Just listing the only logical options I saw, what else is there?
Edit 2: Another possibility in hindsight is the results are a single sample point and multiple repeats of this are required to create a body of statistical data of value. The latter though has something to say about the requirements for home ABX cable trials.
Beer was served? 😀
Last edited:
So, can we step beyond this argument about what can or cannot be heard. The paper JC pointed to provides clear evidence that the ear is quite the capable device. So, hearing the differences really cannot be damned by lack of scientific proof. The paper is pretty clear about this.
So, the real problem is one of comprehension, assuming of course that you can use the ears attached at birth. Within this comprehension chimera Jakob pointed to, musicians as having a quite high level of comprehension. However, I have spoken to many musicians who could care less about audio quality, their interest is in other qualities and even a cheap table radio is considered a competent provider.
So, does this mean that only people who train themselves to listen for differences in audio devices are competent enough to be placed on a DBT panel? Are we then to believe that Michael Fremer and the rest of the audio gatekeepers are our only resource? Has anyone been to a commercial audio show lately? Were you pleased with what you comprehended about what you heard?
Sy, can you, OT, explain what you did at the ETF to receive this acclimation?
Bud
So, the real problem is one of comprehension, assuming of course that you can use the ears attached at birth. Within this comprehension chimera Jakob pointed to, musicians as having a quite high level of comprehension. However, I have spoken to many musicians who could care less about audio quality, their interest is in other qualities and even a cheap table radio is considered a competent provider.
So, does this mean that only people who train themselves to listen for differences in audio devices are competent enough to be placed on a DBT panel? Are we then to believe that Michael Fremer and the rest of the audio gatekeepers are our only resource? Has anyone been to a commercial audio show lately? Were you pleased with what you comprehended about what you heard?
Sy, can you, OT, explain what you did at the ETF to receive this acclimation?
Bud
Weeellll, you must have a great physical condition what with all the jumping to conclusions and flying of the handle! You must really think we are easily impressed by that mumbo-jumbo. You insult a lot of intelligent people here!
The paper explained how the ear transforms air vibrations into nerve signals. Nothing more or less. It doesn't say how these nerve impulses are interpreted, how and when they are combined or filtered, and how we perceive the outcome of these processes. In other words, wrt audible perceptions, the paper doesn't say diddly. But, again, you use a lot of elegant words, even if the collection of them is meaningless.
jd
In Athens last month.With the exception of 2-3 cases where their sound was at best acceptable,most others were unacceptable.
Andre Visser:
I know you were answering it. What on earth is the point of stating the obvious? My quesion was whether your answer was rhetorical. I then put further questions to you that would help understanding of the issue if you answered them.
You might not care what I think, but if you are honestly engaging in this discussion you could have enough respect to respond to my points, questions etc. What, btw, is the virtue of using one's own brain (I assume you mean as opposed to relying on pre-existing knowledge) unless you use it in the right way? By that, I mean if you want to find out if cables make an audible difference, you use your brain to set up a DBT to find out.
I have listened and responded in great detail, numerous times in fact since my replies are often flatly ignored in favour of clever pre-varications, etc. As for 'where to look for them (the differences)' I'm not looking for them and I'm not about to repeat the same mistakes I pointing out they made! They're making teh specific claim that these differences are due to the cables and not to self-delusion - and that's what I'm specifically challenging. Similarly deluding myself would serve no purpose, would it? If their claim to hear these differences is right and that these differences lie in the cables, then a DBT would confirm that. Furthermore, I'm specifically claiming that these cables do not have audible differences and I'm citing specific scientific reasons for that, based on what we KNOW of our ear-brain mechanism and the physics of cables. Whilst I'm criticised for not doing what I allege is a mistake (!) I don't see anyone try to 'see it from my side' by examing either DBT tests (all of which confirm my contention - why do you think people won't perform them?) or trying to understand the physics. Meanwhile, Curly, you and others won't acknowledge the problem of the brain deceiving itself when doing subjective tests.
I don't rely on insulting remarks - I've alwasy reasoned my position from evidence. I stand by my accusation that Curly is a charlatan who ripped his clients off. You might feel he deserves more respect but since he refuses to engage in an honest discussion I've little left to gain by not getting to the point. Further more, I don't see how your comment is a reponse to what I said about constructive criticism - an insult isn't any kind of criticism (unless you mean making an ad-hominem argument but I don't do that, ever).
But I have - as you acknowledge right there! And when I'm arguing from scientific knowledge, what on earth is the point of dismissing it as 'highschool electronics'? It IS electronics we're talking about. It might be, up to a point, highschool level (I think Bessel functions belong more in a university class...), but that doesn't invalidate teh truth of the arguments. So why don't you or Curly or anyone actually *show* what the problem is?
It's dead simple. When you perform a subjective evaluation of a difference in a test (ie you are subjectively evaluating the difference between two things under test) then, if the differences by their nature are tiny/barely perceptible then it is - as psychology studies have made clear - very easy to make mistakes and delude yourself into believing your perceptions. This is a huge danger, and it's important to prevent the possibility as much as possible. In fact, the only way is to use a rigourous DBT as that methodology is designed to remove bias (from expectation, the Cleven Hans effect, etc) from the results. IOW, subjectivity by it's very nature prevents you from clearly determining the result you're seeking. It's the point that you, Curly et al refuse to acknowledge though - apparently because you just can't accept that you are wrong, or that the differences you heard weren't real, but only imagined. As for the problem with 'single blind' testing, it doesn't remove the 'Clever Hans' aspect of subjectivity - you may be responding not to cable differences but behavioural or other sensory patterns that you subconsciously mis-interpret as audio differences. They're possible, so you must work to exclude that possibility if you are to obtain useful results from the test. This is all very well understood and, as I've previously pointed out, is widely applied when assessing medical treatments, etc.
If you've learned a lot, good for you. But if your goal was just to learn, then by far the quickest and easiest way is to just read a textbook. And then take it from there... Also, what's the point of this 'hifi shootout'? To prove what you've learned? I would very much like to get into diy audio and have fun designing and building my own speakers and maybe electronics too - BUT - when I do, it will be whilst standing on the shoulders of giants.
But from what you've said you ARE reinventing the wheel, because you feel that you want to 'see for yourself' what it's like to learn audio knowledge. Fine, but as long as you are doing that, you're not perfecting anything, merely retreading a path last walked a long time ago. If you want to perfect it - a noble goal - you should start with *everything* that has ever been learned and take it from there. You can do that with a few months of study probably, much more efficient than going over the same ground that's already been covered by so many so long before.
That paper was ruled off topic. It shows too much support for the listeners side of this argument and that could not be admitted as evidence here. The logic that was used was this thread is about cables, if I recall correctly.
I mean what would a liar do given this kind of ammunition? Heaven forbid 😀
This is a good article, about a study showing that musicians hear better! We learn sounds and ears needs practice.
Say What?! Musicians Hear Better : NPR
Say What?! Musicians Hear Better : NPR
Ears are not trainable. They are connected to a brain that is not to be trusted, don't you know 😀
Hmmmm, I thought I said that the ear has been shown to be a very capable device, that if there are audible differences to be found in cables, they would have to be found within the confines of what our minds make of the information provided by the ear. I was attempting to parse the difference between the two, to limit the arm waving going on about "hearing" and the obviously differing definitions used by the many intelligent people here. I am sorry to have insulted you with my elegantly stated ignorance and obviously meaningless comment.
Bud
Last edited:
Where on earth do you get that from and why are you personalizing this? My post was based on the most trivial logic.
You posted a link to a single-blind test. That test generated results in the form of an amplifier ranking by audible performance. To be audibly differentiable either:
- some amps weren't operated linearly
- some amps were non-linear, above the threshold set by science to be audible
- the test protocol contained inadvertent hints and was flawed
- the results are random and meaningless
The logical options are limited, I attempted a list. Where's the hurdle? Your objection is senseless. No wonder these discussions get nowhere.
Indeed, this thread is about audibility of cable differences. I fail to see how an explanation of how the mechanical parts of the ear work can help us decide anything about those cable differences.
But I only gave my opinion, with reasons. If you don't agree, just tell us why the paper DOES help to decide on cable audible differences. I'm open minded enough.
But somehow, I expect that any logical arguments on that will not come from you. In fact, I expect that NO arguments at all will come from you. But you can always prove me wrong, it's been done before 😉
jd
It's easy to prove you can't hear anything! What's your argument Jan? What kind of test do you think would show what's audible or not?
Till that blessed day comes for you,maybe it would be nice to have some control in what you say,just in case that the "charlatans" you are talking to,may stand higher than you are.Also be careful of the heights,it's painful when you fall down.
To wrap up about 10,000 posts: It is well established, with countless supporting research, that the final perception of a 'sound' is caused by the actual sound, the expectations, the experience, the 'body state', peer opinion, DUT size, color, price and a host of other parameters.
Therefore, if you want to establish differences based ONLY on the sound you must try to eliminate all those other factors that are not the 'sound'. This leads to the requirement for some form of double blind testing. Anything else is anecdotal.
That OK with you?
Edit: You CANNOT prove that something is not audible! How would you do that?? If you don't get this basic point, what's there to discuss??
jd
rdf:
Btw, the excuses made for the Gryphon were ...inexcusable. A $20,000 amp ought to handle any pair of speakers well - from what I could tell neither it nor the other amps were being pushed hard.
Overall, a fun exercise for the participants but not much use from a scientific point of view.
I think it was meant to demonstrate that reviewers in a well-run blind test can agree on which of a choice of amps sounded best. It sounds like it was a popularity poll. The lack of discussion of the results was disappointing - no statistical analysis, only a comment that the results were close (which implies to me that the results were NOT statistically significant). I'd like to see the ballot results in raw form, and I think it would be instructive to a high degree if the SAME test were repeated a couple more times at least as I suspect that they would not get the same results more than once...
Btw, the excuses made for the Gryphon were ...inexcusable. A $20,000 amp ought to handle any pair of speakers well - from what I could tell neither it nor the other amps were being pushed hard.
Overall, a fun exercise for the participants but not much use from a scientific point of view.
Wrong wrong wrong.
It was Fremer from the very start. It was he who applied for the $1 million challenge, not Pear Audio, claiming he can hear differences in cables.
Pear Audio subsequently contacted Fremer and offered to supply some of their cables for the test. Pear never applied for the challenge and never had any contact with Randi.
While the details of the test were being worked out, there were THREE (count 'em!) THREE, different cables on the table for consideration. The Pears, a pair of Transparent's Opus cables, AND Fremer's own Tara Labs cables.
Randi expressed a preference for Fremer using his own Tara Labs cables, but said he would have to consult with his advisers first.
That's where things stood when Pear backed out.
And the moment Pear backed out, that !@#$% disingenuous weasel Randi yanked the rug out from under Fremer, declaring the challenge over, and effectively calling Fremer a coward.
It had nothing to do with either.
At the time the !@#$% weasel Randi pulled the rug out from under Fremer, Randi's preference was for Fremer to use his own Tara Labs cables, pending his consulting with his advisers.
Further, at the time the !@#$% weasel Randi pulled the rug out from under Fremer, he had NOT yet consulted with his advisers regarding Fremer using his own Tara Labs cables.
Still further, the Transparent cables had not been taken off the table either.
It was nothing more than a dishonest attempt on Randi's part to try and smear Fremer.
You can continue to try and defend Randi all you want. But I was there. I saw it all transpire, both what was said in public and in private EMail between Randi and Fremer.
The man's a !@#$% weasel.
se
I take it that you indeed don't have any logical arguments, or even none at all, depending as you do on flee-flowing word strings from another argument-free post. Figures.
jd
Charlatan huh.................
If you could locate one of my customers that was less than satisfied with the way that I treated them during or after a sale, that was not totally happy, I would kiss your bare backside and allow you thirty minutes to draw a crowd! You are not worth my time or efforts.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.