Is a cable "Fence-sitter" always a Fence-sitter?

[pctower]

I believe this subject need more exploring since there are few out there that fit that profile.

The extreme views on both side of cable debate seem to have created a phenomena knows as Fence sitters. A person who does not agree completely with yeasayer, nor with naysayers. Fence sitter-or better known as devil advocate-can take any side, and rally against the other depending on how the conversation or argument is going.

Now the question is what does it takes to pull them off the fence? Steve Eddy might be a good example of such a person (PCTower also, but with lesser degree). SE has been rallying against both sides for years, yet his position on the fence has remained the same. Will he be a fence sitter for ever?

Will PCTower be a fence sitter for ever

Tony:

I challenge you to point out where Steve or I have ever taken both sides of a substantive issue relating to cables. I'll let Steve speak for himself. As for me, I have spelled out a clear, precise, internally consistent position in far more detail than just about anyone. On the intellectual side my position demands strict, unwavering adherence to and compliance with scientific method - PERIOD - no if, ands or FENCES!

For my personal pleasure, I'll choose STRICTLY according to what brings me pleasure - PERIOD - no ifs, ands or FENCES!

It's just that people are intellectually lazy and they are looking for the "quick fix", which comes when you adopt the approach that Jon Risch has taken to heights never imagined by simply creating two opposing camps of naysayers and yeasayers and insisting on placing every last person on earth into one or the other.

SO COME ON TONY! THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO BE A HERO.

MAKE ME EAT HAY (OR MY LAW BOOKS - WHICHEVER YOU PREFER).

MAKE SKEPTIC'S DAY.

SHAME ME BEYOND RECOVERY.

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE EVER TAKEN BOTH SIDES OF A SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE DEALING WITH CABLES.

Oh yes. And while you're at it, please state every single claim you can think of relating to audio cables that you are willing to stand by and defend with solid scientific emprical evidence and sound reasoning.

And, since it's been a while, and to give you some fertile fields to romp around in finding my inconsistencies, here's a little of what I've posted in the past:

WAVEFORMS:

Just as the laws of nature (physics) govern how the cannonball and the feather will fall in a vacuum, the laws of nature (the laws that govern the physical universe) ultimately govern every process involved in the electronic reproduction of music including how we perceive that reproduction. Accordingly, at least theoretically, there is nothing involved in that process that should be beyond the ability of science to measure and explain.

Let’s take a look at what we are talking about here. I assume we all can agree that sound travels in waves, and that the electronic reproduction of sound is explained by the processes that occurs at the microphone where sound waves are translated into electronic signal, at the point where that signal is somehow stored, and later at the point where that signal (in the form of waveforms that can be measured) are retrieved to be amplified and sent on to the speaker, where a process occurs which is essentially the opposite of what occurred at the microphone.

Ideally the sound waves emitted by the speaker would be identical to those that hit the microphone. Of course, everyone recognizes that with our current technology that is not possible. However, at each stage from microphone to speaker we have the technology to measure alterations that occur to the waveform of the electronic signal from the point it enters the given stage to the point it leaves that same stage, including temporal relationships. Thus, with respect to cables, if we look at the waveform, including temporal relationships, both at the input and output of the cable and find no difference, then, assuming we have measured the waveform going in to the cable and waveform going out, including temporal relationships, to a point of sensitivity greater than what is known regarding the sensitivity of human hearing (which isn’t particularly good), and we see no measurable change caused by the cable, then I can see no way to conclude that the cable is affecting the wave form in its long journey from microphone to speaker.

Moreover, if we make those measurements on cable X and cable Y and neither shows any effect on the waveform, but in sighted auditions people claim they hear clear differences between the two cables, I can see no possible way that one could come to any other conclusion than that the differences are due to factors such as the attitude, beliefs and expectations of the people who perceive differences, rather than to anything the cables are actually doing or not doing to be responsible for such differences in perception. I would really like someone to explain how we could come to any other conclusion under such circumstances.

If the waveforms coming out of the speakers are identical as cable X and cable Y are switched in and out of the system, and assuming no other changes such as moving the speakers, then the waveforms hitting the listeners ear will not be changed by a switching of these two cables (because remember I am assuming the waveforms were shown in measurements to be identical using instruments capable of greater sensitivity than human hearing), and yet people claim to hear differences between cables X and cable Y, then the only explanation for such differences has to be what happens inside the heads of the listeners once the sound waves hit their ear drum.

So, the processes involved in electronic reproduction of music, and the laws of nature that govern these processes are well known. Moreover, from what I understand we have instruments that can measure the effect these processes have on the shape and temporal relationship of the waveforms as they travel from microphone to speaker and on to ear drum. If no change can be found in the waveforms as they are emitted by the speaker, or even as they come out of the cable, regardless of whether cable X or cable Y is used, then we either have to conclude that differences have been perceived by the listeners because of (A) the placebo effect, or (B) because of some supernatural force that has never been documented in anything other than audio cables.

Now of course, if the measurements were to show that switching cables X and Y in and out of the system did cause a difference in the signal coming out of each cable significant enough to ultimately cause a difference in the waveforms emitted by the speakers, then one could properly conclude that at least some of the differences perceived by the listeners between the two cables is due to an actual, measurable physical phenomenon occurring within the cable. However, to the best of my knowledge, such measured differences have never been made between two similar cables of similar length and gauge.

In short, the laws that govern the physical universe dictate both how the cannonball and the feather fall in a vacuum and how cables affect the waveforms. There is no room for subjectivity in any of this if the physical phenomenon going on between the input and output of the cables don’t show some effect on the waveforms and/or their temporal relationships that is significant enough to cause an actual audible effect. In such a case, the subjectivity, of necessity, becomes solely a factor of what happens once the ear drum sends the nerve signals on the way to the brain.

If anyone can show me where I am wrong in any of this, I’m all ears, so to speak.

LIMITATION OF SENSES

I’ve been using after-market cables for over 20 years. About 2 years ago, as I was in the process of making some major changes to my system and setting up a dedicated listening room, I auditioned at great length in my system in excess of 20 different brands of cables before I chose the combination of power cords, interconnects, speaker cables, digital cable and phono cable that works for me. However, all of my auditions were sighted and in light of what scientific research has shown as to how unreliable hearing and our other senses can be, there is no way I could claim, from a scientific viewpoint, that any of the cables actually were responsible for audible sonic differences. I am extremely happy with my choices, but I really don’t know what is truly responsible for my perceptions, and when I sit down to listen to music I don’t care nor even think about it.

However, from a purely scientific viewpoint, sighted auditions are completely unreliable because, as I said, there is a great deal of scientific research that shows how unreliable our senses can be and how easily they can be affected by attitudes, beliefs and expectations, as opposed to the actual stimuli our senses are attempting to detect and differentiate.

Our brains are far more complex than any machine, but our evolutionary history has caused our senses to excel in areas that were important to our survival as a race and be far less reliable in areas that were not essential to survival. Accordingly, there are distinct limitations to the sensitivity of our senses and there is an extremely complex process that occurs in the brain as it receives and interprets nerve signals from our sensory organs. These brain processing functions also developed primarily to enable and enhance our survivability, and these brain processing functions, while probably extremely good at those things required for survival, may very well be woefully inadequate in enabling us to distinguish between actual audible sonic differences and those perceptions resulting from our attitudes, beliefs and expectations.

I have lost the link, but a report was published several months ago in which psychologists were able to imprint in the memories of approximately one-third of the participants vivid memories of having seen Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. Well, we all know that Bugs Bunny never appears at Disneyland, and yet the implanted memories were as real to these people as any memory.

Our evolution has imbued our senses with marvelous capabilities, but it, as I say, has also resulted in some clear limitations both in sensitivity and how our brain processes nerve signals. Fortunately, our intellect has allowed us to analyze and understand much about how our senses and our brains interact and also to develop incredible technology to fill in the gaps where our senses and brain processing functions are unreliable.

It actually is a little sad to me when I see how many people seem to want to reject the understanding, knowledge and instruments for measurements that our intellect has blessed us with, simply because at times the conclusions to which all of these wonderful tools may lead are at variance with what our unaided, and often unreliable, senses and brain processing functions seem to be telling us at an experiential level.

With regard specifically to AudioQuest, I have never seen any scientific tests that demonstrate that any AudioQuest model differs sonically from any other model, or for that matter, from any other cable. Of course, I can say the same thing for ever other brand on the market, including the brands I shelled out good, hard money to buy. In no way am I suggesting you not enjoy your cables. I certainly enjoy my system, and for my personal purposes, I consider my cables to be an important part of my system. But that all has to do with personal choice and enjoyment. When it comes to a purely hard-nosed, scientific look at the subject of cables, I want to see actual, valid test results that demonstrate that any of the cables we audiophiles love to play with can actually be responsible for a true, audible sonic difference or improvement. So far I haven’t seen any such test results, but that, of course, in no way means that such valid test results don’t exist.

Your view seem to lead us to believe that objectivists have somehow managed to adjust the results of testing over the last 20 years.

My view in no way suggests that, and you know it. My main point with regards to cable DBTs is to ask those who claim that cable DBTs have repeatedly shown null results is to ask those who make such claims to direct my attention to those tests that have been conducted under circumstances that would pass muster in a college level science class, could be accepted for publication is a recognized science journal, or comport with the standards of a recognized science lab. That is the type of question that is routinely asked in court of those experts who express opinions based on the outcome of scientific testing. I would assume, based on numerous discussions I have had with scientists (including my nephew’s wife who is working on her PhD in physics at Lawrence Livermore through Berkley and who has already received several awards in her area of research) that scientists also routinely ask themselves.

In fact, several months ago I related a story here that she shared with me of how her team had lost almost 9 months worth of time by relying, at the insistence of senior scientists, upon published studies that were widely accepted as correct, only to find out that these studies were flat out wrong and led them down the wrong path. So even when people attempt to follow careful protocol (and I’m assuming here that the people that published those earlier studies weren’t intentionally trying to come up with the wrong result) it is certainly possible that invalid results can occur. I would assume that this is one reason why Carl Sagan, suggested the following tools for critical thinking (which I was directed to thanks to Monstrous Mike):

Tools for skeptical thinking by Carl Sagan
What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and -- especially important -- to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true.

Among the tools:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the "facts."

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight -- "authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses," has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.*

* NOTE: This is a problem that affects jury trials. Retrospective studies show that some jurors make up their minds very early -- perhaps during opening arguments -- and then retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions and reject the contrary evidence. The method of alternative working hypotheses is not running in their heads.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7. If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) -- not just most of them.

8. Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle -- an electron, say -- in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof?

10. You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

11. The reliance on carefully designed and controlled experiments is key, as I tried to stress earlier. We will not learn much from mere contemplation. It is tempting to rest content with the first candidate explanation we can think of. One is much better than none. But what happens if we can invent several? How do we decide among them? We don't. We let experiment do it.

A POST OF MINE AT PROPHEAD: In a response to one of my posts in the thread it cited above, Rod M, the owner of AA, made the following comment:

THE WORDS OF ROD M: I hear plenty of accusations, but what I don't see are the facts to back up the argument. You might disagree with Jon's position on some issues. Others might disagree as well. What I find intellectually dishonest is that while these other "scientists" poke holes in these theories, they fail completely in being real scientists. If they want to be taken seriously, then duplicate the experiment and publish the results. This is a beef that I have with all too many of these so called scientific discussions of products like Bybee. Everyone's got a pet theory, but no one is doing any valid scientific work on the subject. Conjecture and theory is not science. Yet, that does not stop plenty of them from claiming their opinion is scientifically justified. I'm tired of it.

MY RESPONSE TO ROD: In essence, what I hear Rod saying is that it is fine for people like Curl and Risch to propagate their own controversial theories, without any test data support whatsoever, but it is not acceptable for someone like Steve Eddy to point out that these theories have no empirical support, nor is it acceptable for Steve to point out that these theories fly in the face of well-established electronic principles, unless and until Steve makes some ill-defined, yet obligatory, trip to the lab to do some “testing”.

I must confess that I’m a little surprised at Rod’s response. I thought he knew better. However, it is obvious to me now that he fully supports Jon and his antics, and that the Cable Asylum and Tweaks Asylum (the two Jon moderates) will continue to serve as platforms for the dissemination of Jon’s own pet, unsubstantiated theories, and that any serious challenge to these theories, even if such challenges do not in any way violate the CA anti-DBT rule (something which Steve Eddy was always careful to avoid), will simply not be permitted.

Rod is correct when elsewhere he pointed out that there are many other boards at AA that Jon does not moderate. However, the Cable Asylum, in particular, is a high visibility board and I think it is unfortunate that there will be no limit placed upon Jon’s ability to use it as a propaganda base for his own purposes. Moreover, now that Rod has expressly shown his true colors in writing (at least for the first time that I’m aware of), I have concern even for the Prop Head forum that is suppose to be wide open. Even there, Curl has put a real damper on discussion, and although Curl occupies no official position at AA, it seems obvious to me now that Rod and the Bored will let him have full reign at stifling legitimate technical debates.

BTW, with regard to Rod’s comments about the challengers being required to “test” before speaking, I find it ironic that the only person I’m aware of who is reporting any serious efforts to test various theories relating to cables currently on the web is John Escallier, and yet neither Risch nor Curl will carry on a civil conversation with John E. That fact apparently doesn’t bother Rod.

One other point I would like to make. In the past I have been criticized on this board for attempting to explain what I believe the purpose of the CA anti-DBT rule to be – that being it is designed to enable the Cable Asylum to be a place that serves those audiophiles who wish to exchange their subjective opinions of cables without constant demands for “proof”. I still stand by what I have said about that rule in the past. However, I am coming to realize that if what I have described is really the purpose of the rule, then it seems to me the rule should also prohibit people like Jon from advancing controversial theories that simply beg for someone to point out that these theories are unverified from an empirical standpoint.

I say, let the subjectivists be free to share their experience free of interference at the Cable Asylum. But, if you are going to ban any discussion of empirical testing of theories or claims, then don’t permit the promulgation of untested theories on that forum. Rather, require that they be discussed at places like the Prop Head forum where legitimate questions can be raised about the empirical basis upon which any given theory may or may not be based.

BTW, I know I’m misusing the term “theory”. I really should be saying in this context “hypothesis”. Theory is just easier to type.

And finally, what perhaps bothers me most of all is that I would not be permitted to post the foregoing at the General Asylum or on any other mainstream AA board. The post would either be deleted, or more likely, banished to AA Siberia, either at the Whiner’s Woad, or even worst, the Outside board, whatever the hell that is. So I am relegated to making my point here at AR. As I said at the end of the Whiner’s Woad post, in the greater realm of things, I really don’t particularly care what they do at AA. I know it’s a private board and legally they are entitled to run it however they choose. But I am bothered by the anti-intellectual, anti-reason, anti-truth, anti-fair, book-burning mentality reflected by this incident all the other incidents leading up to it, and for that reason I felt compelled to set out my views over here.

SO COME ON TONY. HAVE AT ME.