So you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to dismiss the capability of millions of folks, since the dawn of time, who have "heard" ghosts..and not just cables?
Sorry Sy, I like many more than those that say that we can not, hear differences other than frequency related issues with all types of components. I have heard your stance previously that homopathics, mediums, ghost hunters, etc. I will not play this game. Either you can hear these differences, or you choose not to, your call. No one can make anyone do what they feel that they are not capable of doing 😎
No. Being stupid is not a sin, calling is. Therefore, you are now close to the sin bin.
Last edited:
wouldn't have expected you to.
VERY briefly, one pair of speakers (constant)
'front end one' 1986 (??) first generation cdp, into integrated amp same vintage, cannot remember brand names now.
interconnects typical cheap stuff supplied with any old component, speaker cable was house wiring I just grabbed from around here (renovating a house)
'front end two' $10 000 cdp, 'exotic' pre ( again cannot remember brand now) into class A monoblocks..valve??? think they were now that I think of it...not sure..., interconnects and speaker cabling were 'expensive'. Forgive lack of details this time later . cannot remember. Front end two was worth $20 000, who knows what value we can put on front end one (1986 stuff).
Basically, everything we could do to maximise the difference between the two we did.
The similarity was staggering...I fully expected them to 'sound the same'....BUT they sounded the same! I could not believe it.
Oh yes, of course the front ends were hidden behind a screen, and were level matched prior to the test.
I think I have mentioned before that if it is not an immediate and dramatic improvement/difference, I personally do not bother with it.
So, as they 'were the same' I basically did not even bother spending more than five minutes having a listen, not how I do audio.
having said that, there were others that were unable to tell them apart after an hours listening, and there were others that were able to form a preference (it was 'which do you prefer?', NOT which is which)
Whether or not they would have been able to identify them reliably we do not know, we did not do that test. But, all (including those who were so certain that amps, pre's, interconnects etc have a readily identifiable signature) agreed that the difference between them was very small.
Thanks curly, I am bowing out of the thread again, did not mean to come down hard or anything like that. I wish you could at least be able to look at these things dispassionately..even in the last few posts you still seem to be misunderstanding a few things. As yet another example, you ask ME to prove to you that no difference exists between cables. All I have is the non-existence of any evidence that shows they can. (sigh, try and get that anecdotal evidence, no matter how heart felt, means nothing). Can you see that you are still having trouble grasping the basics??
NONE of this says that you cannot hear what you say you do, simply that your assertions that you can mean absolutely nothing. That you refuse and deny the validity of many many studies showing how easily we can be misled by things is very sad.
If you were truly able to hear what you claim. then that would be an objective fact and so no matter what you did the presence would be discernable.
basically, you have nothing but bluster to bolster your position....a bit like the creation scientists with their saddle shod dinosaurs.
edit
syn08, maybe I could respond if I understood what you wrote
No. Being stupid is not a sin, telling is. Therefore, you are now close to the sin bin.
And science still can not understand what people can and can not distinguish in audio reproduction. have a good one 🙂
As nobody thinks, that cables can´t sound different and nobody did a trip to Curly to see (and measure) what is happening in his system, why can somebody insist that he _must_ be wrong?
From a logical point of view, Curly should admit that he _might_ be wrong (at least sometimes, but i´m sure that he knows that anyway 🙂 ), while the others should admit that he _might_ be right.
Of course it is right, that we can´t trust our senses in every respect, but please consider that a lot of people wouldn´t be able to do their work, if they couldn´t trust their ears (at least generally).
Ever seen a conductor needing blind tests while trying to get the best from an orchestra?
Everybody who has learned to play an acoustical instruments, knows from own experience that he is not able to play a piece of music two times in a row with level differences <0.05dB, hence musicians are able, despite of this fact, to reach progress in playing together, or to reach a certain interpretation of the music.
What about a recording engineer or a mastering engineer? Would he be able to do any serious work without double blind tests?
If one knows what to listen for, and has experience, he can reach an impressive level of sensitivity. Does that mean he can´t be wrong? No, of course not.
And of course i´d strongly recommend that everybody should do dbts (or single blinds to make it bit easier for homework), because you´ll learn a lot about your perception and a lot about the difficulties of _good_ testing as well. 🙂
BTW, cable tests with positive results do exist, but it´s questionable if the test was valid (wrt to the detection of audible differences between cables), but if you start to see it that way, you´ll have to discard a lot of other dbts on audio as well.
Wishes
From a logical point of view, Curly should admit that he _might_ be wrong (at least sometimes, but i´m sure that he knows that anyway 🙂 ), while the others should admit that he _might_ be right.
Of course it is right, that we can´t trust our senses in every respect, but please consider that a lot of people wouldn´t be able to do their work, if they couldn´t trust their ears (at least generally).
Ever seen a conductor needing blind tests while trying to get the best from an orchestra?
Everybody who has learned to play an acoustical instruments, knows from own experience that he is not able to play a piece of music two times in a row with level differences <0.05dB, hence musicians are able, despite of this fact, to reach progress in playing together, or to reach a certain interpretation of the music.
What about a recording engineer or a mastering engineer? Would he be able to do any serious work without double blind tests?
If one knows what to listen for, and has experience, he can reach an impressive level of sensitivity. Does that mean he can´t be wrong? No, of course not.
And of course i´d strongly recommend that everybody should do dbts (or single blinds to make it bit easier for homework), because you´ll learn a lot about your perception and a lot about the difficulties of _good_ testing as well. 🙂
BTW, cable tests with positive results do exist, but it´s questionable if the test was valid (wrt to the detection of audible differences between cables), but if you start to see it that way, you´ll have to discard a lot of other dbts on audio as well.
Wishes
Last edited:
Hmm. So I must be imagining all those books and studies I read about it to extend my understanding.
Maybe you should have said: "I, Curly Woods, don't know any empirical data etc". Don't speak for the rest of us who do.
jd
Ohh but science can. It just that YOU cannot.
Edit: I take that back. You would be able to understand it, if you would refuse it.
jd
See Toole's latest work. We still have not cracked the surface as to what a human being is truly capable of hearing. I am sure that you can supply a great many works that say humans can not hear certain things, but I know others, like myself, that can hear things, that others will not train themselves to do. It is not a special gift at all, all that it takes is a willingness to learn.
You said that SY cannot hear differences. He explicitly stated he can. You lie.
jd
Thank you. If he can why so much railing against me and others then. I am sure Sy can hear differences as he is a smart guy. I have to wonder why he down plays the effects that passive components have on the sound of a circuit though, if that is indeed the case.
Why is it that I feel I am being goaded here today 🙂
Last edited:
Curly Woods:
Panikos K:
Rationality is a closed mind? LOL. Science will never move forward with rationality? So, um, how do you suppose science got where it is today then? I don't have "all the answers for everyone" and never claimed to. What I do have is the answer to how to test the perceptibilitly of complex audible differences in cables. If you don't buy DBT - which is abundantly clear, btw, given your persistent obtuseness - that's your loss. And your customer's loss (but then, their loss is your gain...). And uh, yes... the 'antithesis of snake oil' IS all you're getting from me. Tell me, if I understand you right, what is the virtue of snake oil again?
So, um, you gonna answer the question? Also, you're language is misleading - it was not Randi who decided not to risk it, it was Fremer who backed out.
Panikos K:
As you say - "IF". But I never said or implied that I 'judged how music should sound' using my hifi, nor that I used it as any kind of 'reference'. As you well know. So stop putting up these silly straw-man arguments to tilt against.
If you have made up your mind about DBT methodology, good. Care to tell us what you decided? Or is that a secret? I never told anyone 'what to listen' btw. Indeed, I've explicitly said the opposite to Curly - he can listen how he likes and for what he likes in a DBT and I would still accept the results.
Hi jakob. Can I say that I made the point to curly that what I have been saying does not prove curly cannot hear what he says?? (go back and have a look, I'll wait)
Can I point out that curly refuses to have anyone come around...that may not be true, what IS true is that he refuses to have SY come around.
I myself do not insist he must_be_wrong, I insist that he cannot be sure of it until he removes any confounding factors known to cause problems, which he refuses to do.
Can I point out that no matter how I phrase the hypothetical, curly simply cannot_admit_he_may_be_wrong.
Can I point out that I am not sure that we need_to_admit_he_may_be_right, as basically 'no-one has ever been right' in their claims, at least not under controlled conditions.
Can I point out the fallacy of the 'how do you get to work with traffic lights' idiocy, which you have just resurrected. We are talking JNDs, limits of perceptions etc. Would you agree that there is a difference between a smack in the head with a 4*2 and testing the detectable limits of skin sensation?
Same with traffic lights, and lowest magnitude stars in the sky. Claiming you can see a magnitude XX star, and equating that with 'don't you trust what colour the traffic lights are' is, well dumb basically.
You can draw an awful lot of conclusions about the intelligence of someone who would make a claim like that I submit.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.