Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Interconnects (Read 45128 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Interconnects

Reply #75 –
Quote from: honestguv on
. Your statement is only correct if interpreted to mean that nobody is immune from placebos in general.


That is my experience, and that is what the literature indicates. We're all human.  We may react differently to the same placebo, but that's about it.

As to "golden-ears", sorry, hearing any difference sighted is absolutely, completely, and utterly meaningless, in scientific terms. Such tests are not testable, verifiable, and in particular they are not at all falsifiable.  Yes, knowing you are listening to the pretty warm-colored cables will change your perception. No, this is in no way due to how the cables SOUND, unless you can DBT them.

You seem to be prone to very absolute statements (see the quote above) while being unaware of the most basic knowlege that psychology has shown regarding human perception.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Interconnects

Reply #76 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
As to "golden-ears", sorry, hearing any difference sighted is absolutely, completely, and utterly meaningless, in scientific terms. Such tests are not testable, verifiable, and in particular they are not at all falsifiable.  Yes, knowing you are listening to the pretty warm-colored cables will change your perception. No, this is in no way due to how the cables SOUND, unless you can DBT them.

You seem to be prone to very absolute statements (see the quote above) while being unaware of the most basic knowlege that psychology has shown regarding human perception.

You continue to completely fail to get the point, misunderstanding entire paragraphs. Blinded by science :-) Perhaps you should consider, that maybe you're completely on the wrong track, giving replies to posts which were never written in this thread. For someone being so "scientific", you're interpreting quite a lot :-) It's also worth mentioning, that you are acting in a strongly defensive introverted role - thats not a moral rating... just an observation which may be a valueable hint to whats going on with you.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #77 –
Quote from: Lyx on
You continue to completely fail to get the point, misunderstanding entire paragraphs. Blinded by science :-) Perhaps you should consider, that maybe you're completely on the wrong track, giving replies to posts which were never written in this thread. For someone being so "scientific", you're interpreting quite a lot :-) It's also worth mentioning, that you are acting in a strongly defensive introverted role - thats not a moral rating... just an observation which may be a valueable hint to whats going on with you.



Perhaps, then, rather than engage in unsupported insult, you could provide some substance to your input?

I've read down this thread, and seen a great deal of overcomplication of a very simple matter. So, I think it's time we get back to basics and understand what really happens with hardware and in listening tests.

Would you like to make some testable, verifiable claims? Certainly the ones I'm making have been confirmed time and time again, in the formal literature.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Interconnects

Reply #78 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Not necessarily when it comes to audiophile matters. The brain draws on a range factors such as what is being seen and what has happened in the past in order to make sense of the sound impinging on the ears. If we consider my previous two examples, the McGurk effect relies on a learned linking of a lip movement and a sound. It does not work for those with languages that do not commonly use the sound. For Mike Lavigne, whatever was going on in his head was leading him to perceive differences between wires during a blind test.


Yes..what was going on *in his head*.  Not a change in the audio stimulus.

Quote
Are you claiming that you would also be perceiving the same differences under these conditions because I know I would not not.


It's quite possible you would think you were hearing difference.  If you were told or led to believe in advance that one was going to be better than another, it's quite possible you'd report just that. 


Quote
The effectiveness of particular placebos depends on the person and their experiences and beliefs. People with very different experiences and beliefs in a particular area are not going to react in the same way to placebos in this area. Your statement is only correct if interpreted to mean that nobody is immune from placebos in general.



And...so what? Yes, no two delusions are necessarily identical. 

One can perform a 'phantom switch' test  (try it on an audiophile, they won't necessarily do any better than a layman) where literally NOTHING about the stimulus is changed, not hardware or the software.  The listener doesn't know it, but all that is changed is the visual or verbal information given about the source.  Yet reports of 'perceived' difference ranging from subtle to vast are not uncommon.  This is pure subjectivity, it isn't the stimulus quality changing in any real way (much less getting 'better' or 'worse').  What's changing are neuron firing patterns in the brain.

Interconnects

Reply #79 –
Quote from: Lyx on
Perhaps you should consider, that maybe you're completely on the wrong track, giving replies to posts which were never written in this thread. For someone being so "scientific", you're interpreting quite a lot :-) It's also worth mentioning, that you are acting in a strongly defensive introverted role - thats not a moral rating... just an observation which may be a valueable hint to whats going on with you.


It's worth mentioning that your recent postings read like a crackpot's stew of fact and psychobabble.  Perhaps if I engage in some 'metaprogramming' I  can defeat the 'defensive introversion' that is holding me back from true enlightenment?

Interconnects

Reply #80 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
I've read down this thread, and seen a great deal of overcomplication of a very simple matter.

You consider the part, that listening in practice requires a LISTENER with a MIND which modifies the signal ALWAYS, an "overcomplication"? What stops you from understanding what honestguv is pointing out, is a strongly externalistic mindset (lol). He is pointing out, that the listening experience in practice, does not just depend on some matter arranging in soundwaves and reaching a sensor which records it - it also depends on what happens afterwards. There is no music and no sound without mind. Thats part of "listening to music". (An analogy would be: The experience of eating dinner, doesn't just depend on whats in the dish itself). He isn't questioning that the signal in the cable isn't changed significantly.... he is questioning that understanding the entire topic, can be achieved by just looking at the external aspect. Stuff like intentions, purposes, efficiency, etc.... the endresult which reaches the consciousness which listens to the sound in practice... is not just an externalistic matter. I dont know about you, but i and most other people do not listen to music specifically because of "what happens in the cable, the speaker, etc"... i listen to music because of the end result which reaches my consciousness.... and that endresult depends on both, the hardware, and "how" i process the data which reaches my ears. Or to put it really simple - he is stating that "listening to music" depends on external factors, internal factors and the interactions between both. Unless you're trying to push a "mind doesn't exist" XOR "reality doesn't exist" worldview, his point doesn't need a "scientific test" because its almost a truism. He isn't engaging in a purely "scientific discussion" - he is looking at all aspects of the topic. The reason why you failed to notice that is because you were/are stuck in tunnel-view.

- Lyx

P.S.: krabapple put on ignore. So you can as well spare your time and effort in trying to establish a flamewar with me.

P.S.2.: To escalate honestguvs argument (so that it becomes more obvious to..... externalists): First we establish a purpose/goal - something which we want to achieve. In this example, its that we desire the endresult/listening experience which reaches "I" to have certain "qualities". For this to be a "goal", the current state needs to be different to this goal (so, we are dissatistied with how our current listening experience is like). So, we now have a current state, and a goal state..... whats left is how to get from current state to that goal state - we need to find an EFFICIENT "method" (or a mix of methods) to achieve that goal-state. We can modify the external factors... like speaker-quality, DSPs, cabling, etc..... so that we dont need to modify how we process the data in our mind. Or we could create the goal state by not changing external factors at all and only changing the processing done in our mind (in laymans terms: "imagine it"). We could also do a mix of both. Or we could start doing more complicated stuff with the interaction between internal and external.... or we could create the goal state by lying to ourself.... i.e. asuming that the external factors changed (better cable) while in truth just changing how we process the data in our mind. With all those options/methods, we can reach the desired goal state! Point. Morals and ideology dont change this simple fact - we can create the desired goal state with any of those options. What those options differ in, isn't the reached goal-state, but their EFFICIENCY....i.e. invested resources (COST) and sideeffects (i.e. disadvantages). For example, investing in quality equipment typically has a high one-off cost, but very low running costs and almost no bad sideeffects. Doing it via imagination only has a very low one-off cost, but high running costs (constant effort to keep up the imagination). Doing it via belief/placebo MAY have very extremely high one-off costs, and has high sideeffects (losing the option of being honest to oneself). Interestingly, the in this case usually most efficient option, is a mix.... investing in above-average equipment (without going for high-quality equipment), improving aesthetics (room decoration, equipment design) and adding a little bit of imagination (the "mood") typically results in the most bang for the buck. Of course, looking at the topic from this angle calls into question the externalistic morale that only external things are "true/exist" and that stuff in mind is "false/virtual".... but well, fuck that.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #81 –
Quote from: Lyx on
You consider the part, that listening in practice requires a LISTENER with a MIND which modifies the signal

Not to be overly pedantic, but the MIND modifies nothing.  Clearly not the "signal" as you use the word.
Quote from: Lyx on
ALWAYS, an "overcomplication"? What stops you from understanding what honestguv is pointing out, is a strongly externalistic mindset (lol). He is pointing out, that the listening experience in practice, does not just depend on some matter arranging in soundwaves and reaching a sensor which records it - it also depends on what happens afterwards.

Perhaps his problem is the same as mine.  This board (last time I checked) is a meeting place for discusson by objectivists.  What you are describing is clearly subjective experience, Something which is not testable, verifiable, and (I though) outside the terms of service of this board. 

You appear to me to be attempting to argue in subjective terms while Woodinville, Krabapple, et al. are attempting to make an objective argument.
Clearly this will never be resolved while the two parties fight on different battlefields.

Quote from: Lyx on
... He isn't questioning that the signal in the cable isn't changed significantly....

I thought that discussion on the (possible) change in signal and questions of its perceptibility in double blind tests was the entire point.

I see nowhere a dispute (of what appears to be your core contention) that the listeners mind(set) influences their perception.  Your constant banging on that drum seems to be bordering on a straw man argument. 
Clearly if the only difference between two cables is aesthetic a blind test has no chance of affecting the mind(set) of the listener.
Creature of habit.

Interconnects

Reply #82 –
Quote from: Soap on
You appear to me to be attempting to argue in subjective terms while Woodinville, Krabapple, et al. are attempting to make an objective argument.
Clearly this will never be resolved while the two parties fight on different battlefields.

No. I am neither an objectivist nor a subjectivist - i am something else, which actually REJECTS the idea that there are such properties as "objective" and "subjective" (so, i reject BOTH camps *invidually*). My mindset is a synthesis of the true aspects of both camps, while at the same time claiming the false asumptions of both camps to be void. To reduce it to the core: Externalists/Objectivists implicitely claim external stuff to be true and internal stuff to be false. Subjectivists implicitely claim internal stuff to be true and external stuff to be false. I reject both mindsets and claim that both, external stuff and internal stuff "is", and that truth is something else which is not tied to a LOCATION.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #83 –
Quote from: Lyx on
. To reduce it to the core: Externalists/Objectivists implicitely claim external stuff to be true and internal stuff to be false. Subjectivists implicitely claim internal stuff to be true and external stuff to be false.

No, objectivists explicitly claim that external "stuff" is verifiable and internal "stuff" is subjective and thus outside the realm of objective discussion.
This is not the battle you appear to wish it was.
It is not a false distinction to draw such a line, no matter how hard you wish to believe your "third way" is superior and above the fray.
Creature of habit.

Interconnects

Reply #84 –
Quote from: Soap on
Quote from: Lyx on

. To reduce it to the core: Externalists/Objectivists implicitely claim external stuff to be true and internal stuff to be false. Subjectivists implicitely claim internal stuff to be true and external stuff to be false.

No, objectivists explicitly claim that external "stuff" is verifiable and internal "stuff" is subjective and thus outside the realm of objective discussion.

Not necessarily a contradiction because its not mutually exclusive (though, "inconsistent" it is - and this inconsistency is what earlier i called "lying" and hypocritical).
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #85 –
Quote from: Lyx on
Quote from: Soap on

Quote from: Lyx on

. To reduce it to the core: Externalists/Objectivists implicitely claim external stuff to be true and internal stuff to be false. Subjectivists implicitely claim internal stuff to be true and external stuff to be false.

No, objectivists explicitly claim that external "stuff" is verifiable and internal "stuff" is subjective and thus outside the realm of objective discussion.

Not necessarily a contradiction because its not mutually exclusive (though, "inconsistent" it is - and this inconsistency is what earlier i called "lying" and hypocritical).

Clearly a contradiction.  You accused the objectivist position as holding subjective experience to be false.
The objectivist position make no such claim.  It claims subjective experience is just that, subjective, and outside the realm of objective discussion.
What I see as lying and hypocritical is your attempts to pick fights which are not there and to continue to make straw man arguments.
Creature of habit.

Interconnects

Reply #86 –
Quote from: Soap on
Quote from: Lyx on

Quote from: Soap on

Quote from: Lyx on

. To reduce it to the core: Externalists/Objectivists implicitely claim external stuff to be true and internal stuff to be false. Subjectivists implicitely claim internal stuff to be true and external stuff to be false.

No, objectivists explicitly claim that external "stuff" is verifiable and internal "stuff" is subjective and thus outside the realm of objective discussion.

Not necessarily a contradiction because its not mutually exclusive (though, "inconsistent" it is - and this inconsistency is what earlier i called "lying" and hypocritical).

Clearly a contradiction.  You accused the objectivist position as holding subjective experience to be false.

Let me repeat that - you reject that it is possible to "say A, but imply B", "claim to mean A, while actually meaning B", "claim do to A, and then do B".... in other words, you claim that lies do not exist? WTF? Let me guess.... you also check the honesty of someone, by simply asking him about it? Isn't that a little bit naive and "unscientific"? Truely, honest and logical discussion with you is hopeless, bye.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #87 –
Quote from: Lyx on
Let me repeat that - you reject that it is possible to "say A, but imply B", "claim to mean A, while actually meaning B", "claim do to A, and then do B".... in other words, you claim that lies do not exist? WTF? Let me guess.... you also check the honesty of someone, by simply asking him about it? Isn't that a little bit naive and "unscientific"? Truely, honest and logical discussion with you is hopeless, bye.

You are coming across (to me) as a master of putting words in other people's mouths.  Defending your position by attacking your personal view of other people's implications while ignoring their explicit statements is neither logical not honest.
Creature of habit.

Interconnects

Reply #88 –
Quote from: Soap on
You are coming across (to me) as a master of putting words in other people's mouths.

A, i see - so now you are at the point where people similiar to you always land when confronted with themselves.... starting to attack the morality of what the messenger does as well as the packaging of the message, while completely stopping to analyze the validity of the messages content -> Truth isn't the primary discussion criteria anymore... Denial mode.

Quote
Defending your position by attacking your personal view of other people's implications while ignoring their explicit statements is neither logical not honest.

Heh, your "explicit argument" explicitely left out the an NECESSARY claim which is needed for your post to make any sense relative to my post, at all. So, without adding that missing part, your entire post would be pointless..... would you prefer me to simply answer to your post by just saying "your post makes no sense, because it leaves out the primary connection to my post, which was the context of your reply"? Thats like saying "You're dishonest and unlogical because you fixed my unlogical statement by adding the missing connective so that it makes any semantic sense at all." ..... funny...... but someway also a bit boring.....
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #89 –
So everybody in this thread agrees that interconnects, given a minimum quality grade, do not produce changes above the human threshold of hearing so as to affect the aural-neural pathways of the brain, and therefore can all be considered to bear no difference from each other, and this can be easily proven in a double-blind test;

but when people do hear differences in claimed testing environments that somehow fail the DB criteria, the processed sound is affected by non-aural-neural pathways that receive input from what the listeners' minds know about the audiophility and/or common-gradeability of the cables they are listening to....

------------

Oh and honestly, I thought honestguv's post about audiophile placebo was brilliant satire until he clarified his position. Oh well.

Interconnects

Reply #90 –
Quote from: sld on
Oh and honestly, I thought honestguv's post about audiophile placebo was brilliant satire until he clarified his position. Oh well. :)

IMO, the main flaw in honestguvs (clarified) argument is, that he does not pay enough attention to two aspects: 1) The reference used for rating efficiency, 2) Sideeffects/disadvantages of dishonesty

If i understood him right, he is saying that if someone has lots of cash, and expensive interconnects give them what they want (via placebo), then the interconnects were "worth their price". "Worth their price" compared to WHAT? Value needs a reference to make any sense. So, you need to compare it to how efficient other options are. If some other method could as well give them what they want, but at MUCH lower cost, then how can those expensive interconnects be "worth their price"? That sounds more like they're - including their suggested effect - massively overpriced.

Getting into more detail about the disadvantages of dishonesty would require an entire additional discussion, so i'll not get further into this.

What honestguv is correct about, is that those expensive interconnects PRODUCTS (including their marketing) do "give" the effect which they are claiming via placebo - so, if the customer is willing to believe, they do what they claim. What he leaves out however, is that what they give (the "endresult") is available at MUCH lower price via other options, and that the requirement to lie is an additional cost, which is often underestimated.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #91 –
In my opinion, it's worth spending some money for good interconnects if one has a good system, that will show the difference between cables.

With my Yamaha reciever and JBL LX2001 there was hardly a difference between 150$ and a stock interconnect. But, when I switched to B&W 685 and connected it to NAD 352, and audible difference was heard. The difference really isn't that drastic like changing speakers or componets, but, there is a difference.

I think that if one has a 5000$ system, there is worth spending additional 500$ for cables. But, if you own a 500$ system, it just isn't worth it.

Sometimes thou, supplied interconnects are really really bad, and cheap 10$ interconnect will surely make a difference. And, that really isn't that much.

Interconnects

Reply #93 –
Who cares about ABX?

On my US$9,990 system with vacuum tubes (the ones that take 2 hours to warm up) and electrostatic membrane hypertechnology (a derivative of the Van der Graaff generator), I splurged $500 per interconnect that needed to be changed... wow, the sound became sparklingly clear, like fine Bordeaux wine! The mids could breathe better, like a patient undergoing treatment in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber, and the lows were foot-tappity and drum attacks were not muddy, like when you clean the clay off archaeological artifacts.

All in a day's work. 

Interconnects

Reply #94 –
Quote from: sld on
Who cares about ABX?

On my US$9,990 system with vacuum tubes and electrostatic membrane hypertechnology, I splurged $500 per interconnect that needed to be changed... wow, the sound became sparklingly clear, like fine Bordeaux wine! The mids could breathe better, like a patient undergoing treatment in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber, and the lows were foot-tappity and drum attacks were not muddy, like when you clean the clay off archaeological artifacts.

I think you would have found that if you hadn't been a cheapskate and spent US$10,000 on your system from day one there would have been no need for splurging.
Creature of habit.

Interconnects

Reply #95 –
Quote from: Soap on
No, objectivists explicitly claim that external "stuff" is verifiable and internal "stuff" is subjective and thus outside the realm of objective discussion.


I'm not going to go post-modern on your ass, @soap, but I think this is a bit simplified, and unnecessarily pessimistic.

First, I found very illuminating a distinction made by John Searle, a rather common-sense philosopher. He distinguishes between the epistemologically subjective and the ontologically subjective.

A simple example, and I hope a reasonable one, is cooking. If we're epistemologically objective, we measure all the ingredients; e. subjectively, we toss in what we think might be right, and adjust by tasting.

However, the taste of the food is ontologically subjective: how it tastes is my own personal experience, or your own personal experience, and there's no way to measure it with instruments. Same with the sound of music ©.

However, we can be reasonably objective (or maybe, intersubjectively verifiable, which will do), about ontologically subjective experiences. Ways to do this are one of the great achievements of the later 20th century, and one classic method is the ABX test. By this, and similar methods, we can talk about ontologically subjective experiences in a public and disciplined way. It's this way that we can say, for example, that lossy coding throws away a lot of information, but it doesn't matter because most (or all) people can't hear the difference.

It's convenient if it's possible to find objective measurements that act as a surrogate for ontologically subjective experience, because instruments are cheaper to use and easier to manage than humans. So we can now say that most people over 35 will not complain of a loss of sparkle, or some such, if the signal is lowpassed at 17 kHz, and so developers don't have to gather a testing panel of old farts like me every time they make a change, but what matters finally is the subjective experience of sparkle, or whatever one might call it.

There's a very good example in photographic lens and emulsion design of the way, from the 1960s on, disciplined study of subjective experience changed the performance criteria for lens and film designers.

As I understand it, objectivism in audio means relying on measurable quantities, and I'd taken it that the HA insistence on blind testing, or other disciplined and reproducible (?sp) results, is something rather different, and more sophisticated.

Interconnects

Reply #96 –
> Oh and honestly, I thought honestguv's post about audiophile placebo was
> brilliant satire until he clarified his position. Oh well.

No satire. I was simply debating on the side of audiophile cables.

To clarify my view, for what it is worth, the anecdotal evidence is strong (i.e. said and done by audiophiles, casual tests) that consuming audiophiles who have invested a lot of their sense of worth in being audiophiles perceive a better sound from some cables compared to others. There are some weasel words in there because one obviously cannot put any faith in the public statements of those involved with the supply side (i.e. distributors, audiophile publications and the like) or the more casual audiophile with more interest in posting on the web than building an emotional relationship with audiophile hardware.

The mechanisms that influence the perception of sound have been, and continue to be, studied following the scientific method. That is, by measurement to confirm hypotheses that can be used to successfully predict the outcome of future experiments. The McGurk effect is an example I linked to. Someone else linked to a wine tasting experiment which would be a good template for an experiment to study audiophile's perception of audiophile cables to add to the mainly casual tests where audiophiles thought cables were swapped when they were not and reported the better sound tracking what they believed to be the audiophile cable. Clearly, the fact that those with the strongest interest in audiophile cables would probably pay good money to prevent public scientific studies, audiophile cables being luxury products of effectively zero interest outside the audiophile world and that those with a basic knowledge of psychoacoustics would not see anything anomalous in what audiophiles report perceiving means that not many, if any, studies are going to take place in psychoacoustic labs.

What surprised me was that some here would appear to believe that listening blind is valid and normal sighted listening is not (e.g. what is heard with the eyes shut in the McGurk effect is in some way right and what is heard with them open is wrong)  and that science cannot be used to measure and predict what audiophiles perceive. Given that such people claim to be part of my tribe of rational scientific thought it is hard to resist teasing them (tests are not testable?) unlike audiophiles who believe in magic and are not part of my tribe. I am pleased I resisted. Well almost.

Interconnects

Reply #97 –
I thought the prediction of audiophile perceptions belongs to a rather different realm of science.

The reason why so many people emphasise the DBT... isn't it because we already know (even from the case study of audiophile opinion) that we cannot trust our hearing together with our sight, because we will make use of both to suit our preconceived notions (let's not shift the blame to our brains when we don't have to, shall we?)?

Your last paragraph contradicts your 2nd last paragraph. There is a reason why audiophiles detest the DBT. They ALWAYS fail it when they will EASILY pass the same test with their eyes wide open.