Re: I Think Bruno and JC Are Perfectly Sensible.....
So? I perceive differences as well. And have publically stated so. But unfortunately, sensible people willing to state publically that they are hearing differences according to cables doesn't establish that those differences are due to actual audibility of anything.
Of course he's sensible. Which is why he's working on a switchbox so he can do blind testing in order to try and establish actual audibility. Being the sensible person that he is, he realizes that subjective perception alone does not establish actual audibility.
se
mrfeedback said:
So? I perceive differences as well. And have publically stated so. But unfortunately, sensible people willing to state publically that they are hearing differences according to cables doesn't establish that those differences are due to actual audibility of anything.
Of course he's sensible. Which is why he's working on a switchbox so he can do blind testing in order to try and establish actual audibility. Being the sensible person that he is, he realizes that subjective perception alone does not establish actual audibility.
se
Blind Testing Leading The Blind........
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
So? I perceive differences as well. And have publically stated so. But unfortunately, sensible people willing to state publically that they are hearing differences according to cables doesn't establish that those differences are due to actual audibility of anything.
It means that sensible people have sensible hearing.
Do not expect the local bricklayer to have the same hearing discrimination.
Of course he's sensible. Which is why he's working on a switchbox so he can do blind testing in order to try and establish actual audibility. Being the sensible person that he is, he realizes that subjective perception alone does not establish actual audibility.
Bruno has stated clearly that he hears differences, and postures explanatory reasons too.
Blind testing establishes audibility under the given test conditions of a particular sample set of listeners.
The sample set of listeners and the test conditions require full disclosure for any degree of credibility, and this includes negative outcomes.
Eric.
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
So? I perceive differences as well. And have publically stated so. But unfortunately, sensible people willing to state publically that they are hearing differences according to cables doesn't establish that those differences are due to actual audibility of anything.
It means that sensible people have sensible hearing.
Do not expect the local bricklayer to have the same hearing discrimination.
Of course he's sensible. Which is why he's working on a switchbox so he can do blind testing in order to try and establish actual audibility. Being the sensible person that he is, he realizes that subjective perception alone does not establish actual audibility.
Bruno has stated clearly that he hears differences, and postures explanatory reasons too.
Blind testing establishes audibility under the given test conditions of a particular sample set of listeners.
The sample set of listeners and the test conditions require full disclosure for any degree of credibility, and this includes negative outcomes.
Eric.
Re: Blind Testing Leading The Blind........
So if you have a big enough ego, and believe hard enough, that's all it takes to establish actual audibility?
But being the sensible person that he is, he doesn't insist that the differences he perceives are in fact due to actual audible phenomenon.
So? The complete lack of establishment of actual audible differences leaves too much ambiguity to reach any firm, meaningful conclusions.
Sure. So?
mrfeedback said:
So if you have a big enough ego, and believe hard enough, that's all it takes to establish actual audibility?
But being the sensible person that he is, he doesn't insist that the differences he perceives are in fact due to actual audible phenomenon.
So? The complete lack of establishment of actual audible differences leaves too much ambiguity to reach any firm, meaningful conclusions.
Sure. So?
A Black And White Proof Of Changes.............
Bruno's posting...
Recently I've done a collection of measurements on interconnect cables to see what I could find that would explain the sonic differences that many people, including myself, have grown accustomed to hearing........
That reads to me that he is hearing differences, and repeatedly.
Yesterday afternoon my dad and I had a listening session on his big system.
We did A/B comparisons of his system with and without my 240V power lead supplying the complete system.
On a particular organ passage, two of his house windows rattled with my power lead in place, and did not rattle with the lead not in circuit.
I tried to tell him that he was imagining hearing the rattling windows, but he would not agree with me and insisted that the windows rattled only with the power lead in place.
Eric.
Bruno's posting...
Recently I've done a collection of measurements on interconnect cables to see what I could find that would explain the sonic differences that many people, including myself, have grown accustomed to hearing........
That reads to me that he is hearing differences, and repeatedly.
Yesterday afternoon my dad and I had a listening session on his big system.
We did A/B comparisons of his system with and without my 240V power lead supplying the complete system.
On a particular organ passage, two of his house windows rattled with my power lead in place, and did not rattle with the lead not in circuit.
I tried to tell him that he was imagining hearing the rattling windows, but he would not agree with me and insisted that the windows rattled only with the power lead in place.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
it may very well be. But you didn't investigage others factors that may cause the windows to rattle and attribute the rattling to the use of the leads.
I mentioned this a while ago but it may have escaped you. if you plot a nation's year-to-date rainfall and its year-to-date GDP, you will find an almost perfect correlation (yes, i did that for my stats class in school).
Does that mean the more rain we have, the higher GDP we will get?
I hope all of us are sane enough to say no.
The point? correlation does not mean causality. What we are trying to prove here is causality. Citing incidents of correlation, be it 100x or 1000x, or with you dad or with all the pople in India or God, does NOT help you prove causality.
Please, let's get over with that once and for all.
It is very frustrating that after so many discussions, we are still stuck at Stat 101 for highschoolers.
Again, correlation does not mean causality.
Originally posted by dillwood
It may very well be. But you didn't investigage others factors that may cause the windows to rattle and attribute the rattling to the use of the leads.
No conditions in the house changed (doors closed or open etc), and it was a windless day.
We played the same passage 4 times without the lead, and four times with the lead.
The same passages of the recording played with the lead inserted caused the windows to rattle every time, and the window did not rattle once without the power lead.
There were no other changes made to the system nor any environmental changes during the period of this testing.
If this is not 100% correlation of the causitive please explain to me what is.
I mentioned this a while ago but it may have escaped you. if you plot a nation's year-to-date rainfall and its year-to-date GDP, you will find an almost perfect correlation (yes, i did that for my stats class in school).
Does that mean the more rain we have, the higher GDP we will get?
I hope all of us are sane enough to say no.
GDP and rainfall have absolutely nothing to do with the audio system described.
The point? correlation does not mean causality. What we are trying to prove here is causality. Citing incidents of correlation, be it 100x or 1000x, or with you dad or with all the pople in India or God, does NOT help you prove causality.
The correlation is that inserting a particular 240V power lead changed the behaviour of the system enought to in this case cause two windows to rattle, and in exactly the same places in the recording each time.
Please, let's get over with that once and for all.
It is very frustrating that after so many discussions, we are still stuck at Stat 101 for highschoolers.
Again, correlation does not mean causality.
It does and very clearly so when there are no other changes in the experimental conditions.
The actual physical mechanisms at work here are another matter, and require close investigation.
Eric.
It may very well be. But you didn't investigage others factors that may cause the windows to rattle and attribute the rattling to the use of the leads.
No conditions in the house changed (doors closed or open etc), and it was a windless day.
We played the same passage 4 times without the lead, and four times with the lead.
The same passages of the recording played with the lead inserted caused the windows to rattle every time, and the window did not rattle once without the power lead.
There were no other changes made to the system nor any environmental changes during the period of this testing.
If this is not 100% correlation of the causitive please explain to me what is.
I mentioned this a while ago but it may have escaped you. if you plot a nation's year-to-date rainfall and its year-to-date GDP, you will find an almost perfect correlation (yes, i did that for my stats class in school).
Does that mean the more rain we have, the higher GDP we will get?
I hope all of us are sane enough to say no.
GDP and rainfall have absolutely nothing to do with the audio system described.
The point? correlation does not mean causality. What we are trying to prove here is causality. Citing incidents of correlation, be it 100x or 1000x, or with you dad or with all the pople in India or God, does NOT help you prove causality.
The correlation is that inserting a particular 240V power lead changed the behaviour of the system enought to in this case cause two windows to rattle, and in exactly the same places in the recording each time.
Please, let's get over with that once and for all.
It is very frustrating that after so many discussions, we are still stuck at Stat 101 for highschoolers.
Again, correlation does not mean causality.
It does and very clearly so when there are no other changes in the experimental conditions.
The actual physical mechanisms at work here are another matter, and require close investigation.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
I knew my endeavor to teach 'causality" was doomed to fail, and to fail miserably,
.and I was so right.
But as a last try, please allow me to show Eric the following from www.m-w.com (a useful resource, btw):
==============================================
Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Date: 15th century
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin -- compare HOMOLOGY
synonym see LIKENESS
mrfeedback said:
Eric,
Just to be perfectly clear, these are leads used for line power--240V AC? It's interesting that there would be such an effect (rattling windows).
My comments may have gotten lost, but I hear a noticeable improvement using an AC power conditioner. I want to do a listening test with my sister (a piano teacher). We talked about this yesterday (we got together to unwrap gift with her kids--no time to actual test).
So it is where it is interesting to find news, such as yours, that aids in learning about a sound system. The rattling windows seemed like an AB test that just presented itself.
So, what is your thoughts on measuring cables? Does it surprise you that the distortion measurements don't reveal anything? Or do you think we don't know how to make the proper measurement?
(As far as my power conditioner, I guess I think it must be breaking some sort of ground loop. This is just a small point though. Something else comes to mind.)
The sounds that cause windows rattling must be something that is measureable with microphones etc. You might even be able to record the difference. Anyway, though it's probably not categorically true, maybe there is too much focus on single component testing. Although, if your system does change sound with the power lead, it still seems that there would be a test that would reveal how it differs from a standard lead.
Anyway, at this time, I mostly wish to point out that someone in addition to Millwood appreciates your forum contribution.
JF
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.