Yes I think "manufacturers lie or are just plain wrong". The why is debatable of course but will seem obvious to many. GK, no, I do not think "anyone who disagrees with me js engaging in a pissing contest". Just you. For the others, just stating how and why I arrived at my understanding. No animus intended. A few people might find some ideas to ponder. As I pondered the "just listen" arguments and did my best to apply them. Probably enough said by me on this topic. Enjoy and share the music, by whatever means makea you happy.
As the thread is getting long, I cannot say for certain that I remember this thread itself has all the features of "ridiculous to measure" and "ridiculous to do blind testing" I mentioned, but it is frequently mentioned all over Audiogon forums. Just try to mention that something is or is not happening because double blind testing resulted that way. Or ask for measurements (few posts above are heading in that direction). You even have a poster who dismisses measurements and blind tests at the same time. I am not sure what is left then.
There was, for example, a thread with a person claiming that majestic changes happen when you take a cover off of an amplifier. For pure entertainment and with mind open (I do not belong to any camp in any way), I did it to one old amplifier I have around. It was simple enough so I thought why not. I reported that there was no difference. The response? It did not count and I was a troll. No other discussion was possible. My result was invalid only and exclusively because it was not what the person wanted me to find.
Only quasi-technical babbling seems to be allowed.
>>>>That’s where you come in.
If you paid more attention, you would notice that I do not engage in strictly technical discussions. I do ask basic questions about them, though. It is because I am aware of my limitations on that turf and I try to learn. That is a skill you may find hard to learn, but education does not stop after you get a diploma. You can still try.
I think in order to make a valid discussion, ones have to agree on some basic level which is our ears can identify differences in what we here. If you say that all differences are psychological then there is no point to further the discussion.
Agreed.
But if we want to understand reality, we also have to not ignore that our perception can be flawed, and influenced in any number of ways towards error. So, ideally, the most careful approach when we *really want to be sure* of a result, would be a method that reduces the variables, including the well known forms of bias.
Next, the argument that break-in is mostly psychological only works for the average buyer since he can only purchase a set of cable so he has to rely on his memory to tell the difference. This argument does not work for manufacturers since they have a lot of identical cables some old some brand new so they can listen to them side by side, therefore there is no need to rely on memory. So if they hear the difference then it’s not psychological.
But that analysis leaves out the whole point: that people can honestly be mistaken in their perception! The choices for explanation don’t sit between the false dichotomy of: "The phenomenon people claim to perceive is real OR they are lying."
The other option is they are MISTAKEN.
This is why controls for bias is foundational in scientific testing.
Cable manufacturers are just as human and prone to bias as anyone else. Bias influences, or just mistakes in perception, can happen whether you are switching quickly between A and B, or slowly over time.
That’s one reason why objective measurements are so helpful, which provide some evidence there IS a physical phenomena involved, and not just changes in our perception.
What I do think is odd is that those who clamor for others to pursue measurements or blind testing seem so reluctant to undertake the work themselves.
Like who?
I defend the validity of blind testing, and I have performed a number of blind tests.
But first, let's deal with an implication one could take from your statement (whether you meant to imply this or not):
The idea that if someone critiques X method over Y method, that they have to be involved in performing those experiments themselves. It should be obvious that isn't the case.
You don't need to be a scientist yourself, to understand why a scientific approach to treating a new pathogen is more sound than, say, appealing to dreams, demons, magnetic bracelets, or ground up rhino horns are less sound approaches. You just need to understand well enough the reason science operates as it does, and how this explains it's success relative to the failure of the other models.
It's similar to why you don't have to be a brain surgeon yourself, to rationally conclude if you are having signs of an aneurysm, that you should see a brain surgeon not a vacuum salesman, no matter how enthusiastic the vacuum salesman may be about using vacuums to cure your problem. You have enough knowledge to recognize from which direction sound and successful results derive, vs more dubious methods.
Same for audio or any other domain. As long as you recognize the existence of the variables of human bias, you are in a position to ask who is taking that problem most seriously in their methods of evaluation.
People who say "I know there is a sonic difference between A and B simply because I believe to have heard it" are not taking the problem of bias seriously, whereas people attempting to verify phenomena through objective measurements and listening tests that attempt to control for bias at least ARE taking it seriously in their method.
As I've said this DOES NOT mean that everyone needs to be blind testing, or can't just go on what they think they hear. No one is forcing, or should force, such a thing. We are all free to buy on whatever criteria we want, as it should be. But if someone wants to CLAIM there is an objective phenomenon happening - like cable burn in - then it's completely reasonable to look at what type of method they are using to demonstrate the claim.
As to my own blind tests, I've used bind tests between CD players/DACs, some audio cables, power cables, video cables, and digital servers.
I don't do this all the time - far from it - because as I've said no one is compelled to make decisions via such methods and frankly while sometimes they are fun, they can be a hassle. It would be a different case if I had a lab and all the right expensive measuring tools, not to mention more technical knowledge. But, I don't. That's not my field of expertise.
When I want to blind test something, I simply do the best I can within my meagre means, and I don't make claims that extend beyond what those meagre means can actually imply for me personally.
Cable manufacturers are just as human and prone to bias as anyone else. Bias influences, or just mistakes in perception, can happen whether you are switching quickly between A and B, or slowly over time.
In order for this to be true, every single manufacturers is wrong. All the professional reviewers are either wrong or liars.
So we have two possibilities: 1. All manufacturers are wrong. All professional reviewers are either wrong or liars.
Just as in politics and religion, there are those who simply can't trust the masses. They need constant supervision and guidance. They can't be trusted and the premise of their arguments are that they are delusional and/or mistaken, and not much else is allowed or entertained.
Some will say that's too strong a statement but if one were to be truly objective, the overlap is obviously and painfully apparent. Hobbes' call for an absolute sovereign seems to be an underlying cause de celebre around these parts. We need go no further than what is and has been written. There is nothing left for the masses to learn on their own.
Thank goodness I've been in this hobby long before I came to this site as I've always heard and experienced break in with components and cables and took it as a natural event, not even up for debate. The final sound determined whether I kept something or moved on.
Long before the camps and bubbles of the internet, every maker of gear all said the same thing: expect some break in. No biggie or controversy: it was a given. Conventional wisdom for sure, but based on empirical observation. Then the price gouging and charlatans started to flourish resulting in a backlash that went overboard. Everything was to be doubted; back to the manuals! Polarization intensified driving the camps further apart.
If I had started this hobby along with this site, I might have ended up deferring to the experts on the subject of "break in" and go against reason and experience, doubting my own senses and perceptions, and upon being confronted with the actual evidence (hearing it), been driven into yet another episode of cognitive dissonance, getting angrier and ever more steadfast in my mistaken beliefs, and because of that, my level of enjoyment, diminished.
Again, I believe you are missing a third alternative:
I (or "we") don't know who is right.
Say we want to know if it's raining outside, and we can not tell from the windowless room in which we sit. One method is to get up, open the front door of the house and check if it's raining. Another method is to flip a coin and say "if it lands 'heads' we know it's raining."
If you use the coin method and flip heads it may in fact be TRUE that it's raining outside.
But that doesn't get around the problem that method used isn't one that, on examination, actually deserves our confidence.
It's the same when we are talking about audible differences that are either very small, or exist in areas that are controversial. It may BE that the manufacturers who claim their cables need burn in are right, and that it's a real, physical, AUDIBLE phenomena. But, if like flipping a coin, they are simply using the same anecdotal methods as any other audiophile....and more to the point....essentially the same subjective, anecdotal method as used by any other pseudo-science or fringe belief system (e.g. alternative medicine, psychics, etc) THEN it makes sense to point out these conclusions are not being supported by a reliable method.
Surely you accept that an unreliable method, or 'explanations' that haven't been vetted in a careful manner, used by many people, can lead to many people being wrong?
200 million people use homeopathy on a regular basis. Can they all be wrong? Of course. Same goes for any number of beliefs born of little objective, repeatable data and supported by subjective impressions. It's why vast numbers of contradictory beliefs about the world arise in the first place. And it's why science arose as a method to help us separate the wheat from the chaff.
BTW, not all cable manufacturers seem to make claims that cables change with burn in.
And those include some of the most experienced and respected manufacturers. You don't see for instance Belden or Canare cable claiming cables need "burn in." And yet they cater to a massive, critical, often professional customer base. For professional industries, a cable - or for that matter capacitor etc - has to perform as one expects from the physical specifications.
It seems telling that the claims regarding long burn in times - "the cable is only going to sound better over time! Keep it in your system!" - come from high end cable makers who are selling at boutique prices....to audiophiles who are relying on subjective impressions.
I think it's a myth that buyers purchase and keep electronics, speakers and cables that they don't like because the salesperson says they will like it more in a few months...burn in, changing directions are free to try, so no real issues...
Hey prof, my straw men have not feet of clay. 😄 It's just that they can't be successfully dismissed, out of hand, on the fly, despite attempts.
As to your second accusation, it sounds more like projection on your part, as it presupposes only you can be right. Now that's a straw man we can all agree upon. 👍
All the best, (and time to check out to watch from afar......) Nonoise
I guess you're saying our hearing is not a valid way of measuring. If you cannot trust your hearing, then what else can you trust? Once in awhile a person hearing can be fooled, but what you're saying is everybody hearing on earth has been fooled.
Again in order for you to be right, everyone else must be wrong. Every single manufacturers have been hearing the wrong thing. Every single professional reviewers must be wrong.
I am not sure you have a way out in your argument.
To say you're right and everyone else is wrong is in itself an invalid argument.
Prof those were some very well thought out and rational posts. While you may not change the ones here entrenched in their viewpoints you may affect others browsing through now and later.
Again in order for you to be right, everyone else must be wrong.
And I just explicitly said I’m not proposing that I have an answer "that I am right about" in regards to cable burn in. I just wrote that I DON’T claim to have that answer, so I’m wondering why you are ignoring the actual content of what I’m writing.
I guess you’re saying our hearing is not a valid way of measuring. If you cannot trust your hearing, then what else can you trust? Once in awhile a person hearing can be fooled, but what you’re saying is everybody hearing on earth has been fooled.
No, I haven’t said or implied any such thing, which is why I specified: "It’s the same when we are talking about audible differences that are either very small, or exist in areas that are controversial. "
Clearly our hearing is to a significant degree reliable! It helps us successfully survive and get through every day, after all. And we can reliably identify all sorts of sources where the characteristics are large enough to reliably distinguish. For instance, we reliably identify the voice on the other end of the phone as our mother, our friend, etc.
But as audible differences become ever more subtle, our ability to discern and remember those differences tend to reduce as well. If I played you an audio file at 40 dB and you went away for a day, and when you came back and I played the file at 80 dB, you would have no problem identifying which session was played louder. But if the difference were only 1 dB, you’d have a MUCH harder time (essentially impossible) having confidence about whether which session was louder or not.
To the degree we are talking about subtle sonic differences, it makes sense to take this in to consideration, wouldn’t you agree?
(This is why being able to switch quickly between A and B is helpful for reliably identifying subtle differences - where audiophiles often presume that they can identify identify subtle differences over much longer periods of time - "that trumpet sounds a bit more burnished with these cables than it did the last time I listened to this piece, a month ago with my old cables!")
Most of the audible differences we discern in life are those we would EXPECT to be reliably differentiated, based on the gross timbral/spectral/harmonic characteristics we are talking about, and given what we know of human hearing. Grossly audible differences can be measured between, say instruments (or even the same instruments played differently).
Speakers fall in to this category. The measurable differences between speakers tends to fall well in to the category we know to be audible to human hearing, so when someone talks about hearing a difference between speaker A and B their claims are entirely plausible.
In contrast, we have little to no measured differences being shown between things like an audio signal using different high end AC cables, or burned in vs non-burned in cables. And the technical explanations made on behalf of these claims, aside from often being all over the map depending on which manufacturer or audiophile you are talking to, are disputed among those with the credentials to know better. (E.g Electrical Engineers who are not trying to sell you expensive cables).
So there are grounds on which to be cautious about some of the claims of audiophiles and the high end audio companies - the ones in which the technical grounds are dubious or in dispute, in which objective measurable evidence seems missing (unlike that which can be shown for any number of audible differences we know to exist), and in which the claims are vetted almost entirely in a subjective manner susceptible to bias.
Is this position clear enough, and I hope, reasonable to you now?
First I appreciate that you're being very polite in your response considering some of the other posters around here.
I think I have to make an assumption that in order for the human race to work, one has to at least establish that most people are honest and tell the truth. Yes there are people who are dishonest but I don't think human has evolved this far if most people are dishonest and all we do is just lying to other people.
Second, we have to assume that our ears are reliable after all they are transducers just like any other sensors.
Now let's say somebody gave me some data that prove cable burn in does exist, I could very say "I don't trust your equipment. It's possible that the equipment is not accurate." The person would say it's not possible because the equipment has been calibrated. I then would say how do I know the calibration was accurate because the equipment you used to calibrate is not correct. That person then told me it's not possible because that piece of equipment that he used to calibrate was already calibrated by another even more accurate equipment. I then would say I don't trust that either. It's possible that equipment is not even accurate. I want you to prove to me beyond any doubt that the data is absolutely accurate.
There you see, I am using your argument against you, professor Hume.
I have found that directionality in wires can commence with insertion into a circuit whereby the directionality is set by usage. My cabling has directionality markers which are employed to install them in one direction for all future uses.
Whether or not the wire is directional from it's inception/drawing out is possible but doesn't appear to make a difference in my cabling. The wire in my cabiling has been flattened and embossed under high pressure so that it's crystal structure must have been altered anyway.
I keep my cables directional after first use and continuous use.
This whole argument highlights in no uncertain terms the ever widening chasm that exists between the mid fi community and the high end community. If it were not for the fact that many audiophiles have learned how to get their systems to the point where hearing cable and fuse directionality and other tweaks that provide subtle but powerful improvements to those who deserve to reap their benefits. But these tweaks are not silver bullets. Not by a long shot. They won’t necessarily make or break a system, they won’t even necessarily be audible in many systems, or audible by some people who may or may not be trained/experienced to hear changes in tweaks. So it goes. Live and let die.
Made the scene, week to week Day to day, hour to hour The gate is straight Deep and wide Break on through to the other side Break on through to the other side
Ha, as a bit of a philosophy nerd, yes Hume is one of my favorites!
*nerd hat on*
Yes, best to assume most people are telling the truth - which is justified inductively (most of the time people tell the truth), by the principle of parsimony (prima facie acceptance of truth-telling tends to explain people’s behavior without the additional hypothesis they have a motive for lying) , and in discussions by the principle of charity (if we didn’t accept that people believe what they are claiming to believe, and instead presumed the other side is lying, conversation would be impossible, not to mention it seems special pleading if we hold ourselves to be truth-telling but do not presume this for others).
See what happens when you bring up philosophy?! ;-)
But that idea was already taken care of in my previous replies as a red herring.
Second, we have to assume that our ears are reliable after all they are transducers just like any other sensors.
The assumption of the general reliability of our senses. Yes. But of course not wholesale. We need to recognize their limits, and where they are fallible too, right? That’s why I have a carbon monoxide detector in my house.
Now let’s say somebody gave me some data that prove cable burn in does exist, I could very say "I don’t trust your equipment. It’s possible that the equipment is not accurate." The person would say it’s not possible because the equipment has been calibrated. I then would say how do I know the calibration was accurate because the equipment you used to calibrate is not correct. That person then told me it’s not possible because that piece of equipment that he used to calibrate was already calibrated by another even more accurate equipment. I then would say I don’t trust that either. It’s possible that equipment is not even accurate. I want you to prove to me beyond any doubt that the data is absolutely accurate.
But it’s not simply good enough to raise possibilities in negating a claim; we need to raise "plausibilities."
If my peanut butter sandwich disappears from my picnic table, and I know my dog is around and my dog likes to snatch food from the table, and likes peanut butter...AND my dog has bread crumbs now around his mouth...then this is a plausible explanation for the missing sandwhich.
If someone suggests that Kim Jong Un’s secret agents "could have" stolen the sandwich for him to eat, that’s logically "possible" but hardly "plausible."
Now, presuming that the type of data and measuring techniques your "somebody" used are IF WORKING appropriate to the task (if not, the whole analogy fails anyway)....then there is already plausibility on the side of the measurements and conclusions. If you raise an objection that the equipment "might have been" out of calibration, it’s up to you to show that’s plausible, not merely possible.
As it happens, you probably could raise some case for the plausibility, in the sense that equipment can go out of calibration and this is one reason we want to try and repeat our results - especially by other parties trying to replicate your results or prove you wrong. (If this person was presenting his data as decisive, I’d be already dubious about this).
So it’s fair to say something like "this data looks sound for your hypothesis...and constitutes some evidence in favor of it. However, given what can go wrong it terms of equipment or experimenter error, I’d like to see these results replicated."
(There’s also background assumptions and facts that will demand more before we assent to a conclusion in some cases over others - the infamous Opera Experiment yielding faster than light particles being a good example - but will leave that for now) .
The problem is that each time you raise the ante by saying "But THIS could have been out of alignment, but THAT could have been out of alignment" you raise the burden ever further for the plausibility of your alternative explanation. Are X, Y and Z measuring systems USUALLY out of calibration? The more you add, the less likely your alternative explanation.
Presumably your friend is starting off with a plausible hypothesis derived from what is generally known and generally accepted about the properties of electricity and cables, which makes his hypothesis "there shouldn’t be an audible difference with burned in cables" plausible in the first place. And as an alternative hypothesis to explain the reports of cable differences with burn in, we have mountains of established evidence for bias/perceptual errors making that alternative plausible.
If you wanted to raise objections, mere skepticism isn’t enough, you’d have to show there are actual good reasons to doubt the results, not raise mere "possibilities" that "something might have gone wrong."
And if your friend is using in his tests generally accepted methods used successfully and reliably elsewhere, then you have the harder road to plow in defending your skepticism.
And nothing is "proven beyond any doubt" in the empirical method.
Cheers, and thanks for the conversation!
(Will a bunch of people find a conversation like this a bore? For sure! But as analogluver pointed out, some people will no doubt find it interesting).
Then there are the STEALTH audio cables which uses amorphous metal which has no directionality.
Indra V16 Interconnect Retail: $7000/1 m RCA, $9300/1 m XLRSakra V16 Interconnect Retail: $12,000/1 m RCA, $16,000/1 m XLR
Those prices are about 10X to 17X my GroverHuffman cables. No thanks even if they were 200% better. The reviewer on today's Positive Feedback Mag was comparing them to $9800/m CH Precision ICs. Maybe they are high end but what if they are not as good?
The Stealth Flagship Sakra V12 XLR interconnects are actually Directional, at least according to Stealth.
Home /Sakra V12 XLR Interconnect (Pair) Sakra V12 XLR Interconnect (Pair) by Stealth Audio
Starting from :$16,000.00 Length
Price with selection: $16,000.00 Quantity
The Sakra V12 is quite different from the standard Sakra: the cables are indeed directional – since they are CONICAL inside and outside, and feature our new “vari-cross” geometry – the cross-section of the cable varies along their length; this is done to improve the impedance matching between the source and the receiving end; Sonically, the cables are more relaxed right out of the box, and sound yet more full-bodied (and thus natural) while having improved resolution and transparency over the "original" Sakra.
Because of the improved geometry the Sakra V12 is more relaxed and natural (right out of the box, in a brand new condition the V12 sounds more “broken in” – compare to the original Sakra with 1000+ hours on it)
In other words, the Sakra V12 is simply a better cable and is our flagship analog interconnect for 2013.
Addendum: Śakra V17 Limited Edition. Double runs of Vari-Cross amorphous wire-in-Helium, C-37 treated, STEALTH custom RCA and XLR.
[Whoa! You don’t see C-37 everyday. Or wire-in-Helium for that matter!]
I suspect that the expression, “tests are performed using generally accepted methods” opens up a whole can of worms since as we have already see there really are no generally accepted test methods. Even the lofty double blind test has no official protocol or methodology. Reasonable people disagree with how to perform a double blind test.
As I’ve oft pointed out, negative results of blind tests cannot be used to categorically claim failure of the device(s) under test. Results of a blind test, in and of itself, cannot be generalized. Now, if there were twenty or thirty independent blind tests, however they were performed, one might look at the pass/fail ratio and try to draw conclusions and find comfort. Positive results are a different story, inasmuch as positive results are obtained in spite of all the things that can affect the results of a test.
Well said, and drives directly to the nub of the problem of embracing the idea of using double blind tests without some real solid scientific rigour. Read, you can’t wrap yourself in the cloak of science and use a testing system that lacks an absolutely solid testing protocol. Going down that road simply yields a "science" version of truthiness, which is fine for conversation fodder after a few cold beverages but as Geoff correctly points out don’t produce nothing you can take to the bank eh.
So what is your answer to the dilemma posed by the claims in high end audio?
Do we just accept that any hypothesis can be floated, and then decided by appeal to subjective impressions?
If so, that puts high end audio on par with Mesmerism, and any other pseudoscience.
Surely the phenomena in audio are in the same physical world as science is dealing with, so why should audio be just exempted from the concerns, and controls, that we’ve found to be justified in science?
But if we are going to say that we aren’t going to allow magic, but point out it’s engineering and we are dealing with technical problems, then we would want plausible technical hypothesis, right? That is, hypothesis based on plausible extrapolations from other known phenomenon, to explain the new phenomenon - e.g. if a manufacturer is going to give an explanation for cable burn in, it should be at least plausible based on some technical explanation. If the explanation appeals to completely unknown processes, then we have to ask why it is plausible in the first place! And at the very least, an explanation appealing to unknown processes should have quite a high bar to pass when being tested, beyond "I feel convinced I heard something."
And if you are giving a hypothesis that is appealing to known, measurable phenomena, then it makes sense your hypothesis would involve physically testing/measuring to see whether you are right, and if you offer a "solution" to a measurable technical phenomenon, you should be able to provide measurement data showing you have SOLVED the problem.
Once you allow pure subjectivity to vet all these claims, you are in to the world of Mesmerism and all the other pseudosciences and fringe belief systems, because THEY ware justified by the same "method."
We see this suspicious disconnect between the claims and explanations of cable manufacturers, vs the claims that would pass muster scientifically, all the time. They throw out a techy-sounding "problem" their method "solves" but for some reason it’s never shown technically - via measurements showing the problem is solved. They move from the techy-sounding hypothesis, to subjectivity, to...of course it worked!
And the types of "explanations" cable manufacturers often give for phenomenon are incredibly sketchy in making claims, with little evidence.
For years now, manufacturers have been aware of another practice that drastically improves upon performance that has recently been gaining acceptance from hifi enthusiasts: cable burn-in.
.....
Any listener will be able to identify a marked change in audio equipment within the first 100 hours of use
Note the claim cable burn-in: "DRASTICALLY IMPROVES UPON PERFORMANCE"
That’s a BIG claim. If there is a DRASTIC change in performance from a burned in cable, that obviously should mean some significant physical change is occurring (we aren’t appealing to magic, right?) that should be measurable.
Why don’t we GET those measurements for the claims Nordost has just made?
Instead, we get this:
During the manufacturing process, as insulation is extruded over the conductors, gases can become trapped. This combined with the high electrical charges often found in new cables, result in a brittle and bright sound that lacks the detail and depth desired for music reproduction.
Look at all the ways this is utterly insufficient as an "explanation."
Where is the actual technical explanation, and evidence, that such trapped gases would results in the sonic defects - "brittle bright highs etc" - they describe?
I don’t see any in that statement. But Nordost goes on:
When cables are first put into use, their directionality is not securely established. However, once the Vidar begins running current through the cables, the trapped gases are dissipated and small impurities in the conductor’s metal begin to act like a diode, favoring current flow in a particular direction. By using extremely wide bandwidth signal as well as a range of both ultra-low and high frequency sweeps, the Vidar stresses the conductors, neutralizes charges, improves the way that signals pass through metal and ultrasonically conditions the surface of the conductors. It is these changes in both the conductor and insulation material that refines performance in audio cables.
So they say. But this explanation proposes:
1. A number of technical, physical changes claimed to occur in burning in a cable. The obvious question is, if they can’t measure the phenomena they refer to, then how can they tell us they occur in the first place as a problem to be solved?
But presuming all the technical issues exist described in pre-burned in cable exist as claimed, and are measurable, WHERE ARE THE MEASUREMENTS SHOWING CABLE BURN IN ALTERS AND FIXES THOSE PROBLEMS? Why is that so conspicuously missing from Nordost? They make a technical claim based on measurable phenomena, but don’t provide experimental measurements showing they have FIXED the problem. We just have to take their word, apparently. How convenient for marketing!
2. If it is mere subjective impressions that Nordost is using to vet, and sell this "solution," then this is no different from any other pseudoscience, where fanciful techy-sounding hypotheses are floated, without any objectively experimental protocol offered, no measurable, repeatable data offered. But which rely on the human ability to fool ourselves or be led via biases to think we "hear" what may not actually be there.
Certainly many audiophiles just don’t seem to care about this, going with the "if I think I hear a difference, there is a difference" heuristic.
But you can’t say that there is no basis for reasonable doubts about many claims made by cable manufacturers, and in particular cable-burn in, if the evidence for it does not escape the level of pseudoscience.
Terminology like drastically improves or radically improves or transforms performance are what is known as puffing. There is no prohibition against puffing. Just so that you know. Besides, it’s not like burning in cables is a product or anything. Give me a break! The term drastic improvement, even if someone at Nordost said it, perhaps some English major, who knows, hardly justifies a long philosophical diatribe. Ironically, IIRC Nordost is not (rpt not) on board the directionality train, maybe they had an epiphany recently, so skeptics take note. OK, let the inquisition continue.
Besides, it’s not like burning in cables is a product or anything give me a break!
LOL. The very link you are referring to as "puffing" is promoting just such a product:
"However, the best solution is to treat your cables using a designated cable burn-in device such as Nordost’s Vidar.:
Geoff, do you ever just slow down to test your claims with reality? I noticed the post you removed was rather rashly inaccurate as well. (Uh...it was Nordost’s "blog" on Nordost’s official site, promoting a Nordost product) ;-)
Also, there is no dilemma posed by comments or claims by high end manufacturers. That’s what you skeptical philosophical guys call a Strawman argument. Please give us a break.
"
Do we just accept that any hypothesis can be floated, and then decided by appeal to subjective impressions?
" Uhhhh, no.
But throwing around claims gleaned from the application of half-baked and mis-applied protocols isn't the answer either. Though do agree with you that some crystal clear clarity would be awfully nice.
Prof,There have been a lot of measurements been made. It's called our "ears" and the data has been recorded by countless of listeners all over the world. Unless you call them all liars or you say our ears are not valid instruments.
Prof: " Do we just accept that any hypothesis can be floated, and then decided by appeal to subjective impressions? "
taras22: Uhhhh, no.
Then, your solution to the problems I posed is...?
But throwing around claims gleaned from the application of half-baked and mis-applied protocols isn’t the answer either.
Sure. Obviously. But I don’t know that you’ve identified such misapplications (at least in what I wrote). And even when you do identify an error, isn’t that a way of suggesting how protocol CAN be tightened?
At least attempting to base claims on measurable phenomenon, and produce measurable support for a claim, as well as take the problem of bias seriously in listening tests, would be showing effort in the right direction of taking the problems seriously. (That is after all why science has been successful).
Rather than throwing out dubiously supported technical claims and just vetting them by methods known to suffer bias effects.
Prof,There have been a lot of measurements been made. It’s called our "ears" and the data has been recorded by countless of listeners all over the world. Unless you call them all liars or you say our ears are not valid instruments.
That is a repetition of the same assertion you made before, including repeating the strawman false dichotomy of the "liar" or that "therefore all our inferences based on our hearing is unreliable."
I already dealt with those assertions in detail. Since I don’t see how your reply interacts with the arguments I’ve raised against it, I’m not sure how to respond.
How about this:
Millions of people around the world attribute their health to homeopathy. Does that mean that homeopathic claims are correct?
Millions and millions of people, and practitioners, believe that the explanations for all sorts of naturopathic therapies are vindicated based on their subjective experience of the therapy.
Not to mention the millions in thrall of any number of treatments based on bogus ideas, but which "subjectively tested" are claimed to work. Ready for your coffee enema yet?
Not to mention the countless contradictory supernatural belief systems vetted on similar grounds.
Don’t you think that millions of people actually be wrong about something? And can that explanation not be put down to a problem in the method they have used to reach their conclusion?
Can I presume you do at least agree that people can be wrong - large numbers of people! - in the conclusions they reach based on their subjective experience? If so, pointing to "countless" people believing they have experienced audible cable burn in isn't really getting us anywhere. (And, how many people do you actually think have advocated for cable burn in? Also, what are you doing with the negative results? I don't hear any difference in "burn in" whether it's cables or other devices I've bought, and I'm far from the only one. Get outside the confines of the typical audiophile forum to other audio/video enthusiast forums, and you'll see plenty who guffaw at the audiophile claims of "burn in" and who have not experienced any such thing. Does your method entail ignoring negative results and only counting the positive claims?
Can I presume you do not reject all the data we have on human biases and how they sway perception?
Can I presume you do not reject that this applies to all our senses, including that people can be wrong even about what they think they hear?
If so, how are you accounting for the facts of human bias in this method where you are appealing strictly to subjective reports?
I have already, in detail, dealt with the "problem" you felt you raised, suggesting that my argument denies the utility of all subjective reports, or of our hearing in general. I showed why that is a strawman, and made a case for why it makes sense to provisionally accept reports based on hearing (e.g. in the realm well-known to be audible) and when it makes sense to be more cautious and ask for better evidence (those claims in the realm of the subtle, or in the realm where the technical/audible claims are controversial).
One can’t help wondering why in the world anyone would pursue this issue so strenuously, so verbosely, so relentlessly. What can be the motivation for being so long winded, so argumentative? To show off philosophy skills? To show off writing skills? To prove that he’s a real skeptic? To prove he too smart to be fooled by audiophile tricks? Or too smart to be fooled by unscupulous and lying high end cable manufacturers? Or to be taken in by a conspiracy of true believers, money hungry manufacturers and deluded audiophiles who drank the Jim Jones Kool Aide. I’m serious. What drives these people? What a waste of time.
It just bothers some people to see nonsensical claims put forth as if they are gospel. And other people like Geoffkait just like to troll and stir things up. I think it’s settled. Profs explanations and points are very rational and make a ton of sense while GK and the rest are completely the opposite.
@andy2, It’s a good thing you didn’t qualify that statement lest you be accused of using a straw man argument. Remember, only their straw men matter. 😄
I am glad somebody brought up Occam's razor. If you Occam's razor the moon landing, it's probably real. If you Occam's razor cable break in, it's probably real.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
