Evidence please that I was 'defending' anyone here?
How so? If the cable spacers have a placebo effect it matters not one iota whether they're made from unobtainium or rancid squirrel droppings.
I was taking it as read that the person wasn't 'making a claim' rather they were describing the effect on the sound of said cable spacers. But feel free to update me on the salient details of the story that you chose not to share here.
Your 'reasoning' is circular - its only you that (a priori) is making the claim they're outlandish.
Progress may be made by the person putting a bit of meat on the bones of their description of the cable spacers' effects. Interested parties can repeat the experiment for themselves - the original audiophile needs to provide enough detail of the experiment that it can be replicated by others. That's how science works isn't it?
Pano, was that recording you heard commercially available? I.E. is it something I could get to try?
G²
Not really, if you allow for anecdotal conclusions to be posted as fact online you create confusion and are simply misleading individuals that do not know better.
You mislead them into thinking there is real change, they waste $$$ and time chasing ghosts instead of spending $$$ and time on making changes that actually matter.
Is the goal of audio forums to help educate and inform individuals to make better decisions?
Im fine with someone posting they had placebo induce performance gains. Im all for even spending $$$ in the name of feeling good about buying any brand but its important to question and/or correct any opinion posted as fact. Its not to help the OP its to help those lurking and trying to learn. With out all the individuals that ask for validation, the audio world would be in a much worse state then it already is.
Last edited:
The contents of our senses are normally taken to be factual. A description of a sound, or for that matter, a smell, is by no means an 'anecdotal conclusion' - that's your gloss.
Ostensibly looks like baseless claiming. Got any evidence that I'm doing any kind of misleading here? Who are you to say that changes they enjoy and are willing to stump up the cash for 'don't matter' ?
I don't think that forums have goals, but some individuals do and I have that as one of mine.
Where someone has posted an opinion, sure. But that's not the case here - I was dealing with the case where someone had verbalised a description. Not the same thing as an opinion at all. Somewhat ironically, you're posting opinions yourself here - 'the data's not valid' - and I'm countering your mistaken opinion with fact
So rather than your claim being true - the opposite is the case. You're misleading readers by posting up opinion as fact.Do please present a valid argument that the data's not valid, rather than merely claiming that its not. This is after all science I'm trying to do here
If you do not control the environment during the test then your conclusions are made from far more variables then the signals your senses sent your brain.
Conclusions from uncontrolled tests are full of holes. This is proven over and over and accepted in every other discipline out there. Why is audio immune?
You do realize the "You" is just a general term so do not take it as me question what abraxalito did or does.
I also posted that Im more then happy for people spending $$$ on what makes them happy. The problem is that they post about that online, posting it as fact to a real change when it just placebo. This will convince someone else to spend $$$ and NOT have that same change. You do not care about that person that spent $$$ based on just opinion?? You probably think that person should do more research before spending $$$?? Most people do not have time to do that so if they read 10 people online saying Cable X gave them incredible tight bass they are going to just believe it and buy. We should have one post amongst those 10 opinions asking for real data then people have a chance to find out the truth.
I don't think that forums have goals, but some individuals do and I have that as one of mine.
Where someone has posted an opinion, sure. But that's not the case here - I was dealing with the case where someone had verbalised a description. Not the same thing as an opinion at all. Somewhat ironically, you're posting opinions yourself here - 'the data's not valid' - and I'm countering your mistaken opinion with fact
Do please present a valid argument that the data's not valid, rather than merely claiming that its not. This is after all science I'm trying to do here
Debunk any myth is important and should happen at all times online. The data is not valid until validated that is simply how mathematics and science works. Its how anyone does anything successfully. We simply have to validate everything done to ensure we never made a mistake. Any conclusion, any creation has been validated before its considered a valid creation or valid conclusion.
Maybe I will try to explain this better and say there is no such thing a valid data without validation.
Last edited:
John Culshaw, one of Decca's most experienced recording engineers, had fun when recording the final scene of Rheingold, where the Rhine Maidens are to be heard as if from underneath the main action.
In his book Ring Resounding, he explicitly states that:
Stereo will do anything you want on the lateral sense, but it cannot give you a vertical perspective. But sometimes, there are ways of compensating: there are ways, quite frankly, of cheating the ear into informing the brain that it has received an impression which it has not in fact received. We worked very hard to get a special acoustic on the girls' voices and then, in an article published just before Rheingold was released, I drew attention to the way in which the voices appeared to come from below. In fact they do nothing of the sort, but the suggestion worked. One critic after another commented on the remarkable illusion, and letters poured into the office asking how it had been done.
During the almost nine year project of recording the complete Ring cycle for Decca, Culshaw and his engineers worked with perspective, but used other acoustics to convey distance and verticality.
I am with Werner here, as 3D stereo presupposes quite advanced use of ceiling and floor reflections, and even then is just a simulacra of the real thing.
The best I have experienced are two-channel recordings of bird and jungle sounds in junglescapes with extensive areas of foliage made out of very large leaves. These seem to reflect the sound in a manner that supports a believable 3D. And these recordings are usually made by ornithologists, not sound engineers.
Beware hearing what you want to hear, or have been programmed to hear.
In his book Ring Resounding, he explicitly states that:
Stereo will do anything you want on the lateral sense, but it cannot give you a vertical perspective. But sometimes, there are ways of compensating: there are ways, quite frankly, of cheating the ear into informing the brain that it has received an impression which it has not in fact received. We worked very hard to get a special acoustic on the girls' voices and then, in an article published just before Rheingold was released, I drew attention to the way in which the voices appeared to come from below. In fact they do nothing of the sort, but the suggestion worked. One critic after another commented on the remarkable illusion, and letters poured into the office asking how it had been done.
During the almost nine year project of recording the complete Ring cycle for Decca, Culshaw and his engineers worked with perspective, but used other acoustics to convey distance and verticality.
I am with Werner here, as 3D stereo presupposes quite advanced use of ceiling and floor reflections, and even then is just a simulacra of the real thing.
The best I have experienced are two-channel recordings of bird and jungle sounds in junglescapes with extensive areas of foliage made out of very large leaves. These seem to reflect the sound in a manner that supports a believable 3D. And these recordings are usually made by ornithologists, not sound engineers.
Beware hearing what you want to hear, or have been programmed to hear.
Seems you ignored what I said the first time, so I'll say it again. You're putting this word 'conclusions' into the discussion. So you're setting up a straw man and then wondering why its so easy to knock down.
Yes, conclusions are. But you're not listening - I haven't said I'm drawing conclusions.
Oh, so you're claiming (without evidence and contrary to generally accepted practice in medical science) that placebo effects are not real. Am I receiving you correctly?
Again its only you that's claiming its 'opinion'. I've clarified that I'm not speaking about 'opinion' but seems to no avail.
So they're gullible? What's new? Caveat emptor. You think they'll come to you to approve all their purchases? Is that the alternative?
Feel free to be the person calling for controlled listening tests and see how many people jump up and down with glee. Ain't gonna happen.
Baseless claims.
Truth of the matter is that I can't distinguish on sight between real diamond and zirconium, but once I know which is the real diamond, I defenitively like it better.
With audio, something similar is going on, and I would be the last one to deny people their diamonds. If milled aluminum and silver cables help people enjoy sound better, it might be even more real than lowering THD from 1 to 0.0001 %. Beauty is in the ear of the beholder.
This being said, I support an engineering approach to sound improvement, coupled with as much insights I can borrow from the physiology and psychology of hearing. When it comes to the discussion on whether a stereo-system can convey a true 3D spatial sense, two things appear to be relevant:
- the so called ventriloquist phenomena. A subject uses visual cues besides auditory ones to place a sound source in space. Obviously, nothing compares to a live performance when it comes to visual cues. The problem with just auditory cues, even in live performances, it becomes difficult to place the sound of different sources accurately in space. Just exeperiment for yourself, the nex time you enjoy live music. Even small head movements may result in flip-flopping the perceived location of instruments.
- Of course there are auditory cues that assist in this process. Roughly: for localization on the X-axis phase and volume differences between left and right ear; for localization on the Y- and Z-axis interference and resonance patterns produced by the pinna. And Werner, these can be replicated! With two speakers. The result, however, is about as predictable as the localization of sounds in a complex sound scape, based on auditory cues alone.
With audio, something similar is going on, and I would be the last one to deny people their diamonds. If milled aluminum and silver cables help people enjoy sound better, it might be even more real than lowering THD from 1 to 0.0001 %. Beauty is in the ear of the beholder.
This being said, I support an engineering approach to sound improvement, coupled with as much insights I can borrow from the physiology and psychology of hearing. When it comes to the discussion on whether a stereo-system can convey a true 3D spatial sense, two things appear to be relevant:
- the so called ventriloquist phenomena. A subject uses visual cues besides auditory ones to place a sound source in space. Obviously, nothing compares to a live performance when it comes to visual cues. The problem with just auditory cues, even in live performances, it becomes difficult to place the sound of different sources accurately in space. Just exeperiment for yourself, the nex time you enjoy live music. Even small head movements may result in flip-flopping the perceived location of instruments.
- Of course there are auditory cues that assist in this process. Roughly: for localization on the X-axis phase and volume differences between left and right ear; for localization on the Y- and Z-axis interference and resonance patterns produced by the pinna. And Werner, these can be replicated! With two speakers. The result, however, is about as predictable as the localization of sounds in a complex sound scape, based on auditory cues alone.
All commercially available and there are so many there's no need to list them. But be prepared for disappointment. If you don't have big speakers and big room, the big stuff won't work. And many times even there it doesn't work (think big PA rigs). But lots of smaller jazz, chamber music and some pop can work in a normal sized room. Even - gasp! - some mono recordings. I'm likely to get shot for that.
Sure, in many cases. But how do you explain sitting down to listen to recordings you've never heard before on a system you've never listened to and being astonished? Hearing width, depth and height. Sometimes vast height. And then looking at the astonished expressions on the faces of 30 or more people around you who just heard the same thing. How do you explain that? Mass hysteria that appeared out of thin air with no suggestion? Or perhaps, just maybe, it was a real effect?
But no worries, I'd be skeptical too if I hadn't heard it. The astonishment and surprise come from never having heard it before nor imagined it possible.
It also takes advantage of some of the ear/brain's spacial hearing properties.
Once the sonic scene has been collaped into a set of discreet points (ie microphones) most of the spatial scene is already lost. A good stereo system (includes room with well recorded source) can produce a stable, crediable & enjoyable illusion.
This is something i consider crucial in my system.
dave
No, this is a diy site. If someone reports they are able to produce a holophonic soundstage then another enthusiast interested in the same thing may attempt to try it on his own. The objectivist nay-sayer who ridicules other people's pursuits is of no use on a forum such as this one.
John
Absolutely! Or you could say that our brains fooled us. Because we know that modern recording and playback technologies are perfect. Distortions have been vanquished and all amplifiers sound the same. Therefore, bad sound is just a trick of the mind. (or maybe your White Van speakers)
Probably perfect enough, yes. Bad sound is far more likely to be a function of the recording (not the technology, but the application of the technology), the speakers, and the room. There are a few exceptions (e.g., "audiophile" amps with lousy stability and/or high distortion or 10 watt amps attached to 82dB sensitivity speakers or pathological issues like that), but still.
Thus, your conclusion doesn't follow, except for the White Van part.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.