kosst_amojanAnother flaky digital cable thread....
They
make NO difference. So long as the cable supports the ethernet
configuration, it makes NO difference. This stuff is obvious. I can't
believe people come here and debate this stuff in a serious way.
If you
think you're hearing differences in your purely digital cables like your
HDMI and ethernet cables, it's PURELY in your head. Go read the actual
specifications for these interconnects. I have You've just proven your own expectation bias. Congratulations.
Nobody who knows how
this stuff actually works would conclude you can hear a difference. Are you actually claiming to speak for the entire spectrum of all knowledgeable people?
Where exactly does your insanity start
and end? So anyone who questions your claim is insane?
Coax is like a freaking lightning rod. I've been running cable
modems since 2001 and I lose one to a lightning strike about every 18 to
24 months.
I just had one replaced last week.
There's obviously something very wrong with your installation if you suffer this problem. You might want to call in an expert.
|
kosst_amojanWhat planet are you from? I'm from earth. That may be a different planet than yours.
I guess I’m biased ... Big time!
I'm not like you who cobbles
together whatever hocus-pocus I can find with no expectations ...
Pardon me, but your bias a.k.a. prejudice is showing again. You don't know anything about me, so please don't pretend that you do.
According to your logic, we can only know it won’t work if when the thing explodes.
Of course I never said that, or implied that. You seem to have some problems. Good luck resolving them. |
acepilot71m@geoffkait do I know you? I did not give you right to talk to me so do not! Sorry, this is public forum. No one here needs permission from you to post, or to respond to your posts. |
kosst_amojanUsually when somebody presents claims of symptoms that have no basis in reality they’re treated with psychiatric medications. Is that what we should do with people who hear Ethernet and HDMI cables? Doctors don’t just throw up their arms in frustration when faced with a difficult diagnosis and then simply write a script for psychiatric medication. Instead, they call in other physicians and scientists, often from other specialties, and they work as a team to find the answer. That’s very different from you simply pronouncing others here as crazy. In some totalitarian systems, people who don’t conform to the government mandated norms are often labelled as crazy, and then pumped up with drugs or sent to a gulag. It sounds like you might like that kind of country - as long as you could remain in charge. Thankfully that isn’t the case here. |
kosst_amojan
Bill Nye ... is hardly any authority on science by training or trade seeing as he's a mechanical engineer. Mechanical engineering is very much a science, kosst. That makes him more of a scientist than you. |
jinjuku I’ve personally had Ethernet cabling from $27 a foot to $233 a foot and compared directly to 315 foot of BerkTek CAT5e. No difference. That’s interesting. Can you please tell us more about your comparison? Was it based solely on measurements? If you conducted listening tests, can you please tell us how they were conducted? Which specific cables did you evaluate? |
kosst_amojan
The facts don't allow for any choice in the matter. By definition, if
you're choosing to believe in the differences of Ethernet cables, you're
willfully delusional. Such a statement is
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that you firmly maintain
despite being contradicted by many here. That suggests that if anyone here is delusional, it's you.
You might want to take a look in the mirror.
|
injuku
... why is it always the same ones who can hear
differences in fuses, differences in directionality or differences in
cables but can never seem to demonstrate it blind ...
Actually, there have been blind tests that prove audible differences in cables. Ask Michael Fremer, for example - he's been rather public about it. Wireworld has developed a comparator to be used in evaluating the differences between cables. Have you ever tried it?
Efforts here to design a public blind listening test have been met with perhaps the group's most persistent blind test advocate demanding an upfront payment, an agreement prepared by his attorney to "protect" participants and other such nonsense.
|
jinjuku No one demanded any up front payment. Links to those posts please. What I remember is that there was an offer of 5:1 ... Sorry, but upfront payment was demanded, along with other prerequisites. The posts were deleted by the moderators. The promoter of the scheme is quite persistent, so it’s likely you’ll see what he calls an "opportunity" promoted again. Just stay tuned. |
geoffkaitAh,
the old blind test scam raises its ugly head again. I guess it was just
a matter of time. They always threaten blind tests but they don’t wait
for the results. It's not a question of waiting for results. The most vocal "advocates" of blind tests here don't actually conduct the blind tests - they insist others conduct the tests and then report the results. If the "advocate" actually offers to conduct the test, it's been followed by demands for upfront payment, a test protocol that's concocted in secret, advance agreements crafted by attorneys and other such nonsense.
If "advocates" of blind testing were serious, they would submit the protocol for advance review here, and the test would be performed in public, which would allow witnesses and an opportunity for others to participate. This could be done at an audio store or audiophile club. But the "advocates" haven't shown any interest in that; their call for scientific testing is just a red herring.
|
acepilot71If you here/feel the difference or better say improvement - keep that cable in your system. Well, of course. I don't use the forum for validation of what I hear, or for validation of the equipment I've chosen for my system. It's just odd that some do indeed come here insisting that we validate our choices to them. If we demur, the accusations follow: We're deluded; we should be prescribed psychiatric medication; we are peddling in "snake oil" for the purposes of getting rich; we are idiots. And other such silliness. |
jinjukuUpfront payment wasn’t demanded. It was also loser pays expenses. This would all be handled after the evaluation. Perhaps that was your offer. The proposal to which I refer required a $25,000 advance payment and agreement crafted by an attorney for the supposed "protection" of the listener. By the way, there is no "loser" in a listening test. A listening test doesn’t really test the listener at all - that’s a misnomer. Rather, it’s an evaluation by the listener of the equipment that is under test. To suggest otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of a scientific listening test. |
jinjuku
says:
Upfront payment wasn’t demanded. It was also loser pays expenses.
Then
jinjuku says:
My offer, as it was for William, was to do this in the listeners setup. No money involved. Seems way more than fair to the claimant.
It looks like you've made all kinds of "offers." In any event, a scientific listening test doesn't include a "claimant" - you're compromising the validity of the test itself with that kind of notion. Remember, a listening test doesn't test the listener - it tests the equipment that is the subject of the test. Regardless of the result, it can only be strictly applied to that equipment, under those circumstances, and with that listener. That's why, if you want a scientifically valid test, you'll want a large number of samples, and that usually means a large number of listeners. If the testing isn't scientific, it's of no value at all. |
cleeds I’ve simply pointed out that what you claim is a scientifically valid test jinjuku
Links to posts please. Just scroll up, silly - you’ve been doing your best here to defend the validity of your testing protocol. If you now recognize that your methods haven’t been scientific - good for you. We can move on. If you wish to engage in semantic argument, I’m not interested. |
jinjukuNo, it tests the claim. When it comes to scientifically valid double-blind listening tests, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t even understand what it is that you’re testing. In fact, the ideal listener involved in such a test has no "claim" and no preference whatsoever. Your notion that you’re testing the listener and his "claim" explains why you think the test will have a "loser" and why he should pay your "expenses." Your extreme bias here is exactly why a valid test has to be double-blind. Your mere presence in the room would have the potential to taint any listening test. Consider this: if a scientific test of a new drug has no effect on an individual, what "failed" the test? The human? Or the drug? If after two years the drug still has no effect on that individual, does it mean the drug is not effective? Or, does it mean it was not effective with that individual? This is all very basic science. |
jinjuku194 posts04-26-2018 12:10pmI think you are confused.
If you state that you can jump 10’ straight up from a standstill and either I bring a 10’ high bar or we use your 10’ high bar.
What
are we exactly testing, why isn’t the 10’ high bar valid, and why do we
need 49 other people to attempt to jump over a 10’ high bar?
Behold everyone where simple questions somehow can't be answered There is a mountain of information about how to conduct scientifically
valid listening tests, going back at least as far as Munson’s
presentations to the AES in the late ’50s. (Yes, that Munson, the guy
from Bell Labs who worked with Fletcher.)
It's been followed by other work by Floyd Toole, Harman and many others. If you're serious about valid listening tests - and I suspect you aren't - you'll want to review some of their work. It will reveal that this matter is nowhere near as simple as you suggest. If you're not serious, or if you have some ulterior motives, you'll just continue arguing here with your nonsense. Your latest argument here includes the logical fallacy of the excluded middle, so you might want to learn a bit about logic and reason, too. |
jinjukuI have the sighted subjectivist crowd DEMANDING scientifically rigorous testing. Not so. I’ve simply pointed out that what you claim is a scientifically valid test is nothing of the sort. If you can find a single post where I was maintaining that this was supposed to be AES worth let me know. You’ve claimed your protocol is valid, scientific. It isn’t. That’s the simple answer to your fuzzy simple question. Personally, I don't have much use for double-blind listening tests ... although I have a mild general interest in them. |
kosst_amojanThere
appears to be two basic sides to this debate. Those who don't buy that
Ethernet cables make a difference, and their opinion is buttressed by
reams of facts. Then you have those who think they do make a difference,
and they have no facts at all to buttress their claim. Their claims
don't even make sense in light of how the technology works This is mistaken. There is a third position in this discussion - it needn't be a "debate" - and that's the one of an undecided skeptic. I certainly understand those who reason that there should be no audible differences at all between competent Ethernet cables. The very nature of digital transmission suggests that if the signal can be transferred without error, the output should be identical to the input and the sound should be the same. That's not difficult to understand.
Yet multiple audiophiles here using a variety of systems attest to substantial differences between these cables. Because in the past I've been quite surprised at what can make an audible difference in a sound system, I'm reluctant to dismiss those reports with a wave of the hand.
Complicating this discussion - again, it needn't be a "debate" - is the remarkable vitriol from the "nay-sayers." Those who report differences are often vilified as delusional, or "snake-oilers" getting rich while perpetrating some sort of fraud, or worse. Those claims come from just a few of the forum's contributors, and are repeated with regularity at anyone who won't accept their position ... including myself. This nastiness is often combined with illogic, most commonly the errors of circular reasoning, the excluded middle and ad hominem attacks, which of course undermines their position. And I'm trying to be kind here. Oddly, those posters who argue that science is on their side readily abandon it when asked if there's any valid scientific listening tests to support their claim. Indeed, it has become apparent that some of them have no familiarity with the science of such tests, which has been pretty well established, and which I've referenced previously.
I'm not a big fan of scientific listening tests, which I think are mostly a waste of an audiophile's time. I've participated in a few and the results were interesting, and I've proposed that perhaps as a group we could design a test that could be conducted in public to test the Ethernet claims. But who opposes such tests? Those who claim science is on their side! This seemingly intractable position only ensures that the "scientists" will continue their attacks against those who are simply reporting what they hear.
Of course, there are those who have offered to participate in such tests provided money is at stake and agreements made with attorneys to "protect" participants, or who have required other preconditions to testing, such as following an unscientific protocol. Those forum contributors can't be taken seriously.
|
geoffkaitNaysayers claim that certain tweaks are snake
oil. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Where’s your
proof?
Their "proof" is their belief, i.e. their faith. By definition, faith requires no proof. That's why attempting to provide them with proof is futile; faith always trumps science. |
shadorne... ABSOLUTELY NONE of the snake oil claims have been proved in the
usual manner - for example an AES publication with measurements or
double blind listening tests to demonstrate audibility. There have been some proposals here to design and conduct such testing. But they were met by the forum's self-proclaimed objectivists with some odd preconditions, including a $25,ooo wager and agreements prepared by attorneys for "protection." It seems that those who clamor the loudest for scientific testing are actually those who are least serious about it.
In any event this is a hobbyist group, not a scientific forum, so demanding scientific proof here is misplaced.
|
geoffkaitmI would probably call it pseudo faith or pseudo belief. I think the faith of the "pseudo-skeptics" is the genuine article. Consider the vitriol that follows when their faith is challenged - they respond just like fundamentalist evangelicals.
|
geoffkaitHe’s been digging around inside digital gear for 25 years?! Well, that blows my theory that he’s only 15 years old all to hell. His "Go give yourself a cookie" rejoinder and temper tantrums reveal that he probably hasn’t reached 15 yet. |
jbnyI
am more interested to hear why those who are hearing a difference in
the sound of their files via Ethernet cabling think it is happening If an explanation interests you, you might want to scroll up and read the post from @markalarsen that offers a pretty solid answer. It's at 05-01-2018 11:16am.
|
cleeds
- ...But they were met by the forum's self-proclaimed objectivists with
some odd preconditions, including a $25,ooo wager and agreements
prepared by attorneys for "protection..... gdhalWhat's odd about asking to handle the matter privately? Seeking private information from users of an Internet forum, requiring a $25,000 advance payment - what you call an "escrow" - and negotiating terms of a listening test through attorneys is more than just odd, and has more than the whiff of fraud. It's clear that you're trying to conceal the details of your ruse. |
gdhal This is why the terms of the test must be *mutually agreed and then
bound contractually* to the satisfaction of both parties. Otherwise, no
test. Simple.
Scientists who conduct listening tests don't require $25,000 "escrows" from participants and contracts drafted by attorneys, so it's pretty obvious that you're still pursuing your rigged test, which is a ruse, a con. And it comes from a guy who repeatedly tells others they should be "honest" with themselves. Simple. |
gdhalAnd this is why blind testing is very fair and extremely useful in these matters. It allows the listener who is subjected to the test to "guess" or otherwise "perceive" a difference This shows a complete misunderstanding of scientific listening tests in particular and scientific testing in general. The listener is not "subjected to the test" any more than a patient is " subjected to the test" in a drug trial. Rather, in a listening test, it is the equipment that is under test. In a drug trial, it is the drug under test, not the patient. If the drug proves ineffective, scientists don’t say "the patient failed the test." They can only conclude that the drug was not effective in that patient during the test period. And that is why drug trials include more than one patient. The notion that a test is "fair" or not is also misguided. It is either conducted in a way that is scientific, or not. Simple. |
jinjuku... I'm willing to do this with a few 'patients' (claimants)
to see if their drug of choice "sighted evaluation" is merely sugar
pill. What is it that you propose to test? Are you also seeking a wager, as you did last time, with 5-1 odds?
And remember, if you hope to develop some meaningful data, you'll need more than one listener to participate in the test.
|
geoffkaitMutually
agreed terms, even with lawyers involved, are no insurance whatsoever
that the results of a listening test mean anything if the results are
negative. Quite so. Nor does it necessarily mean anything even when the results are positive. And lawyers are certainly not required to develop a scientifically valid test protocol.
Even if both participants are experienced audiophiles they are
subject to the laws of listening tests ... If it
were true that all you needed was mutually agreed terms then any two
knuckleheads who wanted to “prove” some particular controversial tweak a
hoax Agreed.
But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. While I've stated many times that I think the typical audiophile has little use for scientific listening tests - they're time consuming, cumbersome, sometimes frustrating and tedious - that doesn't mean they have no value whatsoever. But when conducting such tests, researchers need to be sure that the test itself is truly scientific, that variables have been eliminated and that the protocol follows established practices. That's not as easy as it might seem to the casual observer. And failing to use proper protocol yields results that are completely unreliable - perhaps even more so than sighted listening. |
nonoise... As silly as it sounds, the A/B/X test would have to be tested since so far, it’s only been a parlor trick. There would have to be short term tests and long term tests in order to eliminate faulty conceptual constructs in the design of the tests. I agree that ABX testing has not been shown to be the definitive listening test, although it has proven useful in some scenarios. And I agree that long-term testing - which doesn’t necessarily exclude using the ABX protocol - is necessary to produce valid results, imo.
Looking at what the testers demand demonstrates a skirting of any actual
test and instead, conditions guaranteed to scuttle any findings. It looks like that's been their actual intent, hence the demands for contracts approved by attorneys, $25,000 advance payments, the allure of 5-1 odds and other such nonsense. I've actually yet to see any sincere initiative here to design and conduct a proper scientific listening test. Instead, the demands for such testing are placed on others as a red herring by pseudo-skeptics. At least so far. |
