Another tack, the American Idol analogy...

[Monstrous Mike]

This is something that struck me as I (shamelessly) watched American Idol. I simply cannot believe the number of people who actually think they can sing.

There are guys who sing in monotone and girls who think yelling out the words is singing. It is really quite embarrassing for those people. You may or may not like Simon or the others but they are being honest to people and frankly most of them are wasting the judges time (although this is what is entertaining to me).

So it makes me wonder that if there are so many people, ie. a very large majority, who can't even recognize a note, how are people able to compare cables or any audio equipement for that matter?

I think we should all pause and reflect when somebody we don't know gives a subjective evaluation about the sound of something. Even when questioned about it, like the American Idol wannabes who can't sing, people say they are undeniably correct in their assessment.

We all reserve the right to like or dislike somebody's voice or somebody's stereo system, but there are certain truths, like whether a note was hit or missed, that are objective, undeniable, measureable and stand up to scientific scrutiny.

People can say they like Joe Somebody's voice but I can always say that it wasn't in key and I can prove it.

This has been Monstrous Mike's Cable Analogy Number 42....

[pctower]

Well, here's one comment from a subjectivist, having little to do I suspect with the point you are trying to illustrate.

I was at a fund-raiser on Sunday where a local 25-year old girl was singing. She had been eliminated very early in her AI quest. Her voice was exquisite and she handled old songs from the '40s with amazing heart, soul and finesse.

I suspect that there are many like her who never even get a chance, while many mediocre performers make it on to TV show. Perhaps that is intentional. Maybe the mediocre performers are a key ingredient to AI's appeal.

[bturk667]

When you said:" I think we should all pause and reflect when somebody we don't know gives a subjective evaluation about the sound of something.", why? It is a subjective observation not an objective one. What I think we should be leary of are those who have never done any testing, subjective or objective, yet act like they no what they are talking about simply because they read the particular subject being discussed.

You know who you are, don't you?

All the proof I need when it comes to the sound of my system, including my choice of cables, are my two ears, period! Thank you very much! For those who would rather trust a bench test, or a scientist, so be it, different strokes for different folks. In the end, all that matters is that we like the way our system sound. How we get to that point, well, that's were the fun lies, at least for me.

So, for those who think cables are nothing more than marketing gimicks, a bunch of BULL$HIT, cool. Me and my ears think differently, weather you think so or not. Because I for one could care less! So enjoy your systems, for I surely will continue to enjoy mine, cables and all!

[E-Stat]

So it makes me wonder that if there are so many people, ie. a very large majority, who can't even recognize a note, how are people able to compare cables or any audio equipement for that matter?

You may be surprised that I agree with you here. Your observation can be equally applied to those who participate in "scientific" tests as well. The problem I have with the popular "Russell" link that purports to be definitive here is a complete and utter lack of any sort of testing details. Nothing as to what equipment was used. Nothing as to who participated. Nothing as to what music was used (if at all). Nothing as to the familiarity of that material to those tested. Statistics and testing are only valid within the boundaries of their data. Recently, mytry kindly provided a link back to one of his posts that listed the DBT evidence. I read all of those that were available via the net. Of them, only one likewise gave any notion of such information.

http://www.tagmclaren.com/members/news/news77.asp

When you look at the specifics, however, the cables being compared were McLaren's own cables (ICs that cost about $300) and some midrange Nordost cables. Ok. Does that prove that there is no difference between either company's best efforts and some freebie ones (as is commonly asserted here)? NO. As for McLaren's overall view on cables, directionality, breakin, etc., follow this link:

http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com/dev/white/wp8.asp

One of the regulars here and at AA has posted several rather surprising (at least to me) comments regarding double blind testing methodology. He believes that the participants do not need any training (like perhaps an American Idol reject?), the material used for testing must both be simple and unfamiliar to the participant, and that the quality of the audio equipment is irrelevant because it is of "minimal impact". That begs the question as to what the objective of the test may be. If you're not familiar with the Russell link, here it is. My favorite listing is the one shockingly titled Stereo Review Dares to Tell the Truth (1983).

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire.htm

rw

[skeptic]

I simply cannot believe the number of people who actually think they can sing.

Even sadder are the number of people who agree with them. Small wonder then that the civilized world has entered a state of musical near illiteracy. I call it part of the process of the DUMBING DOWN OF SOCIETY.

[Monstrous Mike]

Even sadder are the number of people who agree with them. Small wonder then that the civilized world has entered a state of musical near illiteracy. I call it part of the process of the DUMBING DOWN OF SOCIETY.

Your moniker appears suited to you very well and I do agree that it appears that "instant gratification" is replacing "lasting appreciation" as a way of satisfying ones self.

[Rockwell]

I call it part of the process of the DUMBING DOWN OF SOCIETY.

To illustrate the effect, even the name of the process has redundancy built into it.

[mtrycraft]

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire.htm

rw

Oh, that Russell link. His findings has yet to be refuted under DBT conditions.
You don't have to like his tests. His finding is consistent with reality of unbiased listening. Live with it.
However, the world is still waiting for your evidence for differences in cables.

[E-Stat]

Oh, that Russell link. His findings has yet to be refuted under DBT conditions.

Read the link again. Russell has no findings. He reports the findings of others. My point is that those referenced tests are devoid of any substantiation. As for the Stereo Review test, I have no doubt that there were no audible differences detected between 12 gauge Monster zip, 16 gauge zip, and 24 gauge zip in 30 foot lengths on some mid-fi receiver back in 1983.

rw

[skeptic]

Personally I preferred The Gong Show.

[sofsoldier]

Yes there are a number of individuals who think they can sing, but it is the "experts" that are doing the judging. Somewhere and somehow, someone lied to those individuals in believing they can actually sing. There are a few reasons for this:

biased - i.e. its a beautiful, well put together woman (or man) that the listener is so focused on looks they forget the sound

sympathy - perhaps a family member?

lack of taste and good judgment - the listener might not know good singing if it jumped up and bit them in the.....well you get it.

Of course, they could have simply sung to themselves and they believed they sounded just fine.