| Author |
Message |
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:13 pm Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2005 19:43:15 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Steven Sullivan wrote:
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials:
that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?
No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on
such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test).
How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it?
In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a
3-minute mile.
Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can
fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that
level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly?
|
Quite so - and the answer is that you cannot run a 3-minute mile. You
can also not hear differences among cables, because the human body
cannot perform to that level.
| Quote: | This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the
performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way
to understand perception.
Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the
different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I
investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not.
How about asking yourself this question instead: do the different
experiences arise from objective differences in the sounds? Or, as is
possible, do they arise purely from subjective errors in perception?
That is the precise question I ask myself. That why I wrote "do the
different SOUNDS produce different experiences?"
|
Do you not even understand what you just wrote above? You stated "do
the different SOUNDS produce different experiences?", which contains a
clear presumption that the sounds were in fact different.
| Quote: | By the way, you use the word "error". If listening to the same thing
twice produces different subjective impressions, I don't conclude that
necessarily there has been an "error" in perception. I suggest that
context affects perception.
|
So what? The sounds were demonstrably *not* different, which is the
root of this debate.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:13 pm Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 2 Oct 2005 03:03:12 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | The conscious "impression" of listening to music is a function of (1)
the sound and of (2) pre-conscious processing. I'm proposing that
perception can be understood better when *both* factors are accounted
for. If (1) doesn't change but (2) does, then there is nothing
erroneous about a change in perception.
|
There is, if that perception is that the two sounds were different.
| Quote: | Although we may not be able to control (2) perfectly, making the
attempt will get us closer to the truth than ignoring it entirely.
|
We partially control (2) by removing *knowledge* of which cable is
connected. This has been shown on many occasions to restore parity of
perception.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dhmorp011jl@news3.newsguy.com...
| Quote: |
I think that non-comparitive or monadic testing is an interesting
alternative. If I get the time and find someone to help me, I would
like to do some testing in which I listen blind and rate the qualties
of the sound. Over three or four sessions, I will have listened to
every combination of DUT and musical selection. In any given session,
no musical selection will be used more than once.
|
What you're suggesting here is to connect some component whose identity is
unknown to you and then rate the sound you hear. You describe it as
carefully as you can using the english language. You then have someone else
connect a competing component, and you once again describe the sound you
hear. You repeat this process for each different component that you have
available. Do I understand correctly?
If so, the test will only be meaningful if you can draw some conclusion from
the descriptions, and that of course means comparison. There has to be
enough info to decide which component sounds the best, the worst and so on.
IOW the descriptions have to be useful enough to allow you to rank order
your preference on their basis. Frankly, I don't think you can do this.
It would be even tougher--and probably more embarrassing--if there was the
possibility of repetition, if the units under test were chosen completely at
random.
Norm Strong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2005 19:43:46 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Oct 2005 02:11:35 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...
You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous
occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious
reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is
that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really
exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem?
Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty?
You cannot know what I see or hear.
Sure I can, in the same way that I know for an absolute fact that you
cannot run a mile in 3 minutes.
In each case you have a model: you have a model of how the human body
performs at running, and you have a model of how the ear/brain performs
at listening. And you claim that certain functions are so far outside
the limits that they are practically impossible.
|
Indeed - and experimental evidence shows that this model holds true.
You on the other hand merely assert that elephants can fly, if we only
alter our consciousness sufficiently. I would call this state of
consciousness a dream.
| Quote: | It is always possible for the physical world to do things outside our
models, at least slightly.
|
Only if it's a bad model.
| Quote: | However, I simply believe that the world of
perception and consciousness is so rich and fluid that it is far more
likely to perform outside our fixed constraints.
|
A simple belief, indeed. There are lots of those around, but luckily
they do not affact the physical world, except where many people share
such simple beliefs. We call this effect, religion.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Lavo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:51 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
<normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dhp4vd024c0@news2.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dhmorp011jl@news3.newsguy.com...
I think that non-comparitive or monadic testing is an interesting
alternative. If I get the time and find someone to help me, I would
like to do some testing in which I listen blind and rate the qualties
of the sound. Over three or four sessions, I will have listened to
every combination of DUT and musical selection. In any given session,
no musical selection will be used more than once.
What you're suggesting here is to connect some component whose identity is
unknown to you and then rate the sound you hear. You describe it as
carefully as you can using the english language. You then have someone
else
connect a competing component, and you once again describe the sound you
hear. You repeat this process for each different component that you have
available. Do I understand correctly?
If so, the test will only be meaningful if you can draw some conclusion
from
the descriptions, and that of course means comparison. There has to be
enough info to decide which component sounds the best, the worst and so
on.
IOW the descriptions have to be useful enough to allow you to rank order
your preference on their basis. Frankly, I don't think you can do this.
It would be even tougher--and probably more embarrassing--if there was the
possibility of repetition, if the units under test were chosen completely
at
random.
|
Norman, this is done all the time. It simply means devising a series of
meaningful rating scales (usually 1 to 5, low to high) for attributes you
consider important, or adapt the ones developed by others if they seem
satisfactory. Then after each listening session, you rate your impressions
of what you just heard. After a few such sessions with each competing
component in the system and all else held constant, you can begin to get a
feel for differences, if any. Of course this is best done blind, but even
sighted it can help quantify perceived differences that are arrived at
monadically and wholly subjectively, with no forced comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:42 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: | uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...
You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous
occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious
reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is
that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really
exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem?
Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty?
You cannot know what I see or hear.
And how can you know that the *reason* for what you 'see and hear', is
what you believe it to be?
|
Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I
heard the difference. He cannot do that.
| Quote: |
I heard a difference between the $100 and $50 Monster cables.
There is no contradicting this. The question is not IF, but rather WHY.
You 'heard' a difference. You don't *know* that it was really a difference
between the cables, you only *know* that you think you heard a differece.
|
Metaphysically equivalent. There are some things that we cannot
reliably distinguish above the 'noise' of our neuro systems and the
blood coursing through our veins. And there is always some ambient
noise (except in specially-treated, sound-deadened rooms). The answer,
then, lies in repeated listening over several days or even weeks, to
allow for the evening-out of our moods and neurological conditions. If
after enough trials I am satisfied that there is a difference and a
sufficient one), I buy the product.
I should point out that not every product passes the test. I have tried
out a CD cleaning product which claimed to improve the sound of CD's.
After several trials without even the hint of any difference, I
dismissed the product as sonically worthless, thiough I still use the
cleaner from time to time if I inadvertently get a fingerprint on a CD.
I did not have any different 'expectation' for this product than for
the cable. If there was anything to hear from the cleaner, I would have
heard it. I did not.
| Quote: | The question is *IF* the difference was really between
the cables, or whether it was imaginary. It can also be posed as "WHY
did you perceive a difference"?
|
Correct. So, as in any scientific question, we use the process of
elimination. The fact that the difference was repeatable, over several
days, and that the alteranative explanation ('it's all in my head')
strains credulity, points to the cables themselves possessing a
different sound character.
It's Occam's razor time! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:40 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
| Quote: | normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
What you're suggesting here is to connect some component whose identity is
unknown to you and then rate the sound you hear. You describe it as
carefully as you can using the english language. You then have someone
else
connect a competing component, and you once again describe the sound you
hear. You repeat this process for each different component that you have
available. Do I understand correctly?
If so, the test will only be meaningful if you can draw some conclusion
from
the descriptions, and that of course means comparison. There has to be
enough info to decide which component sounds the best, the worst and so
on.
IOW the descriptions have to be useful enough to allow you to rank order
your preference on their basis. Frankly, I don't think you can do this.
It would be even tougher--and probably more embarrassing--if there was the
possibility of repetition, if the units under test were chosen completely
at
random.
Norman, this is done all the time.
|
Not really. It's done in your field (product testing), but only in
cases where you already have strong reason to believe that perceptions
will at least be *different*, and you want to know in what ways they
are different. No one in his right mind would go to the expense of such
a test unless he were damn sure the things he was comparing at least
tasted different.
This sort of test has never been used, to my knowledge, to do threshold
tests of perception (with the obvious, and hence very dubious,
exception of your Japanese hero).
| Quote: | It simply means devising a series of
meaningful rating scales (usually 1 to 5, low to high) for attributes you
consider important, or adapt the ones developed by others if they seem
satisfactory. Then after each listening session, you rate your impressions
of what you just heard. After a few such sessions with each competing
component in the system and all else held constant, you can begin to get a
feel for differences, if any.
|
An interesting choice of words: "begin to get a feel for difference."
The statistics of demonstrating a significant difference in threshold
perception using such a test would be mind-numbing, if they were
possible at all. For one thing, you'd need to be able to tell whether
the various factors you are testing for are indeed independent. The
statistics start to grow meaningless very fast if the supposedly
independent variables are not independent of each other.
On the other hand, this is a perfectly logical approach when you know
two things taste different, and you want to know whether your future
customers will find one sweeter than the other, or smoother than the
other, etc.
| Quote: | Of course this is best done blind, but even
sighted it can help quantify perceived differences that are arrived at
monadically and wholly subjectively, with no forced comparison.
|
If it's not done blind, it can tell you absolutely nothing about the
*sound* of the equipment, because it would fail to exclude some very
obvious and powerful non-sonic influences on those perceptions.
bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Lavo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dhpk4v031n@news2.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | Harry Lavo wrote:
normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
What you're suggesting here is to connect some component whose identity
is
unknown to you and then rate the sound you hear. You describe it as
carefully as you can using the english language. You then have someone
else
connect a competing component, and you once again describe the sound
you
hear. You repeat this process for each different component that you
have
available. Do I understand correctly?
If so, the test will only be meaningful if you can draw some conclusion
from
the descriptions, and that of course means comparison. There has to be
enough info to decide which component sounds the best, the worst and so
on.
IOW the descriptions have to be useful enough to allow you to rank
order
your preference on their basis. Frankly, I don't think you can do
this.
It would be even tougher--and probably more embarrassing--if there was
the
possibility of repetition, if the units under test were chosen
completely
at
random.
Norman, this is done all the time.
Not really. It's done in your field (product testing), but only in
cases where you already have strong reason to believe that perceptions
will at least be *different*, and you want to know in what ways they
are different. No one in his right mind would go to the expense of such
a test unless he were damn sure the things he was comparing at least
tasted different.
|
This is a fallacious argument. It can be used to determine if perceptions
are actually "real" just as easily as it can be used for other differences.
It is a subjective rating, and is used to report subjective results (such as
taste characteristics). If there are differences, and enough trials are
done, there will be a difference. If there are no differences, there will
not be. It is that simple.
| Quote: | This sort of test has never been used, to my knowledge, to do threshold
tests of perception (with the obvious, and hence very dubious,
exception of your Japanese hero).
|
So dubious that that team's subjective rating results correlated with actual
neurophysiological responses? So much for your having a scientifically open
mind.
| Quote: | It simply means devising a series of
meaningful rating scales (usually 1 to 5, low to high) for attributes you
consider important, or adapt the ones developed by others if they seem
satisfactory. Then after each listening session, you rate your
impressions
of what you just heard. After a few such sessions with each competing
component in the system and all else held constant, you can begin to get
a
feel for differences, if any.
An interesting choice of words: "begin to get a feel for difference."
The statistics of demonstrating a significant difference in threshold
perception using such a test would be mind-numbing, if they were
possible at all. For one thing, you'd need to be able to tell whether
the various factors you are testing for are indeed independent. The
statistics start to grow meaningless very fast if the supposedly
independent variables are not independent of each other.
|
They are clearly possible...but best done among groups of people totaling
150 or 200 people. That's why I said "get a feel for the difference". It
would take at least 30 trials of each variable spread over a fairly lengthy
period of time to allow for enough data for even moderate differences to be
measureable with statistical significance. But it could be done. And it is
the only way other than the large group monadic testing that I proposed over
a year ago to determine if in fact the perceptual differences are real. So
even though difficult, this is the kind of testing that must be done before
you can possibly claim that abx-style (comparative, short-snippet) testing
is valid. Because it is the closest thing possible to getting the influence
of the comparative-test itself out of the equation..
| Quote: | On the other hand, this is a perfectly logical approach when you know
two things taste different, and you want to know whether your future
customers will find one sweeter than the other, or smoother than the
other, etc.
|
It is also perfectly logical approach if two things might taste different.
The test indicates yay or nay, not your a priori assumptions.
| Quote: | Of course this is best done blind, but even
sighted it can help quantify perceived differences that are arrived at
monadically and wholly subjectively, with no forced comparison.
If it's not done blind, it can tell you absolutely nothing about the
*sound* of the equipment, because it would fail to exclude some very
obvious and powerful non-sonic influences on those perceptions.
|
It would help quantify a sighted reaction, which is what Norm claimed was
impossible giving rise to my original response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Steven Sullivan wrote:
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...
You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous
occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious
reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is
that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really
exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem?
Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty?
You cannot know what I see or hear.
And how can you know that the *reason* for what you 'see and hear', is
what you believe it to be?
Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I
heard the difference. He cannot do that.
|
He denies you heard a real difference. He doesn't deny that you *think*
you heard a difference.
| Quote: | I heard a difference between the $100 and $50 Monster cables.
There is no contradicting this. The question is not IF, but rather WHY.
You 'heard' a difference. You don't *know* that it was really a difference
between the cables, you only *know* that you think you heard a differece.
Metaphysically equivalent.
|
But *physically*, not at all necessarily equivalent. Not all beliefs are true.
| Quote: | There are some things that we cannot
reliably distinguish above the 'noise' of our neuro systems and the
blood coursing through our veins. And there is always some ambient
noise (except in specially-treated, sound-deadened rooms). The answer,
then, lies in repeated listening over several days or even weeks, to
allow for the evening-out of our moods and neurological conditions. If
after enough trials I am satisfied that there is a difference and a
sufficient one), I buy the product.
|
No, that is not where the answer lies, because things *other than*
the actual sound can still highly influence the 'perception' -- enough
so that one can still come to the 100% wrong conclusion about whether
the sound is different or not.
| Quote: | The question is *IF* the difference was really between
the cables, or whether it was imaginary. It can also be posed as "WHY
did you perceive a difference"?
Correct. So, as in any scientific question, we use the process of
elimination. The fact that the difference was repeatable, over several
days, and that the alteranative explanation ('it's all in my head')
strains credulity, points to the cables themselves possessing a
different sound character.
It's Occam's razor time!
|
Wrong, because you underestimate or are ignorant of the power of
the psychological effects. *No* competent scientist, for example,
would consider the 'all in your head' explanation
to constitute 'straining credulity', under such conditions.
Obviously, 'straining credulity' is not a sufficient criterion unless
you actually understand how likely things are. That two
people in a party of forty can readily have the same birthdate merely
by chance 'strains credulity' for people who have no clue about
probability -- such people are likely to think it 'means' something.
--
-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 2 Oct 2005 20:42:29 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Steven Sullivan wrote:
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...
You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous
occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious
reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is
that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really
exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem?
Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty?
You cannot know what I see or hear.
And how can you know that the *reason* for what you 'see and hear', is
what you believe it to be?
Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I
heard the difference. He cannot do that.
|
False on its face - I already did that.
I do it again - I *know* that there was no audible difference between
the cables, therefore I *know* that you only *imagined* that you heard
a difference.
| Quote: | I heard a difference between the $100 and $50 Monster cables.
There is no contradicting this. The question is not IF, but rather WHY.
You 'heard' a difference. You don't *know* that it was really a difference
between the cables, you only *know* that you think you heard a differece.
Metaphysically equivalent. There are some things that we cannot
reliably distinguish above the 'noise' of our neuro systems and the
blood coursing through our veins. And there is always some ambient
noise (except in specially-treated, sound-deadened rooms). The answer,
then, lies in repeated listening over several days or even weeks, to
allow for the evening-out of our moods and neurological conditions. If
after enough trials I am satisfied that there is a difference and a
sufficient one), I buy the product.
|
Fine, but that doesn't mean that there is any *actual* difference in
the sound. Shame that you seem unable to accept this logical argument,
even after all the mechanisms have been spelled out to you by several
posters.
<snip irrelevance about CD cleaner>
| Quote: | The question is *IF* the difference was really between
the cables, or whether it was imaginary. It can also be posed as "WHY
did you perceive a difference"?
Correct. So, as in any scientific question, we use the process of
elimination. The fact that the difference was repeatable, over several
days, and that the alteranative explanation ('it's all in my head')
strains credulity, points to the cables themselves possessing a
different sound character.
It's Occam's razor time!
|
Exactly, and it suggests that you expect a difference, *therefore* you
hear a difference. Seems to work for everyone else in the world, and
*you* are the only one around here who doesn't seem to understand that
it does not 'strain credulity' at all, it's a perfectly normal
combination of expectation bias and reinforcement.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2005 02:12:23 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
| Quote: | uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
So, as in any scientific question, we use the process of
elimination. The fact that the difference was repeatable, over several
days, and that the alteranative explanation ('it's all in my head')
strains credulity, points to the cables themselves possessing a
different sound character.
It's Occam's razor time!
Wrong, because you underestimate or are ignorant of the power of
the psychological effects. *No* competent scientist, for example,
would consider the 'all in your head' explanation
to constitute 'straining credulity', under such conditions.
Obviously, 'straining credulity' is not a sufficient criterion unless
you actually understand how likely things are. That two
people in a party of forty can readily have the same birthdate merely
by chance 'strains credulity' for people who have no clue about
probability -- such people are likely to think it 'means' something.
|
I live in a small village of some two hundred souls, of whom about a
third are regular visitors to the pub. Out of that seventy or so, five
of us - including the landlady - have the same birthdate, which
'strains credulity' by a factor of 26, thereby gaining statistical
significance. Must be a sign...............
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: |
Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I
heard the difference. He cannot do that.
He denies you heard a real difference. He doesn't deny that you *think*
you heard a difference.
|
Proof?
| Quote: | I heard a difference between the $100 and $50 Monster cables.
There is no contradicting this. The question is not IF, but rather WHY.
You 'heard' a difference. You don't *know* that it was really a difference
between the cables, you only *know* that you think you heard a differece.
Metaphysically equivalent.
But *physically*, not at all necessarily equivalent. Not all beliefs are true.
|
But in this case it does not matter. If it is IN PRINCIPLE impossible
to distinguish between:
A) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the
listener
B) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the cable
what difference does it make? The observed phenomena are the same.
| Quote: |
There are some things that we cannot
reliably distinguish above the 'noise' of our neuro systems and the
blood coursing through our veins. And there is always some ambient
noise (except in specially-treated, sound-deadened rooms). The answer,
then, lies in repeated listening over several days or even weeks, to
allow for the evening-out of our moods and neurological conditions. If
after enough trials I am satisfied that there is a difference and a
sufficient one), I buy the product.
No, that is not where the answer lies, because things *other than*
the actual sound can still highly influence the 'perception' -- enough
so that one can still come to the 100% wrong conclusion about whether
the sound is different or not.
|
Read my lips: It does not matter.
| Quote: | The question is *IF* the difference was really between
the cables, or whether it was imaginary. It can also be posed as "WHY
did you perceive a difference"?
Correct. So, as in any scientific question, we use the process of
elimination. The fact that the difference was repeatable, over several
days, and that the alteranative explanation ('it's all in my head')
strains credulity, points to the cables themselves possessing a
different sound character.
It's Occam's razor time!
Wrong, because you underestimate or are ignorant of the power of
the psychological effects. *No* competent scientist, for example,
would consider the 'all in your head' explanation
to constitute 'straining credulity', under such conditions.
|
Proof?
| Quote: | Obviously, 'straining credulity' is not a sufficient criterion unless
you actually understand how likely things are. That two
people in a party of forty can readily have the same birthdate merely
by chance 'strains credulity' for people who have no clue about
probability -- such people are likely to think it 'means' something.
|
All that matters is my purchase.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 6 Oct 2005 02:38:23 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Steven Sullivan wrote:
Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I
heard the difference. He cannot do that.
He denies you heard a real difference. He doesn't deny that you *think*
you heard a difference.
Proof?
|
He is correct, that is my position. Since you refuse to do a blind
test, you have no way of knowing which is true.
| Quote: | I heard a difference between the $100 and $50 Monster cables.
There is no contradicting this. The question is not IF, but rather WHY.
You 'heard' a difference. You don't *know* that it was really a difference
between the cables, you only *know* that you think you heard a differece.
Metaphysically equivalent.
But *physically*, not at all necessarily equivalent. Not all beliefs are true.
But in this case it does not matter. If it is IN PRINCIPLE impossible
to distinguish between:
A) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the
listener
B) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the cable
what difference does it make? The observed phenomena are the same.
|
Rather than being impossible, it is in fact very easy to make such a
distinction - you remove from the listener only the *knowledge* of
which cable is connected. If they remain distinguishable, then it's
something in the cable.
| Quote: | There are some things that we cannot
reliably distinguish above the 'noise' of our neuro systems and the
blood coursing through our veins. And there is always some ambient
noise (except in specially-treated, sound-deadened rooms). The answer,
then, lies in repeated listening over several days or even weeks, to
allow for the evening-out of our moods and neurological conditions. If
after enough trials I am satisfied that there is a difference and a
sufficient one), I buy the product.
No, that is not where the answer lies, because things *other than*
the actual sound can still highly influence the 'perception' -- enough
so that one can still come to the 100% wrong conclusion about whether
the sound is different or not.
Read my lips: It does not matter.
|
Perhaps not to you as part of a buying decision, but when you insist
on claiming - as you have done - that it's due to some audible
property of the cable, then you come unstuck.
| Quote: | The question is *IF* the difference was really between
the cables, or whether it was imaginary. It can also be posed as "WHY
did you perceive a difference"?
Correct. So, as in any scientific question, we use the process of
elimination. The fact that the difference was repeatable, over several
days, and that the alteranative explanation ('it's all in my head')
strains credulity, points to the cables themselves possessing a
different sound character.
It's Occam's razor time!
Wrong, because you underestimate or are ignorant of the power of
the psychological effects. *No* competent scientist, for example,
would consider the 'all in your head' explanation
to constitute 'straining credulity', under such conditions.
Proof?
|
More than a century of scientific study. You OTOH offer only your
conviction that if you heard it, it must be real. Not so, and easily
demonstrable to be not so.
| Quote: | Obviously, 'straining credulity' is not a sufficient criterion unless
you actually understand how likely things are. That two
people in a party of forty can readily have the same birthdate merely
by chance 'strains credulity' for people who have no clue about
probability -- such people are likely to think it 'means' something.
All that matters is my purchase.
|
So stop making claims about 'cable sound' for which you can provide
*zero* credible support.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
| Quote: | On 6 Oct 2005 02:38:23 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I
heard the difference. He cannot do that.
He denies you heard a real difference. He doesn't deny that you *think*
you heard a difference.
Proof?
He is correct, that is my position. Since you refuse to do a blind
test, you have no way of knowing which is true.
|
It doesn't matter. Do you understand that point?
| Quote: | But *physically*, not at all necessarily equivalent. Not all beliefs are true.
But in this case it does not matter. If it is IN PRINCIPLE impossible
to distinguish between:
A) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the
listener
B) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the cable
what difference does it make? The observed phenomena are the same.
Rather than being impossible, it is in fact very easy to make such a
distinction - you remove from the listener only the *knowledge* of
which cable is connected. If they remain distinguishable, then it's
something in the cable.
|
Consider the computer in 2001, HAL. Let's say HAL predicts a component
failure. Dave goes out to replace the component and finds that it is,
in fact, defective. Is HAL right or not? Let's say HAL does this with a
100% success rate. Later, we find out that HAl had no way of knowing
that the component would fail. Does that make HAL wrong?
It does not matter! If the correlation is 100%, that's all that matters
in science!
| Quote: | No, that is not where the answer lies, because things *other than*
the actual sound can still highly influence the 'perception' -- enough
so that one can still come to the 100% wrong conclusion about whether
the sound is different or not.
Read my lips: It does not matter.
Perhaps not to you as part of a buying decision, but when you insist
on claiming - as you have done - that it's due to some audible
property of the cable, then you come unstuck.
|
I'm claiming that if the perceived difference correlates exactly with
the presence of the cable in my system over a period of many trials,
and that similarly-conducted trials of other products have shown NO
differences at all for some products, that there is nothing wrong with
the method per se. I have repeatedly stated that I have found no sonic
differences at all with a spray-on cleaner whose producer made
extravagent claims for it. I tried this product in exactly the same
manner as the cable, and founfd it utterly worthless.
So, now you have to explain how 'my head' not only can make differences
in cable that appear only when the cable is in my system, but also
refrain from doing so when the CD's are cleaned with the wonder-cleaner
Optrix. The simpler explanation is that the products are responsible
for what I hear or don't hear.
Optrix made no difference whatsoever. The cables did.
http://www.amusicdirect.com/products/detail.asp?sku=AOPTRIX
Do you understand how this presents a problem for your hypothesis?
It's Occam's razor time! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:52 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 7 Oct 2005 17:06:51 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 6 Oct 2005 02:38:23 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I
heard the difference. He cannot do that.
He denies you heard a real difference. He doesn't deny that you *think*
you heard a difference.
Proof?
He is correct, that is my position. Since you refuse to do a blind
test, you have no way of knowing which is true.
It doesn't matter. Do you understand that point?
|
So, the truth doesn't matter to you. Understood.
| Quote: | But *physically*, not at all necessarily equivalent. Not all beliefs are true.
But in this case it does not matter. If it is IN PRINCIPLE impossible
to distinguish between:
A) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the
listener
B) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the cable
what difference does it make? The observed phenomena are the same.
Rather than being impossible, it is in fact very easy to make such a
distinction - you remove from the listener only the *knowledge* of
which cable is connected. If they remain distinguishable, then it's
something in the cable.
Consider the computer in 2001, HAL. Let's say HAL predicts a component
failure. Dave goes out to replace the component and finds that it is,
in fact, defective. Is HAL right or not?
|
HAL is right.
| Quote: | Let's say HAL does this with a
100% success rate. Later, we find out that HAl had no way of knowing
that the component would fail. Does that make HAL wrong?
|
No, that makes us intensely curious as to the mechanism used in his
predictions. Of course, we have to consider the number of times this
happened, to determine the prability of it being just random chance.
HAL would be able to provide exact numbers on this point.
| Quote: | It does not matter! If the correlation is 100%, that's all that matters
in science!
|
Actually no, probability is also important. Sahame that you don't
understand better how Science works. Ah, but if you did, we wouldn't
even be having this debate....................
| Quote: | No, that is not where the answer lies, because things *other than*
the actual sound can still highly influence the 'perception' -- enough
so that one can still come to the 100% wrong conclusion about whether
the sound is different or not.
Read my lips: It does not matter.
Perhaps not to you as part of a buying decision, but when you insist
on claiming - as you have done - that it's due to some audible
property of the cable, then you come unstuck.
I'm claiming that if the perceived difference correlates exactly with
the presence of the cable in my system over a period of many trials,
and that similarly-conducted trials of other products have shown NO
differences at all for some products, that there is nothing wrong with
the method per se. I have repeatedly stated that I have found no sonic
differences at all with a spray-on cleaner whose producer made
extravagent claims for it. I tried this product in exactly the same
manner as the cable, and founfd it utterly worthless.
|
Fine. However, once you have made your initial decison, further trials
tend merely to reinforce that decision, where there is no genuine
physical difference. This is *basic* psychology, but you seem unable
to understand exactly *why* drug tests have to be double-blind to have
any validity.
| Quote: | So, now you have to explain how 'my head' not only can make differences
in cable that appear only when the cable is in my system, but also
refrain from doing so when the CD's are cleaned with the wonder-cleaner
Optrix. The simpler explanation is that the products are responsible
for what I hear or don't hear.
|
Actually no, the simple explanation is that you make a decision, and
then you reinforce it, because your expectation swamps any subtle
differences which *might* exist. This is precisely why all scientific
comparisons remove human bias from the equation. It doesn't matter
whether you decided there was a difference, or there was no
difference.
| Quote: | Optrix made no difference whatsoever. The cables did.
|
Only in your head, not in the physical soundfield.
| Quote: | http://www.amusicdirect.com/products/detail.asp?sku=AOPTRIX
Do you understand how this presents a problem for your hypothesis?
|
The link is broken - much like your reasoning! :-)
| Quote: | It's Occam's razor time!
|
http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html
Do you understand how this presents a problem for your hypothesis?
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in