I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[Key]

Well I will never say it has not happened, but after countless hours of comparisons, over many days at a time, I feel that I have trained my hearing to do what I expect it to do. If I can not repeat what I thought that I hear over and over during a course of listening, I deem it as an aberration. If I still hear it days and weeks later, I trust what I hear.

I agree with this method actually. But I would also encourage you to try out private ABX testing when it is applicable. I use this same method myself for something I am working on which is not easily measurable. So this stuff does hit home with me. It's just I do not give up trying to measure or understand what I am working on - not saying you actually do but it just comes off that way with your words. I am not going to ignore the amazing options modern computers offer us in favor of completely subjective testings just because people have gotten by in the past that way.

 

[Curly Woods]

How about those who say they don't hear a difference?What does their brain tells them?
How about those who have a weak sight?They don't see well because their brain tells them?Or is it that others have better sight because their brain tells them so?The brain tells you what you see depending on what information he gets from the eyes,or is it something else?

Save your breathe Panicos. We are obviously flawed humans compared to the machines in these forums

 

[Key]

No one is immune to suggestion and psychoacoustic effects. Just some are aware that they are not immune and some aren't.

 

[Curly Woods]

No one is immune to suggestion and psychoacoustic effects. Just some are aware that they are not immune and some aren't.

What a miserable world it must be to live in where you have to question every thought that you have as possibly being flawed.

 

[Panicos K]

Who wouldn't want a Bozo doll?

Freewheels it? No I am just saying that through suggestion - even self suggestion - you can hear things which aren't actually there and wont be picked up by a mic.

I have tried anything you can think of.Even self suggestion.In the end nothing was more helpful than a pair of glasses for my presbyopia.Now I can see clearly what's in front of me(nothing more ).I have never seen things that can't be captured by a camera ...............so far

 

[Key]

I have seen plenty that can't be captured by a camera. How about an evenly exposed foreground and background that extends into your full peripheral vision.

 

[Curly Woods]

I have seen plenty that can't be captured by a camera. How about an evenly exposed foreground and background that extends into your full peripheral vision.

That is a matter of the f-stop and lens length. Long lenses have a very limited depth of field vs a wider angle lens.

 

[Key]

I think it's a matter of a lack of processing - ie the camera has no brain.

 

[Panicos K]

No one is immune to suggestion and psychoacoustic effects. Just some are aware that they are not immune and some aren't.

So,you can't hear differences because you are aware that you are not immune to suggestion and psychoacoustic effects?
Please tell me what you think of the example of someone with a weak sight.Is it because he is aware that he is not immune to....visual illusions or anything?
I'm selling my cables.....any one interrested?

 

[Panicos K]

I have seen plenty that can't be captured by a camera. How about an evenly exposed foreground and background that extends into your full peripheral vision.

Prove it

 

[Curly Woods]

I think it's a matter of a lack of processing - ie the camera has no brain.

Wrong Key. At least for any commercial lens that anyone on Earth could afford to buy.

 

[rdf]

Trouble is, that to hear a difference, which is fairly easy to prove only exists in the upper end of the range, one has to be able to hear that upper end of the range, where a subtle difference could have been. )

That may be incorrect. At least one recent scientific experiment suggests the brain reacts to musical content at higher frequencies than nominally perceptible. Gosh real life can be complex.

 

[SY]

rdf, is this the same Japanese paper that hasn't been replicated or is there a new cite?

 

[Panicos K]

Save your breathe Panicos. We are obviously flawed humans compared to the machines in these forums

No problem with that Michael.I never dreamed to be a machine
On the other hand I have no problem either to use machines to serve my human weaknesses

 

[rdf]

Same paper, so it remains 'suggests'. My brother once told me Linkwitz (as I recall) had issues with the methodology but haven't heard it's been proven flawed.

 

[Key]

Wrong Key. At least for any commercial lens that anyone on Earth could afford to buy.

Ever seen HDR? That gets closer to what people actually see than just a regular lense in a single shot. They take about 3 or more shots at different exposures and combine them. Even though this looks great and is closer it still isn't there imo.

 

[rdf]

A lot of things I find can easily be tested privately with the aid of a computer. For instance I am listening to some music now on foobar which is a free program that comes with an ABX utility. You can do ABX testing in a pressure free environment where none of the results actually have to be shared - so I see no excuse to not attempting to test certain things if you plan on claiming them to be truths.

Not to pick on you in particular but that's classic unable to see the forest for the trees. A full A/D-D/A cycle through a sound card full of wires and capacitors modifies a signal less than a wire or capacitor?

 

[andy_c]

Regarding the Oohashi paper, see this post and this post.

Edit: hope these links work

 

[auplater]

or this one

That may be incorrect. At least one recent scientific experiment suggests the brain reacts to musical content at higher frequencies than nominally perceptible. Gosh real life can be complex.

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

 

[SY]

Same paper, so it remains 'suggests'. My brother once told me Linkwitz (as I recall) had issues with the methodology but haven't heard it's been proven flawed.

Merci. I'll have to find and read it again to see what might have bothered Linkwitz. If there's a really obvious flaw, I suspect that no-one is likely to try to replicate it. If not, it would be interesting to see what else has been done to back it up or elaborate it.