SY, I never offered, and even tried to remind everyone that whatever you would suggest, would be useless. 95%? My aunt Fanny. ;-)
I understand your concern, but if an extended DBT (I mean really extended like take months and only listen when you feel like it) can't cut it then I don't know what to suggest. I should not have to repeat the numerous instances of people saying this stuff is not subtle or stressful at all, in fact, "a piece of cake", "everyone in the room agreed in 5 min", and of course the proverbial SO in the next room.
BTW I don't quite get the bows they use now while the swim suits are illegal.
Last edited:
All these references to DBT not working.
No alternatives offered. Excuses made. Questions dodged.
Let's cut to the chase and take a vote. Who here thinks that it is impossible to test in any way, shape or form, for these effects? Because that seems to be what some of you are getting at.
If that's what you think, that's fine. But, try not to be offended if you get listed in with pseudo-science. It may be within the realm of possibility, that you can hear differences and standard testing won't work. But, the realm of probability is that the test will reveal the truth.
I claim to know nothing, having only heard a few cables and thinking my money/energy better spent everywhere else, in my system. I know there are differences, but I doubt they're audible. I await someone to pass a test and confirm one way or another. But, I haven't seen so many excuses made for possible failure before, except by dowsers, mind readers and homeopaths etc.
So which is it. Untestable, using human/ears brains as instruments? Or can you really hear differences? Why do these kinds of conversations always start out with "But, my cables sound so much better", and devolve into, "The stress of testing could mask my ability".
Nobody (not me, anyway) is trying to be dis-respectful by lumping you in with the crazies. Merely pointing out that you are using all the same excuses.
Champ 04 said,"I'm only hoping that my perspective can add something to the equation to perhaps make a better test."
What kind of test do you envision? I envision one wherein people who claim to easily hear differences, demonstrate that they can w/o visual influences. Only their ears/brain. This is what they claim. All they need to do is demonstrate it. Without making excuses.
(Obviously, none of this is directed towards Tubeguy, who, instead of making excuses, is putting his contention to the test. Maybe the rest of you should be trying to get in on it, instead of dreaming up theories of how you could fail or how quantum mechanics effects audio signals.)
Eric
No alternatives offered. Excuses made. Questions dodged.
Let's cut to the chase and take a vote. Who here thinks that it is impossible to test in any way, shape or form, for these effects? Because that seems to be what some of you are getting at.
If that's what you think, that's fine. But, try not to be offended if you get listed in with pseudo-science. It may be within the realm of possibility, that you can hear differences and standard testing won't work. But, the realm of probability is that the test will reveal the truth.
I claim to know nothing, having only heard a few cables and thinking my money/energy better spent everywhere else, in my system. I know there are differences, but I doubt they're audible. I await someone to pass a test and confirm one way or another. But, I haven't seen so many excuses made for possible failure before, except by dowsers, mind readers and homeopaths etc.
So which is it. Untestable, using human/ears brains as instruments? Or can you really hear differences? Why do these kinds of conversations always start out with "But, my cables sound so much better", and devolve into, "The stress of testing could mask my ability".
Nobody (not me, anyway) is trying to be dis-respectful by lumping you in with the crazies. Merely pointing out that you are using all the same excuses.
Champ 04 said,"I'm only hoping that my perspective can add something to the equation to perhaps make a better test."
What kind of test do you envision? I envision one wherein people who claim to easily hear differences, demonstrate that they can w/o visual influences. Only their ears/brain. This is what they claim. All they need to do is demonstrate it. Without making excuses.
(Obviously, none of this is directed towards Tubeguy, who, instead of making excuses, is putting his contention to the test. Maybe the rest of you should be trying to get in on it, instead of dreaming up theories of how you could fail or how quantum mechanics effects audio signals.)
Eric
Yes John, you have made it clear that you will not participate in any test where either outcome is possible.
So you are aware of the fallibility of human perception and the psychological component of "hearing". Excellent.
99.9% of audiophiles aren't....or simply deny it. Ok then, given your knowledge of psychology, how do you explain this?
Why does psychology not seem like the (easy) explanation?
When you perceived the "something", what were the conditions?
How was psychology eliminated as the cause and the "seemingly unexplainable" postulated?
Um, in case you missed it, Tom has already passed a DBT (20 yrs ago) where he could positively identify wires. Why did the pressure excuse not prevent his abilities then? He had no training back then (that he has made us aware of). So how did he do it?
No alternatives offered YET! No excuses made. Excuses come after the fact. I am presenting possibilities in the hope that the chance of excuses can be avoided after the fact. I have offered no alternatives yet. However, others may me inspired by more input and think of something clever.
I should think that by now people would realize its a process.
Alas, I see all sorts of questions dodged from both sides.
And perhaps you didnt see many many pages ago where I submitted myself to the test. Perhaps because it was mixed in with a few questions that were being dodged.
I stand by my offer. But you'll have to go look it up yourself.
Psychology can be and is beneficial but cannot explain everything in all circumstances.
The conditions are many and varied but all could easily be defined by a consistency in relaxed state of musical enjoyment. Certainly not laboratory or testing conditions.
Psychology was "eliminated" in a variety of ways depending on the situation at hand. I've already posted on specifics many many pages back. But, like the other gent. You'll just have to go find them yourself.
Once again, if you dont read the posts with comprehension you'll miss the point. So, in case you missed it, my whole point is the testing conditions and possible hurdles that may arise based on performance anxiety. Which, as I've stated, could be greater than anticipated in this situation. In other words, when doing it for himself he really wasnt experiencing what it would be like to do "for keeps" or to be reported to such a large audience.
Last edited:
I apologize on this one. I think I missed where you (or anyone) proposed such an extended testing period. I think its an interesting idea. A pain in the ****, for sure, but interesting.
I'll never understand swimming and their rules. It seems like the companies making the suits know exactly when to introduce their new product. Just in time to use it at the Olympics but not enough time to have it tested and passed. Talk about marketing savvy!! They go into it knowing it will be eventually banned. But it still gets them the headlines.
On the condition it doesn't entail something stupid, like injecting devices on par with the DUT in series with the DUT, it's at least one perfectly reasonable protocol to me.
This is a semi-salient point.
I personally don't consider this particular test to be the definitive answer. But, not because the testee is under sress. Because we would need serious numbers of participants to get a "significant" result.
While many do fail under pressure, many excel. For every guy who can't perform as good in competition as in practice, there is another who sets new records, while competing. (I regularly get my *** handed to me in billiards. But on tournament nights, I usually come in 3rd or 4th, beating most of them. I assume it is because I don't expect to win.)
Try Googling "Logical Fallacy"
I did:
I am a believer
There was no variation. The only consistency was a lack of any controls whatsoever. Or as you said "Certainly not laboratory or testing conditions."
The psychological component of "hearing" was not addressed in the slightest.
You previous statements completely contradict this. I would strongly suggest you look up what a blind test is...and why they are performed.
We are well aware of your pre-excuses as to why Tom may fail, but you have not made us aware of what excuse there was for him passing the original test "under pressure".
You also claim to be willing to subject yourself to testing as well. How will you train yourself to avoid the reporting/large audience pressure excuse?
Here you are...
AJ, you are just as wrong here as everywhere else you have tried to spread your dogma. Accept it. There are those of us that have beaten A/B and A/B/X testing often enough to know that you have an axe to grind.
Before you start on your usual "prove it" roll, I don't have to do so. Nobody but you cares. Trying to denigrate and humiliate others get old, doesn't it... no, I guess that it doesn't.
Happy to see me?
😀
Hugs and kisses,
Dave
Such an error is due to an error in reasoning. Ergo, if you cannot understand why others can and do hear differences between x or y then it cannot be true. The logical fallacy is yours. There are wayyyyyyy too many people that have (pay very close attention here, because it is salient) taken the time to ACTUALLY do the comparisons that know that you, who has not done so, is simply wrong.
AJ, you are just as wrong here as everywhere else you have tried to spread your dogma. Accept it. There are those of us that have beaten A/B and A/B/X testing often enough to know that you have an axe to grind.
Before you start on your usual "prove it" roll, I don't have to do so. Nobody but you cares. Trying to denigrate and humiliate others get old, doesn't it... no, I guess that it doesn't.
Happy to see me?
😀
Hugs and kisses,
Dave
Don't worry, no matter what, the hear-nothings will not believe it, and the hear-somethings will never get any acceptance. It is a set-up from the get go.
John, the biggest problem is that the hear nothings are also the "try nothings". If you have no honest curiosity, why worry about what others actually hear? I don't get it.
Dave
Do we really have to keep putting up with this crap?
If you honestly think that he was being anything but a
****-stirrer 9 times out of 10, I'd take your opinion
seriously. I've got no animus toward him (quite the
opposite, I quite like the guy), I'm just trying to do
the right thing for the community.
Said by a moderator regarding someone else who because he didn't have the good fortune of having a certain celebrity name was banned from here for two years.
se
Look, I did blind testing 30 years ago, and even wrote it up. You don't have to compare wires, just compare preamps. Can't hear those either. This test is a set-up to make people who actually hear differences, not be able to, and therefore dent their credibility.
Now, I am almost 68 years old, I usually could care less about wire direction, although others, over the years, have found it important, and I don't even have a favorite connecting wire that I can recommend. Why would I do this test?
The problem with blind testing like this, is that you lose what you are listening to with the changes in the music. This has been proven by the numerous failures to be able to get successful positives in the test over the last 30 years.
What happens is that the differences seem to disappear, then they come back with knowing what you are listening to, just like magic. Well, if you believe in magic, this would be a good example, but I believe it is the test, itself, that is the problem.
I am not against testing, just this kind of testing.
Now, I am almost 68 years old, I usually could care less about wire direction, although others, over the years, have found it important, and I don't even have a favorite connecting wire that I can recommend. Why would I do this test?
The problem with blind testing like this, is that you lose what you are listening to with the changes in the music. This has been proven by the numerous failures to be able to get successful positives in the test over the last 30 years.
What happens is that the differences seem to disappear, then they come back with knowing what you are listening to, just like magic. Well, if you believe in magic, this would be a good example, but I believe it is the test, itself, that is the problem.
I am not against testing, just this kind of testing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.