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

[jneutron]

As for time resolution and the previous mention of localization, I'm more skeptical after thinking about tape deck alignments I've done. Step 1 is to align a tape head against a reference tape so the high frequencies aren't attenuated. Step 2 is to further refine the alignment so the phase of the high frequencies is matched.

Why is it you needed a two step alignment? Step 1 should be all that is needed.

Since it was not, and you needed a second step to time align more precisely, you are indeed SUPPORTING the premise that ITD is an issue.

I have also aligned tape decks, both cassette and 10 inch R/R. I passed up your first step, and simply used a canned tape, a screwdriver, and a pair of speakers. It is trivial to center the image timewise by listening while adjusting, and I could get the image centered to within a foot of the center of the speakers.

You've no idea how tight that is w/r to interchannel delay. I'll toss a graph up monday if you wish.

The reality is that phase will rarely be maintained on different decks, and even the same deck will be a bit unstable and sensitive to the tape used. These problems are way worse than the period of a 20kHz waveform, much less than the imaging example given, and are worst of all on a cassette deck.

Which brings to issue the repeatability of the medium, not the localization capability of humans.

Yet, you can have perfectly good localization and soundstage on even a medium quality cassette deck. You can have great localization and soundstage on a decent one.

But as you said, decks can be unstable. And, remember, we adapt to a different set of localization parameters, and, we do not have our head in a vice. Most humans will react to a small misalignment of interchannel timing by moving their head a tenth of an inch..for larger misalignments, most will simply use the balance control to compensate..

But nothing in your argument supports ignoring localization. I can get decent imaging on several sets of my computer speakers, and they are indeed all garbage.

Based on that, I have to move subtle time differences, propagation delays, and related stuff way down on the list of things that affect cables and electronics.

Your choices are yours, I have no problem with them..

btw, what prop delays? Someone talked about prop delays??

Cheers, John

 

[Andre Visser]

This debate is not about what we like, its about audibility. I may be under- estimating your hearing ability, but without some sort of objective test, I will never know how wrong I am. 🙂

Fredex, perhaps one day you come to watch a good game of Rugby, let me know.😉

 

[Conrad Hoffman]

Well John, you can divide it into as many steps as you like. My wife says when you have a bunch of stuff to do, the first thing to do is make a list. The first item on the list is to make a list- that way you have something to cross off immediately so you feel like you've already accomplished something.

Tape head alignment can certainly be described as a single step- crank the darn thing until the gap is perfectly aligned with the data going by. TTBOMK, step 1 is never sufficient unless you're also monitoring with a scope for phase. It's too easy to have it look good, then discover a phase reversals at high frequencies because it isn't quite perfect. I think I was using a Nortronics alignment tape, but also experimented with making my own. Turns out not to be so easy

I use the term propagation delay loosely, but inside my pea brain almost everything related to phase gets translated to a delay of some sort.

 

[thetubeguy1954]

Typical Objectivist Twisting Of The Truth

nunayafb you sincerely need to take a course in vastly improving your reading comprehension. Because as is, it's extremely poor. No one was whining about tnargs & AJinFLA not treating subjectivists with respect. If your reading comprehension was better you'd have realized that tnargs made the claim that objectivists are only trying to help {subjectivists} To which I replied when people are honestly & sincerely trying to help someone, they don't do it by berating, disparaging & mocking the person they're trying to help! That type of behavior only serves to create walls not bridges. I then provided examples of objectivists displaying that behavior. Obviously you fit perfectly with those who choose to use that type of objectivist behavior with your comment of ---{ they're not treating you guys with the respect that you don't deserve!} Making a statement of fact is vastly different than whining.
=============================================
Now regarding your question of: Tell me which of the above is true. Either the room matters in ABX or it doesn't. It appears you're asking this question because of your continued lack of reading comprehension or because you're deliberately attempting to obfuscate the truth in what I actually said. I was very clear that it was in the context of what I was saying Nigel's statement about the room altering the sound was irrelevent!

Why? Well if your reading comprehension was better you would have understood why! Amazingly you completely missed and hence failed to comprehend ---{is it a lack of reading comprehension or deliberately attempting to obfuscate the truth?}--- I was admitting the room altered the sound but, in this specific example I used alteration of the sound just didn't matter! I explained why in my original post so you either need to go back and re-read it ssslllooooowwwwlllyyy or have someone explain it to you.
==============================================
Sadly once again we have to deal with your continued lack of reading comprehension or you're deliberate obfuscation of the truth! Your incorrect statement that subjectivists argue that DBTs only work in our room with our system, is just one more "lunatic fringe" objectivist mistruth. I clearly stated my system in my room wasn't special in any way except for the fact that I am intimately familiar with how it sounds, period. I gave a perfect alternative to using my system in my room i.e. I be allowed at least 30 days to become intimately familiar with the system in the room where the test will be held. So how does that translate to my believing DBTs ONLY work in my system in my room? This erroneous claim in light of my statement clearly shows you truly lack any real reading comprehension or you're deliberately obfuscating the truth in an attempt to support your POV! Personally I believe it's the latter of those two options and that behavior is quite sad indeed.
==============================================
You objectivists would get respect from subjectivists if you'd stop changing what our arguments actually say and then twisting them into saying what you want it to say ---{like you're doing to my post here}--- every time one of us presents a solution to one of your rebuttals ---{like I did with Nigels room effect rebuttal!} You guys keep sidestepping our real arguments and create fake arguements that you respond to ---{just like YOU'RE doing here!}--- It's you, nunayafb who needs to realize subjectivists know objectivists listen to their systems. It's just bothers you that subjectivists realize as objectivists you trust a test components evaluation of your components over your ears evaluation of your components and that's readily apparent from the poor sound of 90% of the objectivist's systems I've heard!
==============================================
How can I possibly stop thinking that objectivists have their minds "fixed" prior to testing, when it's quite apparent from their posts that they don't believe "normal" wires have a sound ---{don't you realize that's definitely a mind that's "fixed" prior to testing}--- or am I still dealing with your lack of reading comprehension or your deliberate obfuscating what I actually said? Or what about the countless posts I've read in audio forums were objectivists claim that a "properly-designed" audio component that's functioning properly has no sound of it's own! I suppose you believe that's also NOT a fixed opinion when going a test? PA-LEASSEE!
==============================================
nunayafb you claim subjectivists don't know us or anything about objectivists. Maybe you'd be surprised to know Roger Russell, an ex-McIntosh engineer and objectivist is a personal friend and fellow member of the Central Florida Audio Society? What we/I know about most objectivists who post in audio forums is that you ignore what we really say and re-create what you want our arguements to say ---{just like you did to my post here}--- you create "supposed" subjectivists beliefs that we don't really hold in order to support your beliefs about subjectivists and you go into DBTs with a mind so fixed in it's beliefs it's virtually set in concrete, beliefs such as wires don't have a sound of their own, "properly-designed" audio components have no sound of their own, ABX boxes are sonically transparent etc. As a group you use cheap debating tactics ---{such as attacking grammer usage}--- instead of addressing the actual topic raised.

A true objectivist would be objective and not enter into ANY test with preconcieved notions. They wouldn't be trying to prove their beliefs are correct ---{like audio objectivists do}--- instead they'd be seeking the truth even if the truth proved them wrong! I'm not saying there are no objectivists like that. However I'd say the vast majority of objectivists posting in audio forums are like that! So yes nunayafb these objectivists should stop being so arrogant, be a lot more open minded and practice real science! Not the voodoo or pseudo-science that's geared towards proving their pre-determined objectivist audio beliefs are true. Speaking of which, do me a favor: go back and re-read my original post and see if you can finally see just how much you've re-created my statments to fit what you wanted them to say ---{in order to support your "fixed" pre-determined objectivist beliefs of what subjectivists say} because that's exactly what you did and that's NOT objective behavior. That's the behavior of someone who wants to appear correct at all costs, even when they might not actully be.

 

[nunayafb]

What argument? I don't see one, why do you?
I believe most here are looking for answers or explanations, obviously with different idea's or else there wouldn't be a discussion.

It is becoming clearer, you don't understand the basics of testing, electronics, psychoacoustics and now the art of discussion. The word argument does not mean we are fighting, it means that we are each arguing our point of view, there are two sides to this argument or discussion if you prefer. Saying you believe people are here looking for answers or explanations is ridiculous, the subjectivists are defending a defenseless argument and ignoring or fighting like hell to dispell every statement that can lead to a conclusion that they are wrong.

I have no problem with being objective, surely there must be a balance somewhere. That can only be reached if both work together to find answers.

Objectivity requires open mindedness, you can't be open minded when you say I am right and have no intention of proving it. BTW, there is no need for these types of platitudes, if you want to work together to find answers then why aren't you?

Yes, it must be me. Just because you can't doesn't mean nobody can do it, I've done my share of comparative tests the past 12 years to know what I like and what not.

Wow, an emotional self indulgent response to a technical statement. Claiming that you are the only one with flawless hearing who can hear non measurable differences 100% of the time while simultaneously disregarding all other variables is extremely arrogant, don't you see that?

It is funny how all of the subjectivists here have dismissed my statement that could explain the differences, which was that when your head moves in between ABX trials you alter the phase of arriving sounds. Since you guys have never rested your head against something which would eliminate this motion, you can't claim to have been truly trying to be objective, you can't claim to have ever properly performed any testing.
Anyone who has measured the fr and phase of speakers that they built will know for a 100% fact that if the speaker or microphone shifts at any time while measuring the individual drivers, that the test has to be started over. Otherwise the phase will be off at the measurement location. If you have any knowledge of how sound waves interact then you would know how phase causes constructive and destructive interference, and you would know that it is both location and frequency dependent in any stereo situation, especially in a reverberant field.

It is time to deal with reality, stop dismissing arguments because you don't like them. If you want to "work together" start by explaining to us how you are exempt from the physics of phase relationships and suggestive hearing influences. If you don't then you are basically admitting that you don't understand what is going on, how testing works, how electricity passes through cables and how to accept things that you don't like.

If however you don't want to deal with reality, if you want to buy expensive components w/o reason-go ahead! We don't care that you guys like esoteric stuff, we are getting irritated because you are claiming that you are right without evidence.
This thread started because someone dropped a bomb and said cables don't make a difference, you dove in head first and said yes they do I have heard this difference. I know there are diminishing returns on cable investments, Ratshack Monster cables have measurable flaws, ~0.25dB down at 20kHz if I recall correctly. You can't get much better than that, 1/4 dB at 20kHz to be acoustically perfect. I don't even care about this whole cable thing, I am just having fun picking apart your highly flawed arguments. I find it amusing to argue with people with "faith based" arguments.

 

[jneutron]

Well John, you can divide it into as many steps as you like. My wife says when you have a bunch of stuff to do, the first thing to do is make a list. The first item on the list is to make a list- that way you have something to cross off immediately so you feel like you've already accomplished something.

Me, I cheat...the first item on my lists is....make a list..

Poof, item 1....done.

Tape head alignment can certainly be described as a single step- crank the darn thing until the gap is perfectly aligned with the data going by. TTBOMK, step 1 is never sufficient unless you're also monitoring with a scope for phase. It's too easy to have it look good, then discover a phase reversals at high frequencies because it isn't quite perfect. I think I was using a Nortronics alignment tape, but also experimented with making my own. Turns out not to be so easy

I never tried an alignment tape...my process was much easier, and arrived at the final product faster.

1. Mis-align the head first.
2. Play a music tape.
3. Align. Turn the screw until the image drifts from one side to the middle... Pass through the sweet spot, back and forth, till you center the image.

This procedure uses the three KEY items in any sound system...your music, your stereo, and your ears. And it produces amazingly low interchannel time delay.

I use the term propagation delay loosely, but inside my pea brain almost everything related to phase gets translated to a delay of some sort.

Ah, ok..I figgered I missed somebody spoutin something about "cable propagation delay"... another misunderstood thing..

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

It is funny how all of the subjectivists here have dismissed my statement that could explain the differences, which was that when your head moves in between ABX trials you alter the phase of arriving sounds. Since you guys have never rested your head against something which would eliminate this motion, you can't claim to have been truly trying to be objective, you can't claim to have ever properly performed any testing.

Actually, the "head in the vice" invocation is incorrect.

When one considers localization, one is not really talking about absolute localization, which would indeed require locking the head into a fixed position. True localization issues center around the relative location of multiple images within a soundstage..

My example previously spoke of multiple locations for multiple sounds.

True localization within the context of an audibility discussion involves the ability to detect where images are with respect to other images. Differential localization..we are much more sensitive to the relative locations of multiple sources than we are to an absolute reference frame.

An illustration...outdoors to avoid confounding reflections...

1. Blindfold yourself..
2. Have two friends 10 feet away, heads some arbitrary spacing apart..random right-left positioning.
3. Have them talk simultaneously.
4. Tell them which one is on the right.
5. Iterate this randomly, varying right to left spacing of the friends.

Take this data, plot accuracy vs spacing.

Assume a 90% accuracy criteria, determine what spacing gives that accuracy.

Then, repeat this procedure but do so off axis.

You will find a variability in the accuracy capability based on the angle of offset.

Next, calculate the ITD and IID parametrics for the 90% accuracy points.

You have just derived the ITD and IID requirements of the system necessary to achieve a 90% accuracy rate of image placement for the test subject to determine simple right/left positioning of two images spaced some distance apart.

You now have the criteria that must be imposed on the stereo system.

Simple

Cheers, John

 

[nunayafb]

...when people are honestly & sincerely trying to help someone, they don't do it by berating, disparaging & mocking the person they're trying to help!

nunayafb you sincerely need to take a course in vastly improving your reading comprehension. Because as is, it's extremely poor.

It appears you're asking this question because of your continued lack of reading comprehension or because you're deliberately attempting to obfuscate the truth in what I actually said.

Well if your reading comprehension was better you would have understood why! Amazingly you completely missed and hence failed to comprehend ---{is it a lack of reading comprehension or deliberately attempting to obfuscate the truth?}

Sadly once again we have to deal with your continued lack of reading comprehension or you're deliberate obfuscation of the truth!

...is just one more "lunatic fringe" objectivist mistruth

Hypocrite


Tubeboy, you have done an excellent job with this last post. My hat's off to you, you have taken everything that subjectivists do and twisted it 180 degrees and claimed that objectivists are doing it. These are the types of arguments that manipulative people use to win a losing argument, brilliant. I can only dream of having the ability to eliminate my moral code and lie through my teeth like you.

A true objectivist would be objective and not enter into ANY test with preconcieved notions.

More evidence that you know nothing about the scientific method, a theory about the outcome of a test always exists, IT IS WHAT DRIVES THE TESTING!!! Real scientists, NOT subjectivists, look for ways to eliminate bias and put controls in place to prevent their bias form affecting the outcome.

That's the behavior of someone who wants to appear correct at all costs, even when they might not actully be.

😀 😀 😀 Awesome, that is what we have been saying about you guys

You guys keep sidestepping our real arguments and create fake arguements that you respond to

Interesting, yet it seems to me you guys are ignoring the statements we make which you are not smart enough to deal with and we respond to all of your baseless arguments. How many pages were occupied discussing RTA's and in room this and reflective that....? It is all meaningless, it is just another way for you guys to not deal with the evidence that we bring up.

Get mad at me if you want, I am trying to deal with the spirit of your arguments while ignoring the plethora of misspellings and poor usage of grammar. Which btw are symptomatic of a lack of education or respect for those with which you are communicating.

FWIW, you guys keep throwing out references to "experts" that you know or have studied their work or whatever, but you have not cited any studies that support your conclusions. When we talk about the fact that all quality cables have negligible variations in measurements you make unsubstantiated claims of "other parameters" which can't be measured. If I was so arrogant, I could claim to be an expert (I am Cable and Connector Engineer-basically) and try and push my engineering stuff on you, but I know that it is not relevant.

The correct argument is provable without experts and opinions from those who claim to be experts. If we strip those elements away from your arguments then there is nothing left!

 

[Andre Visser]

I don't even care about this whole cable thing, I am just having fun picking apart your highly flawed arguments. I find it amusing to argue with people with "faith based" arguments.

This is quite obvious and clearly you are the one with no understanding of electronics, soundfields and hearing. I won't bother to respond to any of your posts again while you continue with this attitude.

I suggest you take some reading lessons also, perhaps you will then understand what we are talking about.

 

[nunayafb]

Actually, the "head in the vice" invocation is incorrect.

When one considers localization, one is not really talking about absolute localization, which would indeed require locking the head into a fixed position. True localization issues center around the relative location of multiple images within a soundstage..

My example previously spoke of multiple locations for multiple sounds.

True localization within the context of an audibility discussion involves the ability to detect where images are with respect to other images. Differential localization..we are much more sensitive to the relative locations of multiple sources than we are to an absolute reference frame.

Nice try jneutron, but you are ignoring the purpose of the test in order make a claim that I am wrong. The purpose of the test is to determine if cable A is audibly different than B. So lets modify your experiment, lets replace the friends with speakers and perform the test with two different cables. The results wont change.

Tubeguy, are you going to berate him for not reading my post properly? In my post I explained a reason one would get differing FR's when their head moved due to phase relationships. He twisted the argument and began talking about localization and imaging, who's sidestepping arguments now😀

 

[nunayafb]

This is quite obvious and clearly you are the one with no understanding of electronics, soundfields and hearing. I won't bother to respond to any of your posts again while you continue with this attitude.

I suggest you take some reading lessons also, perhaps you will then understand what we are talking about.

How is it obvious? Can you support this conclusion?
You wont bother to respond huh, I said all of that and you replied to one line! Are you going to use that one line as an excuse to not deal with my statements? Another emotional response to avoid dealing with the technical statements. Anyone else see a pattern here?

Reading lessons again... geeesh, that got old when tubeguy repeated it over and over again.

I guess you have chosen not to deal with reality.

Yes I am being hostile, if you guys want to try and deal with factual, supportable evidence then I will tone it down. But as long as you guys keep being lying and manipulative in your debating method then you leave me no choice but to dissect your flawed arguments.

You brought this on yourself...

 

[jneutron]

Nice try jneutron, but you are ignoring the purpose of the test in order make a claim that I am wrong.

My goodness, what was that all about??

The expressed purpose of the "test" is to determine the audibility of any cordage change, be it IC's, PC's, or speaker wires.

To that end, I have:

1. Detailed the level of localization parameters humans use to discern an image in space.

2. Detailed how we humans can image a virtual source that is not there, but fabricated using two sources. We adapt to the incorrect stimulus presented by the content.

3. Detailed how most musical program we purchase does not have the localization parameters we humans are "hardwired" to use in detecting the location of a source.

4. Explained why specific audibility tests which IGNORE the human brains ability to "adapt" to erroneous localization parameterics is suspect. If we adapt to subtle alterations in the parametrics, then subtle alterations will be missed.

5. Detailed quite clearly, the test protocol needed to determine the level of those alterations that we are sensitive to (at the 90% accuracy level).

The purpose of the test is to determine if cable A is audibly different than B. So lets modify your experiment, lets replace the friends with speakers and perform the test with two different cables. The results wont change.

What results? What specific entity do you think that would test for?

I recommend that before you make any more of those kind of silly test scenarios which cannot test anything with any rigor, read my posts again. Ask questions, as you have not understood.

I do not expect all to understand, and will be more than happy to explain.

Tubeguy, are you going to berate him for not reading my post properly? In my post I explained a reason one would get differing FR's when their head moved due to phase relationships. He twisted the argument and began talking about localization and imaging, who's sidestepping arguments now😀

I did not twist the argument. I pointed out an error in your understanding, and provided a test regime with which to define the absolute accuracy requirements of a system which will define image placement to a 90% confidence level.


Ask questions please. Do not post in such an agressive fashion on something you do not understand, that does not help the discussion..

Cheers, John

 

[thetubeguy1954]

You're The Hypocrite

nunayafb you twisted my post into saying things it didn't and then chose to completely ignore every example I gave where you did so! So YOU'RE the hypocrite, not me!

Everything I said about objectivists like yourself, is 100% from my point of view. What actually occured was you twisted everything 180 degrees ---{in the typical unobjective way most "lunatic-fringe" self-proclaimed objectivists do in order to appear correct at all costs}--- and then claimed that's how subjectivists behave!

I proved by showing how and where you twisted and distorted almost my entire post that's how you behave. So I'll reiterate either you lack reading comprehension or you're deliberately twisting & distorting my post to support your POV! Which one is it? Fact is even in defending your despicable behavior you've once again twisted everything 180 degrees and then claimed YOUR actions are what I did! Here's the truth...

nunayafb, you have taken everything that I said and twisted it 180 degrees and then claimed that's what actually I said! These are the types of actions and behaviors that manipulative people like yourself use to win when a losing argument, it's not brilliant, it's disgusting. I cannot fathom why somone like yourself would act devoid of any moral code and lie through your teeth like you did just to win an arguement about a hobby! This audio hobby is supposed to be fun, not a win at any cost war, as you've made it out to be. I defy anyone to read what I really said here in post #1633 & #1644 and then read nunayafb's restating of what I actually said here in post #1647 and see which of us is twisting and distorting what the other said while lying through their teeth!

nunayafb, if you want to see how a real rational objectivist responds read Jneutron's or Tom Danley's posts! John & Tom are an excellent example of an objectivist is. You on the other hand are way off in the "lunatic fringe" of objectivism and obviously need to mis-state what subjectivists like myself say in order to appear correct! Your entire rebuttal to my original post @ #1647 was a either a complete error due to lack of reading comprehension at best or a complete & deliberate mis-stating of what I said at worse!

Obviously there's nothing gained via further communications with someone who cannot disagree without using deception to "win" an arguement. This will be our final communication. Now go on and have the last word I know you so deperately need to have in order to believe you've won...

 

[SY]

nunayfb,1954, if you want to have the sort of discussion where debating tactics and persons are criticized, there are many excellent forums for that. This is not one of them.

Please confine your attacks to ideas, not people.

 

[nunayafb]

I recommend that before you make any more of those kind of silly test scenarios which cannot test anything with any rigor,

"my" test scenario... I am pretty sure I took your scenario and replaced friends with speakers, and then said swap cable A for B. If you think that is silly then maybe you are in the wrong thread, cables are what we are talking about. If you don't understand what would be measured in this test then why did you bring it up?

Tubeguy, yes this is the end of it. You didn't even put any effort into that last post, 80% of those words are from previous posts, mine and yours. It doesn't carry a lot of weight when you quote me and simultaneously say I am twisting YOUR words 180.

SY, I have said it before and I will say it again: When they start making educated statements that can be substantiated I will gladly address them. But since they are ignoring facts and changing the topic so often it virtually impossible to attack their ideas. And since 90% of their ideas are based on "my extensive experience" how exactly do we attack their ideas without it getting personal?

Obviously there's nothing gained via further communications with someone who cannot disagree without using deception to "win" an arguement

Nice try, but I have been nothing but honest with you guys. BTW pointing out flaws in your statements is why we are here, if you want my responses to be based on your technical expertise then pick a specific topic and lets discuss it, no twisting, changing or sidestepping the topic. That means we will each have to prove our case w/o any bs.

Finally, you guys are claiming years of experience and a sort of infallibility, so how would you feel if I said the following:

I have been dealing with subjective arguments for many years and 100% of the time I can tell when people are lying to cover up the uncertainty of their beliefs. Furthermore I have conducted dozens of tests in which hundreds of people have not been able to hear differences between cables, therefore cables don't make a difference.

I'll tell you right off the bat this is a lie, but you can't prove it! You never could, every time you ask for evidence I'll make up an excuse.
FYI, flip this 180 and that is how the objectivists are hearing your statements.

So you want an open minded discussion, no problem. Since you guys are getting so upset I am going to let you pick the topic.
If one of you objectivists would be so kind as pick a focused "bit" of evidence for us all to discuss we will all gladly focus on that one bit until we agree.
Don't expect it to be all technical, I studied logical arguments in college and once you have been in a conversation where the only valid conclusion follows from true premises it is hard to dismiss it when people make invalid conclusions. It is my opinion that you guys are doing that. So if you can convince me that there is a difference in cables I will admit there is, but your logic had better be sound.



-J

 

[SY]

it virtually impossible to attack their ideas

Then the ideas aren't worth attacking. Smile and back out the door, slowly.

Furthermore I have conducted dozens of tests in which hundreds of people have not been able to hear differences between cables, therefore cables don't make a difference.

Non-sequitor and factually incorrect. I'd have no trouble setting up a demo where you or any of your test subjects (assuming no significant hearing defects) could easily hear a difference between cables in a blind test.

As I've said before, though, demonstrable audible differences between cables always have a non-mysterious reason. Anyone claiming the contrary has no evidence and can be safely ignored until such is forthcoming.

 

[fredex]

Fredex, perhaps one day you come to watch a good game of Rugby, let me know.😉

Thanks. I am not a great sports fan but would enjoy being on the sidelines with you. But heaven forbid if it is a trick to get me all subjective I must warn you I am on the ball. 🙂

 

[jneutron]

"my" test scenario... I am pretty sure I took your scenario and replaced friends with speakers, and then said swap cable A for B. If you think that is silly then maybe you are in the wrong thread, cables are what we are talking about.

You must first understand what it is you are attacking. Clearly you do not.

My test design is to determine the ability of humans to localize. Given the results, it is simple enough to convert the data into the relevant ITD and IID.

It uses two independent sources, with independent locations.

With relevant ITD and IID established, it is possible to determine a system specification which controls localization parameters to afford control over imaging.

Your test is a simple repeat of all other tests, it provides absolutely no control nor understandings of how humans adapt to imprecise or un-natural localization cues.

Proper tests require controls, and they require accounting for all confounders....human's ability to image something where no source exists using the pan pot only, is an adaptation which must be controlled for.

Please try to understand the discussion you are having with me.

If you don't understand what would be measured in this test then why did you bring it up?

You must go back and re-read what I have stated. It is clear, and I understand it very well..

Don't be afraid to ask questions...you need to..

Cheers, John

 

[fredex]

Old saying, "It is all good fun until someone looses an eye."

What are the facts here? Subjectivists claim that traditional measurements don't tell the whole story. I can buy that, after all we don't know everything about everything. Do we know enough to establish whether something is audible or not. If DBTs are out what other tests could we use?

 

[SY]

Any test of a claimed effect must be DBT in order to be valid. This is the case for any sort of sensory phenomenon, not just audio. But there are other ways than stuff like ABX to test these things, and we've discussed a bunch of them to death in threads over the years.

I personally think that there are indeed subtle audible phenomena that conventional ABX and similar testing have not shown up yet. And that other tests would show these differences. But I cheerfully concede that there is absolutely no reliable evidence for my personal belief, and I could be completely fooling myself in this regard.