|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: ALL, and I mean ALL of the reputable evidence shows that you CAN hear in a DBT test posted by Phil Tower on November 28, 2002 at 12:09:02:
While it's not my favorite test, Greenhill's test of speaker cables certainly showed differences.while others have, albiet in not exactly standard circumstances (meaning the cables are used in circumstances beyond the usual), shown difference, they are not published.
But even not the bvest tests have shown differences, Phil.
This does not make some people happy, because what those differences showed were precisely in line with expected results from basic psychoacoustic experiments.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
Follow Ups:
jj:As I recall, the Greenhill test involved speaker cables of significantly different lengths and gauge, and so was not particularly applicable to real life situations.
The next question, then, in my mind, becomes whether a reasonable number of serious, valid tests have been run on cables to afford a reasonable opportunity to validate the claim that cables of similar length and gauge can produce audible differences.
My own dilemma in all this (one incidentally I’m unaware of ever loosing a second of sleep over) is that I consider myself a rational person, who believes that perceived physical phenomena should, at least theoretically, be subject to scientific validation if they are to be accepted as real phenomena. For example, I’m painfully aware that eye witness testimony can be highly unreliable, even though the witness believes beyond doubt the validity of his own perceptions.
Yet, in the past, I have said that my own perceptions of differences between many cables (based, admittedly, solely on sighted auditions) seem as “real” to me as my perception of my kitchen table. I assume no one would suggest that I need to conduct scientific tests to determine if my kitchen table really exists. But my perceptions of cable differences based on sighted auditions, I believe should require scientific validation before I can claim that these perceptions are truly the result of audible differences.
At this point, my own personal conclusion is that the testing in this area has been so sparse that the claims of the subjectivists haven’t really been given a fair chance. On the other hand, one must ask, I believe, as to why the industry (and here I include the entire high end industry, including makers of components) has not demonstrated any willingness to attempt to demonstrate that actual sonic differences between different cables and different components really exist.
I assume that the response of many in the industry and many audiophiles would be that the differences are so “obvious”, there is no need for control testing verification. If that is the response, my rational side is left feeling (to the extent a rational side can feel) very unsatisfied.
In addition, I think it is fair to ask the question of those who are attempting to measure electronic differences between cables involve differences that would be of the magnitude to produce actual sonic differences that, based on all that is currently known about the threshold of human hearing, could actually be heard. Again, I would assume that the response would be that the differences they are hearing are so “obvious”, that currently research into the threshold of human hearing must be inadequate. Again, if this is the reaction, I’m left feeling unsatisfied.
First, your perceptions, no matter how they come about, are real to you. They may not be testable, or falsifiable, etc, but they are certainly real to you. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I've been known to tee off very seriously on people who insist that perceptions, based on "real" things or on purely human effects (like the human tendency to overdetect, that is to say detect a difference when non exists, instead of missing "real" differences), are "hallucinations" or other such stuff.Now, the overdetection issue may in fact come in here.
It's commonly thought that there are 3 levels of "memory", starting with the near-periphery, or what I call "loudness" memory. This is a very detailed, but very fleeting memory. This loudness memory is reduced into a set of features, or middle memory (the psychologists have a fancy name for it) where much information is lost. Finally, feature memory is reduced to conceptual memory, where a great deal more information is lost. (I'm talking auditory here, but visual processing seems to be similar in some respects, of course the details are enormously different.)
In this process, both the middle and higher stages can be guided by expectation, random (or nonrandom) thoughts, attention, etc, and as a result one will remember DIFFERENT THINGS from the same audio stimulus.
By the way, even the partial loudness perception can be somewhat guided by concious thought.
This is a simple consequence of how people work.
This, of course, is one of the reasons that learning is important, but it's also a reason that one MUST have a falsifiable hypothesis in testing auditory stimulii.
It's also a reason that DBT's are may be MORE rather than LESS sensitive than sighted tests, because sighted tests introduce expectations and noise that can INTERFERE with the subjects' concentration.
Now, the Greenhill test was, if I recall correctly, within reasonable bounds as far as things that people would or might use in a system. Some of the wires were small, some large, but in fact such things were and still are sold for use.
I would hesitate to call all of them audiophile uses, perhaps.
As to the speculation about some of the reports, I'm simply not going to comment. I've been called enough names already.
The sensitivity of the ear at low levels, for instance, is remarkably close to the atmospheric (molecular) noise level. Those kinds of observations have been confirmed by DBT. The masking performance of the ear is likewise estimatable by knowledge of neural firing rates, etc, calculated from entirely different information, and it is confirmed quite well in DBT. And so on and so on.
Now, we know "everything"? OBviously not. However, it is still quite possible in the lack of full information to reject hypotheses that can be shown false, or for which the evidence is overwhelmingly negative.
That's all I'll say, sorry, I'm tired of having some of the people here claim "JJ is no scientist", I'm tired of them making accusations of professional misconduct on my part, and so on, so from this point forward (No, Phil, it's not you I'm annoyed with, nor is it John Esc...), I'm simply going to point to the literature.
There's no point in my saying something that is mainstream, pretty hard to question, and that has a great deal of evidence behind it, only to see an obviously coordinated campaign of vilification rain down on me.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
That's all I'll say, sorry, I'm tired of having some of the people here claim "JJ is no scientist", I'm tired of them making accusations of professional misconduct on my part, and so on, so from this point forward (No, Phil, it's not you I'm annoyed with, nor is it John Esc...), I'm simply going to point to the literature.I fully sympathize with you. I've been attacked by both sides, to the point of having my competency and ethical standards as a lawyer attacked. This is, after all, just a hobby.
I don't know if you would be willing to answer the following question, but I'll try. You say:
The sensitivity of the ear at low levels, for instance, is remarkably close to the atmospheric (molecular) noise level. Those kinds of observations have been confirmed by DBT. The masking performance of the ear is likewise estimatable by knowledge of neural firing rates, etc, calculated from entirely different information, and it is confirmed quite well in DBT. And so on and so on.
Does what is known about the sensitivity of human hearing suggest that distortion measured at 110dB below 50mV could possibly be audible?
My dilemma remains that my personal experience tells me that speaker cables, interconnects, power cables and power line conditioners all can have a significant effect on sonic performance. With one or two minor changes in the combination of cables and power line conditioners I use, I can make a recorded performance go from a living, breathing event to a dull, lifeless thud. I realize that to the extent I believe that this experience is due to actual audible differences, that puts me at odds with most of the science in this area. But I continue to examine my own “expectations” and other psychological factors that could be affecting my experience and simply can find no correlation between those factors and the results of the different combinations I have tried.
For me, and I suspect for many audiophiles, it’s not merely a question of which wire sounds better. It is achieving that extremely rare and elusive (regardless of how much money one spends) combination of wires and components when the music suddenly comes alive and the magic arrives – when the goose bumps pop out, the feet start to tap, the spirit soars with the music and one is no longer listening to equipment but is fully engrossed in the music. Moreover, I find when this magic has been achieved, it is repeated over and over with countless well-known and new recordings. It is no mere fluke limited to a specific recording, a particular day, a particular time of day, or a particular mood.
Either the placebo effect is so pervasive that it has my mind permanently in its grip, or science simply hasn’t devised or conducted the right tests or discovered the valid theory to confirm and explain such an experience, but I can not imagine ever accepting the fact that the magnitude of difference between the magic that comes from the proper combination of components and wires and the ordinary performance of a very expensive, but emotionally un-involving system, is all in my imagination.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: