When you have 3 people sitting there listening to a system they have heard a number of times each in the past few years. All listen to the same 4-5 cuts using one set of cables, and then all listen to the same 4-5 cuts using the other set of cables. Each of them concludes in similar ways on what was improved, and it was transformational to the system. This was done with broken in cables that one or both of them brought over to hear. I had not bought anything yet, and really had no desire to do so, unless there was a significant difference in the sound and it took my system to a much more realistic sound. Being as all that happened, I then ordered the said cables from the distributer, or I bought them from one of my friends at a used price. Call it what you want, that is THE way to do listening tests and to possibly see if something is a vast improvement to your system IMO.
DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?
Yes they do. I’m not here to advocate for any particular brand but I’ve heard a lot and they do matter. High Fidelity reveal cables, Kubala Sosna Elation and Clarity Cable Natural. I’m having a listening session where all of them is doing a great job. I’ve had cables that were cheaper in my system but a nicely priced cable that matches your system is a must. I’m not here to argue what I’m not hearing because I have a pretty good ear. I’m enjoying these three brands today and each is presenting the music differently but very nicely. Those who say cables don’t matter. Get your ears checked. I have a system that’s worth about 30 to 35k retail. Now all of these brands are above 1k and up but they really are performing! What are your thoughts.
859 responses Add your response
All cables and power cords must be allowed time to settle in. Once the electrical-mechanical connection is disturbed you have to start all over. Even if the cables or cords are broken in. Therefore, any kind shootout or blind test is unreliable. It’s not that easy, MGee. Even if the cable or cord is moved without unplugging, that alone can affect the sound. That’s why the debate has gone on for what, 40 years? I don’t even have to bring up contact enhancers or cable elevators. Even when people think they hear differences in tests they sometimes change their mind later and think better if it for a number of reasons. Especially if the device is controversial. 😬 |
chemman, I think that bias may occur, although I am not sure it is always in favorable direction. For whatever it is worth, I recently blasphemously bought a cable (RCA) without ever listening to it. It was a few-hundred-Dollar "upgrade" from $15-16 cable I had had (and still keep). I bought it for the looks. It simply appeared "fancier" on the pictures and was affordable enough for the purpose I had for it. I did not expect much and I got exactly that. The sound is not better for sure. In fact, I think nothing changed although someone might convince me it is even a little worse. I kept it connected because I like those shinier connectors, which I actually almost never see as they are behind the equipment. Was it worth it for the sound? Not at all. Was it worth it for me? Definitely yes. Would I buy it again? No way, novelty has worn off. I suspect that some, probably not all, of the buyers fall in the similar category. They want finishing touches to their equipment, a final stroke they may feel is missing. Something that, at least in their minds, matches the rest of their system. It does take some sheepish courage to admit you fell for the looks and that is where some of the bias may come from. If I have to use another RCA cable, I will go back to the $15-16 pair. Unlike these more expensive ones, cheap ones are pliable, have angled connectors, and can easily fit behind the equipment. Expensive ones are hard to bend and fit anywhere without strain. Does anyone else have a problem with stiffer cables? To answer the title question of this thread, yes, cables matter, but it is not always for the sound. |
I suspect that some, probably not all, of the buyers fall in the similar category. They want finishing touches to their equipment, a final stroke they may feel is missing. Something that, at least in their minds, matches the rest of their system. It does take some sheepish courage to admit you fell for the looks and that is where some of the bias may come from.I suspect that you're prone to projection, at least in this case. All the best, Nonoise |
geoffkait,
You misunderstood me. I neither said, nor implied you said the IKEA chairs were comfortable. As chairs are primarily used for sitting and not changing the sound in the room, I did an usual mistake people make when watching the picture of the chair. I thought of how comfortable it would be. Your mentioning of stuffing in chairs being intolerable to you, enforced my opinion the chair may be uncomfortable. Stuffing in IKEA chairs is placed there for comfort purposes. While we are at that, could you copy and post the part of your earlier thread you are referring to, in which you said "they sounded bad", so we can read it again? It may be hidden well-enough in your post that no Reading 101 would help. It may call for Writing 101, though. |
nonoise, I suspect that you're prone to projection, at least in this case. You are definitely right about that one. At the same time, sides here are so fierce about their beliefs that no logic will settle it and, so far, I am the only one who raised the issue of the appearance as being important. If appearance were completely unimportant, many cables would look much more mundane. People often buy cars based on the outside appearance while they never look at it that way while using it. It should not be inconceivable that appearance of the cables has some, maybe minor, influence in the buying decision. Some marketing and psychology professionals probably wrote books and books about it. Think of the second generation Suzuki Hayabusa design. Influenced and made to somehow resemble, among other things, the average/usual rider of that motorcycle shape. I am not saying that cable manufacturers think all their buyers are super-skinny, but they certainly do think about the visual presentation. |
glupson, are you posting drunk again? I said the Ikea Poang Chair contained foam similar to Sonex. I just realized you probably have no idea what Sonex is or why I would find it objectionable. I suppose that’s the risk one takes when dealing with clean slates. Never mind..... I’m standing by for some more of your bright what about this? what about that? routines. |
geoffkait, Unfortunately, "chair contains foam similar to something" does not equal "it sounds bad". Writing 101. What-about-this and what-about-that routines are not that routine at all. I do understand that direct questions asked about your, to say it politely, vague and often incorrect statements may not be to your liking. Well, every now and then you run into a person who reads your post way better than you have ever written it. From time to time, you do show some knowledge and ability to contemplate in a positive way. Sadly, it often gets annihilated by your inept writing skills. Maybe a course in creative writing would not be a bad first step. There is such a thing as "lifelong learning" and it is no shame to get better at something at an advanced age. As a side note, I do not drink alcohol so you can start by taking comments about being drunk out of your writing style. |
Glupson, I was, as you can tell, pointing out the philosophical pitfalls accompanying the manner in which the OP went about gathering his knowledge of cables and the incongruity in the way he defends his argument. He may very well be 100% correct. Personally, I have not experimented with cables and as such have no opinion on the matter. With that said, I have been thinking about it and researching lately. As a man of science, and the inherent quality that goes hand in hand with gathering quantifiable and empirical data, I do lean in that direction. I will, however, be borrowing some cords from my local dealer and performing a test much as @dorkwad described. In the end, cables do matter, in all sorts of ways, but that has more to do with how people "know" things. In looking at the many facets of this particular conundrum, it seems language, the senses and emotion are the main vehicles used in gathering and solidifying the said knowledge. I am happy to read some of the informative posts, engage in a little discourse and listen to good music without worrying too much about the cables. |
chenman Who is to say that confirmation bias is not at work either? Someone spends $500 on a cable because they believe it will enhance the sonic performance of their system is going to be psychologically pre-disposed to hearing it. There is no way around that. How much so is up for debate? >>>>The arguments regarding confirmation bias, placebo effect and other psychological phenomena are the “weapons of mass destruction” of died-in-the-wool pseudo skeptics. No one is saying psychological issues never occur, but they don’t always occur. They can be controlled through careful testing by skilled listeners, I.e., audiophiles. It might not be easy. I never promised you a rose garden. 🌹Therefore, that particular argument is a logical fallacy. 😢 By the way, you could make your argument a whole lot stronger and more believable by other undecideds and newbies if you used $5000 instead of $500. 😬 |
For the purpose of distinguishing sounds, "skilled listener" is anyone who has had intact hearing for at least some time. Most have it from birth. Therefore, if a random group of people picked from the street cannot hear differences in sound, there is a decent chance that differences do not exist. More structured and controlled studies may be needed to support that observation with any acceptable certainty. |
"...you could make your argument a whole lot stronger and more believable by other undecideds and newbies if you used $5000 instead of $500." $500 is plenty for a wire with two connectors when functionally similar, if not same, can be had for $10-20-30. Most of the people with decent income would agree to that, raising a question if sonic quality gain is worth the difference in price. That is not to say there is no place for pricier cables under the sun, but that $500 is not cheap and it makes a good example for undecided, newbies, and curious. They would not even consider $5000 cable and are ten times more likely to try a $500 one. This one, I am speaking from experience and it may be, as nonoise said, my projection. |
chemman, I wish I could write about my views of this topic in a short and simple way. However, I do not need to do it as you have just done it in your previous post addressed to me. I can only sign it, sort of. To the letter, even the part about thinking of borrowing some cables to try what it is all about. |
glupson"$500 is plenty for a wire with two connectors when functionally similar, if not same, can be had for $10-20-30. Most of the people with decent income would agree to that, raising a question if sonic quality gain is worth the difference in price. That is not to say there is no place for pricier cables under the sun, but that $500 is not cheap" $500USD is indeed relatively cheap for wire primarily intended for high performance audio purposes that would include connectors and you're statement that most people would agree with you is without doubt a reflection of your circle of acquaintances which is not typical or representative of the universe of audiophiles in general and I have never seen $10 wire and connectors that are the practical, functional and equivalent performance, quality, and specification of more proper audio cables so you are clouded by your lack of experience, knowledge, and familiarity with the topic under discussion here. |
@geoffkait I disagree as it seems highly unlikely that someone would pay money for something they expect to provide an enhancement and not expect it to work. The "hope" that it will enhance is correlated with the pleasure in the brain. Moreover, confirmation bias is not ordinarily found in an experiment that focuses on empirical data. It is found in pseudo science that seeks to pass itself off as veracity. Much like your skilled listener experiment-- you can't control variables properly. There is your logical fallacy. You can't quantify listening skills, just as glupson described above. You can give hearing tests to determine the frequencies people can hear, but you certainly cannot attach a number to what they can hear when listening to subtle music which is comprised of always changing frequencies from multiple different instruments. The degree to which confirmation bias may effect someone is, as I said up for debate. But even after a failed expectation, they certainly are not going to say, "I am going to find another cable that does not live up to my expectations," (Popper) rather they will look for one that meets their needs/hopes. As such, they will, until the second they make up their mind, be pre-disposed to a positive outcome. How much so is unclear. Attaching value, $500 vs. $5000 is a highly personal position that you can not possibly know except for yourself. How do you know what sort of disposable cash flow "undecideds and newbies" have, and how much value they place on it? You can't, which is yet another logical fallacy. Also, an assumption that I am a "newbie," your use of the word and, is based upon what? My number of posts? There is your slippery slope. |
chemman ... it seems highly unlikely that someone would pay money for something they expect to provide an enhancement and not expect it to work. The "hope" that it will enhance is correlated with the pleasure in the brain.Before spending serious money on things like audio cables, I think most audiophiles have already experimented with them first. It's very common for audio dealers to hand a customer some used cable with a request that he try it in his system. No cost, no obligation. Many a skeptical audiophile has been surprised at the result, and the sale follows that. So in those instances, it's not the result of "confirmation bias." Moreover, confirmation bias is not ordinarily found in an experiment that focuses on empirical data. It is found in pseudo science that seeks to pass itself off as veracity.To the extent that confirmation bias exists, it is found everywhere, and the results of listening tests are themselves "empirical data." You can't quantify listening skills ... You can give hearing tests to determine the frequencies people can hear, but you certainly cannot attach a number to what they can hear when listening to subtle music which is comprised of always changing frequencies from multiple different instruments.This is completely mistaken. Many who have used double-blind listening tests - such as in designing audio codecs - absolutely have ranked listener acuity, usually after a training period to help them understand what they should be listening for in the test. As with many here, you seem to misunderstand the use of these tests. |
@geoffkait But I will agree that not everyone, in the whole world, is susceptible to confirmation bias in regard to a purchase. That would be a generalization. There have to be a few people out there that would be unaffected. Not me mind you, if I bought a cable, for virtually any amount of money, that was supposed to improve the sonic capabilities and did not, I would be disappointed. Because I would have been super hopeful and probably could have even talked myself into the belief the sound was better. I will try it some day soon, probably, but not now. I am too busy enjoying the music. Enjoy it yourself. I imagine you have a nice set up! |
@cleeds I understand the test very well. "ranking listener acuity" is not empirical per se. You are assigning numbers to a qualitative result. You are attempting to control for variability by using a double-blind method of testing. The key is the word attempting. You are in no way controlling for human variability. Can knowledge be gleaned from such tests? Yes. Is it definitive? No. This is why these test will never be as reliable as someone running tests on the actual tracks of music through a sophisticated machine. If total harmonic distortion and other variables t can be measured using actual electrical engineering equipment with associated units remain the same in a test of 10 different power cords, what explains improved sonic quality? |
clearthink, I was probably not clear enough in my previous post. I am aware that $500 is almost a joke of a price in "audiophile" circles. That does not make anyone out of those circles wrong for wondering if paying so much money is worth it. Is it, indeed, cheap for such a wire will depend on opinion of the buyer, not on some universal "audiophile" understanding. As far as you never seeing a $10 cable being as good as some dedicated audio cable costing much more, I keep my mind open that it is true and that you are absolutely correct about that. On the other side, just following this thread, there are many other people who would dispute that to the end of the world. Not the part of you not seeing it, but the fact that there is or there is not a difference. I stay out of that debate, partly because of my lack of experience. My previous post was narrowly, although obviously unsuccessfully, aimed at "newbies, undecided, and curious (the word I added as it described me in that case)" and their possible approach to cables pricier than a regular restaurant meal or something like that. I only intended to point out that for such customers, $500 is the price they would initially consider quite high, but not obscenely so, for a cable and was correctly placed in the initial post. That was all that my post was about. You are partially correct that my circle of acquaintances is not representative of universe of audiophiles in general. Mostly because none of my acquaintances would ever consider themselves as "audiophiles". Otherwise, my circle of acquaintances is perfectly representative of that universe of audiophiles in general. It is very broad with different approaches, personality traits, heights, weights, and whatever else could come to one’s mind. In this thread, you could see that universe of audiophiles in general consists of those who think that expensive cables are as close to a snake oil peddling as it gets and those who think they are one of the most important pieces in the reproduction equipment chain. How much wider could that universe in general be? |
glupson, Spot-on man. I am not even an audiophile. I love music and just like good sound. OK, I also want to get "my" money's worth. I really don't even care all that much about the issue at hand. I am just enjoying the discourse, whether I am right or wrong, and listening to some quiet tunes until my little boy wakes up. Then I can increase the volume. |
chemman I understand the test very well.Statements such as: ... confirmation bias is not ordinarily found in an experiment that focuses on empirical data ...and: ... You can’t quantify listening skills ... show you don’t understand scientific listening tests well at all. "ranking listener acuity" is not empirical per se. You are assigning numbers to a qualitative result. You are attempting to control for variability by using a double-blind method of testing. The key is the word attempting. You are in no way controlling for human variability.Actually, you are very much controlling for human variability. That’s the purpose of the testing. Those who have used scientific, carefully controlled double-blind listening tests to design things such as audio codecs have done this with considerable success. You simply don’t know what you are talking about. You also seem rather obsessed with the word "empirical" without actually knowing what it means. It means something based on observation. That’s as opposed to based on theory, which is the basis of your argument. Can knowledge be gleaned from such tests? Yes. Is it definitive? No.Oh, I agree absolutely. There are limits to the value of double-blind listening tests. But to understand those limits, it’s important to understand what they actually can do. That’s where you’re confused or, perhaps, just misinformed. No singular test is absolutely definitive, by the way, so you raising that issue is a bit of a red herring. |
chemman @geoffkait But I will agree that not everyone, in the whole world, is susceptible to confirmation bias in regard to a purchase. >>>>That’s mighty decent of you. So, I take you still don’t see what’s wrong with your argument. then chemman wrote, There have to be a few people out there that would be unaffected. Not me mind you, if I bought a cable, for virtually any amount of money, that was supposed to improve the sonic capabilities and did not, I would be disappointed. Because I would have been super hopeful and probably could have even talked myself into the belief the sound was better. I will try it some day soon, probably, but not now. I am too busy enjoying the music. Enjoy it yourself. I imagine you have a nice set up! >>>>>Whatever. |
chemman @geoffkait I disagree as it seems highly unlikely that someone would pay money for something they expect to provide an enhancement and not expect it to work. The "hope" that it will enhance is correlated with the pleasure in the brain. Moreover, confirmation bias is not ordinarily found in an experiment that focuses on empirical data. It is found in pseudo science that seeks to pass itself off as veracity. Much like your skilled listener experiment-- you can’t control variables properly. There is your logical fallacy. You can’t quantify listening skills, just as glupson described above. You can give hearing tests to determine the frequencies people can hear, but you certainly cannot attach a number to what they can hear when listening to subtle music which is comprised of always changing frequencies from multiple different instruments. Not quite sure where to file that one. Maybe under one of the following, a. Whoa! b. Whatever c. Please, not another glupson sympathizer! d. Examples of Strawman arguing e. Look who’s calling someone a pseudo scientist f. OMG, not another pseudo neuroscientist! g. OMG, not another pseudo physchologist! h. All of the above |
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. |
geoffkait, Two "what about this" questions that are off the thread topic, but that came to me after reading your list above. Don’t you sometimes, maybe secretly, wish that you do find someone who agrees with you? Do you ever wonder how that would feel? Having to fight all those windmills alone must be exhausting. |
"It’s very common for audio dealers to hand a customer some used cable with a request that he try it in his system." The other part of the story is that it is getting very uncommon to find an audio dealer. Should it be expected that a dealer who does not know a customer "personally" loans a cable to her/him? Some people who are not feverish about this hobby do not have a dealer who would ever recognize them. Are there some "cable libraries" where cables could be borrowed for a nominal fee? |
| Post removed |
glupson geoffkait, Two "what about this" questions that are off the thread topic, but that came to me after reading your list above. Don’t you sometimes, maybe secretly, wish that you do find someone who agrees with you? Do you ever wonder how that would feel? Having to fight all those windmills alone must be exhausting. >>>>I oft pine for a new class of posters, perhaps more curious and enthusiastic, and sometimes ask myself, why can’t there be more of me? |
@geoffkait @cleeds I'm unclear as to why you can't engage in a bit of discourse without getting personal. @geoffkait What in goodness sake has glupson done to anyone to merit that sort of talk. Get some rest gentleman. @prof What I was attempting to get at, rather poorly it seems, is humans are notoriously unreliable test subjects. Because of human variability, it is extremely difficult to get adequate support to satisfy a hypothesis that ultimately results in a scientific "law," unlike something like Ohm's Law which is pretty much a bedrock principle in electronics. We can point to failed medical studies and drug recalls. We can't control human moods, blood pressure, sleep patterns, vascular anomalies, etc. All of that makes it less reliable than running the same test through a computer with Rightmark and testing for THD, frequency response, dynamic range etc.. Those are quantifiable numbers that speak to the transmission/reception of sound waves. "I liked this one better," can be added up along with it's opposite number. You want to quantify that fine. That's simply not good enough for me. Nor, is it very good science. On the other hand, some knowledge can be taken from it. |
chemman @geoffkait @cleeds I’m unclear as to why you can’t engage in a bit of discourse without getting personal. >>>>It is what it is. Glupson must get some satisfaction since he keeps responding to all of my posts. He even goes out of his way to interrupt or offer some advice or whatever. My guess? 🍑🍔🍔 That’s a joke in case you can’t tell. @geoffkait What in goodness sake has glupson done to anyone to merit that sort of talk. Get some rest gentleman. >>>>We already have a moderator. Thanks, anyway. @prof What I was attempting to get at, rather poorly it seems, is humans are notoriously unreliable test subjects. Because of human variability, it is extremely difficult to get adequate support to satisfy a hypothesis that ultimately results in a scientific "law," unlike something like Ohm’s Law which is pretty much a bedrock principle in electronics. We can point to failed medical studies and drug recalls. We can’t control human moods, blood pressure, sleep patterns, vascular anomalies, etc. All of that makes it less reliable than running the same test through a computer with Rightmark and testing for THD, frequency response, dynamic range etc.. Those are quantifiable numbers that speak to the transmission/reception of sound waves. "I liked this one better," can be added up along with it’s opposite number. You want to quantify that fine. That’s simply not good enough for me. Nor, is it very good science. On the other hand, some knowledge can be taken from it. >>>>That looks like it should go in the Whatever file, your apparent expertise in most of the scientific disciplines notwithstanding. 😛 |
I have a ear that detects subtle differences. To one person it might be a better or worse difference. But you listening ear is your ear. No one can tell you what you don’t hear. If what you hear brings you a better enjoyment then go for it. However, I’m a little skeptical when someone says cables don’t matter. That doesn’t make sense to me. Cables are made different. Some with different materials gauge, etc.. why would they sound different. To some it’s not worth it. To many of us it is |
I have not heard a system that sounded completely fleshed out, dynamic and richly layered with high resolution and harmonic accuracy unless truly great cables were used. They might have sounded good, or pleasant or lively, but not enthralling. I have relied heavily on Transparent and MIT over the years. Other cables have been hit or miss, but MIT always delivers!! |
I think that’s what is missing in this argument. Some people’s hearing is better than others. We have different rooms and tastes as well. The recordings are different as well. But to tell all of us that all cables sound the same is just flat out crazy. As far as the differences are concerned. Some cables have differences I like some have ones I don’t. |
All reality ~IS~ subjective. Science knows this, and lives by it, even though it is rarely mentioned. Objectivity is a subset of of subjectivity, a mental condition taken on to help frame a hopefully more useful position... or at least it helps parallax (inescapably paired with subjectivity) a position -- for placing it in framework. Objectivity does not exist, it is a figment of imagination in a subjective reality. The only thing we know ---is that we don’t know. Paradox, just like the quantum world tells you. Subjectivity can be proven out in logic. Objectivity cannot. One cannot competently speak on the limits of science and complex situations that are to be explored, without being in mind of this all important inescapable fundamental. Anything else, will, in the final analysis... end in flubbed incompetence. |
prof But you listening ear is your ear. No one can tell you what you don’t hear. calvinj, Uh...yes they can.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. Remember the Yanni/Laurel debate? Only you can state what you hear. Anyone else has only a 50 percent chance of guessing correctly. This business of establishing what we hear - and don’t hear - is very tricky. Real researchers know that. Those with simple answers and absolute pronouncements don’t. That’s the only part of the matter that’s simple. |
A skilled lister is anyone with intact hearing? Nonsense...skills are developed over time, being able to hear doesn’t mean you’re a "skilled listener" anymore than having hands makes you a skilled painter. Well designed cables don’t have to be expensive, especially if you buy used ones...if you accept the design philosophy of any cable company and it makes sense to you, try the stuff. I like solid core cables, use various versions most places in my rig, including great sounding (meaning they don’t "sound" like anything at all) stuff from Audioquest and Morrow...from balanced cables where applicable to "digital" sp/dif cables from my streamer and CD player to my DAC...I did buy a solid silver coax AQ for that purpose, used...got a great deal...and my rig has never sounded better, which is sort of the point of all this. |
Ahhh, hearing tests, a fave cudgel of naysaying pseudo scientists both far and wide. Granted, tests do in fact produce information but the important question is what does that information show. Well beeps, which are currency of such tests , don’t occur much in nature, and since successful evolution involves dealing with nature, hearing or not hearing beeps is really not something we have evolved to do. What we have gotten very good at doing, and this is very important, is pulling salient information out of noisy backgrounds better than anyone else ( as an example predators generally don’t announce their presence with a warning beep like a truck backing up ...so if you fail this auditory test your evolutionary line quickly becomes a dead end ). So here is a study that looks at something that I call functional hearing, the stuff that, I would suggest played a big role in getting us here as a species, and coincidentally the stuff that today helps allow some of us to routinely hear the differences that cable can make. "Standard hearing tests had shown that the musicians’ ears weren’t any more sensitive than those of the other listeners. But Kraus knew that their brains, shaped by years of training, had become very good at a similar task: "A musician will be listening to the sound of his own instrument even though many other instruments are playing," she says, a skill not unlike separating one voice from a crowd of voices. Kraus wanted to know whether this skill helps musicians pick out a particular voice the same way they pick out a particular instrument. "And resoundingly it does," she says." ....and here is some science providing some cold hard facts to explain.... "Tests show that certain sounds produce stronger electrical signals in a musician’s brain stem, Kraus says. And, she says, these signals offer a more accurate representation of pitch, timing and tone quality — three things that help us pick out a single voice in a noisy room. " ...and here in a nutshell is an interesting contrast and comparison between the beep test and room test....
"A third study by scientists from Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany, found that musicians could detect harmonies that were slightly off-key even when they had lost most of their hearing. Factory workers with similar hearing loss could not. Results like these make sense if you think about the brain and the hearing system as if they were muscles, says Dr. Mark Jude Tramo, a professor of neurology at Harvard and director of the Institute for Music & Brain Science. Tennis players tend to be good arm wrestlers because they have strong forearms, Tramo says. In much the same way, he says, a musician who exercises certain parts of the brain "is going to be able to do better on any task that involves auditory concentration." Bottom line, it seems if you put some effort into active listening you are much more capable at listening than if you are a , uhhh, drive-by listener. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113938566 |
cleeds,
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). |
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. |
But what is illustrated clearly, here, prof... is that you consistently argue from a position that you don’t even have the fundamentals of -correctly in hand and mind. You’ve illustrated that you don’t know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and what each are in the realm of science. If that does not expose an underlying deep incompetence in the logic of your arguments.... I don’t know what does. For a guy who likes to talk the idea of science you keep going back to trying to undermine another’s logic with feints into logic but they are actually your own circular hot air. I don’t have to argue science and logic and data with you. No need, so far. You trip up and faceplant on the most obvious of the basics...all on your own. I merely point it out. You decided to try and get personal, so there's some direct & personal -- for you. |
