Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 96
  1. #51
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    Yet, not one person who has observed on their own that cables sound different to them will even admit to the possibility that their observations may have been compromised and their conclusions may be wrong..
    Then let me be the first. My conclusions have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. But my conclusions are my reality. I'm pretty sure I prefer certain tastes over others, certain smells over others, certain sounds over others, etc etc. I can enjoy them and live a happy life or I can spend my time second guessing them. I choose the former.

  2. #52
    It's just a hobby
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    But my conclusions are my reality. I'm pretty sure I prefer certain tastes over others, certain smells over others, certain sounds over others, etc etc. I can enjoy them and live a happy life or I can spend my time second guessing them. I choose the former.
    whao! Some of those that never believed in assisted flight lived happy lives, they just never got to cross the atlantic in less than 6 hours

  3. #53
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
    whao! Some of those that never believed in assisted flight lived happy lives, they just never got to cross the atlantic in less than 6 hours
    Yes, and some of those who refute cable sonics live happy lives as well - they just aren't maximizing their systems!

  4. #54
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    Nice sidestep of the question I posed earlier. Let me rephrase for you:

    E-Stat, is the foundation for your belief in sighted testing based solely on the say so of one especially forward thinking audio reviewer? Do you have any other reason for believing that sighted testing is equivalent to or better than blind testing (other than your own admitted sighted testing experiences)?

    You'll find he answers fewer questions than anyone else here, although he may have more replies.

    -Bruce

  5. #55
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Then let me be the first. My conclusions have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. But my conclusions are my reality. I'm pretty sure I prefer certain tastes over others, certain smells over others, certain sounds over others, etc etc. I can enjoy them and live a happy life or I can spend my time second guessing them. I choose the former.
    You still aren't getting what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that all cables are the same. I AM saying that sighted testing is garbage. There's not been a single piece of evidence presented here that would make a sane man believe that sighted testing is better than blind testing.

    So let me repeat that for you: My problem with yeasayers is that they believe that sighted testing is equivalent or better than blind testing for audio purposes. I contend that it is not and would challenge anybody to prove otherwise. I am a very open minded guy. I changed my mind about cables once; there's no reason why I wouldn't again if presented with compelling evidence.

  6. #56
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740

    Talking

    Rant mode on

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing:

    Because when normally listening to music, NO DECISION is involved. Relaxed listening to music is a "right brain" function. To make a decision about X requires switching to a "left brain" function. And this has to be completed in the split seconds that audible memory is quickly fading.
    This is not true. You are constantly evaluating what you are listening too, even before you start playing the music. You'll go and pick out different music on different days based on mood. This is an evaluative process. You may find yourself listening to a piece that yesterday was great and today is grating.....an evaluative process.....

    Pretty clear indicaton that the brain halves do not function independantly of each other as is being eluded to here. While one hemisphere may dominate, it does not, by any means, ignore the other, unless forced to do so. Enter the DBT and sensory deprivation(damn, you mean science understands this already?).

    The writer also doesn't seem(want?) to understand that the differences, if audible, will stand out in a switched test, making the decision process moot. They are different or not, and that is usually the criteria for such a test. Looking for what one prefers requires the use of a MOS test and is a totally different subject matter.

    Music is a very insensitive program source for identifying differences because it is dynamic and constantly changing. Audible memory fades quickly. Audibility DBTs for use in psychometrics were designed to be used with test tones, noise artifacts and distortion products where they are very sensitive because the sounds are constant. Even pink noise is more sensitive than music, but is limited in its usefullness.
    Music is fairly close to noise as a model and therefore can generally be used as a testing source where noise would be used. No big deal. One just has to understand it's limitations. This argument is only valid to those who don't understand that these limitations are already well known in the scientific community.

    One of the oustanding problems is that audiophiles wouldn't accept testing with tones, even though that's all music really is when you get down to it. The scientific community continues to bow to their pressure in order to appease them, which is impossible, they're hopelessly infected with Audio Nervana Nervosa.

    Mr. Kuller has done nothing except to spew hyperbole. He only understands enough to apease the audiophile in himself and the crowd he hangs with.

    Cables have been tested to death for decades and no one, but no one has been able to find any property that doesn't boil down to L-C-R. Period. This is all very easily predicted by math(oh damn, a science) and so far, no one has proven any of the theories wrong on this. There have been some refinements along the way, but when you get right down to it, the basic formula, or theory if you will, still holds true. Therefore, the selling of cable and/or wire as a needed "sonic upgrade" in one's system is nothing more than psychology. The making of a passive component somehow active against all known physics. Of course, audiophiles reject this notion as easily as they do any test that shows the folly of their supposed wisdom. Heaven forbid that the audiophile community ever accepts that machine testing is orders of magnitude beyond our hearing capability when it comes to measurement of minute differences among components.

    If audiphiles were really serious about the truth, they would be beating down the doors of the cables companies to perform tests run by an independant laboratory and freely publish the results. Why won't the cable companies do this voluntarily, because their three-ring marketing manuevers would be exposed for what they are, a circus of psychological manipulation designed to spur impulse buying.

    rant mode off

    -Bruce

  7. #57
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    The same thing with your esteemed Mr. Kuller. He fits a hypothesis to meet his needs. You take it as gospel. His words aren't proven nor do they, in fact, make sense to somebody a little more versed in science.

    As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?
    Which does point out that E-Stat indeed has something to prove against his own words.

    -Bruce

  8. #58
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Cables have been tested to death for decades and no one, but no one has been able to find any property that doesn't boil down to L-C-R. Period.
    Except of course for shielding and noise rejection. Speaking of which, what metric quantifies the shielding characteristics of say Belden 19364 SJT cord or 89259 coax? I just reviewed the specification sheet for each and could not locate any. What did I overlook?

    rw

  9. #59
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    You still aren't getting what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that all cables are the same. I AM saying that sighted testing is garbage. There's not been a single piece of evidence presented here that would make a sane man believe that sighted testing is better than blind testing.

    So let me repeat that for you: My problem with yeasayers is that they believe that sighted testing is equivalent or better than blind testing for audio purposes. I contend that it is not and would challenge anybody to prove otherwise. I am a very open minded guy. I changed my mind about cables once; there's no reason why I wouldn't again if presented with compelling evidence.
    I understand perfectly - I just don't agree. As for proof, I don't need any and as a result I'm not inclined to go through the necessary gyrations to provide it. My problem with naysayers is that they all ask for proof, yet provide none. I know, I know - it's up to the claimant to prove a claim. So why not prove that blind testing is best? Quotes won't do, speculation won't do. Proof is what is required. But my argument goes in another direction, too. I am also not inclined to sit down and test each and every sensory perception I have simply because someone else doesn't like my conclusions. Where would it end? Sorry but if you're going to change your mind about cables, you'll have to do it on your own.

  10. #60
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    Is that a point for the blind testing naysayers out here?
    A point? If you like, I'll give you a gold star!

    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    BTW, congrats on the new speakers. I'm sure that they'll make a difference.
    Have you heard either electrostat yourself?

    rw

  11. #61
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    So why not prove that blind testing is best? Quotes won't do, speculation won't do. Proof is what is required.
    What???!!!! Every proof in the world has shown that blind testing is the methodology of choice for human studies. I can't think of one study that's been done in the last 100 years that uses sighted testing as its methodology(unless it's been to prove that sighted testing is garbage). What more do you want? The argument by audiophiles is that hearing and enjoyment of music is some type of special sensory brain function that blind testing cannot accurately compare. What proof has there been for this hypothesis? The simpleton mouthings of an audio reviewer is all that I've seen as well as the conspiracy of wire enthusiasts. I'm sorry but the burden of proof for this hypothesis remains squarely on the shoulders of those who believe sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing. I contend that it is not and once again would ask anybody to provide evidence to the contrary.

  12. #62
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    A point? If you like, I'll give you a gold star!


    Have you heard either electrostat yourself?

    rw
    I actually haven't gone speaker auditioning in a while. I'm not sure if any of the local stores would carry such an upscale model in stock. As an example, the most expensive speakers that I heard were Tannoy Churchills that were going on a nation wide tour of dealers. The highest model of Tannoy that this dealer normally carries is the Dimension series. Admittedly, I haven't looked in a while.

  13. #63
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    I actually haven't gone speaker auditioning in a while. I'm not sure if any of the local stores would carry such an upscale model in stock. ...Admittedly, I haven't looked in a while.
    That's cool. Just wondered how you were sure I had made a good decision given my weakness for trusting my ears! I happen to think the Sound Labs Ultimates are downright awesome.

    rw

  14. #64
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    What more do you want?.
    Absolute proof that blind testing is the only way to reliably discern differences among audio components. I'm not talking about drug testing. I want proof that DBT's are sufficient to allow the subtleties of cables to pass through. I want proof that NO ONE has been able to tell one cable from another under blind test. I want proof of your entire POV. You ask for proof? It's hard to be motivated because you're asking for something you haven't provided. I personally don't feel the need to prove everything such as my own sensory perceptions. I have too many and it would take too long and there's too much good music out there to listen to and other things to do. If you want proof and you have the time, be my guest and attempt to prove it. You made the claim the blind testing is the best way to test differences in audio gear. Can you back up that claim with proof? Specific proof ONLY related to audio gear, please.

    Ok, back to reason. I hope you know that I don't expect you to go through all that. I also hope you know that I don't intend to, either. But if doing so is your inclination, have at it. I'll be happy to review any "proof" you have.

  15. #65
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    ...my weakness for trusting my ears! rw
    As far as I've been able to tell so far, it's ok to trust your ears as long as someone somewhere has passed a blind test on the type of component you're trusting your ears on, i.e speakers. Blind tests rule. In fact, even when they can't hear a difference between two cables, they'd buy a specific one if it was picked out in a blind test, so I read in this forum. In other words, the buying decision is made with someone else's ears. And they find our POV unreliable??!!??!

  16. #66
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Ok, back to reason. I hope you know that I don't expect you to go through all that. I also hope you know that I don't intend to, either. But if doing so is your inclination, have at it. I'll be happy to review any "proof" you have.
    As you've indicated here, you are not interested in getting to the heart of the matter. You are interested in keeping your head in the sand. Every proof that has been laid out over the last century regarding human studies indicates that blind testing is the methodology of choice. The fallibility of human senses in sighted testing has been proven over and over and over again.

    As you are also aware, there are very few absolutes in science. You can't say with absolute conviction that something isn't possible because you haven't tested all the different possibilities. You can say with absolute conviction, though, that something is 99.99999% certain. Given the evidence presented in the literature, I would contend that hearing is no different than any of the other senses, and hence requires blind testing to accurately measure.

  17. #67
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    That's cool. Just wondered how you were sure I had made a good decision given my weakness for trusting my ears! I happen to think the Sound Labs Ultimates are downright awesome.

    rw
    Well, nobody is claiming that all speakers sound the same. You would normally be able to pick out in a blind test which speaker you prefer.

  18. #68
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    [QUOTE=magictooth]As you've indicated here, you are not interested in getting to the heart of the matter. You are interested in keeping your head in the sand.

    Well, if that's how you see it, I have no problem with that. I have a lot more things to worry about than saving the newbie from the Evil Wire Gods. You, on the other hand, seem quite passionate about it. Yet, I've seen no proof from you, just a lot of speculation. Sorry, I'm just not interested in proving your claim for you.

  19. #69
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    As far as I've been able to tell so far, it's ok to trust your ears as long as someone somewhere has passed a blind test on the type of component you're trusting your ears on, i.e speakers. Blind tests rule. In fact, even when they can't hear a difference between two cables, they'd buy a specific one if it was picked out in a blind test, so I read in this forum. In other words, the buying decision is made with someone else's ears. And they find our POV unreliable??!!??!
    Sorry, but you are giving in to your excessive need for hyperbole and you are misinterpreting what I wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    Yes, I would buy from that company. If a company could prove to me that their cables made a difference, then why wouldn't I buy it? It just happens that there's no company that has shown any kind of evidence that there are differences.
    I should perhaps been clearer in that I haven't tried all sorts of cables (van den hul, Nordost, Maple Audio and a couple other high end are all that I've listened to in addition to custom made and cheaper brands). If a company could show that their particular cables made a difference in a credible scientific way, then I would certainly buy them at least to try and make my own judgments. It's the same with any other component - I'm willing to try it, but not all components are going to be pleasing to everybody. It just so happens that there isn't a cable company who has shown the least inclination to try and prove that their product works.

  20. #70
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    [QUOTE=musicoverall]
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    As you've indicated here, you are not interested in getting to the heart of the matter. You are interested in keeping your head in the sand.

    Well, if that's how you see it, I have no problem with that. I have a lot more things to worry about than saving the newbie from the Evil Wire Gods. You, on the other hand, seem quite passionate about it. Yet, I've seen no proof from you, just a lot of speculation. Sorry, I'm just not interested in proving your claim for you.
    No, it's you who doesn't get it. The roles are reversed. I have the proof, you have the speculation (from no less authority than an audio reviewer). Like I said before, the burden of proof lies with cable companies to prove that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing for their product only. Their unwillingness to do so stems either from 1) the fact that they want to keep a certain segment of the population in the dark or from 2)that they are unable to design a test that would show their products in a positive light.

  21. #71
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    No, it's you who doesn't get it. The roles are reversed. I have the proof, you have the speculation (from no less authority than an audio reviewer). Like I said before, the burden of proof lies with cable companies to prove that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing for their product only. Their unwillingness to do so stems either from 1) the fact that they want to keep a certain segment of the population in the dark or from 2)that they are unable to design a test that would show their products in a positive light.
    Or 3) they see no need to waste the money to try to prove anything to a group of naysayers. Are you so naive that you think a cable company's test is going to satisfy the objectivist crowd? Hell, they'd have to spend more money and repeat it ad nauseum. And where are your studies to show what their ROI would be? Why do you think it would be worth their time? These companies have already given you up for lost! They don't want or need you back! I honestly think that no proof is going to satisfy you (speaking as a group). Your science is your religion and you'll go to great lengths to protect it - and you don't mind using someone else's money!

    The cable companies apparently see no such burden of proof as that which you've placed on them. If you can convince them to do so, I salute you. You certainly haven't convinced me.

  22. #72
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Or 3) they see no need to waste the money to try to prove anything to a group of naysayers. Are you so naive that you think a cable company's test is going to satisfy the objectivist crowd? Hell, they'd have to spend more money and repeat it ad nauseum. And where are your studies to show what their ROI would be? Why do you think it would be worth their time? These companies have already given you up for lost! They don't want or need you back! I honestly think that no proof is going to satisfy you (speaking as a group). Your science is your religion and you'll go to great lengths to protect it - and you don't mind using someone else's money!

    The cable companies apparently see no such burden of proof as that which you've placed on them. If you can convince them to do so, I salute you. You certainly haven't convinced me.
    LOL, like I said before, anything is possible - it's just not probable. #3 reason is extremely far fetched. If they could show any meaningful evidence of the truth of their products, they would have done so long ago. There is no business in the world that wouldn't want further product penetration. It's just that their ROI, given the current state of testing, isn't going to be good. The nature of R&D in any reputable group of companies is to spend money to improve the product. R&D is also there to prove that their product actually does what the company says that it does.

  23. #73
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    #3 reason is extremely far fetched. If they could show any meaningful evidence of the truth of their products, they would have done so long ago. There is no business in the world that wouldn't want further product penetration.
    Not far fetched at all. As I pointed out some time ago (and referenced to you in post #33), you would be hard pressed to find ANY manufacturer of ANY audio component who "proves" their advertising claims with scientific studies. Why?

    A. Such testing is expensive to conduct
    B. Most folks couldn't care less as to the outcome of statistical studies (admittedly, you are among those who do. I had to chuckle with musicoverall's observation that you would buy a given cable if other folks "proved" it to be better)
    C. Buyers of high end gear evaluate performance in their own systems

    rw

  24. #74
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Not far fetched at all. As I pointed out some time ago (and referenced to you in post #33), you would be hard pressed to find ANY manufacturer of ANY audio component who "proves" their advertising claims with scientific studies. Why?

    A. Such testing is expensive to conduct
    B. Most folks couldn't care less as to the outcome of statistical studies (admittedly, you are among those who do. I had to chuckle with musicoverall's observation that you would buy a given cable if other folks "proved" it to be better)
    C. Buyers of high end gear evaluate performance in their own systems

    rw
    It is far fetched. As for any manufacture of any audio component proving anything, you just need to look at specs that most manufacturers put out. Take speakers for example, is it a coincidence that the ratings are usually given as +/-3db? The limits of audibility have been shown to be approximately +/-3db for most normal people. How about THD? The specs given by speaker, amp, and other manufacturers are generally given below what a normal human being would consider objectionable THD. The proof is there if you look for it. It isn't there for cables.

    As for you points:

    A. This is incorrect. A scientifically correct study need not be expensive. I would agree that it would be expensive if the results received showed your product did nothing beneficial - in which case sales should go down.
    B. I've also found most people wish to remain ignorant about the hows and wherefores of how a conclusion was reached. I doubt that many people have ever read about the Phase III clinical trials of xxx drug, but it is important nonetheless that these trials have been conducted.
    C. Sure, under sighted, biased conditions. If the differences are so marked as has been claimed, then a blind test should yield the same results. I'm sure that you would be able to pass your blind test comparing a set of Sound Lab U1 to Bose Jewel Cube quite easily.

  25. #75
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    It is far fetched. As for any manufacture of any audio component proving anything, you just need to look at specs that most manufacturers put out.
    The manufacturer of my cables publishes all their specifications. So? You seem to assume that specifications really convey meaningful knowledge as opposed to simply information. My experience is that by and large they do not. For any component.

    Take five speakers with similar +-3db responses from x to y and you will find five completely different sounding products.

    rw

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Denon, Yamaha or Marantz Receiver
    By spricajder in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 03:45 PM
  2. Testing and the Scientific Method
    By pctower in forum Cables
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 06-01-2004, 12:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •