The short snippets on the net don't give sufficient context...get the book. Should be required reading. As should "This is your Brain on Music" by Daniel Leviton
dave
Okay, I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree people being tested should be experienced listeners who hear these differences, before taking the test.
Well, quantifying these differences is like a different issue, isn't it. To quantify you have to do it in reference to something else. Okay, that's what you mean my a common language?
I'm not sure what you mean by common language. Don't we already have one?
Yes and no. The ear turns up the gain for familiar sounds of importance. Every familiar sound we hear is matched with that stored in our memory. The gain and how we respond is a function of past experience with the sound. Everyone has different gain for different sounds. This happens in the auditory subconscious.
But, you are right that we can respond differently to the same sound under different circumstances.
In addition, some sounds we have a natural aversion to and are perceived as louder and sometimes we habituate to these sounds and sometimes we don't, depending on how bothersome the sound is.
Yeah, what I meant is that components should be hidden while learning the differences. And should be labeled A, B, C, .... That takes away any bias (conditioned reflexes) formed from past experience. So the subject is just learning the differences in sound, without outside influence.
Then after learning these differences, if they can hear any at all, they would be tested to see if they really did.
Now maybe, having the extra info of seeing the component might also aid in learning the differences between components or cables. And then one could be tested after they have learned the sound. I think maybe that would also work, not sure.
But people need experience with the sound they are being tested on.
Well, instead of a large number you could also have a small number who can repeatedly show they hear a difference in a blind test. That would also be proof that at least some people can hear a difference.
Yes, if a large number of people can't hear a difference it indicate that it's not audible, but as others have said, you can't prove a negative result. Maybe they are right?
Bud, the comment from Morgan came during a multi-drink lunch where, if memory serves, I managed to swing the topic of conversation to social diseases. I'm afraid that I don't have much of the British reserve to which he's accustomed.😀
Well, no, I didn't notice a lot of social reserve, but then I certainly have none either. The only reserve I noticed was Cynthia, as she did not roll her eyes at any moment, during our mutual period of unreserved avidity for Sierpinski and his ideas. Likely a good thing for the Brits, getting rid of us when they did.....
Bud
Bud
No sweat - its hte nature of this sort of forum that conversations become an itterative process.
In that we are using English - yes. Sometimes even you Americans do! But there is not a universal understanding of the nuances of the words we use. Again, I'll refer to wine tasting where a huge and powerful language has developed that, through excellent world wide training, has become a powerful tool for the common understanding of wine characteristics.
I would not be looking to train them on particular cables, but rather to teach them how to recognise differences in what they hear. For the testing, yes of course the cables are labelled in a manner that they cannot be visually identifed by the subjects.
Yep, but obviously the larger and more diverse the pool, the more strongly the assertion can be made. And since the cabling we are discussing is marketed universally, it seems appropriate to have hte testing as universal as possible.
Absolutely, but no-one is asserting that flying dragons exist even given a null test result. Again, a good reason for a large diverse sample group - the spectre of unseemly claims that just the right conditions were not present largely disappears.
So, prove or disprove the idea of audible differences between cables in the first instance, then if proven we can move on to what causes them.
There was a young man from the Gables
Who tested his systems for fables
One night with a yell
He said I can tell
It is not in my mind, it's the cables!
Who tested his systems for fables
One night with a yell
He said I can tell
It is not in my mind, it's the cables!
There was a young man from the Gables
Who tested his systems for fables
One night with a yell
He said I can tell
It is not in my mind, it's the cables!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
se
There was a consultant from Texas
Who made majik with connective flexes
With only his ears
He rolled them for years
Which explains why he drives a new Lexus!
Who made majik with connective flexes
With only his ears
He rolled them for years
Which explains why he drives a new Lexus!
These are adaptions 🙂
There was a young man called Wright
whose cables were faster than light
A track played one day
in a relative way
Was heard on the previous night !
There was a young man called Wright
whose cables were faster than light
A track played one day
in a relative way
Was heard on the previous night !
Christmas makes me tense......and others it seems, time to put in some fun.
I am decorating my tree with......................
I am decorating my tree with......................
I'm working on a new Gilbert and Sullivan title... "I am the Very Model of a Modern Cable Analyst" Both sides of the discussion deserve their fair share of ridicule surely?
I have Toole's book: "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms". Very good book. But as its title says, its about loudspeakers and rooms, not cables and double blind tests. So I'm not sure how its relevant to this debate. Still, if you have a specific page reference for something that is relevant then I would be happy to look it up.
It is relevant to the importance to DBT, to how far we still have to go in understanding how measurement relates to what humans perceive, and to how capable human hearing is.
His mantra is (to paraphrase) "2 ears + a brain smokes a mic + an analyzer" (and as RDF has shown the mic is extraneous in some cases)
dave
His mantra is (to paraphrase) "2 ears + a brain smokes a mic + an analyzer" (and as RDF has shown the mic is extraneous in some cases)
dave
What is amazing here, is the very idea that we would spend our professional and amateur lives, wasting our time on imaginary audio differences. I have spent over 45 years working with hi fi, over 40 years as an audio designer. I take it very seriously what I do, what wire I use, and just about anything and everything that can and does make a difference. To be told that my associates and I are charlatans, or at least, marketing hype types, is insulting to my profession and to my character.
Machina Dynamica DOES make some crazy stuff. I have never bought any, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.