Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Return to Propeller Head Plaza

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

The Scientific Method

66.166.141.18
Posted on November 16, 2002 at 15:12:27
Phil Tower
 A while back on AR, Monstrous Mike posted the following material from Carl Sagan, which I believe bears repeating at this point.

In The Demon Haunted World Carl Sagan suggested some "tools for skeptical thinking." These include:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the "facts."

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight---"authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses" has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7. If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise)--not just most of them.

8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle-an electron, say-in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

10. The reliance on carefully designed and controlled experiments is key. We will not learn much from mere contemplation. It is tempting to rest content with the first candidate explanation we can think of. One is much better than none. But what happens if we can invent several? How do we decide among them? We don’t. We let experiment do it.

ON SCIENCE LITERACY:

"All inquiries carry with them some element of risk. There is no guarantee that the universe will conform to our predispositions. But I do not see how we can deal with the universe-both the outside and the inside universe-without studying it. The best way to avoid abuses is for the populace in general to be scientifically literate, to understand the implications of such investigations. In exchange for freedom of inquiry, scientists are obliged to explain their work. If science is considered a closed priesthood, too difficult and arcane for the average person to understand, the dangers of abuse are greater. But if science is a topic of general interest and concern - if both its delights and its social consequences are discussed regularly and competently in the schools, the press, and at the dinner table - we have greatly improved our prospects for learning how the world really is and for improving both it and us."

-"Broca's Brain," Broca's Brain, p. 12.


If someone at the Cable Asylum wants opinions on, and comparisons of, Cardas Golden Reference, Transparent Reference and Harmonic Tech Pro-Silway MkII, I can easily accommodate, because I have listened extensively to these three cables in my system and I have very strong subjective opinions regarding all three (and countless other cables I have had in and out of my system over the years). In fact, I will pit the number of different cables that I have seriously auditioned against any audiophile and most professionals. But when providing subjective impressions of various cables and components, I try to be careful how I word my statements, so as not to give any misimpression that I am claiming scientific validity for what I’m saying. I leave it to the questioner to place whatever value he chooses to on my statements.

Yet, when I come to this forum, in my view, my subjective opinions of different cables, my personal belief as to whether all wires sound the same or different, my 30 plus years of experience as an audiophile, my system, whether I even own a system and whether I’ve even ever listened to a system are, in most instances, irrelevant.

What I believe is relevant and appropriate at this particular forum is that I follow Carl Sagan’s guidelines in my discussions, and to attack and question ideas, statements and claims, but not people. I believe that it is inappropriate at this forum for me to attack someone’s professional competency, their level of education or any other personal quality they may or may not possess. To the extent I advance my own beliefs or opinion, I hope to do so respectfully and reasonably, and be fully open for those opinions and beliefs being subjected to intense critical review; and if I believe I have been mistaken to admit it openly. I believe my sole motive at this forum should be to contribute as best I can to the fearless and dispassionate pursuit of the truth.

On the other hand, if someone challenges my credibility, integrity, professional competency or ethics as a lawyer, or attempts to saddle me with beliefs, opinions, claims or statements I have never made or advanced (all of which I have experienced on internet audio boards), I will fight to defend myself if necessary.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Quick Assessment..., posted on November 16, 2002 at 15:58:11
Monstrous Mike
Audiophile

Posts: 571
Location: Ottawa
Joined: November 10, 2002
 If we follow Sagan's rules, here is where I believe we are:

1. Not yet done.

2. Done to death but meaningless without 1.

3. Yep, this sure applies.

4. Naysayers have spun many hypothesis about anecedotal results of cable differences whereas most cable believers stick to one hypothesis about cable sonics.

5. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will. This is true.

6. There has been some quantifying but no correlation between measured characteristics and hearing testing.

7. There are many weak links in the chain of the arguement.

8. Occam's razor seems to favour the sujectivists.

9. Haven't seen any results being checked out.

10. Haven't seen any reliable experimenting been done yet either.

My personal assessment is we are far from being able to claim anything scientific in relation to cables other than personal experiences where one person prefers one cable over another. I'd be willing to bet that this is the way it is going to stay for awhile.

 

Re: Quick Assessment..., posted on November 16, 2002 at 16:26:01
Phil Tower
 My personal assessment is we are far from being able to claim anything scientific in relation to cables other than personal experiences where one person prefers one cable over another. I'd be willing to bet that this is the way it is going to stay for awhile.

I agree with that. My only comment is that ideally there should be a place at any audio website for each person to discuss issues within the parameters that work for that person. I believe that the Bored is striving to meet that ideal. Hopefully, we Inmates will appreciate and recognize the Bored's efforts and responsibly take advantage of the opportunities that are being provided to meet the needs of as many audiophiles as possible.

With respect to this particular forum (which I never envisioned as necessarily or even preferably limited solely to discussions of cables), we may have a long way to go, but we've got to start somewhere. I'm hoping that, as I alluded to in my initial post, this forum can be dedicated to the fearless and dispassionate search for the truth. I will do what little I can to promote that.

In the meantime, while sonic differences between cables remains, in my opinion "unproven" from a scientific standpoint, given the relative lack of real scientific research and testing in this area, I don't feel as if I'm promoting snake-oil or hocus pocus simply because I may choose to post my subjective impression of various cables I might have subjective experience with at the Cable Asylum.

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 16, 2002 at 22:33:32
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 Yet, when I come to this forum, in my view, my subjective opinions of different cables, my personal belief as to whether all wires sound the same or different, my 30 plus years of experience as an audiophile, my system, whether I even own a system and whether I’ve even ever listened to a system are, in most instances, irrelevant.
=====================
Not myself.You have some great equiptment and what might work in your system might not work in another or be revealed as much.Or there might not be the same likes for another,but your opinion is not irrelevant.

I'm just jealous.:-(

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 05:02:04
Phil Tower
 Thanks for the compliments on the system.

It took me a long time through a lot of trial and error to assemble a system that to me is able to capture the magic of music, and doesn't have glaring areas of deficiencies that would make it difficult for me to avoid the upgrade bug. The dogmatic objectivists, I assume, would simply say that I grew tired of tinkering and finally decided just to enjoy listening and ignore the equipment.

But it doesn't seem that way to me. It took me a long time (as I said through trial and error) to find the right combination of components, cables, speaker placement and room acoustics (all of which seem to me in my subjective experience to be major factors in assembling a good system) that produce what I always believed should be possible with a high end system. Given the hundreds (good gosh, probably even thousands) of hours I have spent switching things in and out of my system and tinkering in an effort to achieve my primary goals of "neutrality" and dynamics, it is very difficult for me to conclude that all the little and not-so-little differences that I perceived throughout this process were just due to expectations or some placebo effect. I have said before that my subjective experiences of differences between cables or components seem as real to me as my daily perceptions of my kitchen table.

Yet, with all of this, when I start looking at the technical side of audio to find explanations for what I have experienced, I see mainly chaos and mean-spirited debates, that never seem to advance beyond the same old rhetoric and name calling that is hurled back and forth. So I was hoping this forum might provide a little more orderly and scholarly way of approaching all of this.

And when I say “all of this” I don’t mean just cables. There are all kinds of interesting debates that go on in audio that get bogged down with abusive behavior and personal vendettas. Currently, the battle between supporters of SACD and DVD-A seems to me to be one of those battles. Hopefully, a fresh, dispassionate, technical examination of that subject might occur here.

In addition, one thing I don’t see discussed a lot, that I think would be interesting, is what people think the next significant technological breakthroughs in audio will be (or should be).

So, in any event, those are just my ramblings on an early Sunday morning out here in Phoenix. Thanks for listening if you made it this far.

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 05:44:34
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 Yes,I made it that far.

A thing to consider is that Audio is one of the most Subjective subjects one can analyise.It is not as clearcut for anyone.Taste plays a most important factor.An example is that I recently bought a few runs of Canare Cable to get me through till I could get something better on the advice from a poster that I confer with weekly.After getting it and listening for a few months I was missing detail in Vocal's to an extent that it was intolerable.I wrote the guy that sold them and told him that they could not be used from my source CDP to Passive Preamp.While they did good from the Amp to Pre(ok!) they absolutely sucked from the source to Pre.He wrote back that I was the first to inform him of the issue.I was not trying to rain on his parade,but it was so apparent that it made me disgusted to listen to them while others really ,supposedly, liked them.Subjective view I guess or they just did not have an ear for good synergy.

As far as the next craze in Audio I guess people are really leaning towards mp3 based systems which are well below the norm for good playback in my estimation.It's a pity to.there is much left to uncover in the audio playback world .

Particular intrest to me is sound reproduction through speaker's.Living in the northeast most of us do not live in spacious palaces like the in the mild weather west or southeast.:-)Small is king here that can fill a room with adequate playback.It's either Mini-Monitors or sleakly designed speaker's and that is why I love the NEAR's in a 3-way.Unobtusive with almost full range sound.Apogees and big ribbons will not work for me and I aim for transparentcy.The NEAR's give it to me in spades.
Now if I can only find that great lowcost SOTA amp!

Have a good Sunday!

 

Toole and cables, posted on November 17, 2002 at 07:39:30
Phil Tower
 As something that I thought you might find interesting, the following is the only public pronouncement of Dr. Toole I have ever seen regarding cables:

“4. [Interview Question] I believe that many audiophiles would get more from their equipment if they would transfer some of their interest and money for audio cables into acoustics and room adaption, but since audio cables seem to be of such big interest, maybe you could share what you think are the relevant qualities when it comes to loudspeaker cables?

[Dr. Toole's Answer] Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them. At a time when advanced technology has reduced the number of tweaks that audio enthusiasts can play with, it is natural that these products should become topics of conversation. I call the most extreme of them "audio jewellery" (sic) , in that they do nothing for the audio system except make the owner feel better or more proud. Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices. Even "bad" cables, are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do.”

http://www.sonicdesign.se//tooleinw.htm

I posted this quote at AR a while back

http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@121.XJvoaDskeHK^969828@.ef8fe2f

and suggested that, while Dr. Toole is saying (what even a number of subjectivist also say) that many cables are over priced, he also seems to acknowledge that there can be audible differences between cables He compares "superbly performing audio cables" with "bad" cables.

Moreover, when he mentions "bad" cables, he expressly states that they "are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do.”

Now everyone seems to agree that room acoustics and poorly designed loudspeakers often are extremely important considerations in the quality of audible sonic differences between systems. So if, in Toole's mind, the sonic effects of "bad" cables are on a par with the audible consequences of room acoustics and poorly designed loudspeakers, he must beleive that the audible sonic differences that can exist between certain cables can be pretty significant, at least based on what that particular quote (which, again, is the only public pronouncement of Toole that I have ever found on the issue of cables) seems to suggest.


The main reason I posted that quote is because two AR regulars had flat-out claimed that Toole had tested cables and concluded that the idea that cables could differ as far as audible sonic differences was non-sense. When I asked for substantiation that he had actually conducted such tests and come to that conclusion, they could not provide any proof of their claim.

If you care to wade through that particular thread, you will see the sorry discussion that ensued. In my opinion, the level of sophistry that was employed to counter my observation regarding the Toole quote puts to shame us mealy-mouthed, two-faced, weasel attorneys (all labels that some of the good, “rational” objectivists at AR have labeled me with) to shame.

 

"Audio Jewlery" he says!, posted on November 17, 2002 at 08:02:56
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 Yeah and it makes a difference to the extent that you either get a MUD sound to getting a Musical sound with good synergy between components.

He probably likes Canare COAX as an IC also!

Wish he would explain his views better!

About the best thing I would credit him with is the creation of Lab in the great white north which can give good measurement results so consumers might have a basic reference for numbers.

Yoiu know I still feel the thing that makes wires sound different is the way the old Electrons pass through a conductor,but thats my theory.I did see a program on PBS about conductors where something like that was alluded to.They do have to bounce ariund through the conductor in order for them to make their way to the other side and the way they do that might effect the sound .

This cannot be proven and it is only my conjecture.I do think it should be considerd though.

The ABEX Theory.L [:-)

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 08:43:26
Monstrous Mike
Audiophile

Posts: 571
Location: Ottawa
Joined: November 10, 2002
 what might work in your system might not work in another

This is the type of statement that is only found in high end audio. In engineering and science, this sort of comment simply does not apply. Either something works, or it doesn't. This might be too black and white for some people but that doesn't prevent it from being true.

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 08:54:43
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 Well the guy that sold me the Canare to use said no one else had trouble with it,but I will guarante that your ears would hear the difference in my system.It seemed to work in everyone elses system he sold it to.
You ever hear of the word synergy?Well that might be the case and how about Digital cables not working with some DAC's to CDP's.Probably a scientific explaination for it though.

 

Re: Toole and cables, posted on November 17, 2002 at 10:10:41
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 I remember that thread BTW!It is something I treasure for the fighting AR team and their band of renoun-ced!

He(O'Toole) has contributed to acoustic research though,That I would not dispute because there is a better or more even playing feild for speaker's coming out of Canada,but I don't think he is the final word in Acoustic Engineering or Testing.

If I am interpreting the article correctly ,there are differences ,but they are small in measure to the other variables.That is enough for me.

I have stated in the past that speakers and associated equiptment might reproduce sound or be more touchy with what cable is being used .It would only make sense.A 70's reciever is different than equiptment of today.Better speced parts,different designs.Amp designs have not changed much,but the components that make them up have.Purity and strict tolerances have improved.

If I am wrong I am sure I will hear from the gallery.L

 

Re: "Audio Jewlery" he says!, posted on November 17, 2002 at 11:09:49
Phil Tower
 It seems to me that there is a certain school of thought that believes that all that can ever be known or measured with respect to electromagnetic propagation through wires for audio purposes and with respect to the amplification of audio signals is already known. I don’t have the technical background to pass judgment on the validity of this view point. I do know that I am inherently uncomfortable with a view point that believes that all that can ever be known about any particular subject is already known.

This group seems to believe there is more to be discovered:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~musiclab/music.html


Perhaps something interesting will come from them.

BTW, are you the “Abex” of AR fame?

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 12:30:45
jeff mai
Audiophile

Posts: 640
Joined: February 6, 2001
 >>>what might work in your system might not work in another<<<

>>This is the type of statement that is only found in high end audio. In engineering and science, this sort of comment simply does not apply. Either something works, or it doesn't. This might be too black and white for some people but that doesn't prevent it from being true.<<

What? Because a hammer is ideal for setting a nail, you're saying I should use it for setting screws as well?

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 12:48:42
Monstrous Mike
Audiophile

Posts: 571
Location: Ottawa
Joined: November 10, 2002
 In my years as a naval engineer, I have worked with many electronic systems that are infinitely more complex than a home audio system. And this includes miles of every different type of cable you can think of covering the entire frequency spectrum. I know what synergy means and it doesn't apply in any case in my career of naval engineering installations.

Like I said, words like synergy only occur in high end audio, nowhere else in the engineering or scientific world.

Probably a scientific explaination for it though.

None that I know of.

 

That's my point..., posted on November 17, 2002 at 12:51:09
Monstrous Mike
Audiophile

Posts: 571
Location: Ottawa
Joined: November 10, 2002
 A hammer is for driving in nails and screwdriver is for driving in screws, regardless of what you are building.

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 13:10:12
David Aiken
Audiophile

Posts: 5858
Location: Brisbane
Joined: September 25, 1999
 I've kept out of the main thread here because I'm trying to put something together myself, but I can't resist the opportunity to comment on the application of "scientific method" to the problem of getting the sound you want.

After years of not bothering about my system, I got interested again a few years ago (components breaking down with age forcing a shopping expedition) and over the past 4 years I've totally replaced my system component by component. As I went through that, I also got into tweaking heavily and found myself playing around with different tweaking ideas on a weekly basis at times. I got into learning how to listen to detail and change again and went down some interesting byways because of that - not all productive apart from the fact that learning what is unproductive is always productive. I also started listening to live music and voices in the same way and getting a better feel for what they do sound like rather than what I thought they sounded like. Finally, after moving house and getting everything into a new room and refining the setup to fine tune it for the room, I seem to be running out of the urge to tweak and further system changes are out of the budget for some years now so I find myself settling back into the music again and it is nice - both the music and the settling back.

I know what you mean about the trial and error, and the "dogmatic objectivist" view that we just get tired, but I thoroughly agree with what I think is your own unspoken conclusion there that the time and effort involved do yield a significant benefit in the sound. You can't pin that down in bits and pieces to "this came from that component and that from another". Yes, some of the changes in sound are slight but, like you, I don't think they're placebo effects and synergy definitely has it's place too. In the end, the whole definitely seems more than the sum of the parts.

That whole trial and error process really does relate to a scientific, as in rational, approach. It's a process of trying something and asking does it make a difference. If it does, do I like it in which case it stays, if I don't it goes, and if I don't know whether I like it or not then I sit with it until I know. If it doesn't make a difference to the sound, it may still stay if it makes the room or using the gear easier, or even if I just like how it looks since good aesthetics are relaxing and relaxing helps me enjoy the music more anyway. At the same time, there's the another process of learning what things sound like going on which also helps you to learn what you like in sound and that yields not a few surprises too.

I think one of the fascinating things about the process is that you can start out with the idea of improving the sound of your system and not know what it's going to sound like at the end of the process, and even though you don't know where you're going you do know when you get there. You've got a system that plays music and does the things that are important to your enjoyment of music very well. Other people may find other aspects of the music more important and prefer a different sound but that's OK too. Your system is right for you and it really does fit comfortably.

In a sense there is a similar process going on in science. You start with an itch, in this case a question to which you don't know the answer, and go through a trial and error process finding out all sorts of other things along the way as you refine your understanding until you come to a conclusion and you know that's the answer so you stop looking further and go on to something else.

So I definitely don't find your process misguided or doubt your conclusion that at least some of the things you think you heard along the way are real differences. It's pretty impossible not to be convinced of the reality of some of the perceived differences when they end up being totally different to what you expected them to be, even the opposite of what you expected on occasion. And there are also the times when you expected to hear something and didn't. The people who pass everything off by saying that "You only heard what you expected to hear - you're convincing yourself when there is no difference" really don't seem to have tried the experiment themselves and played with their system. In some ways that unwillingness to play is the greatest enemy of science.

Yes, we can individually make mistakes along the way but that comes naturally with human fallibility. That's definitely not a problem for science and the history of science is riddled with people making mistakes. It's the willingness to dig at the issue, to play around, to make mistakes here and there and keep going, that is one major part of the scientific method. The other is the systematic and rational techniques that are used. You need both and you don't get anywhere without both so I think we can quite comfortably say that people who aren't willing to play around with trial and error and to make mistakes here and there aren't being scientific in their approach. In fact, I think we can probably go as far as saying "refusal to play is irrational".

David Aiken

 

"The school of technological roadkill", posted on November 17, 2002 at 13:55:25
John Escallier
Audiophile

Posts: 4425
Location: Long Island
Joined: October 3, 2002
 ""believes that all that can ever be known or measured with respect to [[[electromagnetic propagation through wires for audio purposes and with respect to the amplification of audio signals]]] is already known""

A timeless, classic phrase. Feel free to insert within [[[ ]]];

medicine, automobiles, computers, transistors, information storage, flight, physics, DNA, cancer research, light bulbs, rockets. The list goes on.

"The people who hold there beliefs are usually the first to become roadkill on the technology highway".


Cheers, John

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 14:14:47
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 "The people who pass everything off by saying that "You only heard what you expected to hear - you're convincing yourself when there is no difference" really don't seem to have tried the experiment themselves and played with their system. In some ways that unwillingness to play is the greatest enemy of science."

That is exactly the point that some fail to realise and it is good that you brought that up.For naysayers are always passing the buck for those who perceive differences to prove it.Like what is their to prove,I proved it to the one that counts most.ME!Not trying to be selfish ,but thats what it comes down to.

You cannot put another persons set of ears on and cannot do the groundwork for them either.If they are lazy they will never know if they can improve anything and only trust what they have read from others who share their lazy mental outlook.

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 14:46:49
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 Well Mike why will a digital cable not keep a lock on my ART DAC?

I firmly believe that there is a difference in cables that cannot be or has no way of being measured by electronic Measureing equiptment at this time,but JC I think has a spectrum analysis device or something that he is working with at this time to try to equate differences in cables if I read a post of his discussion with OLE correctly.

We have only just progressed to the point of being able to take a picture of an atom having electrons circleing a nucleus and being able to prove some of the Theories of Einsteins as being fact.We are just scratching the surface on alot of things that were theories.Even the Cosmos are in in Debate,but we are getting closer to understanding what actually might have happened to put us here.

I still think that the more sensitive the equiptment the more noticable the difference will be when inserting Cables or anything else.Especially speaker's that are sensitive.NEAR's are known to be revealing to what might change down the line to the source.Including the source.They are more sensitive then the Maggies I am selling and that is a stretch.They are more transparent and I always thought Maggies were the most transparent speaker's I had ever had and these are box speaker's.Martin Logans did not mesh well with the Bass drivers last time I listend to them,but I knew what I heard and could tell the Bass was really not omni directional like it should be.

You know something that really turns me off.That is when I go to a salon and they have a sub playing and I can tell where the Bass is eminating from.Tells me that the dealer or sales person really does not know much about setting up a good demo.
I recently went to hear B&W's and the sales person forgot he had a sub going behind me.It was not apparent at first ,but I turned around because I could swear there was one going.In fact before he played my test CD's he turned it off he knew it was on because of where he was standing and I was in the seated sweetspot where I was not suppose to beable to tell.He might have been testing me.It was set right though. It meshed well with the main speaker's per se.

Therer are things which cannot be explained at this time,but that does not mean theirs not a diff.

 

What point?, posted on November 17, 2002 at 15:28:52
jeff mai
Audiophile

Posts: 640
Joined: February 6, 2001
 Either a speaker works or it doesn't. I suspect this statement may be too black and white even for you. Maybe you should clearly elaborate on what you mean.

 

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, posted on November 17, 2002 at 15:36:21
Norm Strong
Audiophile

Posts: 583
Location: Seattle WA
Joined: September 21, 1999
 In addition to pointing out the apparently large profit margin enjoyed by upscale cables, Toole stated that the most "extreme" such cables do nothing for the system except make the owners feel good. I interpret the word "extreme" as meaning "expensive." It seems to me that Toole is stating outright that expensive cables do nothing for the system.

He then states that "superbly performing cables can be purchased for moderate prices." What is the definition of superbly performing? It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sound quality. It might simply mean that the cables are well designed and built to last. As far as "bad" cables are concerned, he says nothing about what constitutes a bad cable. Nor did he say that bad cables were responsible for poor sound in any case at all; just that they're not as bad as what comes in second.

 

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, posted on November 17, 2002 at 15:39:34
Norm Strong
Audiophile

Posts: 583
Location: Seattle WA
Joined: September 21, 1999
 In addition to pointing out the apparently large profit margin enjoyed by upscale cables, Toole stated that the most "extreme" such cables do nothing for the system except make the owners feel good. I interpret the word "extreme" as meaning "expensive." It seems to me that Toole is stating outright that expensive cables do nothing for the system.

He then states that "superbly performing cables can be purchased for moderate prices." What is the definition of superbly performing? It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sound quality. It might simply mean that the cables are well designed and built to last. As far as "bad" cables are concerned, he says nothing about what constitutes a bad cable. Nor did he say that bad cables were responsible for poor sound in any case at all; just that they're not as bad as what comes second. Nothing Toole said contradicts the statement, "Cables have no effect on sound."

 

Re: You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, posted on November 17, 2002 at 15:58:55
Phil Tower
 I've been down this road before, and I'm not going down it again. I've described how I interpret the quote. You're certainly entitled to your interpretation. Others, if they care, can judge for themselves.

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 17:01:55
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4708
Joined: May 16, 2000
 What I appear to be measuring is a 'crossover' distortion in a piece of wire. To be sure, this is only ONE test for differences in wires. This was discovered about 15-20 years ago by Dr. Van den Hul and is on his website. Look it up! For at least 5 years, I have found this measurement just possible with my original test equipment. My biggest problem was noise. NOW, I can signal average the noise out. This is what 'Stereophile' should do as well, when they make amp measurements, especially with tubes. They would find much lower distortion at low levels than what they are showing on their graphs at this time.

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 18:02:28
Phil Tower
 The thing that baffles me about the extreme objectivist viewpoint is when it is applied on the hobbiest level (as opposed to the scientific lab level) to the point that some of them seem to be saying that even if they substituted a high end cable for their Rat Shack cables and perceived a significant improvement, and continued to perceive that improvement on a consistent basis, they still wouldn't consider using that high end cable unless and until it had been scientifically demonstrated that the improvement they are hearing is not due to placebo. At that point, it seems to me that they become as closed minded at the hobbiest level as subjectivists who reject DBTs out of hand are at the scientific level.

Of course, if a hobbiest wants to utilize blind testing at home, I have no problem with that. But I have never heard anyone who claims to have employed blind testing at home say if the differences they thought they were hearing in sighted auditions before the blind test disappeared in sighted auditions following the blind the test. If in fact a person continued under sighted conditions to hear significant differences between a Rat Shack cable and a high end cable after failing to have distinguished them under blind conditions, would they reject the high end cable simply because they had been unable to distinguish it in a blind test? Would they reject it even if under post test auditioning experienced it as making a significant improvement to their enjoyment of their system, simply because they had failed to distinguish it under blind conditions? As I understand the extreme objectivist position, the answer to the last two questions would be an emphatic YES.

To the extent that is truly the position of the extreme objectivists, then I find it very difficult to understand where the "rationality" is in that position.

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 17, 2002 at 18:08:59
Rod M
Web Geek

Posts: 16242
Location: So. California
Joined: March 1, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 Jeff, I agree with you. Mike completely disregards the effect of capacitance and inductunce and how it might interact with a specific piece of equipment, he's a black and white type of guy. However, do try to express your argument more effectively. I don't want to see this forum degrade into shouting.

Thanks.

 

Re: "The school of technological roadkill", posted on November 17, 2002 at 18:45:00
eico1
Audiophile

Posts: 62
Location: nocal
Joined: November 12, 2002
 Measure all you want, to determine which parameters cause which audible effect will take the brain power. I still think isolating the audible difference takes very little brain power to devise the test configuration, just haven't seen the results though.

steve

 

Thx for the Clarification .nt, posted on November 17, 2002 at 18:51:44
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 nt

 

Don't be too hard on them…, posted on November 17, 2002 at 23:11:21
David Aiken
Audiophile

Posts: 5858
Location: Brisbane
Joined: September 25, 1999
 If you hear something on a sighted test and you can't distinguish it reliably on a blind test, you're in a very interesting position. How do you explain it to yourself? Even if you thought you heard a large difference on the sighted test, you may very well be inclined to think that the difference wasn't so large and that in fact you were mistaken and it actually was small enough that you couldn't reliably distinguish it on the blind test. Would you want to shell out a lot of cash for the expensive cable in those circumstances? I think I would have reservations and I wouldn't criticise anyone who had doubts after such an experience. They are experimentting and listening and we each hear what we hear and make our own decisions on that. Even when we're basing our decision on what we consider are significant differences heard in a sighted test, we sometimes baulk at the cost differential between items. If you can have doubts there and decide on a cost benefit analysis to go with the item that costs less, why would you want to criticise the person in your example for not going with the expensive item?

I admit that's added in another factor - price - to your scenario but I don't think it's an unreasonable factor to introduce since it's often a factor to be considered anyway and one can understand it carrying more weight for someone who had failed to distinguish the item on blind testing.

David Aiken

 

Unh, Mike..., posted on November 17, 2002 at 23:35:16
jj
 What might work in my home system will not work in my work system, nor will what works well for speakers in my upstairs system work well for the downstairs system.

And that's just for starters.

I'm quite sure if I replaced all the 45 degree horns in a stadium with direct radiators, that wouldn't work very well either. Or if I replaced the direct radiators in a nearfield monitor with horns with a 20Hz cut off :)

I think you're oversimplifying things here.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies

 

Who on the asylum says this?, posted on November 17, 2002 at 23:42:23
jj
 Quote: "The people who pass everything off by saying that "You only heard what you expected to hear - you're convincing yourself when there is no difference" really don't seem to have tried the experiment themselves and played with their system. In some ways that unwillingness to play is the greatest enemy of science."

Just who on the asylum says things like that?

I'll grant you a FEW seem to have opinions something like that, but even Mike above seems to not get that far.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies

 

But do you care?, posted on November 17, 2002 at 23:44:23
jj
 Your first sentence:
If you hear something on a sighted test and you can't distinguish it reliably on a blind test, you're in a very interesting position. How do you explain it to yourself?

Why do you have to explain it? Explaining it is when one gets into trouble.

If you like it, it's all about satisfaction. Be satisfied. Life is too short.

When you have to do science it's different, but most of us don't do science for our home listening satisfaction, I think.

Do we? I doubt it.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies

 

Re: Who on the asylum says this?, posted on November 18, 2002 at 04:03:58
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/473.html

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 18, 2002 at 04:24:24
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 I would imagine that you are using a raw data type of thing when you were an eng. in the Navy and comparing it to what Human discernment is when it comes to heraing in audio.The 2 are totally different.

X's & 0"s are alot different than trying to ditinguish what humans can hear.

What is your theory for Whale beachings?No one as yet to explain that one,but it is a similar thing in my mind. We just do not know enough of why people's sensitivity to what they either hear or think they hear.

 

Re: The Scientific Method, posted on November 18, 2002 at 05:19:51
Phil Tower
 David:

Thanks for your very well articulated comments. It sounds as if your experience and the conclusions you drew from that experience have been similar to mine. You just described it much better than I could.

 

Re: You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, posted on November 18, 2002 at 06:16:50
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000
 As Norm says, you are reading much too much into the little section from the interview with Toole. What you want just is not there; for that matter, I would wish for more detail. Making distinctions does not indicate more than possibilities.

Hardly anyone denies that different cables and interconnects may make an audible difference under some circumstances. You have consistently refused to tell me who holds such a position, much less providing any refences, apparently relying on your overall impressions. You keep beating this dead horse (you are not alone in this). However, to reason that because there may be a difference that therefore there must be an audible difference in your system is not valid. One cannot validly reason from possibility to actuality.

I personally see no reason to have equipment where in normal use a line level signal is likely to be much affected by a difference in interconnects. Of course, phono is a different matter, as the FR of many cartridges is aubstantially affected by the capacitance--something I would rather adjust in the preamp. See: I told you there were some conditions where a difference is likely, and I even gave you a well-known example!

____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)

 

Re: You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, posted on November 18, 2002 at 06:42:07
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 I think he is alluding to a long drawn out post fight on another BB where no one excepts the fact that cables can make a difference.Their point of view is that Dr.O'Toole finds there is no diff in cables.

In my system cables do make a difference also.There are other components like speakers and X-overs where differences are much more apparent,but some are not shaken to even consider the issue of cables making a diff in a system whaich is beyond comprehension if you have experimented to see weather there is a diff..

DBT's are their main defense to prove a point also.

 

Re: "The school of technological roadkill", posted on November 18, 2002 at 07:12:33
John Escallier
Audiophile

Posts: 4425
Location: Long Island
Joined: October 3, 2002
 ""Measure all you want, to determine which parameters cause which audible effect will take the brain power.""

Agreed

I still think isolating the audible difference takes very little brain power to devise the test configuration, just haven't seen the results though.""

In the listening enviro, yes. I'm bound and determined to find a test in the electrical enviro.

Cheers, John

 

Re: Unh, Mike..., posted on November 18, 2002 at 07:30:50
Monstrous Mike
Audiophile

Posts: 571
Location: Ottawa
Joined: November 10, 2002
 Some people treat audio cables like flavours. You know, kinda like there's only one or two that will "sound" proper for your system. This kind of thinking propegates the idea that you can give a cable a different name, different color, and a different price and it should sound different.

I don't subscribe to that theory and I thought you didn't either.

 

Re: What point?, posted on November 18, 2002 at 07:32:57
Monstrous Mike
Audiophile

Posts: 571
Location: Ottawa
Joined: November 10, 2002
 I think what you want is for me to confirm that cables do sound different and I have done the testing to prove that. It appears anything else I say will be met with scorn. So basically, I can't help you.

 

Re: Don't be too hard on them…, posted on November 18, 2002 at 07:39:05
Monstrous Mike
Audiophile

Posts: 571
Location: Ottawa
Joined: November 10, 2002
 If you hear something on a sighted test and you can't distinguish it reliably on a blind test, you're in a very interesting position. How do you explain it to yourself?

I think the thing most people do is dismiss one of the test results. And, I could be guessing, but human nature would lead us to dismiss the test result that we didn't like.

 

Argumentation, posted on November 18, 2002 at 07:39:22
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 God, I did not know we were engaged in finding the truth! I spend most of my time in the classroom trying to get students to appreciate the need for facts or evidence to base their opinions. We know from many studies that Americans and probably those elsewhere are not good at arguing their positions or accepting counter evidence. This is the serious business of being involved in a democracy. But audio is a passion where the "truth" is unimportant. If one likes what one hears at least in this area it hurts no one else. If others' observations are interesting to you, that is the purpose of AA. As I have said before, I do not think our instrumentation of sounds validly captures why we like some wires, etc. and not others, so if an amp sounds good and measures poorly, I am not being unscientific in saying I will listen to the amp.

 

Re: Unh, Mike..., posted on November 18, 2002 at 08:12:09
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 I always thought that the main goal in Audio was to get to the point of Tranparentcy without coloration.Atleast that is my goal.Detail and accuratcy are also goals.Usually there are tradeoffs in a not so perfect world as when I switchout Woofer's and Tweeter's in my speaker's.

Some people choose speaker's like Magnepan's which are known for their transpentcy ,but lack Bass .Some say that they do have Bass ,but not enough slam.

Always trdeoffs!

 

Re: Argumentation, posted on November 18, 2002 at 09:25:23
Phil Tower
 But audio is a passion where the "truth" is unimportant. If one likes what one hears at least in this area it hurts no one else. If others' observations are interesting to you, that is the purpose of AA. As I have said before, I do not think our instrumentation of sounds validly captures why we like some wires, etc. and not others, so if an amp sounds good and measures poorly, I am not being unscientific in saying I will listen to the amp.

The truth is unimportant to you as a hobbiest. I have no problem with that, as that is pretty much where I am too as a hobbiest. However, virtually every other board at AA is dedicated to hobbiests who want to proceed no further than subjective discussions or DIY projects.

I've spent years assembling my system and, with one exception, I'm not looking to make any further upgrade. I try and share my subjective experiences with others at the other boards where I think I might be of some assistance; and, BTW, for doing that I have been severly criticized over at AR.

However, I get bored reading subjective discriptions of cables and components that I'm not even close to considering putting in my system. For me, personally, this board affords an opportunity simply to discuss and take a look at our hobby from a viewpoint that, in my experience, doesn't get much airing.

Do you see any problem with that?

 

Unh, MIke, redux, posted on November 18, 2002 at 09:28:52
jj
 I don't ascribe to any idea that the sound itself necessarily changes.

Having said that, if the owner is happen and likes the "effects", those effects being due solely to the gestalt effect, what's your gripe?

By the way, be careful with those cheap shots, now you're acting just like the other side.,
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies

 

Re: "The school of technological roadkill", posted on November 18, 2002 at 09:54:10
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4708
Joined: May 16, 2000
 John Es, have you run Hawksford's MATLAB simulation yet? I hope that you have it available to you, as I don't have it on my computer. Glad to see that you contacted Dr. Hawksford. Worked out well, didn't it?

 

No, not yet., posted on November 18, 2002 at 10:37:37
John Escallier
Audiophile

Posts: 4425
Location: Long Island
Joined: October 3, 2002
 I also do not have it on my computer. They tend to use a different math package here for magnetic and electrical analysis.

Still discussing test techniques, possibilities with him.

It would appear my e-mailer did not forward my reply to you.

That will be rectified.

As for Dr. Hawksford....A very nice, articulate, scientifically minded individual. He is willing to question his methods and understanding of the topic, as well as clearly explain his analysis and reasons..Very pleasant to converse with.

Clearly a person we could all do well to emulate.

TTFN, John

 

Hmmm., posted on November 18, 2002 at 10:46:22
jj
 Interesting.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies

 

Re: You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, posted on November 18, 2002 at 11:25:42
Phil Tower
 Hardly anyone denies that different cables and interconnects may make an audible difference under some circumstances. You have consistently refused to tell me who holds such a position, much less providing any refences, apparently relying on your overall impressions. You keep beating this dead horse (you are not alone in this).


There are numerous instances on AR where people are unqualifiedly advised that they are wasting their money if they buy cables at any place other than Home Depot, Radio Shack, WalMart, etc. I view that type of advice to be a statement that audible differences do not exist.

In addition, a while back, a poster at AR said:

If you do believe they are better, buy nicer cables and YOU will hear a difference..

Mtrycrafts responded:

No. They will only perceive a difference. Hearing and perceiving are not the same events.

http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@121.OKxlaCmueEi^974124@.ef86ead/19


He is clearly stating that the only differences between cables are based on perception, not actual hearing. He does not allow for the possibility that the differences perceived were actually heard. Mtrycrafts is generally pretty careful to say anything that will allow someone to pin him down on his beliefs, but occasionally he slips and reveals his true belief on wires.

Also see:

http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?13@121.OKxlaCmueEi^974216@.ef8edb8/56

and

http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?13@121.OKxlaCmueEi^974216@.ef8cbea/2

The AR cable forum is far too sluggish for me to look for more.


However, to reason that because there may be a difference that therefore there must be an audible difference in your system is not valid. One cannot validly reason from possibility to actuality.

Please point to one instance where I have ever argued that as a valid proposition?

I personally see no reason to have equipment where in normal use a line level signal is likely to be much affected by a difference in interconnects.

I'll leave it to the techies to address that issue.

 

Re: Hmmm., posted on November 18, 2002 at 11:42:02
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 Yes,MM I know is not that way.I have read his post and he can be objective and fair.He can disagree which is fine by me,but there are those at other BB's that will not try to see for themsekves and keep peoples minds closed to change or else convince other's that their way is the best way in a real narrow minded sense.

As an example if a person wants advice on a cable issue they will give them RS,HD or Walmart to get cables at without other alternatives and all besides those choices are bad or a waste of hard earned money.I tend to disagree with this sort of advice.

I do not want to get into that on this BB and I hope to pickup tidbits from what the pro's look at.Some I understand some is way over my head.

Later!

 

Re: You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, posted on November 18, 2002 at 11:46:20
NEAR SOTA
Manufacturer

Posts: 2613
Location: MAINE USA
Joined: July 27, 2002
 "advised that they are wasting their money if they buy cables at any place other than Home Depot, Radio Shack, WalMart, etc. I view that type of advice to be a statement that audible differences do not exist."

I had just said the same thing in a post.Really funny to see that.:-]


 

Great minds and Marines think alike (nt), posted on November 18, 2002 at 12:11:10
Phil Tower
 nt

 

I probably would if it happened to me…, posted on November 18, 2002 at 12:21:07
David Aiken
Audiophile

Posts: 5858
Location: Brisbane
Joined: September 25, 1999
 I think it would be rather disconceting to find that you couldn't reliably pick something in a test which you thought was extremely audible under what you regarded as "normal" conditions. That would definitely give me an itch I'd want to scratch, at least for a while.

You're right about satisfaction and the brevity of life, however. I'm sure I could find satisfaction with something :-)

David Aiken

 

Re: What point?, posted on November 18, 2002 at 13:14:11
jeff mai
Audiophile

Posts: 640
Joined: February 6, 2001
 >>I think what you want is for me to confirm that cables do sound different and I have done the testing to prove that. It appears anything else I say will be met with scorn. So basically, I can't help you.<<

You are incorrect. I want you to clarify what you meant by your response to this:

>>>what might work in your system might not work in another<<<

Your response:

>>This is the type of statement that is only found in high end audio. In engineering and science, this sort of comment simply does not apply. Either something works, or it doesn't. This might be too black and white for some people but that doesn't prevent it from being true.<<

Unless I am misunderstanding, this characterizes a particularly unscientific point of view. Science is *not* black and white.

As to my point of view, I believe that all sighted tests are flawed. Note that this does not automatically mean that blind tests are not flawed. It does not mean that blind tests are better indicators of sonic differences.

To date, it has not been demonstrated that a blind test removes *only* biases related to sight. It may seem straightforward that it does because we can't think of what else it might remove, but this is not science. We haven't covered all the bases.

 

Re: I probably would if it happened to me…, posted on November 18, 2002 at 14:35:39
Ted Smith
Manufacturer

Posts: 10297
Location: Seattle
Joined: December 29, 2000
 Howdy

Doesn't it depend on the test?

My tendency is to suspect the test, I've seen extremely few well set up tests and very many flawed ones with unsupportable extrapolations.

Assuming that the testee is confused, disingenuous or self deluded and assuming the test is flawed or misinterpreted are both similar real possibilities until we get concrete about a specific test... Otherwise we are just discussing how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

-Ted

 

Re: You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, posted on November 18, 2002 at 17:31:14
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000
 So, you have found one person who expresses himself in more absolute terms, and that is Woodman.

As for Mtrycrafts, you really should put the question you want to him, not look to where he is making some other point. For one thing, in the little snippet of interchange, you simply misunderstood the point Mtrycrafts was making, which simply about the difference between hearing and perceiving. It was about word usage, if you will. In other words, he pointed out to the poster that it would be better to have said that if a person really believes there is a difference, they will likely perceive one. The context of the discussion assumes a case in which there was really no audible difference.

Now, if you will look into the lists of references Mtry has supplied, you will find some that have documented differences in speaker cables (16 gauge vs. 24 gauge, 30 foot lengths), notably Laurence Greenhill, "Speaker Cables, Can You Hear the Difference," Stereo Review, August 1983, p. 46-51. He has referred to this from time to time in the past.

I suggest you deal with explicit statements on various questions, not some snippet where you think you can mind read his intent. Mtry does not deal with absolutes here, only probabilities. I have discussed this with him sufficiently on the net and in person, I think, to have a better idea of his views than you do.

You quoted me as saying:

"However, to reason that because there may be a difference that therefore there must be an audible difference in your system is not valid. One cannot validly reason from possibility to actuality."

Your reply was:

"Please point to one instance where I have ever argued that as a valid proposition?"

Did I say that you had discussed it? I do point out that you give Dr. Toole's simple division of good and "bad" cables much too much weight, and seem to regard it as an admission of audible differences between cables under ordinary circumstances. But here's something you said:

"Now everyone seems to agree that room acoustics and poorly designed loudspeakers often are extremely important considerations in the quality of audible sonic differences between systems. So if, in Toole's mind, the sonic effects of "bad" cables are on a par with the audible consequences of room acoustics and poorly designed loudspeakers, he must beleive that the audible sonic differences that can exist between certain cables can be pretty significant, at least based on what that particular quote (which, again, is the only public pronouncement of Toole that I have ever found on the issue of cables) seems to suggest."

Now, if that isn't moving from possibility to actuality, I'd like to know what is! And of course, Toole said nothing of the sort.

You want a good case where an interconnect could make a difference? Many phono cartridges are sensitive to capacitance, and interconnects can have different capacitances. I doubt that even Woodman would deny that, as it used to be quite well known and is easily measureable. Personally, I would rather adjust this in the preamp, but one could do it with interconnects. I can add 180 picofarads to the capacitance the phono cartridge sees with a switch in my preamp, and this results in a significant sloping off of the highs, something I do not usually think desirable with most recordings.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)

 

Re: You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, posted on November 18, 2002 at 22:46:54
Phil Tower
 Now, if you will look into the lists of references Mtry has supplied, you will find some that have documented differences in speaker cables (16 gauge vs. 24 gauge, 30 foot lengths), notably Laurence Greenhill, "Speaker Cables, Can You Hear the Difference," Stereo Review, August 1983, p. 46-51. He has referred to this from time to time in the past.

I just want to respond to this statement and then hopefully draw this to an end. I've seen this statement numerous times, but it is wholly irrelevant, because no one is arguing over this type of disparity. The real debate is whether cables of similar gauge and length can sound different. I have stated the issue that way on numerous occasions. I just get tired of writing it out.

Beyond this, this sub-thread is beginning to remind me too much of AR. I'm at fault for starting it in the first place. I believe that most of the naysayers at AR are extremely biased and narrow-minded. But that is just my opinion and it isn't worth discussing further. I will try not to bring it up again so that we can all focus on real issues.

I do however need to comment on one comment you made:

You want a good case where an interconnect could make a difference?

The only thing I want a good case for is the truth, regardless of where it leads. I am not advocating either side of the Great Cable Debate, because at the scientific level I accept that the yeasayer case has not be established through valid control testing, and until it is we all have to wait and see. Perhaps it never will be established because maybe it can't be. I don't know. I enjoy discussing these issues, but I'm not trying to pick an argument with anyone.

 

Of course, but…, posted on November 18, 2002 at 23:59:00
David Aiken
Audiophile

Posts: 5858
Location: Brisbane
Joined: September 25, 1999
 it could shake up my confidence in my own infallibility. I usually recover from that by pointing out to anyone who has observed it that I really am God and infallible, and that I only make mistakes deliberately so that people won't catch on. Lately however, the scepticism with which this explanation is usually greeted has been eroding my confidence and I think my wife is slipping some sort of medication into my morning coffee as well. I also think I overhear her and our son talking about asylums occasionally. I haven't the heart to tell her I frequent one regularly or to discuss what goes on here with her. :-)

David Aiken

 

Re: You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, posted on November 19, 2002 at 07:26:40
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000
 Well, you avoid one point. I have given examples where speaker cables make an audible difference and where interconnects can make an audible difference. These are quite intelligible on rationalist grounds, and so it is quite unfair to characterize the rationalist position as being that cables and interconnects do not make an audible difference under any circumstances. Indeed, to find those circumstances and determine how likely they are to occur is one of the goals. Another consequence is that naysayers is not a very good word to characterize the rationalists.

Now, I quite easily recognize your basic position, which has been characterized in various ways. Aristotle called it wonder. Wonder is the beginning of all science and philosophy (Metaphysics I,2). One is faced with alternative trains of reasonings and opinions which seem to be authoritative and correct but which also seem incompatible with each other. From his procedure, that is what Aristotle seems to have meant by wonder. That is, you accept your perceptions about, for example, the sound of cables, but also see that there is no scientific proof that they are correct. So you are in a state of wonder.

This is not something many people find easy to understand. They feel you ought to decide one way or the other, get on with life, etc. They may interpret it as waffling or worse, and there is not much you can do about it. But this does not allow for time to process the matter, nor to find ways of dealing with the various elements. I understand this and I think mtry does as well. Some don't, and there is no use getting too upset about it.


____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)

 

Re: You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, posted on November 19, 2002 at 08:05:13
Phil Tower
 Well, you avoid one point. I have given examples where speaker cables make an audible difference and where interconnects can make an audible difference. These are quite intelligible on rationalist grounds, and so it is quite unfair to characterize the rationalist position as being that cables and interconnects do not make an audible difference under any circumstances.

I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just tired of posturing and playing word games.


I don't think your second sentence is a fair statement of my position. When we are talking about audio from a scientific perspective, I consider myself a solid "rationalist". I'm the one that started this thread with the quotes from Carl Sagan.


They feel you ought to decide one way or the other, get on with life, etc. They may interpret it as waffling or worse, and there is not much you can do about it. But this does not allow for time to process the matter, nor to find ways of dealing with the various elements. I understand this and I think mtry does as well. Some don't, and there is no use getting too upset about it.


Now that I've gotten over my ranting and raving, I want to thank you for your understanding of my position. I do believe that you and mtrycrafts understand my position, and have never been judgmental about it. I know I won't win any popularity contests on this site by saying this, but I have a lot of respect for mtrycrafts' position, even though I don't always agree with him, and I don't always agree with his approach or bedside manner (but there are certainly people here who in my opinion have far worse bedside manners that mtrycrafts).

With respect to the fact that people like you, Monstrous Mike and Bruce (sorry if I've left anyone out), who regularly post at AR have decided to participate here as well, I see that as extremely positive. This forum isn't going to work, in my opinion, if we don't have all rational viewpoints strongly represented. In addition, I believe that you all are people who are responsible in the way you advance your own positions and are respectful of others (Bruce, I must say, is much like me and sometimes gets fairly worked up about certain issues - but I'm the last one that should be commenting on that type of thing).

I just want to say that regardless of some of the very spirited discussions we have had, and may have in the future, I personally welcome your participation here and certainly hope that it continues.

 

Actually, I did :-)…, posted on November 20, 2002 at 23:39:39
David Aiken
Audiophile

Posts: 5858
Location: Brisbane
Joined: September 25, 1999
 And I did say "…the people who pass everything off…" by which I meant those who really have only that one answer, even if you've said that what you heard wasn't what you expected or that you were surprised.

Sorry I missed this sub-thread.

I'm not saying you can't make a mistake about what you hear - we both agree that is possible. I am saying that you can't explain everything away with one explanation, especially when it doesn't fit with the circumstances some of the time. The situation is more complex than that.

And I do think people who seize on one possible explanation and apply it as an object of faith, who aren't willing to entertain alternatives and play with options, are the worst enemies of science because that really is closed mind thinking.

David Aiken

 

Page processed in 0.048 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]