snip the rest, since it bascially repeats what others and you have been arguing.) |
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Panzzi wrote:
"josko" wrote in : Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor quality. Expensive cable -- high quality. 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. I totally agree with you that cheap cable doesn't necessary mean poor quality; expensive cable doesn't necessary mean high quality. But what you tried to say (if I understand it right) is because somebody start up "wanting" to distinguish sonic difference between two cables, then he/she already bias? 1. Physical reality (based on research in psychoacoustics and electrical engineering) is such that there could not be an audible difference between a $50 and a $100 Monster interconnect, unless one of them is broken. 2. Also, we know (from psychology and from behavioral decision theory) that confirmatory reasoning is one, only one mind you, bias exhibited by decision makers. Basically it "biases" processing and evaluation of informational inputs in such a way that "supports" some preconceived notion, which could be either strongly or weakly held. "Quasi-experts" are especially prone to this. This tendency manifests itself in different ways. For example, once you think you've heard the difference, you attend to the difference by paying special attention to say "ability of the cable to resolve inner detail" and you "hear" that effect over and over again. Also, biased decision maker typically treats non-diagnostic information (not relevant for judgment) as being diagnostic (relevant for judgment) for the judgment at hand. For example, brand name, price, type of conductor (silver vs. copper).... become important when judging cable sound even though they are not. Decision makers need not to be always fully conscious of these influences. Note: conductor and dielectric (say silver and teflon) may be important in theory, but in practice they are not since they do not change the signal sufficiently so that the change is detectable by ear, unless the cable is deliberately designed to act as a tone control. 3. Put 1 and 2 together -- people hear difference between a $50 and a $100 Monster interconnect in a sighted test. Conclusion: their evaluation was biased. What about somebody start up "wanting" to prove that there is no sonic difference between two cables, then he/she is not bias? Easy -- use a test with implemented bias controls (e.g., level matched DBT). |
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Bob Marcus" wrote in
news:gQfec.116874$w54.831576@attbi_s01: No present technologies were started from crazy theories. They were started from plausible theories. There's a difference. Given everything we know about cables, and everything we know about human hearing, "cable sound" is not plausible. It's the other thing. Not really! Some years ago, there was a guy said or try to prove that the earth is round, the impact was so big that people regarded him as crazy, of course, crazy person had crazy theory not "plausible theory", and they barbeque him later on, remember who? What I'm trying to say is, engineers should have an open minded to hear everything without saying, "it is impossible!" Because the only thing that is impossible in this world is, "it is impossible". Everything is possible, might be not now you can prove it. So you'll say, "I won't buy it because I can't convince myself base on my knowledge". But there are even more examples of crazy theories that *didn't* pan out. Alchemy. Laetrile. On and on and on... Alchemy is interesting, could somebody ever think of we can turn a piece of charcoal into diamond? Isn't it some fancy Alchemy we are talking about... if we were born 200 years ago? And believe it or not, modern so called "material science" is inspired by so called "crazy" Alchemy. I had an interesting experience in regarding to cable. I once picked up two different kind of copper cables and made two power cords all using the same AC plug and IEC connector. I don't know what should I expect, and I performed a listening test on both of them, remember I don't know what should I expect, I don't even know or expect they are difference. I used the power cord on my power-amp., and guess what? One of them gave me significant different on bass and the other just don't. I then asked my wife to perform the same test without knowing what to expect, she pointed out the same result. I then asked one of my so called audiophile friends, who has been with Hi-end stuffs for the past 30 years, same test without expectation, he pointed out the same result. The funny thing is after that, I used another two different wires to make another two power cords... well, this time, even I believe that I was wasting my time. I can't explain it if I accept the "wire is wire" theory. Oh... of course you can say I am a big fat lier! Panzzi |
|
#154
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Bob Marcus" wrote in
news:9UBdc.109693$JO3.78365@attbi_s04: 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. Well, I tell you what. If there exist something that can change your sense, that can make you imagine "thing" that doesn't exist, then we should be really scare of it. I wonder how they can do that? As a matter of fact, there is no prove by now that this item exist. Thanks God! 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. bob So, you will only believe what nowaday science proved? I think you're not. Take "do you love your parents/girlfriend/wife/kids/Ferrari?" as an example, no scientific theory whatsoever can prove it. You just do! Take "your next step", if you need scientific confirm before your next step, you will never walk again, might be never sit as well. The other night I was watching TV, they were saying scientists found evidence that there was water on Mars, so a step closer to prove that there are/were living creature on Mars. I can't help but laugh at so called scientists! What make them think creature on Mars need water? oxygen? Or even living in a form that we can detect? We have so many things that science cannot explain just on this earth, but they are here, thousands of years, million of years, and they are still here. What make you say that, "if that against the law of science, that must be wrong!" No science can fully explain how our brain work, and you conclude that if I can hear something that "scientifically proved" not exist, and I must be wrong? Panzzi |
|
#155
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:oPfec.116870$w54.831648@attbi_s01...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:ws6ec.9599$wP1.29055@attbi_s54... *snip* No, I certainly am not. In professional wine tasting, the *opinion* of the wine's quality may be influenced by the label, but no-one has ever claimed that the label affects one's taste buds. This is not even *plausible*. No one ever suggested the taste buds were affected. It is the brain's interpretation of the taste bud's neural impulses that is affected. No, it is the 'opinion' rendered on the rating sheet that is affected. Here, of course, it is expected that differences exist. No-one expects every wine of a certain type to tatse identical. The tasting is to evaluate the differences, not to deny that they exist! Suppose the tasting includes a number of wines from a particular grape that is groen internationally, such as Chardonnay. No-one expects a Chardonnay from Puglia in Italy to taste identical to one from Tuscany or Piedmont, or from Australia, California, or France. In fact, no-one expects any two wines from successive vintages of the same vinyard to taste identical. The purpose of the DBT is to keep the prestige of the label from affecting the results of the tastings. And in listening, no one has questioned what the sound actually does to the ear drum. The only issue that has ever been contemplated is the brain's interpretation of the sound. You have claimed that your brain is impervious to the biases that are *universally* accepted as fact in the greater scientific world. There is in fact no such '*universally* accepted' scientific evidence. I'm reminded of an old Yiddish proverb, "If 3 people tell you you're drunk, lie down and take a nap." The proof lies in a classic 'Candid Camera' episode in which several wine glasses were set in front of open bottles of wines of wildly varying price and reputation. The glasses were then filled *from one bottle*, and the unwitting 'tasters' duly commented on many well-known aspects of the wines contained in the bottles behind the glasses. Note that it was *impossible* for taste to have varied here, and yet the tasters reported many conflicting things about the same wine in the different glasses. This is yet another prime demonstration that sighted testing is useless for the determining of subtle differences. This was not 'one' taster, now was it? Irrelevant. |
|
#156
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Ban" wrote in message ...
Panzzi wrote: What about somebody start up "wanting" to prove that there is no sonic difference between two cables, then he/she is not bias? And could somebody correct me if I am wrong... Panzzi, you are right. Every evaluation should be done totally neutral, that is why DBT is used. DBT *may* be neutral, but it may also be insensitive. The method in itself may be neutral, but if the equipment used in the test is not capable of offering sufficient resolution, the test is meaningless. It would be like testing speakers with old scratchy 78's played with a ceramic cartidge and steel needles. |
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"W. Oland" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:27:43 +0000, Panzzi wrote: But what you tried to say (if I understand it right) is because somebody start up "wanting" to distinguish sonic difference between two cables, then he/she already bias? What about somebody start up "wanting" to prove that there is no sonic difference between two cables, then he/she is not bias? And could somebody correct me if I am wrong... The point is that you don't even need to consciously "want" a certain result for sighted factors to influence a person's perception of an item's quality or performance. That's one reason that product designers spend so much time on the visual appearance of a product (along with its packaging, marketing and so on.) They are trying to introduce, at the very least, a subconscious bias in favor of their product. This is impossible to substantiate. Why would I not like the Harman Kardon amp's sound when I 'expected' to? I ended up by the denon amp, of which I had no particular opinion beforehand. You must understand I had formed no specific opinions or impressions of any of the 7 amps before I listened to them. The differences were substantial, differences that are impossible to attribute to any psychological source. I am not referring to 'subtle' differences, but gross ones. Continued repetition of the argument that I must have been mistaken is without merit. I could not in any way have been mistaken that all 7 amps sounded different. |
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Date: 4/11/2004 11:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: ZTfec.112112$gA5.1451284@attbi_s03 On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:28:41 GMT, Panzzi wrote: (S888Wheel) wrote in news:MFZdc.7606$rg5.31187@attbi_s52: So I guess that makes nearly every speaker audition worthless. Gosh I guess that makes normal home listening in general worthless. Goosh! I wonder who will do a DBT on speakers, power amplifier, pre-amp, cd-player before purchase any of the above? I certainly do on amps and CD players, but not on speakers. So as per your assertions on sighted tests, does this make all your speaker evaluations worthless? You can't just walk into a store blind-folded and start doing switching speakers 20 times before buying a pair of speakers, right? I wouldn't... Then, does that qualified as "sighted test". Well, I don't get it is why you can do sighted test on other components but you can't do it on cables? I just don't get it... It's very simple. Differences among speakers are very large, so a blind test would give 100% results in each case, and is therefore a waste of time. For differences yes. For preferences no. Sighted bias affects preferences in speaker auditions. It often surprises me that some people devote so much time and effort to an argument about amps and cables while neglecting an issue that , by their own beliefs, plagues their selection of what they believe is the only really important decision in audio. |
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Bruce Abrams wrote:
If you listened to 2 CDs that were physically identical and claimed to hear a difference between them, would you agree that you were mistaken in what you thought you heard, or would you insist that something must have been changed between the disks? (Perhaps one was subjected to lower temperatures during shipping, etc.) As regards as a green pen treated CD, there is no physical property that can account for a change in sound any more that in the example of the 2 identical CDs. Well, other than defects People have this odd idea that CDs are like fancy LPs. A closer comparison would be a hard drive. Either it reads the data correctly or it fails completely due to errors. Only two choices, so condition is by design, moot until it can no longer be properly read. I am certain that I heard the improvement on *some* discs. I do not know why. The effect was subtle (basically, less noise) and did not occur with all discs. This means that there are some aspects of the way some discs are recorded or manufactured that are susceptible to excess noise that the green edging in some way minimizes. It seemed to have more effect on poorly-recorded discs. I don't have the post in front of me, but if you do a search in Google News, you should find the original. It started as a joke in rec.audio.opinion years ago and took on a life of its own. The "green pen" is a verifiable hoax. |
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
| 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 | |||
Linear Mode
