As I asked Wakibaki, at what point do you no longer have to resort to measurements to be sure of differences in sound - there must be a dividing line here?
I'm not selling anything related to this subject, jkeny, that makes me impartial. You are selling modifications to the Hiface equipment which are based on no more substantial evidence than you have been able to present here. That makes you an interested party, i.e. a person with a financial interest not indirectly related to this subject.
There are numerous instances in the literature where people who have claimed to be able to hear differences between one piece of equipment and another have subsequently been shown to be unable to do so. Here on this forum there was a prolonged debate about the audibility of burn-in in cables, but it all went quiet in the end. You can bet your bottom dollar that if anybody HAD been able to demonstrate that they could hear the difference between burnt-in and non-burnt-in cables they'd be all over this board like a rash.
So it will prove with you and your claims, UNLESS SY can demonstrate a measurable difference, so your best bet is to cuddle up to him instead of attempting to run him down. Not that I imagine for a minute that it would make a blind bit of difference to the results, I trust his intellectual honesty.
w
There are numerous instances in the literature where people who have claimed to be able to hear differences between one piece of equipment and another have subsequently been shown to be unable to do so. Here on this forum there was a prolonged debate about the audibility of burn-in in cables, but it all went quiet in the end. You can bet your bottom dollar that if anybody HAD been able to demonstrate that they could hear the difference between burnt-in and non-burnt-in cables they'd be all over this board like a rash.
So it will prove with you and your claims, UNLESS SY can demonstrate a measurable difference, so your best bet is to cuddle up to him instead of attempting to run him down. Not that I imagine for a minute that it would make a blind bit of difference to the results, I trust his intellectual honesty.
w
Last edited:
I see Waki, so you won't answer a simple question that I asked? BTW, I'm not selling attenuators - get your facts right!
Please, pretty please, SY (attempt to cuddle up 🙂) maybe you will answer this?
Please, pretty please, SY (attempt to cuddle up 🙂) maybe you will answer this?
Last edited:
I applaud John for his willingness to put his mods in the hands of a skeptic and to allow the results to be posted, whether they support his claims or not. And he has never tried to misrepresent anything I've said. So Waki, while I sincerely appreciate your sentiments and thank you for your kind words about me, I think it's best not to get into that line of argument.
I said you are selling modifications to the Hiface. Modifications claimed to have an effect on jitter.
Is this true or not? Is this a related subject? Have you any more substantial evidence for the efficacy of these mods than the listening tests you put so much trust in here? Is it not true that if these listening tests are shown to be unreliable then they will be similarly unreliable in the case of the other modifications from which you profit?
w
Perhaps not SY, but he has tried to misrepresent what I have said.
Is this true or not? Is this a related subject? Have you any more substantial evidence for the efficacy of these mods than the listening tests you put so much trust in here? Is it not true that if these listening tests are shown to be unreliable then they will be similarly unreliable in the case of the other modifications from which you profit?
w
Perhaps not SY, but he has tried to misrepresent what I have said.
As SY said, you are best served not to get into this highly convoluted line of argument which leads nowhere - I remember a similar experience in the thread's past!
Still not willing to answer the question?
Still not willing to answer the question?
Last edited:
I'm cool, SY - it's a hobby & should be fun.
You do see the point of my question, don't you? At what point do you say, "yes there's a definite sonic difference I can hear", no need for measurements to prove it. Now measurements can be interesting, granted but secondary, in this case! So where is this point for you?
One thing that worries me is that you didn't find any substantial improvement in the reflections/ringing when using the attenuators. I take it that the scope shots I posted here are nothing like your measurements. I'm wondering what might explain this?
Can you say something about the equipment used & configuration of the test set-up?
You do see the point of my question, don't you? At what point do you say, "yes there's a definite sonic difference I can hear", no need for measurements to prove it. Now measurements can be interesting, granted but secondary, in this case! So where is this point for you?
One thing that worries me is that you didn't find any substantial improvement in the reflections/ringing when using the attenuators. I take it that the scope shots I posted here are nothing like your measurements. I'm wondering what might explain this?
Can you say something about the equipment used & configuration of the test set-up?
Tek 7854 scope, 300MHz. Used a 10x probe. RG59 cable. Terminated by 72R and rechecked with a 110R termination (made almost no difference). Overshoot was quite comparable to the pictures you showed (about 50%), but the ringing on top was unabated by the 6dB attenuator. I repeated with the attenuator on each end of the cable.
When I can hear the difference without peeking.
To be clear, MEASUREMENTS are not needed to demonstrate a sonic difference. They ARE needed to either explain a sonic difference or to demonstrate that there's the POSSIBILITY of a sonic difference in the absence of a real listening test.
Put it up then dear waki, put it up. So if what you're saying is true there's listening evidence of people having sat to appreciate jkeny's mods and not heard any difference. Do show us this.
Oh, and one other thing - the notion that you're impartial because you're not selling anything, that's really funny. Brought an early morning chuckle 😀
Stick to the humour you generate without trying to be funny waki. Its really a hoot, whereas your intentional stuff is.... how to put this gently... like the Aussie state of electronics.😀
aaaaaah, the NEW bybee thread.... oops, my mistake. Still eh - a cut and paste and no-one would be any the wiser.
Sy,
If you suggest that a single individual blind listening test has any significance I am disappointed. If you then recommend such without making clear the limitations and issues such test are subject to I feel the need to call you out.
Would you mind providing justification why a single individual partially blind (as it is known what the DUT is) test with an individual likely to suffer a certain often high degree of expectation bias* will be in any meaningful or more so than a fully sighted test?
Ciao T
*Expectation Bias, as in he who expects "no difference" will not hear real difference, he who expects "difference" will hear one even where such exists, either bias if strong enough overrides what is heard and acts as strong randomising agent in the test)
If you suggest that a single individual blind listening test has any significance I am disappointed. If you then recommend such without making clear the limitations and issues such test are subject to I feel the need to call you out.
Would you mind providing justification why a single individual partially blind (as it is known what the DUT is) test with an individual likely to suffer a certain often high degree of expectation bias* will be in any meaningful or more so than a fully sighted test?
Ciao T
*Expectation Bias, as in he who expects "no difference" will not hear real difference, he who expects "difference" will hear one even where such exists, either bias if strong enough overrides what is heard and acts as strong randomising agent in the test)
Be disappointed.
First, you are once again attributing things to me that I didn't say. That's a very bad habit and at this point, given the frequency and consistency of this habit, can only be attributed to dishonesty. I have no interest in engaging in discussion with someone who cannot make his point (whether correct or incorrect) without lying. "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action," in the words of another German-British fellow, Auric Goldfinger.
Second, you fail to make the logical distinction between the results of a test that accepts and one that rejects a null hypothesis. May I assume that was also intentional?
Third, you have glossed over the nature and point of the tests that John asked me to run. Also intentional?
Hi,
I appreciate your trying to be pithy (though this does only seem to extend to one line put-downs to be honest), but by making unqualified blanket statements that you fail to qualify for validity you are leaving yourself open to criticism for failing to do so.
If you recommend a certain form of testing and you suggest any contention should not be considered true or at least potentially true until it has passed this test, it incumbent upon you to make sure that you also make the limitations and problems with said test known. Failure to do so may be considered intentional deception.
Hmm, so you are suggesting I am lying when I am merely pointing out the potential interpretations you lack of clarity and qualifications in your statements create?
You need never again engage in discussion with me, just ignore my posts.
You need never again read a post of mine responding critically to one of yours, if you avoid dogmatic truisms and unqualified blanket statements of fact which are untrue.
It only takes a few extra words in most cases, a few extra lines in others. If you lack the time to qualify your statements, comments, suggestions and recommendations, perhaps wait to post until you have such time?
I do disguish, however if you suggest a test such as you did suggest as valid arbiter of lack of audibility (even in your own personal), which I would contend you actually also did, then you fail to distinguish.
Of course, you may argue that "to not accept a contention as true" is not the same as is "considering a contention as untrue", but to most people this semantic distinction will be lost. So they will consider that what was said was not "I do not accept the contention as true" but rather that it was considered untrue.
Given the extremely poor statistic significance of the test you suggest where a "null result" is concerned (and that excludes any expectation bias, which in your case I would suggest based on your writing is bound to be extremely high) it is basically useless, unless it returns a positive.
Now the likely-hood that test will ever return a positive, given the fact that the test is not fully blind and that likely a strong expectation bias exists is statistically insignificant.
So you may as well save yourself the trouble of actually doing the test, as you already know (or should know) the outcome to be a "null" with a high likelyhood, regardless of the actual situation, so there is no significance to actually carrying it out and returning the expected null result.
I once demonstrated that strong expectation Bias suffices to make the act of reversing one channels polarity in a stereo set-up inaudible, statistically speaking, something few would argue would be the case in an unbiased test.
Of course, I did not tell the people in the test we where testing one channels polarity reversal, I told them we where testing audible differences between mains cables...
So, unless such issues are taken into consideration blind listening tests are of little value and it is very hard to truly rid oneself of a prejudice or preference once established, so only a fully blind test (e.g. one where the item being tested remains unknown or is claimed to be one that is normally widely accepted as potentially audible) can be considered relevant, unless the expectation bias is overcome buy dramatically increasing the numbers of participants and trials.
Intentional. I was not discussing John's Test, but your test suggestions. I do not normally confuse one with the other. My arguments are not in favour of John, but in opposition to your unscientific approach.
I leave it to you to respond to John with alternative suggestions that make sense and do not lead to pre-determined outcomes that automatically appear to support your contention.
Ciao T
I appreciate your trying to be pithy (though this does only seem to extend to one line put-downs to be honest), but by making unqualified blanket statements that you fail to qualify for validity you are leaving yourself open to criticism for failing to do so.
If you recommend a certain form of testing and you suggest any contention should not be considered true or at least potentially true until it has passed this test, it incumbent upon you to make sure that you also make the limitations and problems with said test known. Failure to do so may be considered intentional deception.
Hmm, so you are suggesting I am lying when I am merely pointing out the potential interpretations you lack of clarity and qualifications in your statements create?
You need never again engage in discussion with me, just ignore my posts.
You need never again read a post of mine responding critically to one of yours, if you avoid dogmatic truisms and unqualified blanket statements of fact which are untrue.
It only takes a few extra words in most cases, a few extra lines in others. If you lack the time to qualify your statements, comments, suggestions and recommendations, perhaps wait to post until you have such time?
I do disguish, however if you suggest a test such as you did suggest as valid arbiter of lack of audibility (even in your own personal), which I would contend you actually also did, then you fail to distinguish.
Of course, you may argue that "to not accept a contention as true" is not the same as is "considering a contention as untrue", but to most people this semantic distinction will be lost. So they will consider that what was said was not "I do not accept the contention as true" but rather that it was considered untrue.
Given the extremely poor statistic significance of the test you suggest where a "null result" is concerned (and that excludes any expectation bias, which in your case I would suggest based on your writing is bound to be extremely high) it is basically useless, unless it returns a positive.
Now the likely-hood that test will ever return a positive, given the fact that the test is not fully blind and that likely a strong expectation bias exists is statistically insignificant.
So you may as well save yourself the trouble of actually doing the test, as you already know (or should know) the outcome to be a "null" with a high likelyhood, regardless of the actual situation, so there is no significance to actually carrying it out and returning the expected null result.
I once demonstrated that strong expectation Bias suffices to make the act of reversing one channels polarity in a stereo set-up inaudible, statistically speaking, something few would argue would be the case in an unbiased test.
Of course, I did not tell the people in the test we where testing one channels polarity reversal, I told them we where testing audible differences between mains cables...
So, unless such issues are taken into consideration blind listening tests are of little value and it is very hard to truly rid oneself of a prejudice or preference once established, so only a fully blind test (e.g. one where the item being tested remains unknown or is claimed to be one that is normally widely accepted as potentially audible) can be considered relevant, unless the expectation bias is overcome buy dramatically increasing the numbers of participants and trials.
Intentional. I was not discussing John's Test, but your test suggestions. I do not normally confuse one with the other. My arguments are not in favour of John, but in opposition to your unscientific approach.
I leave it to you to respond to John with alternative suggestions that make sense and do not lead to pre-determined outcomes that automatically appear to support your contention.
Ciao T
A complete lie.
Since I've made no "contention," nor have I suggested any of the other various things you continue to falsely attribute to me, I can only suggest that you go back under the bridge- there's billy goats coming whom you don't want to miss.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.