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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#14,101
janneman said:
No, why should he be 'expected to ignore them'? If he is a mature, educated person he will realize what has been going on and accept that that's the way it is. Hopefully he will continue to enjoy his audio system, and enjoy getting new amps and cables and what have you.
Click to expand...

Although what you say is perfectly logical ( for the educated person 🙂), it is also is kind of illogical.

Let's transpose this to a guy who is invited to blind taste test his favourite beer against one he doesn't like. Let's say that under DBT conditions and 500 tests, he cannot statistically tell them apart.

As the beer he didn't like is cheaper, being an educated man, he will from now go and buy several cases because he knows it is the same. But when he relaxes in front of the game on TV and drinks the first one, he finds he still doesn't like it. Should he force himself to drink it?
 
#14,104
Steve Eddy said:
It's not a subjectivist/objectivist argument.
Click to expand...

I'd tend to agree there.

There would be no argument between objectivists and true subjectivists.
Click to expand...

You've missed out a 'true' - there would be no argument between true objectivists and true subjectivists.

That's because true subjectivists simply accept their subjective experience for what it is and don't try and pass it off as anything else. And in not doing so, there is nothing for any objectivist to take issue with.
Click to expand...

Nothing for any true objectivist to take issue with. But some objectivists, not being 'true objectivists' seek to deny the subjective experience of the true subjectivists. So they'll say things like 'you don't hear a difference' when the true subjectivists are perfectly clear they do. Or they'll say 'you can't hear a difference - the null DBT proves this'. No, the DBT proves they don't hear a difference in unsighted listening, not in general. But the true subjectivists generally agree they hear no difference in those controlled conditions too, so no conflict.

The argument is between objectivists and those who try and pass off their subjective experiences as more than that and in doing so effectively make objective claims but who refuse to substantiate those objective claims with objective proof.
Click to expand...

A true objectivist would not have any subjective experience so could not 'object' to anything the true subjectivist said. An objection is an emotional feeling, by its very nature its subjective.
 
#14,106
auplater said:
it's spelled e-x-p-e-c-t-a-t-i-o-n ... (bias,effect,error,mistake,etc.) pick your noun, if you dare...

well known to the research community...🙄😉

John L.
Click to expand...

I dare "Desensitisation". Let us assume that the GEB have got it right and there are audible differences in cables, and these differences are not a purely psychological effect. In this case the blind part of the test cannot remove these differences, they just become inaudible so the sensitivity of the ears must be reduced. This a very odd situation as the blind part of a test does not alter the sound in anyway. It only removes factors that the GEB claim they are immune to. 😉
 
#14,107
janneman said:
Yes, if you extend 'expectastion bias' to 'perception factors'. There's more than just expectation: peer pressure, cost of item, color/shape of item, what you had for lunch, past experiences, you name it.
Click to expand...

Yep, all subconscious factors.


None of us.
Click to expand...

Certainly that's an extraordinary claim.😀

It's innate and beyond our control; we have no access to that process.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you have any evidence for such claims if the 'we' and 'our' are universally applicable, rather than just place holders for 'the average audiophile'. Are babies born with expectation bias? My hypothesis is its acquired, not innate. The grounds for such a hypothesis are that the conscious/unconscious division is not a firm boundary, its rather permeable - people can raise their level of consciousness. I recall reading something (not sure if it was in Gladwell) about monks in a meditative state being able to mitigate their startle reflex - that reflex I contend is further in the direction of innate than expectation bias as babies demonstrate it.
 
#14,108
Hi,

SY said:
That's up to him, no?

If it were me, I'd be delighted to save the money, assuming the new beer was cheaper. But if it were me, I could tell them apart.😀
Click to expand...

First of, you drink wine not beer.
Secondly you can't distinguish solid core from multi-strand wire.
Thirdly, you would drink the more expensive beer anyhow, even if you didn't like it all.

I charge $50 an hour for character analysis for mild cases of 24 bottles, single malt 12 bottle cases are twice as much....😀

Cheers, 😉 (how appropriate)
 
#14,109
fredex said:
I dare "Desensitisation". Let us assume that the GEB have got it right and there are audible differences in cables, and these differences are not a purely psychological effect. In this case the blind part of the test cannot remove these differences, they just become inaudible so the sensitivity of the ears must be reduced. This a very odd situation as the blind part of a test does not alter the sound in anyway. It only removes factors that the GEB claim they are immune to. 😉
Click to expand...

Nicely put.
 
#14,113
SY said:
That's up to him, no?

If it were me, I'd be delighted to save the money, assuming the new beer was cheaper. But if it were me, I could tell them apart.😀
Click to expand...

Then surely, this is the heart of the cable debate?

There are people who admit that they may not hear a difference in a DBT, but when it comes to long term listening pleasure they can.

So then, no one is objecting to them selecting a cable based on their subjective preference?

What is the objection then? That because we cannot understand any scientific reason for perceived differences ( and no one has ever proven them ) that they cannot exist - therefore in this case people should not be able to excercise a choice?

Just trying to understand, as this thread seems to be going nowhere fast 🙂
 
#14,114
Hi,

SY said:
Both, actually. When in Belgium, Het Anker is my choice. Kudos to Pete Millett for introducing me to that.
Click to expand...

Good on you.
I'm still kicking myself in the head for not being able to meet you guys in Malines/Mechelen a couple of years ago BTW. Such a shame...

Exploring some Walloon brewed beers as I write.

Gone are the days of wine and beer jokes during the weekend on this forum, I s'pose?

Anyhow, next time you come to Belgium I'll beer there 🙂D) and, if the audibility of cable turns out successful: a case of artisanal beer of your choice will arrive at your doorstep. Prometido.

...Don't you worry guys, it's just a very small bribe...😉

Cheers, ...again...
 
#14,115
Hi,

What is the objection then? That because we cannot understand any scientific reason for perceived differences ( and no one has ever proven them ) that they cannot exist - therefore in this case people should not be able to excercise a choice?
Click to expand...

To some people, untill something is scientifically proven it just can't exist.

Never, ever say I think or you'll be asked for proof before you have a chance to finish your sentence.

What they don't know is that science's often twenty years or more behind of the "not as yet scientifically proven facts"

Work for the government, any large muti-national and you'll know the feeling...

Headbanging can be a hobby.🙄

Ciao, 😉
 
#14,117
tinitus said:
And that funny thing...."foot tapping effect"
Click to expand...

In my admittedly hazy memory, that was a marketing technique used by Linn. The salesman would tap his foot only when a Linn LP12 was being auditioned. Of course he'd make it look as nonchalant as possible. Its an application of NLP 'rapport establishment'. But I'd appreciate being corrected by anyone who has further light to shine...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom