if you've got to use DBT's then your barking up the wrong tree ....music is an art form ....it requires all your senses....
this is silly infantile question ......
if you can tell the difference between cables ...you have nothing to worry about. That doesn't mean that others can't hear difference ..it only means that you can't for what ever reason.
The other point I'd like to make is this ......if you build two identical cables and sleeve one in red and one in blue ...will you hear a difference ?
well of course not as they are electrically identical !
So why do you think you struggle to hear the differences between many commercial cables .....? yes your right there essentially the same ...ie all coax topology cables of a similar dia and conductor type are going to have similar sound .....
no wonder people can't tell the difference .....
Now try listening to two dissimilar cables ie a coax and a twisted pair ......
this is silly infantile question ......
if you can tell the difference between cables ...you have nothing to worry about. That doesn't mean that others can't hear difference ..it only means that you can't for what ever reason.
The other point I'd like to make is this ......if you build two identical cables and sleeve one in red and one in blue ...will you hear a difference ?
well of course not as they are electrically identical !
So why do you think you struggle to hear the differences between many commercial cables .....? yes your right there essentially the same ...ie all coax topology cables of a similar dia and conductor type are going to have similar sound .....
no wonder people can't tell the difference .....
Now try listening to two dissimilar cables ie a coax and a twisted pair ......
zanash said:
Agreed - but
The objectivist view is that even dissimilar cables (coax or other design / materials / dielectric / diameter / shield type / reasonable quality connectors assumed) are electrically indistinguishable (resistance, inductance, capacitance) until you reach ludicrous lengths of cable, and sonically indistinguishable (DBT). So simply buy the cheapest or use coathangers if funds are really tight.
And it's true that blinded tests seem to have supported this - despite their problems. If the differences between cable types are actually so subtle that nobody can consistently hear them then they are right.
I also think that there is a bit much amateur psychology here. I would be expected to favour my newer, silver, twisted pair cables over my older OFC/carbon cables. Yet on extended listening I don't. In my system they give an unnatural glassy sheen to orchestral strings that is missing with the copper (among other differences I "hear"). So after extended listening I have gone back to my old cables. That's not the accepted "psychology" being touted here, where I would subconsciously favour the newer, silver+teflon, higher-tech connector, ones - both cables having absolutely identical effects on the sound.
I have not yet confirmed my listening impressions blinded, but I will. And the results of that may well see me change camp.
tc-60guy said:
Hello TC-Guy! I understood you completely. I was just giving my opinion of what are possibly some of the reasons why medical DBTs are significantly different than audio DBTs. If in fact the two different DBTs ---{audio & medical}--- are significantly different , and I believe they are, then I applaud your suggestion to slap around the DBT orthodoxy to see if it can take the heat!
As for me, I believe I'm a rational subjectivist! That means I believe there is a vaild, scientific reason behind every difference we hear. I further believe that these differences should be repeatedly measureable. Where I differ from objectivists is when there's a difference I hear, that for whatever reason eludes being repeatedly measureable, I don't automatically assume, I'm fooling myself, over-detecting, hearing ghosts etc. I believe it's because the human ear/brain combo is so complex we don't yet fully understand how it perceives everything it hears!
It's possible that everything from humidity to the ambient temperature of the room effects both how and audio system replicates music and how we as humans perceive sound, no? It's at least possible and until those areas ---{and others, like the mood of the subject, for example}--- have been scientifically eliminated as having any effect on how we perceive sound it will remain possible.
That said, I fully understand that the human senses are easily fooled! Just as there are optical illusions there are aural illusions too. What bothers me as a subjectivist is how objectivists so easily trust their eyes and ears in everyday life ---{for example do they challenge the woman on the other end of the phone to "prove" she's their wife or do they trust their ears are correct and they're hearing their wife's voice?}--- yet in a hobby that's supposed to be fun and enjoyable, these same people keep demanding proof others i.e. subjectivists senses aren't being tricked! That seems hypocritical to me.
Stop throwing red herrings around, they begin to smell.
Why do you bring up voice recognition, for which we have - as with face recognition, developed excellent capacities due to the social nature of our being, in the context of differentiating sound signatures of cables?
We are not even able to hear harmonic distortions below about 1%, and have a hard time discerning sound level differences below .5dB, and yet we should be able to hear differences in cables when their measured parameters differ usually at values below any influence on audibility.
Is it a wonder I and others take those claims with more than a little doubt?
thetubeguy1954 said:
Two comments.
One, we know a LOT more about how the complex ear/brain systems perceives everything it hears than the most of the members here are aware of - it's just that they don't seem to take the trouble to read up on it. I belive that if that knowledge was more widespread, acceptance of DBT would almost become unavoidable, for a rational person.
Two, you don't seem to accept that you "fool yourself, over-detect, hearing ghosts...", but you *do* believe that there is something unknown that causes the conflict. Is that rational? It is exactly the "fool yourself, over-detect, hearing ghosts...", part for which there is massive, scientifically tested, well documented information.
PS I do agree with most of your post though, which I snipped..
Jan Didden
@ Thetubeguy1954,
a lot of your points are well worth a thought and most of them should be adressed by proper test design, but none of them would lead to abandon of double blind testing.
In fact a whole part in the field of psychology, named ´cognitive psychology´(i hope the term is appropriate too in english) wouldn´t exist because it is devoted to the human perception and can´t do much without blind testing.
And of course the listeners in a dbt are as much under test as the DUTs.
It is a pity that so often experimentators are doing blind testing in the field of audio without learning enough about test design in general.
A few conclusions can be drawn so far:
1.) the differences we are investigating aren´t earthshaking. It´s quite probable that earthshaking differences would be detected even under unfamiliar circumstances
2.) listeners who are unfamiliar with the specific test conditions most likely do not detect differences that are normally known as audible
3.) listeners should be trained under the specific test protocol choosen to get the sensitivity level needed
4.) the inclusion of controls is mandatory
And don´t forget about one of the golden rules of testing:
`the better controlled an experiment is the less is the practical use of the results´
An example for this would be the need for a rapid switching device for comparison purposes during the test. While it is often time saving it otherwise is dangerous for the test and its interpretation.
If a difference in a test is only detectable by rapid switching, what relevance could it have for ´normal listening´?
If otoh a difference does have relevance in ´normal listening´then why should rapid switching be needed? It would be a direct hint that we have a problem in our test protocol, if this difference would be only detected by using a rapid switching device.
Jakob2
a lot of your points are well worth a thought and most of them should be adressed by proper test design, but none of them would lead to abandon of double blind testing.
In fact a whole part in the field of psychology, named ´cognitive psychology´(i hope the term is appropriate too in english) wouldn´t exist because it is devoted to the human perception and can´t do much without blind testing.
And of course the listeners in a dbt are as much under test as the DUTs.
It is a pity that so often experimentators are doing blind testing in the field of audio without learning enough about test design in general.
A few conclusions can be drawn so far:
1.) the differences we are investigating aren´t earthshaking. It´s quite probable that earthshaking differences would be detected even under unfamiliar circumstances
2.) listeners who are unfamiliar with the specific test conditions most likely do not detect differences that are normally known as audible
3.) listeners should be trained under the specific test protocol choosen to get the sensitivity level needed
4.) the inclusion of controls is mandatory
And don´t forget about one of the golden rules of testing:
`the better controlled an experiment is the less is the practical use of the results´
An example for this would be the need for a rapid switching device for comparison purposes during the test. While it is often time saving it otherwise is dangerous for the test and its interpretation.
If a difference in a test is only detectable by rapid switching, what relevance could it have for ´normal listening´?
If otoh a difference does have relevance in ´normal listening´then why should rapid switching be needed? It would be a direct hint that we have a problem in our test protocol, if this difference would be only detected by using a rapid switching device.
Jakob2
More or less traditional measurement
Maybe one way to go is to test which how small changes we can hear using traditional equipment and compare to the differences that different cabels gives.
If it takes a much bigger difference to hear any difference than changing cables gives we can se this as an evidence that we can't hear differences between cables.
Of course it will take many measurements on how we can hear different types of distortion and what types of distortions cables can give under varying conditions.
Personally I believe that rather simple AB tests would be more than good enough though.
Maybe one way to go is to test which how small changes we can hear using traditional equipment and compare to the differences that different cabels gives.
If it takes a much bigger difference to hear any difference than changing cables gives we can se this as an evidence that we can't hear differences between cables.
Of course it will take many measurements on how we can hear different types of distortion and what types of distortions cables can give under varying conditions.
Personally I believe that rather simple AB tests would be more than good enough though.
Jannmanne what I actually said was" I don't automatically assume I'm fooling myself, over-detecting or hearing ghosts! I never said that wasn't a possibility. In fact I readily admitted that just like our eyes are fooled by optical illusions I realize our ears are fooled by aural illusions too!
Just remember pretty much all things objectivists claim work against subjectivists have their counterpart. For example take placebos well their counterpart are nocebos, which is latin for "I will harm" too. A perfect example of a nocebo effect would be when a person who's bitten by a nonvenomous snake dies because they believe the snake was venomous. Or another favorite objectivist weapon is "expectation bias." Often they'll claim subjectivists only hear differences in ICs or speakerwire because they expect to! That might very well be true but, "expectation bias" works negatively as well. It's equally possible that the objectivists don't hear differences in ICs and speakerwire simply because they don't expect too. Science is a two-edged sword my friend.
==============================================
Jakob2 I'm not calling for the abandonment of DBTs, just DBTs using ABX boxes. Manuel switching of the DUT along with close adherence with your points raised in conclusions 1-4 would perhaps allow more subjectivists to start to accept the use of DBTs. I know it would for me at least.
==============================================
audio-kraut I bring up voice recognition because like Alan Hope said "...voice is an important part of a lot of music." But I bring it up for second reason as well. I believe that the evolved ability of "voice recognition" is one of the tools the human ear/brain uses ---{perhaps slightly differently}--- for detecing differences in audio components as well! Allow me to explain my POV and please remember I'm speaking for myself, ok?
I don't hear a person's voice and immediately recognize that voice the next time I hear it. "Voice recognition" comes with exposure to the person's voice. I've noticed it's that way with audio components too. I need time to be exposed to an audio component to recognition it's unique voice as well! That's why I often say ---{although it's called an excuse by objectivists}--- that although I say I know I can hear differences in audio components, that's when I'm in my home on my system! Why? Because I'm intimately familar with how it sounds. Personally I'd want at least a 30day exposure to a complete system in a specific room BEFORE I could confidently state I'd know I could detect differences in a test, if components were changed.
Also just as a FYI when I listen for differences in audio components I listen for short periods 30secs to a minute at most and I listen for very specific things, like the drummer hitting his drumsticks together in the song Deacon Blues, by Steely Dan.
==============================================
planet10 "If' objectivists would state "that "under the conditions of this test, listeners were unable to distinguish one capacitor from another by sound alone." That does NOT mean that all capacitors are audibly indistinguishable to all listeners under all circumstances" instead of stating that years of DBTs have proven there are no audible differences in audio components I'd have no problem with that conclusion.
Just remember pretty much all things objectivists claim work against subjectivists have their counterpart. For example take placebos well their counterpart are nocebos, which is latin for "I will harm" too. A perfect example of a nocebo effect would be when a person who's bitten by a nonvenomous snake dies because they believe the snake was venomous. Or another favorite objectivist weapon is "expectation bias." Often they'll claim subjectivists only hear differences in ICs or speakerwire because they expect to! That might very well be true but, "expectation bias" works negatively as well. It's equally possible that the objectivists don't hear differences in ICs and speakerwire simply because they don't expect too. Science is a two-edged sword my friend.
==============================================
Jakob2 I'm not calling for the abandonment of DBTs, just DBTs using ABX boxes. Manuel switching of the DUT along with close adherence with your points raised in conclusions 1-4 would perhaps allow more subjectivists to start to accept the use of DBTs. I know it would for me at least.
==============================================
audio-kraut I bring up voice recognition because like Alan Hope said "...voice is an important part of a lot of music." But I bring it up for second reason as well. I believe that the evolved ability of "voice recognition" is one of the tools the human ear/brain uses ---{perhaps slightly differently}--- for detecing differences in audio components as well! Allow me to explain my POV and please remember I'm speaking for myself, ok?
I don't hear a person's voice and immediately recognize that voice the next time I hear it. "Voice recognition" comes with exposure to the person's voice. I've noticed it's that way with audio components too. I need time to be exposed to an audio component to recognition it's unique voice as well! That's why I often say ---{although it's called an excuse by objectivists}--- that although I say I know I can hear differences in audio components, that's when I'm in my home on my system! Why? Because I'm intimately familar with how it sounds. Personally I'd want at least a 30day exposure to a complete system in a specific room BEFORE I could confidently state I'd know I could detect differences in a test, if components were changed.
Also just as a FYI when I listen for differences in audio components I listen for short periods 30secs to a minute at most and I listen for very specific things, like the drummer hitting his drumsticks together in the song Deacon Blues, by Steely Dan.
==============================================
planet10 "If' objectivists would state "that "under the conditions of this test, listeners were unable to distinguish one capacitor from another by sound alone." That does NOT mean that all capacitors are audibly indistinguishable to all listeners under all circumstances" instead of stating that years of DBTs have proven there are no audible differences in audio components I'd have no problem with that conclusion.
If I hear a difference, I measure. If after trying everything I can and there is nothing that shows up, nor is even hinted at by the measurements, ie there are no artifacts at any reasonable level that warrant further investigation, what else can there be? There is nothing difficult about a cable apart from RLC, source and load impedances and shielding and much of this has been analysed for decades in other fields of electronics. So it seems logical that if there are no significant measurable differences, then they will not be audible. I have also yet to be given a reasonable mechanism for what can be causing these unmeasurable audible differences.thetubeguy1954 said:
Personally, I much prefer spending time developing areas in audio that do actually make significant differences such as speakers and room acoustics, and amplifiers to a much lesser extent.
I quoted your post as I was about to type something almost identical.janneman said:
thetubeguy1954 said:
OK, I just thought you were ready to accept "something we don't know if it even exists" over "maybe I'm not hearing what I hear", as this last issue is very well documented and accepted by behavioural scientist and a bunch of others.
Anyway. what you call nocebo I woud still call placebo, but that may be semantics only.
And yes, expectation bias works two ways. But isn't that the beauty of DBT? If you expect to hear a difference between amps, for example, and you do a DBT, you will fail the test one way or another if you can't reliably hear that difference, expectation or not. But you are right, if I expect NO difference I can rig the test by reporting hearing no difference, even if it is staring me in the face.
Jan Didden
Somebody said many pages ago "you are all right" perhaps we should have listened.
I'm convinced that not everybody will hear cable differences, also that the brain can be fooled and that you get used to a system but I'm also convinced that there are real differences and that they can be very noticeable under the right circumstances. I'm no scientist but perhaps this can help to search for answers.
Here are a few things I believe to be important: (my opinion, based on my own experiences) Hope its not too boring.
Listening is a learning process, most (all?) of our "hearing" happen in the brain. The brain can and must be trained to detect certain effects or sounds by concentrating and analysing what we hear and with time the brain start doing it automatically, leaving you to concentrate on new things. The brain can detect the position of a sound source very accurately. (Since stereo is not natural, the brain must learn to interpret it to hear a soundstage and origin of every sound.)
The sound system used, must be able to reproduce the sound with enough detail, (resolution?) phase accuracy and low distortion to enable the brain to interpret the soundstage correctly. (The room acoustics and speaker / listening positions must be correct also.) Stereo got only one correct listening position where the speakers themselves should be "invisible".
To me this is where good cables are important, cables can "somehow" distort or blur this sound picture. This is one way to hear and remember differences between cables. What is also noticeable to me are different levels of fine detail between cables, also easy to remember. I believe that this detail has a large effect on the way we perceive sound, perhaps the reason why some "hear" more bass or treble.
Another important factor is that you know the system, this make it much easier to hear differences since you know what you expect to hear from the system.
I believe these effects will be difficult to measure, what do you measure to describe a soundstage? To many this could sound like splitting hair but to me this is what make it sound real, I want to sit in my chair with eyes closed and hear exactly where every sound originates from, with as much as possible detail.
André
I'm convinced that not everybody will hear cable differences, also that the brain can be fooled and that you get used to a system but I'm also convinced that there are real differences and that they can be very noticeable under the right circumstances. I'm no scientist but perhaps this can help to search for answers.
Here are a few things I believe to be important: (my opinion, based on my own experiences) Hope its not too boring.
Listening is a learning process, most (all?) of our "hearing" happen in the brain. The brain can and must be trained to detect certain effects or sounds by concentrating and analysing what we hear and with time the brain start doing it automatically, leaving you to concentrate on new things. The brain can detect the position of a sound source very accurately. (Since stereo is not natural, the brain must learn to interpret it to hear a soundstage and origin of every sound.)
The sound system used, must be able to reproduce the sound with enough detail, (resolution?) phase accuracy and low distortion to enable the brain to interpret the soundstage correctly. (The room acoustics and speaker / listening positions must be correct also.) Stereo got only one correct listening position where the speakers themselves should be "invisible".
To me this is where good cables are important, cables can "somehow" distort or blur this sound picture. This is one way to hear and remember differences between cables. What is also noticeable to me are different levels of fine detail between cables, also easy to remember. I believe that this detail has a large effect on the way we perceive sound, perhaps the reason why some "hear" more bass or treble.
Another important factor is that you know the system, this make it much easier to hear differences since you know what you expect to hear from the system.
I believe these effects will be difficult to measure, what do you measure to describe a soundstage? To many this could sound like splitting hair but to me this is what make it sound real, I want to sit in my chair with eyes closed and hear exactly where every sound originates from, with as much as possible detail.
André
Jakob2 said:
Nobody is insisting on rapid switching, it's only preferred because it has been shown that our ability to detect audible differences is most acute when switching is several times per minute. If you want to conduct the test in a less aurally sensitive domain, by all means try long switching periods. Trouble is the same people who are reluctant to accept the test's findings ie the "rational subjectivists" will now claim the test is invalid because it didn't use the most sensitive protocol. Which is ironic because these same people claim they need days or months to notice subtle differences; they just want to have their cake (the right to claim stupendously subtle ear functioning and refute scientific findings to the contrary) and eat it too (use selected scientific test findings to bolster their arguments one day, and refute the same findings the next).
You have actually heard some effects but you assume (or reason) that these are caused by the cable. This is logical because that is the only thing you changed. The problem is that you are not a machine that reacts consistantly to stimulus so it is not just the cable that changes.Andre Visser said:
The very act of getting up to change the cable changes you. I think audiophiles tend to under estimate the power of this.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.