"The Truth in Audio" -- according to www.commonsenseaudio.com

[woodman]

[/i]The promotion and promulgation of false information is indeed disconcerting. How do you know the varying sounds of cables is false information?

Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.

The human mind most likely can be tricked. So you're suggesting that it's tricked each and every time on every single individual??? That is too outrageous. What you're asking me to believe is that no one can ever trust their own senses.

Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.

I do not and cannot suggest that cable sonics are true for every individual. I can only report what I hear, personally.

Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?

As for blind testing, let me just ask you a few questions. Do you perform blind tests on peanut butters?

No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!

[musicoverall]

Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.



Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.



Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?



No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!

As usual, your post makes a lot of sense - a LOT of sense. However, if I might...

I pulled out one of my CD's without looking at it, one of the new CD's I just bought. I'm quite certain it's David Shea, a "new music" (classical, I guess) composer. My hearing tells me it is indeed Mr Shea. In fact, I'm so comfortable with that fact that I don't even need to look at the jewel case. But I will anyway... lo and behold, it IS David Shea!!!!! My senses score again! No blind tests needed.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that cables will enrich your life and fill you with joy. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything!!!! All I can say is that different cables sound different to me... not all of them, but some of them. To my ears - mine alone. If that makes it an illusion... well... it's an "illusion" that makes me just as happy as Skippy peanut butter, Diet Pepsi and the smell of leaves in the fall, all perhaps illusions as well.

So now that leaves me with just one question... how good of a shot are you with that shotgun???

[magictooth]

As usual, your post makes a lot of sense - a LOT of sense. However, if I might...

I pulled out one of my CD's without looking at it, one of the new CD's I just bought. I'm quite certain it's David Shea, a "new music" (classical, I guess) composer. My hearing tells me it is indeed Mr Shea. In fact, I'm so comfortable with that fact that I don't even need to look at the jewel case. But I will anyway... lo and behold, it IS David Shea!!!!! My senses score again! No blind tests needed.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that cables will enrich your life and fill you with joy. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything!!!! All I can say is that different cables sound different to me... not all of them, but some of them. To my ears - mine alone. If that makes it an illusion... well... it's an "illusion" that makes me just as happy as Skippy peanut butter, Diet Pepsi and the smell of leaves in the fall, all perhaps illusions as well.

So now that leaves me with just one question... how good of a shot are you with that shotgun???

Your example is not even remotely representative of what cable yeasayers have to say. Your example is somewhat akin to saying yeah, the trumpet sure sounded different than the violin that time. I don't think that you're getting the point that the naysayers are trying to make. It is NOT the cables that are making the difference, but only YOUR OWN sighted bias that is making you think there is a difference.

If you are happy with your illusions, then you should present in your posts caveats to the reader. The way most yeasayers post presents their findings as fact instead of as anecdotal evidence. There is a huge difference between the two. If you were to put in huge bold letters such as

The following is a conceited, trite, and all but useless anecdote from my own personal experiences

or

I'm too lazy to take a couple minutes out of my life to do proper blind testing because I'm so perfect that I don't need to follow minimal scientific method, but here I present to you as FACT my findings....

, then I will for sure be happy leaving you with your illusions. If you don't do that, then you will find naysayer who get angered at the spread of misinformation and lies. As woodman so eloquently put it, if somebody were trying to pawn off to me peanut butter that cost $200 a jar instead of $2.99, then for damn sure I'd want to do some blind testing to determine whether there's a difference.

[musicoverall]

Your example is not even remotely representative of what cable yeasayers have to say. Your example is somewhat akin to saying yeah, the trumpet sure sounded different than the violin that time. I don't think that you're getting the point that the naysayers are trying to make. It is NOT the cables that are making the difference, but only YOUR OWN sighted bias that is making you think there is a difference.

If you are happy with your illusions, then you should present in your posts caveats to the reader. The way most yeasayers post presents their findings as fact instead of as anecdotal evidence. There is a huge difference between the two. If you were to put in huge bold letters such as

The following is a conceited, trite, and all but useless anecdote from my own personal experiences

or

I'm too lazy to take a couple minutes out of my life to do proper blind testing because I'm so perfect that I don't need to follow minimal scientific method, but here I present to you as FACT my findings....

, then I will for sure be happy leaving you with your illusions. If you don't do that, then you will find naysayer who get angered at the spread of misinformation and lies. As woodman so eloquently put it, if somebody were trying to pawn off to me peanut butter that cost $200 a jar instead of $2.99, then for damn sure I'd want to do some blind testing to determine whether there's a difference.

Well, I'm sorry if I've angered the naysayers! So I will adopt something to add to my posts that I read from E-Stat - YMMV, which I'm told stands for Your Mileage May Vary, which further means that in my system, those particular cables made me believe I heard this and that but you may not. And since my experiences are indeed anecdotal, I shall now remand them to the Cable forum, where they belong. Thanks to all for the interesting information; it's certainly something to ponder. Now I'm off to shovel snow! Or... am I??? I hate shoveling snow so I do hope it isn't another of my blasted illusions!

[markw]

Now I'm off to shovel snow! Or... am I???

...but from what I've been reading, it ain't snow.

[musicoverall]

...but from what I've been reading, it ain't snow.

Could very well be. When someone places something that needs shoveling on my doorstep, I usually shovel it to make it go away!

[Monstrous Mike]

My hearing tells me it is indeed Mr Shea.

No, it is your brain telling you that it is Mr. Shea. Your hearing is only an objective instrument that takes information from the outside world and passes it to your brain for processing.

And the brain is such a complex machine that it can actually discard objective information from the ear or even add information that is not there during its processing. And you would have to be a robot to be able to control this. This is the exact reason that the medical community tests its new drugs and procedures by concealing from the participants what exactly it is that they are taking.

[risabet]

Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.



Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.



Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?



No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!

Point 1. No one! Unless you have read all of the related literature on this topic you don't know that no one has been able to demonstrate the premise. The subtlety of cable differences may be trivial to you but many of us find just those subtleties to be at the heart of music reproduction.

Point 2. True enough, as far as this goes, we have all seen example of optical illusions, but how many of us have had taste illusions etc.

Point 3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only a handful of people have a deep understanding of Einstein's Relativity equations but they describe the world pretty well. Because only a small minority understand them would you indict the equations?

The problem with absolute statements is that our experience is limited in both time and space, thus we can not justify making comments that are opinions sound like facts. Ours is a subjective hobby.

[woodman]

Point 1. No one! Unless you have read all of the related literature on this topic you don't know that no one has been able to demonstrate the premise. The subtlety of cable differences may be trivial to you but many of us find just those subtleties to be at the heart of music reproduction.

Everybody knows this to be a fact (except of course those that are plagued with a severe case of terminal denial). If someone were ever successful at "the test", you better believe that the whole world would be summarily informed of the fact ... at least everyone that has ever expressed more than a passing interest in audio, that is.

Point 2. True enough, as far as this goes, we have all seen example of optical illusions, but how many of us have had taste illusions etc.

All of us! We experience sensory perceptions - with any of our 5 senses that are not quite "real" every day of the week! Whatever gave you the idea that our eyes were the only sensory organs that are subject to trickery and deception? Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you - it has no bearing on the truth of it. For instance, I myself have many taste illusions which result in my not eating certain foods ... ever! This phenomenon is not the result of my taste buds being different from everyone elses ... it results from Attitudes and Beliefs about those specific foods that I hold. I don't know where these As and Bs came from, but I know that they are responsible for the distaste that I would experience should any of of those foods find their way into my mouth. If these foods were actually that foul tasting, no one else would be able to eat them either.

Point 3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only a handful of people have a deep understanding of Einstein's Relativity equations but they describe the world pretty well. Because only a small minority understand them would you indict the equations?

You're mixing up apples and elephants here ... we're discussing sensory perceptions - not esoteric science theorems. You try to work ol' Albert Einstein into the equation with the point that few people really understand his "theory" and try to make an analogy between that and the fact that very few people are able to hear the sonic properties of different cables. That simply doesn't fly ... hell, it doesn't even get off the ground. Also, you conveniently failed to comment regarding my final sentence which made the significant point that those that claim to "hear" all sorts of things when "sighted", suddenly lose their magical hearing abilities once the blinders are put in place. Why not? I contend that there simply is no answer to that one other than the oh so obvious one ... that those who "trust their ears" implicitly cannot trust them unless the ears "know" what they're listening to!

[theaudiohobby]

that those who "trust their ears" implicitly cannot trust them unless the ears "know" what they're listening to!

That's a good 'un.

[musicoverall]

not[/u] the result of my taste buds being different from everyone elses ... it results from Attitudes and Beliefs about those specific foods that I hold. I don't know where these As and Bs came from, but I know that they are responsible for the distaste that I would experience should any of of those foods find their way into my mouth. If these foods were actually that foul tasting, no one else would be able to eat them either.[/b]]

Hmmm... I wonder about this. I hated liver as a kid and my mother of course made me eat it. So far, your theory holds. But I ate some recently without knowing what it was... it had bacon wrapped around it and I thought it was sausage. Bleah!

Is it attitudes and beliefs or simply a different chemical balance that makes food taste good or bad to us? Whatever... the liver is all yours!

[Monstrous Mike]

Is it attitudes and beliefs or simply a different chemical balance that makes food taste good or bad to us? Whatever... the liver is all yours!

I would have to say that attitudes, beliefs, prior knowledge, etc. have a profound effect on our ability to enjoy food. A great chef can take a simple dish yet present it in a way that will have you expecting a very tasty meal. You can eat the exact same thing without the presentation and it will not taste as good. I believe your tastes also change with things like the mood you are in, the environment or atmosphere, etc. For example, when I go whitewater canoing, a simple steak and potato cooked over the fire is like heaven.

And think of all the foods that disgust you just by their name: bull testicles, chocolate covered roaches, liver, etc.

There are obviously some chemicals or tastes that will taste bad regardless of how they are dressed up, but I think true taste testing would need to be blind so that only the sense of taste is working and not preconceived notions.

[woodman]

I would have to say that attitudes, beliefs, prior knowledge, etc. have a profound effect on our ability to enjoy food.

That's precisely what I've been trying to get across to those diehards who insist that "I hear what I hear" and that knowing what they're listening to has nothing to do with it.

... but I think true taste testing would need to be blind so that only the sense of taste is working and not preconceived notions.

Precisely, Mike. Preconceived notions (even those that are buried deep in the subconscious) will have an effect on every sensory perception that we experience from our eyes, our ears, our nose, our taste-buds, and our fingers. No one - no matter how vehemently they might try to deny it - is immune from this "fact of life".

Thanks for your backup, Mike.

[woodman]

I would have to say that attitudes, beliefs, prior knowledge, etc. have a profound effect on our ability to enjoy food.

There are obviously some chemicals or tastes that will taste bad regardless of how they are dressed up, but I think true taste testing would need to be blind so that only the sense of taste is working and not preconceived notions.

Although you and I are essentially "on the same page", I must disagree with the first part of this last paragraph. The contradiction to " ... some tastes will taste bad regardless" is refuted by what happens in a "stage hypnotist" performance when a hypnotized subject is handed a piece of chocolate and told that it's a piece of lemon - and probably the most bitter and tart lemon he's ever tasted. The subject will then put the chocolate in his mouth - his face will then contort into near terminal "puckering" - frowning and scowling - sometimes tears will even appear and roll down his cheeks! I've also seen it done the opposite way: the subject is handed a piece of lemon and told that it's the sweetest chocolate he's ever put into his mouth and guess what ... ? No puckering - no frowns - no tears - but a big smile from ear to ear. This phenomenon proved to me the validity of the fact that what goes on in our brains have everything to do with what our 5 senses "tell" us.

[risabet]

All of us! We experience sensory perceptions - with any of our 5 senses that are not quite "real" every day of the week! Whatever gave you the idea that our eyes were the only sensory organs that are subject to trickery and deception? Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you - it has no bearing on the truth of it. For instance, I myself have many taste illusions which result in my not eating certain foods ... ever! This phenomenon is not the result of my taste buds being different from everyone elses ... it results from Attitudes and Beliefs about those specific foods that I hold. I don't know where these As and Bs came from, but I know that they are responsible for the distaste that I would experience should any of of those foods find their way into my mouth. If these foods were actually that foul tasting, no one else would be able to eat them either.

Your tastebuds reflect the combination of genes that you inherited from your parents. Our attitudes and beliefs have no influence on whether or not we can taste PTC, phenylthiocarbamide, which taste bitter to some and has no taste to others (a simple recessive/dominant trait), or whether or not sodium benzoate taste sweet, salty, bitter, or tasteless. Peoples choices and preferences for foods, whether they like or dislike them, are determined by a combination of factors, primarily genetic combinations that you can't control and cultural factors that can be learned or unlearned. Biology 101

[kexodusc]

Your tastebuds reflect the combination of genes that you inherited from your parents. Our attitudes and beliefs have no influence on whether or not we can taste PTC, phenylthiocarbamide, which taste bitter to some and has no taste to others (a simple recessive/dominant trait), or whether or not sodium benzoate taste sweet, salty, bitter, or tasteless. Peoples choices and preferences for foods, whether they like or dislike them, are determined by a combination of factors, primarily genetic combinations that you can't control and cultural factors that can be learned or unlearned. Biology 101

Woodman's points stand, there is more than enough evidence about the validity of blind taste tests.
One has to look no further than the cola wars...Coca-Cola's own research on thousands of people determined that 7/10 people prefer Pepsi over Coke when taste is alone is the input. That was the fundamental driving force behind New Coke (still available in some States/Countries), which research suggested tastes even better, still.

Yet sighted tastes tests produce vastly different results.

I think this was more along the lines of what Woodman was getting at, other senses "interfere" with your perception of taste, and therefore can interfere with "the truth".

[Monstrous Mike]

... or whether or not taste sweet, salty, bitter, or tasteless.

You are right of course.

Now say I had two foods which were identical except one had sodium benzoate in it. I had both of them on a table marked A (sodium benzoate) and B (no sodium benzoate) and A had the sodium benzoate. I taste both of them and tell you that I can taste the sodium benzoate in A but not B. What value does my test have for you? What would your reaction be?

Well, it should be to make me redo the test, get a licensed tester, remove the markers, have the friend switch the plates around and do it several times. Then the tester can produce a score card. Now, if I picked A 19 times out of 20, you could say the test was positive. Now we could use other people of varying capabilities, we could change the amount of sodium benzoate in each dish, we could use different base foods, etc. Now that's SCIENCE 101.

I don't see any of that in audio so claims of cable sonics are right up there with claims I can tell Pepsi from Coke while holding a can of each in all their blue and red glory.