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

[nunayafb]

Originally posted by Andre Visser


This is quite obvious and clearly you are the one with no understanding of electronics, soundfields and hearing. I won't bother to respond to any of your posts again while you continue with this attitude.

I suggest you take some reading lessons also, perhaps you will then understand what we are talking about.

How is it obvious? Can you support this conclusion?
You wont bother to respond huh, I said all of that and you replied to one line! Are you going to use that one line as an excuse to not deal with my statements? Another emotional response to avoid dealing with the technical statements. Anyone else see a pattern here?

Reading lessons again... geeesh, that got old when tubeguy repeated it over and over again.

I guess you have chosen not to deal with reality.

Yes I am being hostile, if you guys want to try and deal with factual, supportable evidence then I will tone it down. But as long as you guys keep being lying and manipulative in your debating method then you leave me no choice but to dissect your flawed arguments.

You brought this on yourself...

[jneutron]

Originally posted by nunayafb

Nice try jneutron, but you are ignoring the purpose of the test in order make a claim that I am wrong.

My goodness, what was that all about??

The expressed purpose of the "test" is to determine the audibility of any cordage change, be it IC's, PC's, or speaker wires.

To that end, I have:

1. Detailed the level of localization parameters humans use to discern an image in space.

2. Detailed how we humans can image a virtual source that is not there, but fabricated using two sources. We adapt to the incorrect stimulus presented by the content.

3. Detailed how most musical program we purchase does not have the localization parameters we humans are "hardwired" to use in detecting the location of a source.

4. Explained why specific audibility tests which IGNORE the human brains ability to "adapt" to erroneous localization parameterics is suspect. If we adapt to subtle alterations in the parametrics, then subtle alterations will be missed.

5. Detailed quite clearly, the test protocol needed to determine the level of those alterations that we are sensitive to (at the 90% accuracy level).

Originally posted by nunayafb
The purpose of the test is to determine if cable A is audibly different than B. So lets modify your experiment, lets replace the friends with speakers and perform the test with two different cables. The results wont change.

What results? What specific entity do you think that would test for?

I recommend that before you make any more of those kind of silly test scenarios which cannot test anything with any rigor, read my posts again. Ask questions, as you have not understood.

I do not expect all to understand, and will be more than happy to explain.

Originally posted by nunayafb


Tubeguy, are you going to berate him for not reading my post properly? In my post I explained a reason one would get differing FR's when their head moved due to phase relationships. He twisted the argument and began talking about localization and imaging, who's sidestepping arguments now

I did not twist the argument. I pointed out an error in your understanding, and provided a test regime with which to define the absolute accuracy requirements of a system which will define image placement to a 90% confidence level.


Ask questions please. Do not post in such an agressive fashion on something you do not understand, that does not help the discussion..

Cheers, John

[thetubeguy1954]

nunayafb you twisted my post into saying things it didn't and then chose to completely ignore every example I gave where you did so! So YOU'RE the hypocrite, not me!

Everything I said about objectivists like yourself, is 100% from my point of view. What actually occured was you twisted everything 180 degrees ---{in the typical unobjective way most "lunatic-fringe" self-proclaimed objectivists do in order to appear correct at all costs}--- and then claimed that's how subjectivists behave!

I proved by showing how and where you twisted and distorted almost my entire post that's how you behave. So I'll reiterate either you lack reading comprehension or you're deliberately twisting & distorting my post to support your POV! Which one is it? Fact is even in defending your despicable behavior you've once again twisted everything 180 degrees and then claimed YOUR actions are what I did! Here's the truth...

nunayafb, you have taken everything that I said and twisted it 180 degrees and then claimed that's what actually I said! These are the types of actions and behaviors that manipulative people like yourself use to win when a losing argument, it's not brilliant, it's disgusting. I cannot fathom why somone like yourself would act devoid of any moral code and lie through your teeth like you did just to win an arguement about a hobby! This audio hobby is supposed to be fun, not a win at any cost war, as you've made it out to be. I defy anyone to read what I really said here in post #1633 & #1644 and then read nunayafb's restating of what I actually said here in post #1647 and see which of us is twisting and distorting what the other said while lying through their teeth!

nunayafb, if you want to see how a real rational objectivist responds read Jneutron's or Tom Danley's posts! John & Tom are an excellent example of an objectivist is. You on the other hand are way off in the "lunatic fringe" of objectivism and obviously need to mis-state what subjectivists like myself say in order to appear correct! Your entire rebuttal to my original post @ #1647 was a either a complete error due to lack of reading comprehension at best or a complete & deliberate mis-stating of what I said at worse!

Obviously there's nothing gained via further communications with someone who cannot disagree without using deception to "win" an arguement. This will be our final communication. Now go on and have the last word I know you so deperately need to have in order to believe you've won...

[SY]

nunayfb,1954, if you want to have the sort of discussion where debating tactics and persons are criticized, there are many excellent forums for that. This is not one of them.

Please confine your attacks to ideas, not people.

[nunayafb]

I recommend that before you make any more of those kind of silly test scenarios which cannot test anything with any rigor,

"my" test scenario... I am pretty sure I took your scenario and replaced friends with speakers, and then said swap cable A for B. If you think that is silly then maybe you are in the wrong thread, cables are what we are talking about. If you don't understand what would be measured in this test then why did you bring it up?

Tubeguy, yes this is the end of it. You didn't even put any effort into that last post, 80% of those words are from previous posts, mine and yours. It doesn't carry a lot of weight when you quote me and simultaneously say I am twisting YOUR words 180.

SY, I have said it before and I will say it again: When they start making educated statements that can be substantiated I will gladly address them. But since they are ignoring facts and changing the topic so often it virtually impossible to attack their ideas. And since 90% of their ideas are based on "my extensive experience" how exactly do we attack their ideas without it getting personal?

Obviously there's nothing gained via further communications with someone who cannot disagree without using deception to "win" an arguement

Nice try, but I have been nothing but honest with you guys. BTW pointing out flaws in your statements is why we are here, if you want my responses to be based on your technical expertise then pick a specific topic and lets discuss it, no twisting, changing or sidestepping the topic. That means we will each have to prove our case w/o any bs.

Finally, you guys are claiming years of experience and a sort of infallibility, so how would you feel if I said the following:

I have been dealing with subjective arguments for many years and 100% of the time I can tell when people are lying to cover up the uncertainty of their beliefs. Furthermore I have conducted dozens of tests in which hundreds of people have not been able to hear differences between cables, therefore cables don't make a difference.

I'll tell you right off the bat this is a lie, but you can't prove it! You never could, every time you ask for evidence I'll make up an excuse.
FYI, flip this 180 and that is how the objectivists are hearing your statements.

So you want an open minded discussion, no problem. Since you guys are getting so upset I am going to let you pick the topic.
If one of you objectivists would be so kind as pick a focused "bit" of evidence for us all to discuss we will all gladly focus on that one bit until we agree.
Don't expect it to be all technical, I studied logical arguments in college and once you have been in a conversation where the only valid conclusion follows from true premises it is hard to dismiss it when people make invalid conclusions. It is my opinion that you guys are doing that. So if you can convince me that there is a difference in cables I will admit there is, but your logic had better be sound.



-J

[SY]

it virtually impossible to attack their ideas

Then the ideas aren't worth attacking. Smile and back out the door, slowly.

Furthermore I have conducted dozens of tests in which hundreds of people have not been able to hear differences between cables, therefore cables don't make a difference.

Non-sequitor and factually incorrect. I'd have no trouble setting up a demo where you or any of your test subjects (assuming no significant hearing defects) could easily hear a difference between cables in a blind test.

As I've said before, though, demonstrable audible differences between cables always have a non-mysterious reason. Anyone claiming the contrary has no evidence and can be safely ignored until such is forthcoming.

[fredex]

Originally posted by Andre Visser
Fredex, perhaps one day you come to watch a good game of Rugby, let me know.

Thanks. I am not a great sports fan but would enjoy being on the sidelines with you. But heaven forbid if it is a trick to get me all subjective I must warn you I am on the ball.

[jneutron]

Originally posted by nunayafb
[B] "my" test scenario... I am pretty sure I took your scenario and replaced friends with speakers, and then said swap cable A for B. If you think that is silly then maybe you are in the wrong thread, cables are what we are talking about.

You must first understand what it is you are attacking. Clearly you do not.

My test design is to determine the ability of humans to localize. Given the results, it is simple enough to convert the data into the relevant ITD and IID.

It uses two independent sources, with independent locations.

With relevant ITD and IID established, it is possible to determine a system specification which controls localization parameters to afford control over imaging.

Your test is a simple repeat of all other tests, it provides absolutely no control nor understandings of how humans adapt to imprecise or un-natural localization cues.

Proper tests require controls, and they require accounting for all confounders....human's ability to image something where no source exists using the pan pot only, is an adaptation which must be controlled for.

Please try to understand the discussion you are having with me.

Originally posted by nunayafb
[B] If you don't understand what would be measured in this test then why did you bring it up?

You must go back and re-read what I have stated. It is clear, and I understand it very well..

Don't be afraid to ask questions...you need to..

Cheers, John

[fredex]

Old saying, "It is all good fun until someone looses an eye."

What are the facts here? Subjectivists claim that traditional measurements don't tell the whole story. I can buy that, after all we don't know everything about everything. Do we know enough to establish whether something is audible or not. If DBTs are out what other tests could we use?

[SY]

Any test of a claimed effect must be DBT in order to be valid. This is the case for any sort of sensory phenomenon, not just audio. But there are other ways than stuff like ABX to test these things, and we've discussed a bunch of them to death in threads over the years.

I personally think that there are indeed subtle audible phenomena that conventional ABX and similar testing have not shown up yet. And that other tests would show these differences. But I cheerfully concede that there is absolutely no reliable evidence for my personal belief, and I could be completely fooling myself in this regard.