In other words, you have nothing?
Magura
"In other words" I would say you accept a test as suggested by SY as "valid",while at the same time you reject the same test done by others many times and long before as not valid.The only difference between SY's suggestion and test I have done with friends here,is that SYwas not present.Maybe you,but I don't consider SY's or any others presence in tests that I do with friends an essential proof of success or failure,although their presence would have been welcome.Most of the time our tests end with great charcoal goodies,wine and fun.
@ Panicos
Well I must say all of those cables look mighty fine to me. I do like well made things and I have no doubt they are very well made which for me is reason enough to buy. I only wish I could also simplify things as far as speakers go, but unfortunately long tedious evaluations are still the way it is. I really should stop fiddling, my only excuse is it keeps me out of other trouble.
cheers
Well I must say all of those cables look mighty fine to me. I do like well made things and I have no doubt they are very well made which for me is reason enough to buy. I only wish I could also simplify things as far as speakers go, but unfortunately long tedious evaluations are still the way it is. I really should stop fiddling, my only excuse is it keeps me out of other trouble.
cheers
Ok RDF, I'll pay some of that, thanks for pointing it out.
Not all mind. I have often made it clear that there are good guys on both sides of the debate, panikos, yourself spring immediately to mind.
Hence, by extension, I would NOT include the two of you in that creationism generalisation. I would have thought it self evident, but you rightly point out that maybe it is not that clear after all.
Whilst we can all acknowledge the good guys on both sides, I don't see why we grant the idiocy of both sides any validity. And quite frankly, there IS at times an element of creationism type arguments.
The most obvious and predominant being 'we know better, science knows nothing'. (get the concept, not the words).
So what would we expect from that group? Nothing of substance, no reasoned argument why, no alternatives, nothing but the monotonous and ritualistic chanting of a mantra...we know better, science knows nothing.
Yeah, like those birds could have delivered the internet....
I have many times validated TG. He has the balls to stand up. I wish there were more like him.
Gee Terry, what happened with your sense of humour?
I've said many times I don't have a problem with DBT's as long as they are done correctly.
Ahh, now I know your problem, frustrated.
Let me try to help, learn to listen, concentrate on the finer points, give more attention to detail and smile more. (That should help with the wife also.
)Maybe the deaf, dumb and blind monkeys?
I guess there are some that like to colour their pictures themselves, my problem with that is they compromise the good recordings.
As said, some doesn't even notice detail, how will a difference in detail bother them. There are certain aspects (like stage focus) that are easier to hear than measure.
Panicos, why are you making replies to these posts completely out of context?
I have never said or implied any of what you just wrote.
Quit putting words in my mouth, it's a real nasty habit you got there.
Magura
Which really makes you stand out from the crowd, and have gained you quite some respect.
Magura
Like with "high end" equipment.....and attached cables?
Btw, how do you know exactly what the recording is supposed to sound like, so that you know your equipment is not coloring it?
Well since you can hear "detail" and "stage focus" so clearly, where others cannot, why not take a "done correctly" DBT (per Jakob2, Risch, etc.) then simply and easily pick out the wires with the greater detail and stage focus, so that this argument can be settled.
Or do you need to see and know what wires, for these details and stage focus to be revealed?
Like Jakob2 and Jon Risch's? You don't have a problem with the actual data/results being top secret?
It's one thing if Panicos doesn't want us to know what speakers he wows folks with, but it does seem a bit odd that the only data supporting your beliefs would be deliberately kept hidden, no?
thanks andre, you and RDF certainly woke me up. cheers. I was a bit pissed off this morning to be totally honest, and when I saw your response it quite annoyed me. Should have kept better control of it.
Still, back to the pertinant point, is it beyond the real of possibility that these differences in electronics are not as extreme as you and most audiophiles make out??
See, until you ACTUALLY do it, you don't really know do you. Sure, you are certain of it, have plenty of prejudices about it, but not really know.
Then a simple level match, blinding of identity, and blow me frickin down...man they so farkin close it is astonishing.
Get back to me after you do an honest appraisal of it ok?
Yep. Obviously ours was done very poorly, you have diagnosed that from quite a way aways. Kudos.
Yep, waiting on the new rugby season...to kick some bok ****.Ahh, now I know your problem, frustrated.
Seriously, it is only the dumbing down that really gets to me. Society is at such a lowest common demominator level it really pisses me off.
But to take pride in it?? That is when I lose it, and point to things like creationism simply to ram a point home. I never said I was one of the good guys, I lose it too easily I'm afraid.
Let me try to help, learn to listen, concentrate on the finer points, give more attention to detail and smile more. (That should help with the wife also.
I smiled at her, she just larfed. You DID see my picture in my build thread no?? then you'd understand haha.
No, was after the dbt symbol, not the cable believers symbol.
oohh, feel my sense of humour coming back.
Panicos, why are you making replies to these posts completely out of context?
I have never said or implied any of what you just wrote.
Quit putting words in my mouth, it's a real nasty habit you got there.
Magura
I am replying in the context of the whole discussion here not just your post above.Never put any words in anyones mouth.Just commenting on different posts.Not my fault if you fail to see any connection of my post with anything in this thread of thousands of posts,some of which yours.Sorry
it was your post this time that gave the spark to my reply.
Hi Tubeguy.
First of all your integrity is not being questioned.
My post merely questions your belief that expectation bias works as you state. You are one of many that say because I expected A but got B then this proves that expectation bias is not involved. I just don't think it is that simple.
Your post that I was responding to:
In the past I also believed that cables made no difference and like you did some tests and found much to my surprise that there were differences that I could hear.
Now the interesting question is why would I sit down and do tests if I didn't have at least some doubt in my belief. I have a technical background and electrical theory is rock solid for people like me so I was absolutely sure of my beliefs..... or so I thought. Reading magazines planted the idea in my mind that maybe I didn't know for sure. So I can't really say that I was expecting no difference when I did the tests. Now all of this is concious thought, but if you also factor in the subconcious the situation contains so many unknowns that certainty can only be established by DBTs. And so I appluad your willingness to be tested under DB conditions.
If you are successful under SYs test I will have to re-think my position yet again.
Hello Fredex.
I realise you weren't questioning my integrity. As I also stated at this point I'm not questioning anyone's integrity here either. As far as "expectation bias" goes these are not my beliefs. I'm only parroting an arguement I've had used against me numerous times by the opponents of "wires sound different" Then I attempted to explain how and why I have a very hard time with anyone who will make a statement, any statement, to support their POV, but when that same statement is used as a negative against their POV, they'll now want to start modifying what their original statement actually meant!
I followed this with an example I've often seen occur i.e., when the opponents of the sonic differences in wires challenge a proponent's claim, they'll simply state; The ONLY reason you heard a difference in the wires is because a) you saw the wire and b) your expected to hear a difference. So you heard a difference. Nothing more and nothing less.
However let the proponents of the sonic differences in wires challenge an opponent's claim, by stating; The ONLY reason you didn't heard a difference in the wires is because when; a) you saw the wire and b) you didn't expect to hear a difference. So you didn't hear a difference. and now the opponents want to modify their original statement with the addition of this would be correct if you were concious of all your expectations. The subconcious is vast and very powerful.
I have to begin to question why the opponents of the sonic differences in wires didn't feel the need to add this bit of important information to their statement when it was originally directed at the proponents of the sonic differences in wires in the first place? To me leaving off such a critical piece of information is intellectually dishonest and lacks of integrity. Hence my bit about the importance of integrity when communicating on the internet to me.
As my thought process continues and I ponder further why a person would purposefully leave out such an important bit of info, I start believing that although I'm communicating with people who are "claiming" to what to know what the objective, scientific, truth is on the issue of sonic differences in wires! In reality I'm dealing with people who have an agenda. People who, because they think their belief system is supported by science want their belief system to be correct at all costs ---{even though it hasn't been scientifically been proven to be so}--- rather than knowing what the actual, objective, scientific, truth is.
As my communications on this issue continue here on diyAudio I'll now have to be a lot more alert in the future as to how people present their arguements. This way I'll know whether I'm dealing with people with an agenda or people who want to know what the actual, objective, scientific, truth on the issue of sonic differences in wires, is! No matter which side of the arguement the truth might end up supporting.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Well I would take issue with this point and I think maybe this is all fredex is trying to say. Expectation and the subconscious just isn't that easy to pin down. Let's take entertainment or a movie as an example.
If someone was to say to you "YOU GOTTA GO SEE AVATAR IT'S ONE OF THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS OF MAN! IT SHOULD BE THE 8TH MAN MADE WONDER OF THE WORLD" and you go to see the movie and it's well just a good movie how do you think your expectations would affected you?
Now if you went into see that same movie with the expectation that "digital sucks and I doubt this will be any different" but the movie actually turns out to be good. How would your expectations affect you in this situation?
See in my experience these things act backwards of how people intuitively think they work.
Science isn't a schoolyard either. I've written many times I don't believe the challenge structure is valid, or that DB is a magic wand eradicating every influence on the subject. Some disagree. So while I give them every prop deserved for the effort and expense, see little of value coming out of this. In my view it's a 'TG under pressure' test and not a hearing threshold test with wider validity.
To All Members.
I've just heard from Jon Risch. Jon told me it's ok with him if Part I remains in it's entirety provided it's ok with the moderators here. In the future he asked the I use the traditional way to referencing a post at another board by providing a brief synopsis, and then the URL that leads to that post.
As everyone knows these three parts pertain to DBTs, ABX. I felt it was easiest to forego even a brief synopsis and just provide the links for anyone who wanted to read the three different parts.
Propeller Head Plaza - DBT, Part 1 - Jon Risch, April 06, 2003 at 22:42:15
Propeller Head Plaza - DBT, Part 2 - Jon Risch, April 20, 2003 at 20:02:20
Propeller Head Plaza - DBT, Part 3 - Jon Risch, April 20, 2003 at 20:20:39
No matter what side of the wire issue you're on I hope you'll enjoy reading these three parts of Jon's article.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
I've just heard from Jon Risch. Jon told me it's ok with him if Part I remains in it's entirety provided it's ok with the moderators here. In the future he asked the I use the traditional way to referencing a post at another board by providing a brief synopsis, and then the URL that leads to that post.
As everyone knows these three parts pertain to DBTs, ABX. I felt it was easiest to forego even a brief synopsis and just provide the links for anyone who wanted to read the three different parts.
Propeller Head Plaza - DBT, Part 1 - Jon Risch, April 06, 2003 at 22:42:15
Propeller Head Plaza - DBT, Part 2 - Jon Risch, April 20, 2003 at 20:02:20
Propeller Head Plaza - DBT, Part 3 - Jon Risch, April 20, 2003 at 20:20:39
No matter what side of the wire issue you're on I hope you'll enjoy reading these three parts of Jon's article.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Depends on what you call 'high end" equipment.
How many times are you going to ask the same question? Get yourself a couple of well recorded acoustical instrument music discs and compare what you hear to what you would expect the real instrument to sound like, both sound and size. That should get you pretty close.
TG will convince you soon.
Hello Key!
I agree with you. I don't really believe in "expectation bias" for numerous reasons. I don't know how many times I've heard from someone a certain vacuum tube, CD, movie, car etc. is either great or horrible and I've come away with the exact opposite POV than the one I was told to expect.
My friend you've missed a very important point I made about "expectation bias" in my previous post i.e., these are not my beliefs. In fact the reason I raised this point was to show how the opponents of "wires sound different" will use it against me (and others) but, when that same statement is used as a negative against their POV, they'll now want to modify what their original statement actually meant! To me this behavior is intellectually dishonest and lacks integrity and that's the reason I brought it up!
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
- Status
- Not open for further replies.