This comment confused me, if I misinterpret it please forgive me. Are you asking for a peer reviewed paper that proves that something doesn't exist? If you are you clearly don't understand peer review. You can't falsify something that doesn't exist. The problem is even if we provided evidence that in lab testing no differences could be displayed in 150 of the best quality systems with a huge range of cables you could still claim that it doesn't apply to your setup and somehow your specific setup is unique. If cables really don't do anything there isn't a way to realistically falsify it. As I've mentioned before you can't prove leprechauns don't exist, because for all you know they could be hiding under the one rock you never checked. Even if every test run was in favor of the pro-reality crowd you could still move the goal post back and claim it isn't enough.
If you insisted that you saw a leprechaun it would be just as ignorant.
That's quite a false statement. To say something like, "speaker wire affects the sound produced by a speaker", isn't a subjective statement. Objective statements are subject to facts. If you listened to the same setup 4 times in a row, told each time that something was changed when it wasn't and each time you heard a difference, it's a fact that the only difference existed in your head. This has nothing to do with personal taste because taste only applies when there is a tangible difference between possibilities. If speaker wire doesn't do anything it doesn't matter what you're tastes are, just how gullible you may or may not be.
Very well put.
It doesn't matter what they cost or how you see the differences, as long as you're making a reasonable comparisons (i.e. not comparing 22awg to 12) then what you're hearing isn't real. You could think that all expensive cables sound terrible but the method used to come to that determination is just as illogical as the person who felt the exact opposite.
The shape of my desk makes my computer run faster. Look, I can state things that have no basis in reality too.
This is a false dichotomy. You are making the false claim that a perfect measurement would result in a system that sounded "unrealistic, thin and uninvolving". I can do the same, watch:
Which is better, a system that had cheap cables that reproduced the music accurately, or a system that used hi-end cables and sounded like an old man was farting over the music.
See how that works? Just because you phrased it as a question doesn't make the statements any less illogical.
That comment is ironic as it's much more likely that the cable crowd will ignore any result that didn't error in their favor. However to answer your question the reason why more information would be necessary is because each claim requires it's own degree of proof. So the claim that you saw a cat this morning when you went to work requires very little evidence to justify, but the claim you watched a cat beat up a bank robber and then fly away requires a high degree of evidence before anyone would take it seriously. A single positive result after so many negative DBT's and no other factual results isn't enough to invalidate quantum electrodynamics. This test isn't being done for the benefit of the pro-reality crowd. I won't comment as to the results of the test, I'll wait to see what they might be no matter how unlikely the outcome.
Yes, anything that produces an audible difference is more important.
Last edited:
woah. Not for one second do I think that anyone who displays 'suggestibility', 'bias', 'unconscious influence' et al can be called gullible.
The above example could be called 'misdirection' couldn't it? Misdirection, the bread and butter of magic and illusionists. Sometimes even advertising?😛
We pay to watch a magician do his stuff. We are entertained and delighted by the illusions he has consciously tried to create.
That does not make us gullible does it?
You have already made clear that we ALL are subject to bias and influence, it is part of the (fascinating) human condition. Does that mean we are all gullible in those cases?
I am sure you did not mean how it came across. Don't worry we all sometimes choose unfortunate words!😀
It's the willingness to ignore findings in favor of a faulty benchmark that I would call gullible. I'll draw an analogy, if there was a cave that sat over a gas vent that scientist have studied. The scientists found that upon inhaling this gas you would hallucinate the sight of ghosts. People then began selling tickets to the cave claiming that you could see real ghosts if you were only spend the money. Even tho the ghosts people are seeing only reside in the senses, people still flock to the cave. It's not simply the fact that our sense are being deceived, but the unwillingness to come to terms with it. I would say that someone who felt an optical illusion was real even in the face of being told otherwise is just as gullible. Someone who's easily deceived or duped, even if it's by his own sense.
I do agree tho I could of used a better choice of words. I'll avoid it in the future.
I do agree tho I could of used a better choice of words. I'll avoid it in the future.
Last edited:
I'll give you a better distinction (I think)- people who are fooled at Penn and Teller performances are suggestible, but aware of reality. People who are fooled by Uri Geller or Sylvia Browne are gullible.
One of my teachers used to say (paraphrased) a false belief held by one is crazy, a false belief held by many is proof of how gullible we are as a species. This was always in response to arguments from numbers, and if you look at the definition I find the word to be applicable. Once again I don't want to play the word game so you're welcome to substituted it for one of the many synonyms that wouldn't of taken us off topic. I can't edit the post now so it's there, but someone who can is welcome to do so with my permission.
not a big problem, but the way you 'set up' the example, was to tell the person something had changed. so they heard a change. Everything (I presume) was hidden from sight.
Normal suggestibility then took over and the person heard a difference.
Would YOU in the same setup not hear a difference? After all, that *seems* to be what the studies of this sort of phenomena would tell us occurs, that a lot of people report a difference.
Why would you be necessarily more immune to normal human reaction than someone else? I dunno, maybe you WOULD be the one person who did not hear a difference, but I also suspect that you don't know either.
It seems to me that you have conflated your belief that cables do not make a difference (my feeling also) with the illusion you described, and called it gullible. If perhaps you had demonstrated that phenomenon and also heard a difference then it may have been called 'normal human suggestibility'?
But as it was used in relation to cables, it became gullibility. You allowed your feelings to dictate a perhaps inappropriate word. (?)
EDIT sorry, missed it my first read thru, you did allow it may have been an inappropriate word. sorry!
Normal suggestibility then took over and the person heard a difference.
Would YOU in the same setup not hear a difference? After all, that *seems* to be what the studies of this sort of phenomena would tell us occurs, that a lot of people report a difference.
Why would you be necessarily more immune to normal human reaction than someone else? I dunno, maybe you WOULD be the one person who did not hear a difference, but I also suspect that you don't know either.
It seems to me that you have conflated your belief that cables do not make a difference (my feeling also) with the illusion you described, and called it gullible. If perhaps you had demonstrated that phenomenon and also heard a difference then it may have been called 'normal human suggestibility'?
But as it was used in relation to cables, it became gullibility. You allowed your feelings to dictate a perhaps inappropriate word. (?)
EDIT sorry, missed it my first read thru, you did allow it may have been an inappropriate word. sorry!
Last edited:
@ kareface,
you have to realize that there is a difference between perception and hearing.
During a subjective evaluation like a listening test, listeners are only able to tell about their perception.
And of course the perception may change even if the stimulus is always the same. Especially if listeners are not used to the situation in which they have to do decisions based solely on their hearing sense.
Unfortunately there are a lot of variables to consider if one wants to do a test that is reliable, objective and valid, and the mechanism mentioned above is one important confounder.
And even the opposite perception mechanism works; imagine the magician that steals your watch from your wrist; the stimulus exists, your sense will react but you simply do not percept it.
@ Ajinfla,
it doesn´t really matter which test protocol to follow, as long as the experimentator is able to show that his test is objective, reliable and valid.
As humans are individuals, it would be very surprising if the "one fits it all" test routine exists.
Wishes
you have to realize that there is a difference between perception and hearing.
During a subjective evaluation like a listening test, listeners are only able to tell about their perception.
And of course the perception may change even if the stimulus is always the same. Especially if listeners are not used to the situation in which they have to do decisions based solely on their hearing sense.
Unfortunately there are a lot of variables to consider if one wants to do a test that is reliable, objective and valid, and the mechanism mentioned above is one important confounder.
And even the opposite perception mechanism works; imagine the magician that steals your watch from your wrist; the stimulus exists, your sense will react but you simply do not percept it.
@ Ajinfla,
it doesn´t really matter which test protocol to follow, as long as the experimentator is able to show that his test is objective, reliable and valid.
As humans are individuals, it would be very surprising if the "one fits it all" test routine exists.
Wishes
No that's not what I've said, what I'm suggesting is that good measurements alone can't guarantee a realistic sounding system. Did you miss the second sentence of what I've said?
By 'measurements' I'm talking about normally specified measurements as supplied by manufacturers because that is all the normal consumer has to make his choice with if he can't trust his ears as suggested here.
There is no difference between perception of sound and hearing. But this is probably not what you meant. A double blind test will remove most bias, so that only a change in stimulus would lead to a different perception.
We're getting there:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12794
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12847
By the way "realistic sounding" is not the goal of each and every recording. If you want to hear realism then you have to do your own recordings. You can't make a pizza taste like a greek salad...
That's true for low end and high end manufacturers. There are only few exceptions. Basically audio is buying a pig in a poke.
Last edited:
I meant ´hearing´as the physical reaction of the auditory system to a stimulus.
That is just a (somewhat common) misunderstanding; the double blind property by definition removes only _one_ _certain_ bias, while the others have to be addressed by the test design in general.
Wishes
That would be "stimulus". "Hearing" has a different meaning.
Of course there are more trivial parameters (like level) that need to be controlled.
The auditory system reacts to a stimulus. While ´hearing´could have a different meaning, the phrase ´hearing´(sense) exists and normally does (at least i was under that impression) not include the brain interaction that forms the perception.
Beside the more ´trivial parameters´ there are a lot more bias mechanism, which were not affected by the ´double blind part´ .
Wishes
Merriam-Webster:
"the process, function, or power of perceiving sound; specifically : the special sense by which noises and tones are received as stimuli"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_(sense)
But what are you trying to say? That the very same stimulus can lead to different perceptions? That is true. Psychoacoustics knows the phenomenon of adaption. But I don't see the relevance in a DBT.
What would that be?
The final sentence wasn't related to the analogy, I was just broadly restating my point.
Regardless of what anyone hears it's the belief, not the perception that's subject to term. As in the example I used about the ghost, there isn't a question about possibly perceiving something that doesn't exist but rather the belief that your perception is real.
Good and bad are subjective as they can mean different things to different people, one attribute of a system could be interpreted as good or bad depending on the preference of the listener. If you are talking about manufacturers specification you should specify so, as measurements to me implies something more than what's provided by the manufacturer. Nothing you've brought up changes the fact that the statement was a false dichotomy.
Seeing how this is the backbone of the rest of your post I'll just address this. I think most encyclopedias would suggest otherwise, one of the first definitions I found used the word perceived in the first sentence of the description. I think people classically don't associate the word with perception when using it in this debate, but I assure you I understand the difference between potential and practical perception.
Basically what i was trying to say is, that the distinction between the physical reaction of the auditory system to a stimulus and the perception resulting from the processing brain is a real one.
So you don´t have to be gullible (because the different perception might be real due to internal and external factors) but that you have to learn to deal with the confounders.
And to decide just by listening alone if a system is unchanged or not is a difficult task indeed.
You did ask for the relevance in a DBT. It is relevant if the test protocol does not take this factor into account, which means if the experimenter asks for different/same decisions. (See for example Nousaine on this topic)
The influence on the results can be quite profound if no positive controls are included.
Just to name two for the participants; confirmation bias and expectation bias.
Wishes
Yes, but insisting that it's not only possible but you can do it with uncompromising accuracy is what I would call being deceived. No one's saying product bias is related to being gullible, willingness to believe in a faulty benchmark however is being gullible.
That's exactly what the concept of double blind tests tries to address: remove confirmation bias and expectation bias.
If you know a better way to test for the "cable sound" claims, you're welcome to propose a proper test methodology.
I'm confused, are you saying that in a DBT that confirmation bias and expectation bias have an impact on the results? I think I might be missing something here. I assume that you're not implying the results of the DBT that will be run soon aren't going to be made public? I'm not too worried about confirmation or expectation bias when it comes to the speaker cable debate as a large number of the tests that have been preformed and made public were done with people who claimed to be capable of identifying the differences, only to split the results down the center. The test necessarily involves people who disagree with the common results as they are the only people who claim to be capable of identifying the differences.
"confirmation bias and expectation bias" - see page 47/48 http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf
- Status
- Not open for further replies.