taras22,
My goodness, firing the personal insults at full blast! Is this going continue to be your modus operandi? Maybe you don’t care, but whatever titillation comments like those may bring you, it makes it harder to take your posts seriously.
You made some claims to cd318 about "facts" and I believe I showed it would be a rush to judgement to just accept your anecdotes as establishing the "facts" you assert to be true.
Given your attitude is one of disparaging what I write, I presume the article you linked to is meant to act as some form of riposte to what I’ve been saying here.
I’ve read it before. And read it again tonight.
I’m left with this question:
What do you actually think that article establishes, and how is it relevant to what I’ve written?
|
taras22,
So your bluff was called. You sought to dazzle with a technical 23-year-old Stereophile article, the relevance of which to my points you can't be bothered to demonstrate. So all you have to fall back on is personal insults again. If your mission was to show you ought not be taken seriously, congratulations! Point made ;-)
|
cleeds, You are simply ignoring the relevant details I supplied in my replies. You’re being silly. The purpose of a drug trial is to test the efficacy of a treatment. It’s not to test the patient. I’d put the word "fail" in context when talking of scientific testing - a short form, used advisedly, to indicate negative results in a study. And as I said, scientists will indeed use that term, advisedly, when talking about clinical studies. (My son is in a clinical study now, and the study doctors use that term "failed" for studies and test subjects all the time). And you can find this language used for many clinical trials. I’d said:
Prof: "For instance study subjects in medical trials can be said to have "failed to respond to the control treatment," etc. "
Perhaps you will claim the FDA is "silly" when, in their guidelines for medical research, they use just such language: FDA: Selection of subjects for an active control trial can affect outcome; the population studied should be carefully considered in evaluating what the trial has shown. IF MANY SUBJECTS IN A TRIAL HAVE PREVIOUSLY FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE CONTROL TREATMENT, there would be a bias in favor of the new treatment. (My emphasis). https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm073139.pdf
You’re being silly. Of course you can test a subject’s hearing. You can also test a subject for fluency in Spanish, or calculus. But the topic of this thread is, "Do cables really matter?" To ascertain the answer, you test cables, not listeners.
But blind testing itself had come under fire, and you’d stated a more GENERALIZED claim about blind testing: "A listener can’t "fail" a listening test - that’s a common misnomer about scientific listening tests. A double-blind listening test doesn’t test the listener. It tests the devices under test." And I was just explaining how that is false, or at best misleading. Single and double-blind tests can and do test listeners - using "devices" to test the subjects. Alternatively, other types of tests can be oriented towards inferring conclusions about the devices themselves. So we need to be clear about what is being tested. Your reply muddied those waters. |
You’re playing word games, or perhaps you are just profoundly confused. No, cleeds, I’m being very specific about in what context in which the word "fail" can be, and is, used by researchers. So the FDA is also "profoundly confused?" when they used the very same language in the way I suggested it is used? You seem to be conveniently ignoring whatever undermines your claims. If you are conducting a scientific listening test to evaluate potential differences between cables, then you are testing the cables themselves, which are known as the "device(s) under test," or "DUT." You are not testing the listener.
If you want to test the listener himself, that’s a task for an audiologist . Again...that’s confused. No you don’t have to be an audiologist to test the listener himself. If someone claims he can identify when cable A is playing vs cable B, you don’t need to be an "audiologist" to test that claim. You can set up a good blind test and see if you are stuck with the null hypothesis, or if the person indeed demonstrates that ability. (And this applies to any number of audio related claims that don’t require audiologists). Such a test is just fine for testing an individual’s claim; it’s not fine for making more general inferences about the "audible difference between cable A and cable B." But the point is, as I’d already reiterated, that you’d made an unclear, generalized claim about the nature of scientifically testing listeners, and blind testing, which allowed the false impression that double blind tests don’t test listeners, they test the DUT. It merited clarification that blind tests can and do indeed test listeners, so we just have to be really specific about what our blind test is testing. Not that hard to admit, is it? |
^^^ Which invokes the old saw:
"If you can’t argue the facts, attack the messenger!"
|
taras22, So how is it that we can recognize voices that we haven’t heard for a
while, say even decades....and even on lowest common denominator
transducers like telephones, and in noisy environments where voice
articulation is several notches below ideal. How is the answer not obvious? The differences between voices are very large in terms of timbre, harmonic content, pitch, vocal characteristics, etc. We certainly can, obviously, remember gross audible differences as between voices.And those differences are large enough to recognize through lower fidelity transmission. But the more subtle a sonic difference, the harder it is to remember, which is why fast switching becomes ever more important. If we talked for a while, you would likely recognize my voice if I called you a week later. But if you listened to a song on my system at 70dB sound level, left for a week then returned to listen again, you would not be able to tell if I'd raised the volume by a couple db. That difference is far too small to keep distinct in your memory. You could have spent an entire week listening to the song at my place, but if you went a week between each "trial" to discern a couple dB level difference, we can expect you still wouldn't reliably identify the difference. But you likely WOULD reliably identify that subtle difference if you could quickly switch back and forth between one sound file at 70 dB and the same one tweaked to 72 dB. So if the differences are LARGE (especially multivariate), we can remember differences for longer. The more subtle the difference, the harder time retaining them in our memory. But...isn't that obvious?
So here is a thought, consider for moment that The Most Esteemed Mr Kait
is absolutely correct, and that there is something fundamentally wrong
about testing in the double bind manner. 'Cause, reality, you know, that
thingee that science is trying to map, is voicing, nay shouting, a much
different tune.
And everyone at your local Psychic Fair, or alternative healing convention, or anyone peddling pseudo-science, says the same thing. Congratulations on the company you are keeping ;-) |
cleeds, Quite so. The ear is rather insensitive to absolute level. But the ear/brain system is much more adept at detecting relative differences in level. That’s why the value of quick-switching is not nearly as great as prof’s argument suggests. Cleeds, I’m not following your point there. The above seems a non-sequitur. Quick switching is useful for detecting relative differences. That’s why it would be useful for detecting the subtle relative difference in volume that I described. So how does it follow that "the value of quick-switching is not nearly as great as prof’s argument suggests." ? I have been arguing that the more subtle the sonic difference between A and B, the more value quick-switching has for detecting those differences. (Remembering that as I said, quick switching is not necessarily confined to short bits of sound, but rather the ability to switch quickly from one source to the other). How exactly are you suggesting my argument is incorrect? Thanks! |
elizabeth, This may come as a shock, but what is "drivel" to you is not drivel to other people. Other people are not you, they have other interests and experience you may not have. You might want to consider that when asking to have "binned" a thread you personally don’t care for ;-) Which leads to the question of why you participate so much in a thread you dislike so much? Maybe it will also come as a shock that likely no one comes to a thread like this expecting the issue to be "settled" by this discussion. Why enter with such an unrealistic expectation? Another likely fact: the audience for a thread is usually far larger than the number of people posting in the thread. Not everyone may have read every other thread about the cable controversy, and may be finding newly stated points of view to think about. As far as wasting people’s time, you seem to be projecting your own boredom and lack of interest in this subject to others. You may as well be entering a discussion board about a sport you don’t follow to declare to everyone else "you are wasting your time discussing stuff that’s not interesting or changing anyone’s mind." I mean, it’s the weirdest thing to enter a subject that clearly interests other people to declare their own time has been wasted reading it. It’s interesting for many people to see a controversial subject debated, and to consider the merits of the arguments for each side. Someone may find his own position merited in the discussion, or may find "the other side" has actually made some decent points to consider. (And a number of people have stated they have enjoyed reading many of the posts in this thread). Some people may not have come to a firm conclusion on this subject, and not everyone is as close minded to not be moved at all by reasoned argument and/or evidence. Even you seemed to have started in this thread on a firmer position that cables make a difference, earlier stating:
elizabeth: I am totally in the audio cables can make a difference camp,
But now your posts have softened that position to: elizabeth: The title of this thread is:" DO CABLES REALLY MATTER? " and I am saying Maybe, So it seems odd that you castigate the idea of this thread as having no effect on anyone’s position, when your very own statements on cable differences have become more equivocal. Progress has been made ;-) Cheers, |
@calvinj
Elizabeth I understand all I see is. Lot of blah blah blah
I hope you won't mind answering these questions: What exactly where you expecting when you started this thread, if it's different than how the discussion turned out? What would count, to you, as being worthwhile, interesting discussion regarding the question "do cables really matter?" For instance, what should a cable skeptic talk about, that you WOULD find interesting? |
calvinj,
So, really, you just find the actual debate to be outside your interest. In other words, you are fundamentally incurious about the very subject you started a thread on.
That is just really odd.
(Of course it can also be explained by you just wanting to start a troll thread to diss people with a skeptical view rather than interact with their ideas...but I was trying to draw out something...anything...more promising than that from you. Ah well....).
|
And some of is have plenty of experience hearing super high end systems, and own highly resolving systems ourselves.
(Hope that wasn't too complicated) |
calvinj wrote: Anyway I don’t care about the debates. *creates thread: DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?* If your system is resolving and transparent. You will hear a difference
in cabling. Maybe you like it maybe you don’t but you will hear a
difference. I'm thinking calvinj at this point has automated his responses, set on "repeat," though the AI aspect is lacking as it doesn't seem to recognize and respond to previous human responses. ;-) |
calvinj,
My gear includes:
Thiel’s flagship 3.7 speakers (and also Thiel 2.7s).
MBL 121 Radialstrahler speakers
Sources: Raspberry Pi for music server streaming of ripped CDs/Tidal to Benchmark Dac 2L (and a Bechmar Dac1).
Transrotor Fat Bob S turntable, Benz Micro Ebony L cartridge.
Into Conrad Johnson Premier 16LS2 pre-amp.
Conrad Johnson Premier 12 140w/side tube monoblock amplifiers.
FYI: The Thiel 3.7s and MBL speakers are world class in terms of resolution (see any reviews of the 3.7 or MBLs - Jonathan Valin of TAS who reviews SOTA speakers has touted the MBL tweeter as among the world’s best for years - my MBLs use the same mids and tweeters as on their most eye-wateringly expensive systems).
As I’ve been wanting to downsize from the Thiel 3.7s a bit, I’ve kept an eye out for possible replacements for the last two years. Among the speakers I’ve auditioned Raidho, the latest Audio Physic, the newest Focal Kanta 2, the latest Paradigm Persona speakers that everyone is raving about for their beryllium drivers, newer Monitor Audio, Revel, the Magico A3, Joseph Audio etc. None have obviously shown up the Thiels or MBL in terms of resolution. When I get home from auditioning those speakers and play the same tracks on my system, I hear all the details I heard with those speakers...and usually those other speakers were auditioned with high end audiophile cables.
|
calvinj,
I am certainly not here to tell you or anyone you shouldn't enjoy buying and listening to whatever cables you like. Glad you are so enthusiastic about your set up.
I'm mostly representing the reasons why I don't apportion much of my mental energy and money to cabling. I have enough in this hobby I'm obsessive about as it is!
|
edgewear,
You are making a claim that others have made here: that it takes a really high resolution system for cable differences to become apparent.
1. But as I keep pointing out: People with "lower res" systems have been talking about and reporting differences between cables for ages. You can go to Amazon and find hundreds and hundreds of customer comments on speaker cables and interconnects there, many of these people clearly are not using super high end gear. In fact you can look up cables on amazon costing a mere 14 bucks, and find a hundred people commenting, many on how they clearly made a sonic difference in their system.
Now, if you really need a high resolution system and/or high end cables for the differences to really show, then that implies all these "bottom feeding" folks are imagining things. And if all those people can imagine they are hearing differences every time they buy new cables on their lower end systems, then it just implies the role of imagination in hearing cable differences, which is a problem for anyone, high res system or not.
But IF these people....and the great many over the years with modest systems...are really hearing sonic differences, then it puts the lie to the idea that you need a super high res system to hear them. (And that’s usually the first thing some audiophiles claim to cable skeptics - "you must not have a high resolution enough system!")
2. The scale, and character of audible differences audiophiles often attribute to changing cables are not "subtle" but are often declared as "so obvious, you’d have to be deaf not to hear it." With changes in all manner of sonic attributes. There is no reason to think such obvious differences require some Super Special system. Even a modestly priced, well designed speaker for instance can easily show you very subtle sonic differences (for instance, between one album master and another, even subtle remastering, etc).
|
cleeds is correct on the point about being able to scientifically quantify abilities such as "skill in listening."
Human variability is quantified all the time in the sciences, from variations concerning what people are good at, to what people like. All you have to do is first determine what it is you want to measure.
If you define "skilled listener" for the purposes of a test to be someone who can reliably detect subtle differences between A and B, then you can certainly set up a test that would select from a test group which subjects produce positive results.
|
calvinj, But you listening ear is your ear. No one can tell you what you don’t hear. Uh...yes they can. Ever had a hearing test? Why do you think we invent instruments to detect things our senses alone can not detect? Are you convinced all reality is entirely subjective, or something? |
No need to chase Teo’s usual phalanx of red herrings.
Instead of his usual throwing a bunch of confused sounding philosophy at a thread and hoping something sticks, or at least baffles someone, I’ll wait for the day Teo presents a cogent argument with a point, and actually defends it when critiqued. Then a conversation could be interesting. But knocking down those strawmen got old, fast.
|
cleeds,
Yes, I have had a hearing test. Have you? The tests I’ve been part of
don’t tell me what I hear at all. Rather, I have to tell the audiologist
what I hear. Without that feedback, the audiologist knows exactly
nothing about what I hear.
Obviously. That's inherent in a hearing test. What point do you think you are actually making, that undermines anything I wrote? If you take numerous hearing tests, and you reliably identify the presence of tones 16K and below, whereas above that your attempts routinely amount to random chance....do you think it's rational to claim to the audiologist: "I know I can detect tones above 16K and you can't tell me what I don't hear!" ?? And do you not think that after many years of science studying human hearing, comprising audiology tests of various sorts on a massive array of human beings, that it is not reasonable to set the *approximate* limits of human hearing in the upper range at 20kHz (with some exceptions)?And therefore that demarcations such as "ultrasound" end up being useful? There are always caveats. Most claims are provisional. Nothing is easy.There are many things we don't know. And on and on. The thing is, folks like yourself seem to keep thinking you are taking a pin to the balloon with comments like the one you've just made, but insofar as you are making any accurate statement, it's already incorporated as a caveat into what I've been arguing. So they are just red herrings. (btw, yes I've had numerous hearing tests, and have been fitted for "musicians earplugs" for many years. FWIW, my last test was several years ago and the audiologist said, with some astonishment in her voice, that she would have guessed she was looking at results for someone 15 years younger in terms of hearing. A result, I presume, of my having been in to hearing protection for a long time). |
|
