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

[abraxalito]

Depends on the meaning of "know." For all I "know," you're an illusion. Or a giant block of tofu that has somehow passed a Turing filter.

Ok, so you don't know its correct, you're just claiming that it is. Ditto with 'reality-based'. Which is fine, but I do like to get things clear.

For those of us with a more pragmatic view and the basic intelligence to understand it (which, at least in your case, is evident), there's a rich literature in sensory science and experimental psychology. When it comes to auditory questions, it's more useful and pertinent than epistemology.

Oh, another one of your claims, how funny😀 So let me get this straight - you paid $8075 for the four courses you linked me to? My working hypothesis here is that your recommendation is a text-book case of post-hoc purchase rationalisation. Did they teach you about that on the course?

 

[markus76]

Hey guys, have you thought about using all that energy to maybe build something instead

Communication is something worth trying to build.

 

[fredex]

I've yet to see the evidence for your claim that 'we know that DBTs remove unconscious bias'. ...........

There is an acceptance on both sides that cable 'differences' are inaudible in DBTs. Believers say this is because their hearing ability is degraded by the conditions of the test.

However when the test includes a part where sighted listening is done and the person can hear a difference (no point in continuing if they can't) they are proving that their hearing is not degraded by the test conditions.

In this situation the non believer's conclusion that the heard differences are imaginary, IMHO is the only correct conclusion.

Any effective unconscious bias against such a test would ensure the person would not get pass the first part of the test.

I guess you could say that the bias was only for the blind part of the test. To this I would say you are now admitting that unconscious bias can be so powerful that it can alter what you hear. And you would now have to show that the same mechanism isn't responsible for you hearing what you hear during the first part of the test.

 

[john curl]

It is not the SIGHT of cables or other equipment that is important. The identity of the component attached to the label does NOT have to be identified until AFTER the testing is all done. Even the label could be randomly computer generated, and changed after a series of tests, perhaps a different day.
This puts things into confusion doesn't it? So long as we can make a direct comparison, we can discern differences. ONLY ABX throws us off.
No why doesn't somebody who has actually studied the human brain tell us why.

 

[abraxalito]

There is an acceptance on both sides that cable 'differences' are inaudible in DBTs. Believers say this is because their hearing ability is degraded by the conditions of the test.

Yep, no disagreement there.

However when the test includes a part where sighted listening is done and the person can hear a difference (no point in continuing if they can't) they are proving that their hearing is not degraded by the test conditions.

Oh dear, that's an obviously flawed argument. A sighted test is a different test from an unsighted test. So to reach the conclusion that you've come to you'd need to show that they're (that is, the sighted and unsighted parts of the test) subject to equivalent levels of subconscious bias. I'd contend its obvious that they're not. Has anyone done for example galvanic skin resistance tests during those two aspects? - I think something along those lines would be worthwhile.

In this situation the non believer's conclusion that the heard differences are imaginary, IMHO is the only correct conclusion.

Yes, but this is science or purports to be. So 'IMHO' is not sufficient, this needs to be independent of the experimenter and their unconscious bias. Please offer a psychological basis for your claim that 'heard differences are imaginary' - in particular what you really mean by 'imaginary'. Someone recently has offered a parallel with phantom pain - the implication there is that they believed phantom pain was 'imaginary'.. Is that your position?

Any effective unconscious bias against such a test would ensure the person would not get pass the first part of the test.

There is the fly in your ointment, the flaw in your reasoning. We know the unconscious bias is different between sighted and unsighted - that's the whole reason for going unsighted. To claim that its the same would be to rule out the very rationale for DBTs.

I guess you could say that the bias was only for the blind part of the test.

No, obviously not. The bias is different between the two parts, its reasonable to assume initially that its present in both but different.

To this I would say you are now admitting that unconscious bias can be so powerful that it can alter what you hear. And you would now have to show that the same mechanism isn't responsible for you hearing what you hear during the first part of the test.

Of course the unconscious bias alters what people hear. What evidence do you have that it does not?

 

[olblueyez]

Did you curly?

Yes I did Markus, or is it Doug? Ahhhh, who cares? 😎

For starters, I do not see any mention is this post that you now know dbt do not require short sessions.

I dont recall ever seeing a test where anyone spent a month between swaps. Please do post it if it is available. As a matter of fact I have never seen more than two or three blind tests mentioned since I joined the thread but I do see an awful lot of people speaking of cables being proven to be inaudible using double blind testing. Since you bring up long term testing then you will not mind if I have the wife swap out BJC coax and the King Cobras will you? My results will be acceptable to you? Damn I will have to post an alarm on the Blackberry to wake me up in time to jot that down for you. 😀

At least you have not (yet, to my knowledge) discounted dbts because you listen with your eyes open.

Then why bring it up? 😕

(We know you pick components with your eyes open, but that is a different thing to the point I am making.)

Maybe you should start a seeing eye dog service for people going to the electronics store to buy some gear and then they can do it blindfolded. 🙄

So let's examine your latest post, and see just how many good points exist within it shall we?

That would be a first. 😱

And those are?? Oh, that's right, you won't say. It's not your job IIRC.

Dont remember mentioning that but yes its not my job. 🙄

'Those flaws'

Yes Doug, the flaws you purposely do not acknowledge even though they were posted many many times. You do seem to know they exist since you refer to them though. 😕

'Which flaws are they curly?'

Pick one Markus, we have established they were posted. Just to help you out here is one to get you started kiddo. 🙂

"The latest in this long history is a double-blind test that, the authors conclude, demonstrates that 44.1kHz/16-bit digital audio is indistinguishable from high-resolution digital. Note the word “indistinguishable.” The authors aren’t saying that high-res digital might sound a little different from Red Book CD but is no better. Or that high-res digital is only slightly better and not worth the additional cost. Rather, they reached the rather startling conclusion that CD-quality audio sounds exactly the same as 96kHz/24-bit PCM and DSD, the encoding scheme used in SACD. That is, under double-blind test conditions, 60 expert listeners over 554 trials couldn’t hear any differences between CD, SACD, and 96/24. The study was published in the September, 2007 Journal of the Audio Engineering Society".

This thread is permeated with people suffering with the same problem the aforementioned authors seem to have problems with. Making conclusive all encompassing statements based on information that could never support those claims. Can you see how that would be a problem or shall I explain it to you in more simple terms that you can understand? 🙄

'You know, those flaws. The ones that are there because I hear cables'

Don't remember saying that, you sure your name isn't Doug or Markus? They have problems imagining people are saying things that were never said as well. 😱

Yeah, but which flaws, exactly, are you talking about?'

I gave you one to get you started. Do you need help with your reading comprehension? Just to be nice though I will dish up another one for you Markus. 😉

"Most such tests, including this new CD vs. high-res comparison, are performed not by disinterested experimenters on a quest for the truth but by partisan hacks on a mission to discredit audiophiles. But blind listening tests lead to the wrong conclusions even when the experimenters motives are pure. A good example is the listening tests conducted by Swedish Radio (analogous to the BBC) to decide whether one of the low-bit-rate codecs under consideration by the European Broadcast Union was good enough to replace FM broadcasting in Europe".

We don't know anyone like that do we Doug? You should go on to read the outcome of the testing done by Swedish Radio. It is quite pertinent to this topic even if you don't like it. See how nice I am reading and explaining for you Doug. 🙂

'You know, those flaws. The ones that are there because I know I hear cables.'

Are you repeating yourself unnecessarily Markus? That will not be necessary since we know you were able to find the flaws we have been discussing. Tisk Tisk!

'Ahhh, those flaws. got you'.

See??? I always had faith in you, you just have to apply yourself more Markus. Reading isn't so hard, is it??? 😀

In addition to that, we also disregard the queens English.

If you don't tell anyone, I wont tell anyone. 😎

Now, are these logical ideas any different from 'those flaws'?, or are you simply repeating yourself?

I am so sorry Markus, I made a mistake. You are correct, the logical idea's I referred to are the flaws that need to be addressed that you said you could not find. Logical? 😱

You seem to do that a lot, 'I don't like dbt's because they are wrong. I said so'.

Did I say that? Hummmmm,,... maybe I was referring to the obvious problems that seem to have plagued double blind tests that were published and methods that are highly regarded here. Its all in that article you had such a hard time comprehending and applying to our conversation. One thing also, is a test like that (a poll), is it really conclusive proof or is it mere evidence that more than likely has many flaws? I don't quite get that connection that people seem to want to present it as fact. Oh well, no biggie. 😱

I was going to suggest you get on to the bandwagon, good to see you did. Well done.

Your right Doug, I am slow sometimes, it took me awhile to realize its not about being objective but choosing sides??? I am so glad you set me straight on that one. Good for you Markus. 😉

Is one of 'those flaws' the fact that our system is not up to scratch?

No Doug, you can use your stereo alarm clock if you wish? 😎

That is a good point I'll grant, I do not recall anyone ever making that point before in this thread.

And here you had me thinking I never made a good point. Thank you so much for that. 🙂

See, and this is perhaps another point about dbts in general, or Toms in particular that you may have missed curly.

I don't remember missing anything. 😱

THAT is entirely the reason he will be doing the test on his own system.

Boy that is good, I am relieved, I thought he was going to use your alarm clock. 😀

It kills quite a few birds with one stone really, it means he can use a decent system (unlike any of ours), it also means he would have the proper temperment...

His system is better than yours and of some others here, therefore he will posses the correct temperament? 😱

not sure what that means,

It means people who tend to know the answer before any proof is provided make bad test subjects Doug. Oh, goody goody, I made another good point. 😉

does it mean that his temper only gets roused for the right reasons???...

I am so sorry about your reading comprehension. I had no idea. Phonics Reading | Phonics Learning

whatever it actually meant,

Look up, I spelled it out for you.

he will have the right 'it' for the test,

That is good, I was worried he would have the incorrect "it" for the testing, I feel so much better.!!! 😀

unlike any of us, and of course he will be honest unlike any of us blackguards and scoundrels, lying scumbags that we are.

Is that what you call people who argue in spite of the facts and misrepresent what people say or even completely ignore what people say when they make a good point? Most of the people who participate in these forums call them "Trolls", you know, people who go trolling for an argument at all cost. 🙂

I note with not some little amusement one of the qualities you omitted from your list was 'ears'. Not using your ears DOES seem to be very important in hearing cable differences.

You know Markus, I do remember seeing someone preaching about using your ears. Do you remember who it was? 😕

You mean that will change your mind?? Cool, read the thread.

It is possible to change my mind. Just not with mountains of stuff with huge gaps in the logic. I am funny like that, I am not happy just parroting whatever comes along, things need to make sense to me. eg. How will a double blind test provide indisputable, scientific proof that all cables sound the same? I can see how it may lead people to think certain cables, with certain equipment, and with certain people make for situations were no audible changes will be heard but PROOF??? Sure pal, whatever you say. 😎

Are you trying to say we have no 'accepted standard for human hearing'?? Really??

You do love to misinterpret and mislead for arguments sake. BTW, is that standard absolute for everyone or just an average number?

I am sure that will be news to those who make a living in the hearing field...may as well pack up and go home as we have no standard by which to measure people.

You said that not me, but I would trust you in a blind test anyway Doug. 😕

It is there, do a goodle search. That you will accept it seems a little far fetched tho.

Goodle, is that the Queens English? 😀

Nope. I read it ten times and still cannot understand it.

Welcome to Reading Is Fundamental

You want me to keep in mind cables don't alter sound, except when they do??And that all cables do??

I think one problem is people have this notion that cables "ADD" something to the music. They do not. Some are simply better at passing the signal than others. Also, based on my experience silver seems better at passing high frequencies than lower frequencies when comparing it to copper. Markus, filtering does not equal adding. It also seems to me that it is the crap cables that do any adding if it exists. Distortion, RF, compression. Probably not the best qualities for someone who wishes to analyze every aspect of a system so it sounds as good as possible. 🙄

Yet keep in mind they don't?? Only exception to cables not changing sound (which they all do, else you would not prefer some cables to others) is silver which does?? When cables don't??

I know it, many people are confused about it. Your not the only one. 😱

I think you are making me as confused as you on the issue.

I am so sorry to confuse you, I wish I were a better writer like yourself, I know I need to study the Queens English. 😛

Yep, you made some good points.

I know,.!!! 😀

Please keep it up.

I will, lots of confused people out there Mr. Markus. 😉

 

[boconnor]

You forgot to mention people in group A completely disregard any thing that mentions a flaw in DBT'ing. I wonder why?

As a Group A type person I'd be happy to hear from others as to their specific improvements to the DBT method. But when I (and others) have asked for specific recommendations for change (using this current thread), those who think DBTs are flawed have not provided any specific suggestions for improvement.

Also people in group A purposly disreguard any logical idea's that don't coincide with DBT'ing having proven cables to be inaudible. Keeping these things in mind I find It hard to believe someone who rejects all idea's outside of his own to be able to change his mind.

Well as I said I'm open to counter arguments, they have just been a bit thin on the ground. For instance, if two cables measure the same (within measurement error), and within tolerances that have been shown to be inaudible (using audiometry tests), what is the audio engineering basis that they should sound different in a sighted test?

Also realize some people posting in absolutes don't have the proper equipment, temperment, or honesty or even a combination of said qualities to even hear the differences.

Honestly, your statement seems a bit of an "absolutes" type of statement. And who is to decide if someone's equipment or temperament renders statements of claim either true or false?

As for me changing my mind you can show me the accepted standard for human hearing and prove no cable exists that adds distortion, rejects RF and EMI, or alters the original in any way shape or form.

The accepted standard for human hearing is just what psychoacoustics research adds to our knowledge over time. That knowledge has allowed us to compress audio and make it almost indistinguishable from its uncompressed version, even though lots of data is discarded in the process.

As to cables, of course a cable could be designed to alter a signal. Thats not what is being tested by the SY DBT - both cables are non-pathological and would be expected to measure the same (as I understand the proposed test).

Although if you did think that a cable was altering the original signal, what would you take as objective evidence of that claim? What measurements (if any) would convince you?

Keep in mind that cables don't alter sound but they "can" allow the signal to pass unmolested if built properly.

Again, what measurements would convince you of that?

 

[terry j]

Your posts, in the mining sector, would be called 'high yield ore's'.

'Look, there's gold in them thar hills too'

'I know, but why do I need to mine over there? this strike just keeps on giving'

I dont recall ever seeing a test where anyone spent a month between swaps.

You don't??? Was it NOT you that posted or continually refers to the study that had a result of no-one being able to pick hi-res files??? Was that not a long term dbt done in their own home??

As a matter of fact I have never seen more than two or three blind tests mentioned since I joined the thread but I do see an awful lot of people speaking of cables being proven to be inaudible using double blind testing.

Maybe read the thread??😕😕 That way you might see why some people say that cables are inaudible (it seems) during a dbt. Heck, if you don't want to do that, read what JC has to say. He states quite clearly that cables are inaudible during a dbt.

Dont remember mentioning that but yes its not my job. 🙄

That's cool. You can take on the job of providing humour.

Yes Doug, the flaws you purposely do not acknowledge even though they were posted many many times. You do seem to know they exist since you refer to them though. 😕

What flaws?? You have already made it clear that it is not your job to tell us what they are, and you haven't, so what am I purposely not acknowledging?

"The latest in this long history is a double-blind test that, the authors conclude, demonstrates that 44.1kHz/16-bit digital audio is indistinguishable from high-resolution digital. Note the word “indistinguishable.” The authors aren’t saying that high-res digital might sound a little different from Red Book CD but is no better. Or that high-res digital is only slightly better and not worth the additional cost. Rather, they reached the rather startling conclusion that CD-quality audio sounds exactly the same as 96kHz/24-bit PCM and DSD, the encoding scheme used in SACD. That is, under double-blind test conditions, 60 expert listeners over 554 trials couldn’t hear any differences between CD, SACD, and 96/24. The study was published in the September, 2007 Journal of the Audio Engineering Society".

Yep, got it. Hi res was indistinguishable. Are you denying that was their conclusions??😕😕 I mean, if it wasn't, why would they (presumably) state them under a heading (again presumably) Conclusions??

Besides, for someone who does not want to parrot what others say, you do a good job of parroting others points.

Do you have any of your own? that is what we are asking you, what would you do to fix the problems? So, what do you think would make a better test?? John Curl has given his thoughts, and I personally don't have too much problem with the way he wants to do it. Reckon it would work. Do you agree with johns version of the blind test??

If john stepped up to the plate and did HIS test, and passed (he is extremely confident he would) would you then change your mind on blind tests??

His system is better than yours and of some others here, therefore he will posses the correct temperament? 😱

Quite interesting. I would like you to expand on this...show us how you came to this conclusion (which, for all any of us knows, could be true).

Glad he does not have any more temperment, you have good doctors in the states??

It means people who tend to know the answer before any proof is provided make bad test subjects Doug. Oh, goody goody, I made another good point. 😉

Presume you are talking test subjects in dbt's (specifically cables)?? As far as I know, the people who usually undertake dbts on cables are believers. There would be NO point in a 'non believer' doing a test and then saying 'didn't hear it' would there.

Unless you meant they knew they would hear it, but didn't..ahh that's why they were a bad test subject! They didn't hear it.

that's why we want good test subjects that will hear it, like you and john curl.

For all we know Tom might be a good test subject, but we won't know that till after we get the results.

How will a double blind test provide indisputable, scientific proof that all cables sound the same?

Logically, it can't. It can only show, under the conditions of the test, that a difference could not be discerned.

Goodle, is that the Queens English? 😀

good catch!! it took me a while to see it, even after you pointed it out!!😀

I think one problem is people have this notion that cables "ADD" something to the music.

No cable adds anything, yet cables add distortion ?? Even by your own terms, it has to be that way. Else cables would not sound different.

 

[olblueyez]

As a Group A type person I'd be happy to hear from others as to their specific improvements to the DBT method. But when I (and others) have asked for specific recommendations for change (using this current thread), those who think DBTs are flawed have not provided any specific suggestions for improvement.

Fix all the issues mentioned in the article I posted. 🙄

Objective scientists who are not interested in how the results come out but rather that the results are accurate. 🙂

Forget blind testing, too many variables and it will give no scientific proof. 😎

I don't know what measurements, but I would think a comparison of a huge assortment of cables compared to the numbers accepted as the standard for human hearing. I just don't think using human test subjects is adequate or reliable enough to make any sort of conclusion that could be accepted as "proof". 😕

Also, the measurements would need to be long term since we are dealing with complex subject matter. If it takes me a week to notice a better impact on a kick drum on Edgar Winters "Frankenstein" then it is obvious that small samples in such a test would be useless. This is why tossin a few back in your basement with your buddies (Another Distraction, having other people around) is in my opinion like nipples on a male hog. 😀

If I put two Claude Monet paintings next to each other and told you I modified one, would you be able to tell the difference between the two paintings? Let me know how long it takes you to tell the difference and what methods you used to discover the difference, and best of all exactly what the difference is. 😎

Well as I said I'm open to counter arguments, they have just been a bit thin on the ground. For instance, if two cables measure the same (within measurement error), and within tolerances that have been shown to be inaudible (using audiometry tests), what is the audio engineering basis that they should sound different in a sighted test?

That is all hypothetical, how can I answer it? Figure out the two paintings yet? Find the difference? 🙄

Honestly, your statement seems a bit of an "absolutes" type of statement. And who is to decide if someone's equipment or temperament renders statements of claim either true or false?

I don't really think I should have to explain this but here goes. Do you think a clock radio will enable you to hear the difference between a BJC coax interconnect and an Audioquest King Cobra interconnect? Obviously the purest signal will better highlight any degradation of the signal right??? This is why people with poor performing equipment need not spend much money on cables and it is also why I think some sort guide for the average Joe Schmoe wold be helpful. 5% of your budget, 10% of your budget, 3.8764% of your budget for all you measurement freaks. This way we are not leading anyone into thinking a 500 dollar interconnect will make his AWIA all in one from 1984 sound dynamic and warm and full of bass impact. See what I mean Cal? I once saw a kid buy a Stefan Audio Art Equinox headphone cable for his Senn 650's because a bunch of us were talking copper vs silver in a headphone cable thread and I mentioned how much I loved the BLAH BLAH BLAH about my SAA Equinox cable and so did a few other people. He spent about 300 ballons on that cable. I cant remember exactly what gear he had but it was something equivalent to a 100 dollar Little-Dot amp from China and an iPod for a source. Broke my heart to try and explain it to that kid. 😱

The accepted standard for human hearing is just what psychoacoustics research adds to our knowledge over time. That knowledge has allowed us to compress audio and make it almost indistinguishable from its uncompressed version, even though lots of data is discarded in the process.

Indistinguishable using what equipment??? 🙄

As to cables, of course a cable could be designed to alter a signal. Thats not what is being tested by the SY DBT - both cables are non-pathological and would be expected to measure the same (as I understand the proposed test).

Expected to test the same or did test the same? How can you be so scientific and use logic so full of gaps? Tested how??? 😕

Although if you did think that a cable was altering the original signal, what would you take as objective evidence of that claim? What measurements (if any) would convince you?

I don't really believe they change anything the way people describe it as such. If I said my King Cobras were warm than that would imply any distortion and compression or interference were extremely low and because of that were enabling your source and amp to preform at near optimum levels according to your taste of course. You know what Captain? I am not a scientist so I dont know what the best procedures are for these circumstances. Just because DBT is the only thing we, you, or I can come up with doesnt make it the best method and it certainly doesn't equate to proof. 😉

Again, what measurements would convince you of that?

Ask a scientist who doesn't hang out on an audio forum arguing with 45 year old kids about cable audibility. Maybe that person could tell you the best way to do it or even if it can be done. 😎

 

[fredex]

Yep, no disagreement there.

Yes I thought I had that one nailed.

Oh dear, that's an obviously flawed argument. A sighted test is a different test from an unsighted test. So to reach the conclusion that you've come to you'd need to show that they're (that is, the sighted and unsighted parts of the test) subject to equivalent levels of subconscious bias. I'd contend its obvious that they're not...........

By test conditions I meant the physical location, equipment used, people present, protocols used etc etc. In that sense there are two parts, not two different tests. I believe you don't have a problem with the first part which for me removes a lot of often raised objections to DBTs, such as the setting, the quality of the equipment etc. Now subconscious bias. You say they are different in both parts. Well I have to agree as when the subject knows the cable identity, the subconscious can leap into action. In the second part the same subconscious bias has nothing to attach to.

So I reached my conclusion because the only subconscious bias that could degrade a person's hearing in the 2nd part is the belief that "I cannot hear a difference if I don't know what I am listening to" How do you test for this?

Has anyone done for example galvanic skin resistance tests during those two aspects? - I think something along those lines would be worthwhile.

So do I, hooking the subject up to a brain scanner might put this to rest.

Please offer a psychological basis for your claim that 'heard differences are imaginary' - in particular what you really mean by 'imaginary'. Someone recently has offered a parallel with phantom pain - the implication there is that they believed phantom pain was 'imaginary'.. Is that your position?

No one here likes the word 'imaginary'... My position is 'cable differences' are experienced as real as anything else. I have experienced this myself. "That sounds different, I only changed the cable, so the cable must be responsible." This line of thinking completely disregards the brain's known ability to "imagine" things that are not there. So the experiences are very real but the stated causes are often completely wrong.

There is the fly in your ointment, the flaw in your reasoning. We know the unconscious bias is different between sighted and unsighted - that's the whole reason for going unsighted. To claim that its the same would be to rule out the very rationale for DBTs.

I don't get this, what bias are you talking about for the unsighted part, and how can/does it affect the hearing?

I hope we are on the same page here.

 

[olblueyez]

How will a double blind test provide indisputable, scientific proof that all cables sound the same?

Logically, it can't. It can only show, under the conditions of the test, that a difference could not be discerned.

So from this point on there is no need to EVER speak of double blind testing as proof of no audible differences in cables and there is no need to EVER speak as though you or anyone else knows that all cables transmit a signal equally. RIGHT??? RIGHT MARKUS, DOUG, or Whatever your name is. 😎

I don't think more needs to be said tonight. I would recommend you delete most of your last post Terry as most of it makes no sense and its obvious you take things out of context because you cant argue your side of things without resorting to childish double talk. But hey, if you decide to let it stand then I will tear it to shreds tomorrow. 😉

Goodnite All, Sweet Dreams,,...!!!

 

[SY]

So let me get this straight - you paid $8075 for the four courses you linked me to?

Why do you assume that? (For the sake of discussion, I'm assuming you to be real)

You'd really do better to spend time learning sensory science than that tired epistemology you keep beating. Far more useful. Unlike some in this thread, I think you have the mental tools to actually understand it. My brother-in-law, who degreed in philosophy, took a job as a phlebotomist. When asked how that related to the expensive education he just finished, he replied, "Unfortunately, US Philosophy Corporation wasn't hiring."

 

[terry j]

So from this point on there is no need to EVER speak of double blind testing as proof of no audible differences in cables and there is no need to EVER speak as though you or anyone else knows that all cables transmit a signal equally.

You need to 'curb your enthusiasm' (that's the name of the show right?).

You think you have scored some huge point?😕

Everything you've said has been said many times before. I wish you'd stop acting childish and read the thread. As well as understand what has been said within it.

What I said was correct, (and been said as you are well aware many times before), I can never prove there is not a leprechaun no matter how many rocks I look under.

Because that leprechaun could very well be under THAT rock over THERE which I have yet to look under. If it is not under that one, it could be under the next one.

I think you have it (well done), but I canna understand the crowing you exhibit. None of this is new or revelatory.

It is that point you are now crowing over (makes a change from parroting) which shows why you, and your cohort, need to show us that you can in fact hear what you say you hear.

as though you or anyone else knows that all cables transmit a signal equally

We believe that to be the case, you do not. As we have just shown that we cannot prove that case, it leaves you to prove your case.

Just one example will do (you have been reading this thread have you not?)

If you do not want to, fine. That does allow us to make our own judgements on the veracity of your claim.

RIGHT??? RIGHT MARKUS, DOUG, or Whatever your name is. 😎

Now that you have been elected thread comedian, it's about time you wrote your own material, rather than parrot others.

I would recommend you delete most of your last post Terry as most of it makes no sense and its obvious you take things out of context because you cant argue your side of things without resorting to childish double talk.

More than happy to let each make up their own mind about the merits or otherwise of any point each of us have made.

sweet dreams!

PS..c'mon Richard! given the content of some of the recent more exotic explorations in the thread, you gotta admit 'you possibly being a piece of tofu passed thru a turing filter' WAS pretty funny, no??😀😕🙂

 

[abraxalito]

Why do you assume that? (For the sake of discussion, I'm assuming you to be real)

It wasn't so much an assumption as a deduction from the evidence you supplied. First you'd mentioned you found the course useful, had experience of it. So there was a small leap of assumption at that point that you'd got that experience by being a student on it yourself. I checked the price by clicking the FAQ link on the page you linked to. Another assumptive leap that they didn't offer you a discount by virtue of being a diyaudio mod. So if my assumptive leaps were in error, do please set me right.

What did not tally though was the fact that you prefaced the recommendation with 'if you find yourself in the US' whereas the link you supplied was explicit about the course being an online, distance learning one. So that discrepancy confused me.

You'd really do better to spend time learning sensory science than that tired epistemology you keep beating.

Likewise, you'd really do a whole lot better to provide evidence for what you spout rather than those tired old claims you keep throwing up. This is another case in point. The evidence that barely a post goes by where you don't present opinion and hearsay as fact says something about your epistemology. I'll let readers figure out what that might be,

Far more useful.

To whom?

Unlike some in this thread, I think you have the mental tools to actually understand it.

Where 'it' is the course you're pushing? Oh, I already understand it well enough from the marketing blurb.

My brother-in-law, who degreed in philosophy, took a job as a phlebotomist. When asked how that related to the expensive education he just finished, he replied, "Unfortunately, US Philosophy Corporation wasn't hiring."

So you were under the impression that I paid money for my epistemological understanding? Whatever led you to assume that?

 

[abraxalito]

By test conditions I meant the physical location, equipment used, people present, protocols used etc etc. In that sense there are two parts, not two different tests. I believe you don't have a problem with the first part which for me removes a lot of often raised objections to DBTs, such as the setting, the quality of the equipment etc. Now subconscious bias. You say they are different in both parts. Well I have to agree as when the subject knows the cable identity, the subconscious can leap into action. In the second part the same subconscious bias has nothing to attach to.

Yeah, fine as far as it goes. Yet the 'test subject' is still someone amenable to subconscious suggestion. In the blind test conditions, he's like a performing animal. So I'd like to have some evidence that there's the same level of stress felt in both parts of the test. Something like measuring cortisol levels in the blood or the skin resistance. I posit that there will be a significant difference.

Where I think DBTs have the most value is where the subject is also the experimenter. The allocation of A or B to X is done by a pseudo-random generator and the seed is noted. This allows there to be no unconscious bias from other experimenters and no anxiety over the results as the experimenter is motivated solely by curiosity, no performance pressure is felt.

So I reached my conclusion because the only subconscious bias that could degrade a person's hearing in the 2nd part is the belief that "I cannot hear a difference if I don't know what I am listening to" How do you test for this?

I can think of plenty more possibilities for unconscious bias. "I'll look a nutter if I can't hear this" ; "objectivists will sneer at me if I don't get it right" just for starters. In my experience, unconscious beliefs have to be emotionally loaded to be effective, so I don't think your example qualifies.

No one here likes the word 'imaginary'... My position is 'cable differences' are experienced as real as anything else. I have experienced this myself. "That sounds different, I only changed the cable, so the cable must be responsible." This line of thinking completely disregards the brain's known ability to "imagine" things that are not there.

Well here we'd do well not to use 'imagine' for various reasons. One is that we all only have perception so talking about things that 'aren't there' is misleading - without perception there's no sound at all, just vibrations. So in that sense, the creation of a sound from the raw vibration is already creating 'something that's not there'. The second reason its unhelpful is that there are regularities, patterns about this, whereas the word 'imaginary' conveys that whatever is 'imagined' is rather arbitrary, perhaps under some volitional control. The perceptual process for hearing has been studied closely enough to know about masking thresholds just as one example, so with your word 'imaginary' we'd have to say that we all, without exception 'imagine away' the (masked) quantisation noise in an mp3. If this done by 'imagination' then why the astonishing commonality between subjects?

So may I make a plea that we drop this word 'imagined' or 'imaginary' and substitute something like 'perceptual artifact'?

So the experiences are very real but the stated causes are often completely wrong.

Yes, so then let's employ scepticism towards the stated causes but accept that people do indeed hear what they say they hear.

I hope we are on the same page here.

We're not too far off it seems.

 

[SY]

To whom?

To anyone who wants to actually accomplish something as opposed to playing word games.

 

[abraxalito]

PS..c'mon Richard! given the content of some of the recent more exotic explorations in the thread, you gotta admit 'you possibly being a piece of tofu passed thru a turing filter' WAS pretty funny, no??😀😕🙂

It didn't do it for me. It could be that I take myself too seriously, but I veer more towards an alternative explanation. I guess it's because living in China there are so many kinds of tofu which I come across that the generic phrase 'piece of tofu' didn't trigger my imagination circuits. If he'd said 'deep-fried chunk of stinky tofu' that would have worked a treat I think. Added to that 'Turing filter' did not ring any bells. So I think SY could get himself a better script writer😀

 

[abraxalito]

To anyone who wants to actually accomplish something as opposed to playing word games.

Who is playing word games here? Could it be one who avoids responding to the points in 90% of a post and launches a single cheap shot at one short question? No, of course not!😎

 

[doug20]

You know what Markus?It is tragic for you to try to convince anyone that you are doing anything different,better,more logical,more human with your music and system,than "us".You are not.The only fifference is that "we" claim we hear cable differences while "you" claim you don't and that you are right.So stop to beg for any aproval of superiority over others.In your "profession" maybe yes,but keep it up to there.

Actually you are still a little confused....no one cares what you or anyone buys and enjoys (Just don't post bogus claims online).

When you CLAIM online that a cable is better then another cable. Someone uneducated might believe it and waste $$$ on that cable. I care about them and their money. You posted just a CLAIM that becomes a fact for someone else...that is the sad state of audio.

You are also confused on Markus myself and others. We do not only "Claim" with our ears but we do the proper tests, we trying to get measurements. Two things you refuse to do. We go way beyond what you do with your setup and if that makes our opinion superior so be it. We definitely do a lot more then just subjective listening.

 

[doug20]

I can think of plenty more possibilities for unconscious bias. "I'll look a nutter if I can't hear this" ; "objectivists will sneer at me if I don't get it right" just for starters. In my experience, unconscious beliefs have to be emotionally loaded to be effective, so I don't think your example qualifies.
.

Lol, I never thought about emotional loading 😱 Im sorry but isnt everyone involved success, very confident individuals that have no problems making conclusions opposing the general view?? I mean some here have posted so many crazy thoughts that they are already sneered at so doing a DBT will make no difference/change in our opinions IF the remotely can still guess the right cable. They have nothing to lose expect their delusions.

That opinion above doesnt fly at all. Its simply a common excuse to get out of doing the proper testing and an excuse to be used when the true results show you couldnt tell the difference. Its a perfect out and not remotely honest.

Yes, so then let's employ scepticism towards the stated causes but accept that people do indeed hear what they say they hear.

So you do not think external variables impact the conclusions enough to matter? Example Brand name and $$$ has no impact on the listener believing there is better SQ?? Here is one of those crazy thoughts....you have no worries about emotional loading in DBTs!!

I suspect you define "hear" different then I do. "Hear" is simply the signal from the ear to the brain for me. What they conclude is what they hear plus a whole bunch of HIGHLY subjective variables that the Brain already processed BEFORE they even listened.