Hi,
Works both ways.
One can only hope that anyone making any claims has at least varified for himself the repeatability of such claim.
Cheers, 😉
Works both ways.
One can only hope that anyone making any claims has at least varified for himself the repeatability of such claim.
Cheers, 😉
I concur. This does seem to go to the nub of the 'debate' - whether what somebody hears is 'demonstrable'.
Yep, its a matter of convention which is passed on through the generations.
Even more strongly, Donald Hoffman has shown that this is impossible, even in principle. Proof of scrambling theorem
Quite.🙂
Potentially all of the above.
I've never heard a golden eared person say he/she was infallible. So this looks to be a straw man.
Certainly its one possible hypothesis. But one I'd say was unfalsifiable, so not a scientific one.
Hi,
You not only need to remove bias, you also need to remove the person factor from the equation.
If you don't you'd stil be testing a person not the DUT.
One way to go about it is to test audibility of the DUT in an acceptably large amount of test subjects after which you may or may not conclude that from your test results it would appear that x number of people have or have not past the test.
IOW you established a likelyhood of audibility. Nothing more nothing less.
Now you can repeat this test with another couple of hundreds of people, over and over again.
At the end you will only have data about people and nothing else.
If however you only put those people to the test that claim to be able to actually perform positively to this test you may end up establishing a reasonably acceptable result either way.
Those subjects that failed the test haven't necessarily been lying about their past experiences and those who did pass may still contain a number of lucky shots and so on.
Either way, I just establish a line of thought. Test protocols are best left to the experts.
That said, drawing final conclusions from the performance of a single subject on a single run test is not my idea of a scientific set up...
Cheers and wishes too, 😎
You not only need to remove bias, you also need to remove the person factor from the equation.
If you don't you'd stil be testing a person not the DUT.
One way to go about it is to test audibility of the DUT in an acceptably large amount of test subjects after which you may or may not conclude that from your test results it would appear that x number of people have or have not past the test.
IOW you established a likelyhood of audibility. Nothing more nothing less.
Now you can repeat this test with another couple of hundreds of people, over and over again.
At the end you will only have data about people and nothing else.
If however you only put those people to the test that claim to be able to actually perform positively to this test you may end up establishing a reasonably acceptable result either way.
Those subjects that failed the test haven't necessarily been lying about their past experiences and those who did pass may still contain a number of lucky shots and so on.
Either way, I just establish a line of thought. Test protocols are best left to the experts.
That said, drawing final conclusions from the performance of a single subject on a single run test is not my idea of a scientific set up...
Cheers and wishes too, 😎
Last edited:
Evolution has guaranteed that for every creature, audiophile or not. Unerring perception of physical reality is simply too costly in evolutionary terms to have stayed around. If you'd like a reference for that claim, I know where to look...
Any references you have for that? I'd like to follow it up as I've not come across the notion before.
It's something I'd read from James Johnston (a/k/a "jj"). He hangs out over at the Stereophile forums so perhaps you can get him to elaborate further.
se
Hi,
Not really. How can you "over-detect" ?
I suppose you make reference to instinctive self-preserving behaviour?
Not much left of that I am afraid but it can be re-sharpenend under certain sociological conditions.
Cheers, 😉
Not really. How can you "over-detect" ?
I suppose you make reference to instinctive self-preserving behaviour?
Not much left of that I am afraid but it can be re-sharpenend under certain sociological conditions.
Cheers, 😉
Cool, I'll have a look. OK, I don't see it.
To keep restating some readily available evidence for cable inaudibility:
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf
for Cal on amps:
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
For the whole thang:
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
Not to rain on anyone's parade. Who knows, maybe this one will be different? Tic toc. My dad would be slapping me with the definition of insanity right now, but lord know I ain't right.
Dan
Last edited:
Don't thank him. I'll remove anything he posts after this is closed. He knows that. 🙂
Why is it that people WANT to close this post? I don't just mean the moderators, it must get boring and time consuming for them, but why would anyone else, on either side of the issue of cable audibility, want to stop a thread? The only reason that I can imagine is that this thread makes them 'uncomfortable' in some way, and 'killing the debate' is better for their peace of mind and self-satisfaction. It is not as if we HAVE to contribute here, or even read it. So, what can we do to make the situation better?
What debate?
In order to kill the debate, there must first be a debate.
And when all one side offers up is the same tired old hand-waving they've been offering up ad nauseum for years and not bringing anything new to the table, I don't see that as constituting "debate."
se
For the record, I could care less what any individual can or can’t hear. It’s the supernatural explanations that somehow become some fact that must be disproved. OK so the GEB are experts on what they perceive, why extend that to the hair-brained PR that the manufacturers pedal along with their products. Product reviews all too often turn into platforms to promote nonsense. Why not just defend the value of the product on purely perceptual criteria, without sanctioning all the baggage.
For me the only stumbling block seems to be the acceptance of DBTs as a legitimate way of finding out the real truth. If the differences disappear under DB conditions there must be a reason for this annoying feature of human hearing.
I don't expect an answer this time either, but why has no one looked to calibrate their DBT tests to confirm they're capable of revealing differences at known auditory thresholds? Nulls are ALWAYS taken on faith. This one - http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf - from dantheman's list (I don't have the desire to go through the others again) gave me a chuckle. Wouldn't Futterman's OTL have fallen on its face driving the Maggie 3 ohm min load? Unfortunately no measurements were provided but I strongly suspect performance deviation were well within known audible thresholds. BTW, that article must be a quarter century old by now.
Scott, it's the moving goalpost effect. Start from cables are always inaudible and then layer in LRC effects (though never agree that 'team member' cable recommendations that generate them are incorrect), add stability factors as the discussion progresses, but never, ever grant that the auditory reports spawning the investigation might have had a point, and continue to straw dog the other side. Rinse and repeat.
It is strange b/c many people do close their eyes for serious listening and blind people often make fantastic musicians.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.