In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
You may need to distinguish between "evidence" and "assertions" or
"beliefs". :-)
Wait until someone latches onto sampling method :-). Going back to my
original assertion:
1. Some people can differentiate between cables;
I note that you do describe this as an "assertion". I agree on that basis.
Some people do, indeed claim/assert they can do what you assert. But this
does not - in itself - establish their belief is well founded in reality.
then evidence exists that they can.
It is evidence of what they believe to be the case.
Whether you or I believe that to be entirely misplaced or flimsy
'evidence' is irrelevant for the moment. You would need to ask certain
questions relating to *why* people think that, and generate a meaningful
hypothesis - not simply state
'cables-can't-sound-different-'cos-science-says-so'.
I am not aware of having personally claimed that :
"cables-can't-sound-different-'cos-science-says-so"
What I have said is that:
1) There are some situations where it is generally agreed and accepted that
changing one cable for another *will* be likely to cause a change that
makes a difference that is audible. The obvious example is excessive series
resistance or inductance with a complex speaker load where the frequency
response will alter. Hence we need to exclude these 'obvious and
non-contentious' examples as they seem to be accepted, and are easily
understood.
2) That there are people who claim that they can hear audible changes in
cases *not* included in (1) and for which there is - currently - no
correlation or established mechanism in physics/electronics which would
give an 'explanation'. This distinguishes these from type (1) cases.
3) That despite various people asserting or claiming that they can hear
"night and day" differences (or some other term indicating a large and
obviously audible change) no-one (to my knowledge) has been able to
participate in a test like that Stewart offers and provide evidence that
they can actually recognise which cable is being used when its identiy is
hidden as 'X' despite having the ability to do an ABX.
4) That I have personally engaged in informal listening tests, etc, in
various ways over the years. On occasion I have felt that I heard type (2)
differences, but was then unable to do so on a reliable or consistent
basis. Ditto for such tests involving others.
5) That all sorts of factors cause perception to change. Slight movements
of the head, etc, etc. Hence unless changes really are "night and day"
reliably hearing them can be very difficult.
6) That therefore I see no reason to accept the assertions people make for
being able to hear type (2) differences *simply because they assert they
can hear them*.
This does not meant I insist that they are all, in every case, in error. It
means that I see no reason to accept they are correct until such time as
someone shows they can consistently and reliably hear a difference of type
(2) by providing suitable evidence. Stewart's test seems a useful mechanism
for that.
I could add:
7) I find it curious that people assert they can hear "obvious"
differences. Yet then decline to put this to Stewart's test. This gives the
impression that what is "obvious" or "night and day" is also so fragile or
subtle or unreliable as to not warrant a description like "obvious". I find
it odd that something they regard as "obvious" is also something they lack
confidence in being able to hear once they have no prior knowledge of
which cable is 'X'.
Again, the above does not in my view constitute "proof" that they are
talking nonsense. But it does undermine their claims in my view, and I
then revert to asking for evidence before I will personally accept their
claims as being reliable.
8) I have examined many of the 'technical explanations' given over the years
that attempt to put forwards 'new mechanisms' for type (2) differences. In
general, they seem like technobabble to me, or examples of pulling some
small effect wildly out of context. So I also have been unable to find any
scientific or engineering explanations that seem to me to support type (2)
differences.
Now, *I* wouldn't stretch the point to suggest that it's verifiable or
replicable; I haven't correlated it. But if you dismiss these findings
out of hand then you don't get past (1) - see my OP.
Please see my own response to (1). :-)
I seem to remember this from somewhere :-). My basic answer is:
'opinions matter'.
They do in terms of feelings. But the behaviour of items in the physical
universe may not be affected by them. :-)
Nor do 'opinions' tell us much about if a given opinion is well founded or
not as a descrption of the working of the physical universe. For that we
have to employ relevant experiments/tests and evidence.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc
http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio
http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc.
http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
Linear Mode
