Weltanschaung and HiFi (warning, contentious and wordy)

[anon_bb]

3d - no we dont have to have an absolute reality. I studied general relativity and I can assure you that this is not the case. The world of quantum uncertainty compounds this at the other scale (which is itself further compounded at relativistic velocities re: certain types of radiation and hence observation that are dependent on the viewpoint). In addition some of your statistics is a little shakey. Beliefs of the subjects in the experiment can be counted for by calibration, examination of bias and rigourous controls and placebo studies. The controller of course must not be one of the people in the experiment. What you are desribing is no longer a test of cables it is a test of peoples propensity to hear differences when none exist due to expectation - something that has to be eliminated in a cable trial. It is a bias introduced by the testing method that can easily be measured and eliminated. An interesting psychological experiment but not one about cables.

In any "16 out of 20" test the statistics should of course be agreed by both parties beforehand.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

3d - no we dont have to have an absolute reality. I studied general relativity and I can assure you that this is not the case.

Hmmm, we are getting into a quagmire here.

Simple, we, as humans, are unable to percieve absolute reality, at least in our current general mental and physical configuration.

But that does not exclude the possibility of an absolute reality independent of observation. If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is there to hear it, is there a sound? And can you double blind test that?

Ciao T

 

[Paul Ranson]

Compare that to "I bet £1,000 that you cannot get 16 correct identifications in 20 as long as I control the statistics!".

I guess you don't care to be fair, but that's not the challenge.

FWIW I don't understand why you're using an example of a single blind test with deliberate bias as a criticism of a double blind ABX? ABX has shown sensitivity to small changes of level or FR, so the procedure works. In the £1000 case the subject is only expected to repeat blind what they claim to be able to do sighted, and there's no restriction on practice. Yet curiously a lack of participants ready to give it a go. If I were a cable believer I'd be dead keen to try.

Paul

 

[anon_bb]

If I a tree falls in the woods with noone to HEAR it then is there a SOUND? In short - no. Pressure waves are created in the air but there is no perceived sound.

Observer and reality and intimately intwined - there is no reality independent of the observer, everything depends upon your vantage point.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

If I a tree falls in the woods with noone to HEAR it then is there a SOUND? In short - no. Pressure waves are created in the air but there is no perceived sound.

So, in the absolute reality pressure waves are generated, but as no-one percieves them they are not there?

I understand what you are trying to say and it actually supports my contention.

Observer and reality and intimately intwined - there is no reality independent of the observer, everything depends upon your vantage point

Correct, so cables may actually make an objective difference or not and you may hear it or not, depending on your vantage point. Simple blind testing does not remove this bias and thus is a waste of time.

Ciao T

 

[Joe]

If I a tree falls in the woods with noone to HEAR it then is there a SOUND? In short - no. Pressure waves are created in the air but there is no perceived sound.

Nonsense. Suppose I rig up a tape recorder, which records the sound of the tree falling. Are you saying that the sound only exists because of the presence of the tape recorder, or that the tape recorder is recording non-existent sounds?

 

[anon_bb]

Pressure waves are there but no sound is heard as "sound" is an internal representation of sensory stimuli and hearing is the process of relating stimuli to internal qualities.

Yes cables may make an objective difference but this could be measured - currently no such evidence exists. This has nothing to do with subjective effects and their assessment using db or abx. Dont confuse internal subjective opinion with relativity - that is a misconception. If a subjective effect exists then it can be shown to exist with a suitable methodology, control and enough tests. The issue is "can people hear a difference between cables with electrically equivalent parameters". If they "may not" hear it then that is the point of the test! If there is something there even for a small proportion of listeners then it will stand out above the noise if enough samples are taken. This isnt a bais its the mode of operation of statistics itself. Confidence limits... take your pick.

Dont mishmash scripture and physics / statistics!

 

[anon_bb]

Nope the tape recorder converts the pressure waves to an electrical signal representation stored on tape. It does not store a "sound". You just perceive a sound when you play back the tape and presume somehow the sound has been stored like magic. Even the sound you hear will not be the same as the sound you would have heard at the recording site.

 

[Joe]

Even the sound you hear will not be the same as the sound you would have heard at the recording site.

Not even if I put a lot of Mana under the tape recorder?

 

[anon_bb]

Nope that makes it worse - as does active atc, naim, linn etc or valves

 

[anon_bb]

Of course for thorsten the valve tape recorder has actually improved the sound and made it more soundlike than the original tree falling Though that is of course impossible to proove except using rejected science.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

The issue is "can people hear a difference between cables with electrically equivalent parameters".

We have already setteled (I thought) that completely identical cables (say my DIY RG214/MIL fitted with solderless WBT Plugs and a commercial cable that dresses the same RG-214/MIL up in a brightly coloured braided sleeving and fits the same WBT Plugs but sells for $ 500 the 1m Pair) will sound the same, simply because they are the same, to all intents and purposes.

But what if we replace RG214/MIL by the superficially similar RG213? We now have both electrical and constructional differences. Have we stepped outside "electrically equivalent parameters" or not?

BTW, non of what you have written addresses my contention that:

1) A disbeliever will not hear obvious differences if (s)he disbelieves that what (s)he is auditions results in audible differences.

2) A believer will hear non existent differences if (s)he believes that what (s)he is auditions results in audible differences.

3) If a DBT is carried out the tendency of of the believer and disbeliever will act to provide a strong randomising factor which especially in small scale testing will reliably push any results below the "noisefloor" of the small sample, EVEN IF SIGNIFICANT differences exist.

BTW, the infamous "pepsi test" used a similar trick to make believe that could not tell Pepsi from Coke. Unsurprisingly it also works to illustrate that £0.09 per 2 Liter bottle Tesco Cola is indistingiushable from Pepsi, DESPITE that fact that in actuality it IS (as is Coke vs.Pepsi).

Bottomline, I do not trust statistics I have not faked myself.

Ciao T

 

[anon_bb]

1) Yes I have - it doesnt matter if a few do as you described it just increases the number of samples required.

2) Then that will be random given an appropriate methodology.

3) I answered the randomising factor issue before - you just nead more samples and a more rigourous methodology. If a significant difference in the underlying infinate sample space exists then it is by definition above the noise floor. If it isnt then it doesnt exist - in the infinate limit. Before that limit, in the actual tests you can determine to arbitrary confidence.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

1) Yes I have - it doesnt matter if a few do as you described it just increases the number of samples required.

If we are talking about samples for a single individual, the number may be very large and even the usually demanded 20 Trials are well past the attention span limits of most people to do them in a row (I found sequences of 8 Trials * 3 hard going!!!). If we attempt to increase the number of trials more we will get pure randomness simply because will have lost the will to live, never mind to pay attention to the test.

2) Then that will be random given an appropriate methodology.

Yes, BUT it will be random again disregardless of the actual differences. If the Believer hears differences wher ethey exist and scores them right but also hears them where in fact they do not exist the APPEARANCE of the statistical data will suggest randomness despite the fact that the "different" trials where identified corretcly and only the "same" trials where identified incorrectly.

3) I answered the randomising factor issue before - you just nead more samples and a more rigourous methodology.

I completely agree. Yet the "cable scpetics" seem to tend more and more to a rather smaller sample size and less rigerous methodology, unsurprising of course, as they have no other objective than to avoid finding anything.

Which brings us back to Weltanschaung, as these people ferverently believe that there MUST BE no differences and are happy to do (quite possibly without conciously being aware of it) comit any confidence trick and at least in a scientific sense fraud to make it so. Their methodology clearly illustrates this.

So, back to my contention, much what of people hear in the context of HiFi or not depends not so much on actual differences, but on perception, which in turn is governed by "Weltanschaung".

As by now I have stated it trice, as the good Bellman would say "I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."

Ciao T

 

[anon_bb]

1) The onus is on the cable believers to demonstrate either the subjective or objective existence of the effect. Until someone does so (which should have been simplicity itself - the only fields that plead exemption from this method pertain to the supernatural) then it is just an unfounded hypothesis at best and a religion at worst.

The number of samples will give us a confidence value, or alternatively a range limit for the effect, which is arguably a more useful concept in a quantatiative sense.

I have detailed a simple statistical framework for the sake of simplicity however by use of bayesian methods it is possible to incorporate the beliefs and baises of the people in the test in a much more rigourous way and thereby far reduce the number of samples required. Obviously we need to use more than one individual and more than a pair of cables to increase the significance and enable extra determinacy via the use of relative ranking which will also further the number of samples required due to the additonal constraints on the problem. With appropriate stats technique, methodology and measurement the number of tests and listeners need not be excessive.

2) See the comments above on bayesian analysis. This can be applied to listneres with different beleifs as it can also be applied to the different typyes of tests, even the subdivision into same and difference that you make. In any case it need not be as you have described with appropriate methodology. You are presupposing whether differences exist and were identified or not - this is the circular flaw in your reasoning. You cannot presume the outcome and your understanding of statistical method is incomplete.

3) There is no objective or subjective evidence so far other than the purely anecdotal. The skeptic position is therefore both tenable and the default. I have no agenda - if cable effects exist I will be happy to acknowledge them and increase my understanding. I do not BELEIVE anything - I just currently see no evidence to support the pro cable assertion and plenty of evidence for cable manufacturers hawking snake oil.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

1) The onus is on the cable believers to demonstrate either the subjective or objective existence of the effect.

Why?

They do not wish to "convince" disbelivers of their position, they basically just want to be left to their own devices, to wit the peddeling and buying of cables.

From that angle one may argue that the onus of proof is on the Disbelievers, who are intent on converting the belivers to their own brand of (dis)belief to provide conclusive and unassailable proof of their contention.

Surely you can the reasonableness of that.

The position "unless you dmeonstrate the trueness of your beliefs to me beyons any doubt from my side before you let you have your belief in peace" seems morally reprehensible, at the very least.

I have noticed this militant stance in many areas, where it seems the perpetrators are basically blue meanies who see others having fun, find themselves unable to participate as it conflicts with their beliefs and thus declare it all heresy and bunk and require "extraordinary proof" simply to leave others alone.

This goes from the Church and Sex to Objectivists and Cables.

Honestly this double standard Audio McCarthyism is not needed and NOT APPRECIATED.

Ciao T

 

[Paul Ranson]

3) If a DBT is carried out the tendency of of the believer and disbeliever will act to provide a strong randomising factor which especially in small scale testing will reliably push any results below the "noisefloor" of the small sample, EVEN IF SIGNIFICANT differences exist.

This is rubbish.

It obviously supports your position to make the assertion, but it's false.

Paul

 

[anon_bb]

They dont have to adhere to scientific method - but if they dont it is just a cult and not science. Which is how it appears to me. There is no McCarthyism, just a statement inline with scientific philosophy. It has nothing to do with a desire to convince or be convinced.

Understanding progresses regardless of our personal wishes. Doubtless many wished the world to stay flat . Some doubtless still beleive it and entitled to that view. Its not scientific however, whether they foist it on anyone else or not.

There is a big difference between "beleif" and "science" - one is falsifiable the other isnt. I am attacking cable claims on the latter not the former - they may well be right but there is scant evidence and there seem to be more logical reasons related to money making. Science isnt moral so it cant be reprehensible.

I refer you to occam. We cant just beleive technical claims by default else we would be deluged.

These threads were about cable claims so this debate seems entirely reasonable. Nobody is forcing anyone to partake. Invoking moral reprehenisbility, blue meanies and soem mystic force that makes cable claims immune to the normal scietific process that works for everything else bar faith seems a bit ott! Proof of the ordinary kind is sufficient for me

Nick.

 

[Joe]

These threads were about cable claims so this debate seems entirely reasonable. Nobody is forcing anyone to partake. Invoking moral reprehenisbility, blue meanies and soem mystic force that makes cable claims immune to the normal scietific process that works for everything else bar faith seems a bit ott! Proof of the ordinary kind is sufficient for me

Since these debates are all about perception, it's hard to see how proof comes into it.

There are (at least) two points at issue:

1) Do cables sound 'different' from each other and
2) If they do, does cable 'A' sound 'better' than cable B, and in what way(s)?

Surely measuring 'difference' is impossible, let alone measuring whether A is better than B?

An appropriate analogy might be two recordings of the same musical piece, the first by a world-famous ensemble, the second by a group of talented amateurs. The same notes are played in the same order, yet the recordings sound 'different', and there will almost certainly be a preference amongst listeners for one recording over another, possibly reflected in the selling price of the recording. Such quality differences are in no way measurable, but they 'exist' in the perception of listeners.

The bottom line, IMO, is that anything, hifi cables, musical recordings, football players, are 'worth' whatever someone is willing to pay.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

They dont have to adhere to scientific method - but if they dont it is just a cult and not science.

Good definition. We have now the ABX Cult. Somehow this is more apropriate than my old "ABX Mafia", as Cult's are both more sinister and more laughable than the MAF.

There is a big difference between "beleif" and "science" - one is falsifiable the other isnt. I am attacking cable claims on the latter not the former - they may well be right but there is scant evidence and there seem to be more logical reasons related to money making.

So what. I repeat.

The Cable Business (or indeed any other business engaged in selling with huge markups what is in essence an inexpensive commodity) is completely irelevant here.

What is relevant is that some people percieve difference, audibly, between cables. As soon as they happen to mention that someone jumps on them and insists thay cannot say that unless they first pass a DBT. We have seen this repeatedly in recent threads.

That is not far from demanding proof of God before you let anyone go to church.

Science isnt moral so it cant be reprehensible.

I never intimated such. I did not suggest that science was anything, but that the behaviour of certain people and groups of people was.

I refer you to occam. We cant just beleive technical claims by default else we would be deluged.

I quite regulary shave with good old William of Occam's razor, thank you very much. However, the argument "Cables with differing electrical properties can sound different" passes just fine.

Proof of the ordinary kind is sufficient for me

Yet according to your own contentions in this thread such proof is not even possible.

Ciao T