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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I attended the local NW AES meeting on Thusrday evening, yes they did let me in even though they are well aware of the confusion I can cause. Dr.Toole and Dr. Olive were the guest speakers. Dr Toole gave a fine talk, but it was generalist in nature. Sean Olive provided real nuts and bolts about what kind of situation you MUST create to get results that match between testing objectively and subjectively, just for frequency response differences.

He has some neat software he thought might be released to the world, that takes particular pieces of music and alters the FR in increasing numbers of segments. He allowed us to get an idea of just how well trained his test subjects really are, by stepping through the first five sectors. One point of change, two, three etc. I passed the first two and failed miserably on the rest and this through Genelec monitors that Dr Olive thinks very highly of. I could easily tell there were differences in FR presentation but lost track of where they were occurring. Their test subjects can routinely find 36 sectors of difference.... and not loose track, for better than 90% of the time.

Dr Olive did provide an insight into how rigorous their training program is and how rigorous their methodology is. I don't see how anyone is going to be able to accept the DBT that we are proposing as anything better than anecdotal, in the face of what real DBT's are comprised of.

Bud
 
it makes me wonder why Shanefield insisted that Johnsen should at least do single blind tests
Huh? Where does he do that? A direct quote form the article please, no subjective interpretations, thanks.

Johnsen book is clearly not aimed at the scientific community but more to the music listeners.
:confused: So the "scientific community" doesn't listen to music?
"Music listeners" can't be part of the scientific community? There is mutual exclusivity?
You were concerned with Dr. Shanefield's logic and reasoning?

His reasoning about the logic of any delusion argument is strange indeed.
"By the way, people who don't hear the effect do not need to do blind experiments, according to the way I see the logic. Only people who claim to hear something need the blindness, to be sure it's not imagination. (If you don't hear it, how can it be imagination? Of course, you might be somehow suppressing your normal perceptions, but a blind test wouldn't help that.)"
I'm sorry, but there is nothing unreasonable or illogical about those general statements whatsoever. The burden is squarely on the shoulders of the claimer, not the rational disbeliever. Formal rule of logic: can't prove a negative. We can't prove that you can't "hear it". You must prove that you can.


One can percept something non existent because one believes it is existant.
Yes, sure. Just read this or any subjectivist thread.

Otoh, one can not percept something existent because one believes it is not existent.
Eh? :confused:
If I believe that I can't hear above 14k and then proceed to hear a 16k tone.....??

In german this behaviour is called "Hypothesen-Raten" (translated guess of hypothesis) but the correct phrase is "demand characteristics".
I think I have the phrase you are looking for and will use it (often) from now on.

If motivation is too strong it could lead to higher stress, which could affect the test results, especially if the conditions were unfamiliar.

was ist Deine Ausrede?

cheers,

AJ ;)
 
Dr Olive did provide an insight into how rigorous their training program is and how rigorous their methodology is. I don't see how anyone is going to be able to accept the DBT that we are proposing as anything better than anecdotal, in the face of what real DBT's are comprised of.

Bud

Bud,

I got the impression that folks here were claiming this level of acuity. The most trivial changes were obvious virtually 100% of the time. BTW I don't think the training of the listeners is a measure of the rigor of a DBT. In fact I would think requiring highly trained listeners would invalidate a DBT as pertaining to an untrained individual, what a can of worms. We are back to "if you cared enough to train yourself, the differences would be obvious".
 
Last edited:
Sad actually, in a couple of months Matti Otala will again have discovered that amplifiers have PIM and it creates in-harmonic frequencies and the establishment supressed him to take the credit.
I was expecting a scathing response from JC way before that, including words like "libel", etc.
Looks like you got a pass, though maybe not for Christmas dinner. :)

Hey AJ, do you have a link for this as I'd be interested in reading it.
Scattered about, some probably lost in the AA archives. Here is what I could find: Propeller Head Plaza: Hmmmm. by jneutron
and of course http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_24_r.pdf

A Google search of jneutron and "Essex Echo" or "Hawksford" will lead to some rather hilarious exchanges with jneutron, Curl and Risch over on (the appropriately named) Audio "Asylum". But you were already warned by JC ;).

cheers,

AJ
 
If we are to accept the analogy as apt, then TG is already ruined since he's ware that I am highly skeptical of the non-mundane cable claims. And in fact, so is any audiophile. Wow! You have created the perfect, hermetic, universal excuse!

No, it means you're ruined as a test administrator. Again, a mindlessly trivial hurdle to overcome so the insistence you da man is as curious as it is unnecessary.
 
they are well aware of the confusion I can cause.
To who?

I passed the first two and failed miserably on the rest and this through Genelec monitors that Dr Olive thinks very highly of. I could easily tell there were differences in FR presentation but lost track of where they were

But the wire hearers already have a lifetime of training to perceive these witch effect differences, just like you could hear (real) differences. Tom won't be asked to decide which is "better"/where. A difference will suffice.
He will also train himself under blind conditions prior to the actual test (just like the Harmon guys. Well, maybe not quite).
Btw, what did you think of the Genelecs themselves?

cheers,

AJ
 
Again, a mindlessly trivial hurdle to overcome so the insistence you da man is as curious as it is unnecessary.

Short memory.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ake-difference-any-input-559.html#post2056179

It would have been lovely if one of the faith-based had stood up and offered to administer a properly controlled test. Unfortunately, they're all too busy creating excuses and constructing questionable analogies to stoop to actually try to prove their point. Except JC, of course, who's too busy running away.
 
Scattered about, some probably lost in the AA archives. Here is what I could find: Propeller Head Plaza: Hmmmm. by jneutron
and of course http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_24_r.pdf

A Google search of jneutron and "Essex Echo" or "Hawksford" will lead to some rather hilarious exchanges with jneutron, Curl and Risch over on (the appropriately named) Audio "Asylum". But you were already warned by JC ;).

cheers,

AJ
Thanks for replying. I have that AC issue, but had forgotten it was in there; re-reading now.

I was also sent another link via email to a different thread, which I will read in full later. I'll also do some further searching; PropHead is nothing if not entertaining.

I'll just ignore the comment by JC above, as he most definitely has a dog in that fight from a quick perusal of the threads I have read so far, and I see through the ploy.
 
It is a bit exaggerated (for example i´ve never stated that i have plenty of subjects wiht superb listening abilities).
Was ist Deine Ausrede? In all of Germany? Really?
To do this for publishing in a peer review journal is simply much more effort than to do it for fun or confirming something useful for daily work.
Was ist Deine Ausrede? Who said "Journal", other than you? You could not post it here, on this very forum you frequent, for peer review?

And especially a cable double blind is a quite elaborate design if all aspects should be covered.
Was ist Deine Ausrede? So we are stuck in the online version of "Ground Hog Day"? An endless loop. Those who can do, won't, those who can't do, will, only to be nitpicked from the peanut gallery by those who can, but won't.
Or is that can't?

cheers,

AJ
 
AJ,

The Genelec's were extremely clear, very dynamic, wide dispersion and musical and once I had comprehended what changes could be wrought with just nudging one point of FR amongst many, I was even more impressed. Only short coming from my twisted point of view was the lack of that additional 40 to 50 db down in coherent low level signal provided by the spotted pox fever.

Many of our local AES folks are familiar with various of my odd and confusing "inventions". Voiced guitar amp OPT's (an AES meeting devoted to that coming up this spring), EnABL, Ground Control, extremely high resolution audio reproduction transformers and that I never have the slightest idea what I am talking about.

Bud
 
Brett, for completeness, to prevent a misunderstanding, let me give you a little background on this. Dr. Hawksford wrote a series of popular (knowing vector analysis helped) articles on wire theory, in several audio magazines, back in the '80's.
You can get the complete essay on wires from his website, and it is 89 or so pages in length, along with much other material.
Jneutron jumped on one of his measurements as appearing to show an error that looked similar to one he made on some project that he made at his work-site, due to a measurement mistake. He confronted Dr. Hawksford with this suggestion. Dr. Hawksford politely considered it and refuted it. This did not satisfy Jneutron, and he as never stopped complaining about it. I spoke to Dr. Hawksford in person on the subject, and he stands behind his test, which happens to match his mathematical model and calculated results, also in his paper. In other words, his math matches his measurements.
Still, there will always be controversy, and I would hope that you look at the entire paper, rather than accept its criticisms, from others, as so many do, here.
 
Last edited:
AX tech editor
Joined 2002
Paid Member
I mentioned his cable paper also in my interview with Hawksford (published in AudioXpress) and he indicated indeed he stands behind it. He did mention that there was some speculation but that is noted as such in his article, and as far as I know that was not the point jneutron disputed.

He mentions somewhere in his article that he did measurements with a kind of artificial cable consisting of two square aluminium rods separated by a thin foil. When I visited him for the interview he actually produced that thing so it was pretty clear he did the experiment at the time.

jd
 
Last edited:
I remember reading the Hawksford articles in HiFi News. Lacking the mathematical skills needed to understand the articles I was duly impressed, at last some scientific proof of what I was hearing. Though I remember thinking it a little odd that HiFi news would print something so heavy in mathematics that it would be totally over the heads of a majority of their readers. I think the publishers were probably as ignorant as I, but like me were impressed with his credentials and it fitted in with the then mania of cable sound. I can bet it did no harm to the cable companies advertising their wares in the magazine. The lack of supporting follow up is telling. (no 'Hawksford Effect')
 
Status
Not open for further replies.