436 posts / 0 new
Last post
BenLaw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 56 min 14 sec ago
Joined: 21/11/2010 - 20:21
Posts: 6316
RE: more 'snake oil'

CnoEvil wrote:

BenLaw wrote:

Arguably, the problem with your approach is that it is analogous to the Christian fundamentalists in America saying creationism ought to be taught in schools in the interests of 'balance'. 

Edit: I should say, I don't think you're wrong in arguing there are differences in SQ when it comes to sources with analogue outputs and amps (which was Fr0g's point); I do think the way you make the argument is hazardous, and that it can be used in relation to things like digital cables, which I do not think make a difference.

I think that can work both ways, depending what side you are on.

Of course I'm not arguing that something that flies in the face of "proven" scientific fact  should be upheld. The problem lies where "known" fact is proved to be wrong. When Galileo argued that the earth wasn't the centre of the Universe but in fact orbited the Sun, he had to retract his statement on pain of death, as it flew in the face of what was known.

 

You know better than this Cno, you must be tripping up over your own arguments. Galileo didn't have to change because of what was 'known', it would be because of prevailing doctrine / dogma. The argument works against you, because it is an example of someone being forced to go along with 'belief' rather than 'evidence'. The evidence, I'm afraid, is all against things like cables making a difference. 

 

Quote:
Now this is extreme, but no more so than pushing my argument into creationism vs evolution, which was not what I was getting at. All debates have two sides, and some arguments stand scrutiny and some do not, but as ever, logic and common sense have to be applied. My point is that if all one's research directly supports one's viewpoint, it "could" be unbalanced.

 

Nonetheless, your 'balance' argument is exactly that used by creationists. They wish for their point of view to be put on an equal footing with that corroborated by (an abundance of) evidence. It is not wrong or dogmatic to say that should not happen.

 

Quote:
All I'm asking is that people don't get put off by a dogmatic approach and keep an open mind.....One should not readily dismiss the findings of so many people on here (and elsewhere).

 

To continue the analogy, religious fundamentalists argue their views should have equal footing because 'so many people' hold those views. Hifi and cables are not worth getting as excited about as the (mis)education of children. So telling people to keep an open mind is fine, and as IDC has said people may still get their moneys worth due to their perception of it. But for now, I do not feel uncorroborated subjectivism should be given equal status to the science and evidence that suggest things such as cables do not make a difference.

idc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 02/01/2008 - 15:36
Posts: 7765
RE: more 'snake oil'

chebby wrote:

......

Which speakers? Which amps.

Sorry to press this a bit, but it's not about cables (for me anyway) and - as you can see from my sig - my digital sources are iPhone/iTunes/AirPlay, an iMac, a built-in CD player on my Marantz M-CR603, a Blu-ray player, a TV and a Humax. (Hardly anything 'foo' there.)

So yes, ok, we'll discount the digital sources and the cables (I barely have any except a couple of Belkin ethernet cables and some HDMIs that cost me £3.55 each at Tesco and an optical cable I got for £8 from Beresford a long time ago).

So what are the 'scientifically acceptable' speakers and amps for me/us that are free of the taint of any subjectivity in their development, design, build, marketing etc.  Brands that only prove their designs with rigorous double blind testing and don't have any truck with subjective reviewing, subjective selling or subjective consumption. Brands that you and fr0g - and the other proponents of scientific objectivism - can say with certainty are totally free of any hooey and hocum?

 

 

Chebby, I do not think blind testing will be able to answer your question as to which specific speaker or what ever is better.

 

Take speakers, there is an ABX test where 97% of tests correctly identified a Yamaha S4115H from an AR-5. But that does not tell us which one is better (I dont even know of either speaker). No ABX test can, it only shows us what is different and what is not.

 

What you could do with an ABX test is after the objective question of pick out X from A and B, then ask, which sounds better. But that then becomes a blind comparison test, which is subjective, which sounds better to you.

 

Continuing with speakers, Axion Audio, Paradigm and Harman International have conducted speaker blind comparison tests. But they do it one of their own against another of their own, or are vague about the competition. What those results have shown is that there is a greater consistency between price and SQ, more expensive tends to be better. That is different from other products such as DACs and CDPs where price and SQ is not correlated at all. But, in any case, blind comparison is subjective, not objective.

 

What the blind testing does, is show that there is more of an audible difference between speakers than any other part of the hifi chain, since take away other stimuli and people can still pick out which is which and which is more expensive, more so than any other hifi product.

 

 

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: more 'snake oil'

CnoEvil wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

Nobody has ever indentified a speaker cable in a blind test. Is that not indisputable evidence?  Smile

No!

Nobody had been measured running a mile in under 4 minutes before 1954......it didn't mean it was impossible though, as Roger Banniister went on to prove.

Cno, the only evidence that  points to analogue cables sounding different is the subjective observations of various people, everything else tells us that they do not differ, including the results of blind tests carried out on believers and non believers, and the basic scientific knowledge that that there is no correlation between cables and end sound.

Also, most that think that analogue cables effect sound quality believe that digital cables can too, and this is impossible, and indisputable.

So whilst there are opposing views on cables, only one viewpoint has scientific credibility, the other has been proven to be the culminative result of the factors idc has highlighted. It is a viewpoint with no credibility, albeit a harmless enough one.

 

SteveR750's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/03/2005 - 23:46
Posts: 3080
RE: more 'snake oil'

idc wrote:

The evidence is in my blog. As I said before the science says spend your money on speakers, then amps and the source when digital is unimportant, except with bit rates where higher is better. Cables are a definite no.

 

But since looks, image, surroundings, knowledge (through reviews) affects SQ, what is wrong with going to demos or reading reviews? Nothing.Just because the science says one thing does not negate the other.

 

So based on that knowledge, buy a super dooper cable if during a demo it sounds better, safe in the knowledge it really does sound better, to you, based on your experience. Does it really matter what causes the cable to sound better?

 

 

Totally agree in the context of hi-fi andf music; but maybe for some people understanding the science is their personal influence on SQ, and looks, reviews etc have no effect. It is impossible therefore for "believers" and "non believers" ever to reconcile their viewpoints, simply because their interpretation of the universe is triggered by different stimulae, effectively invisible to each other.

steve_1979's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 14/07/2010 - 21:04
Posts: 3791
RE: more 'snake oil'

I'd just like to say +1 to everything that idc has said in this thread.

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12081
RE: more 'snake oil'

BenLaw wrote:

You know better than this Cno, you must be tripping up over your own arguments. Galileo didn't have to change because of what was 'known', it would be because of prevailing doctrine / dogma. The argument works against you, because it is an example of someone being forced to go along with 'belief' rather than 'evidence'. The evidence, I'm afraid, is all against things like cables making a difference. 

Again, it depends on how you twist it (and to give you credit, you are good at twisting it!). Galileo had to fight his corner against a tide of people who "knew better". At that stage I believe he had strong evidence that needed further validating.  If, as I believe will happen, it will be proved that there are perfectly sound scientific reasons for the differences I'm hearing, then my opinion will be validated. That is the only point I'm trying to make.

Quote:
Nonetheless, your 'balance' argument is exactly that used by creationists. They wish for their point of view to be put on an equal footing with that corroborated by (an abundance of) evidence. It is not wrong or dogmatic to say that should not happen.

Just because creationists use it, is neither here nor there, and is getting away from what I'm saying....though it so happens to suit your counter argument. The "dogmatic" that I was referring to was not in what was said, but the way in which it was said. I feel strongly, but try not to bludgeon others into my point of view.

 

Quote:
To continue the analogy, religious fundamentalists argue their views should have equal footing because 'so many people' hold those views. Hifi and cables are not worth getting as excited about as the (mis)education of children. So telling people to keep an open mind is fine, and as IDC has said people may still get their moneys worth due to their perception of it. But for now, I do not feel uncorroborated subjectivism should be given equal status to the science and evidence that suggest things such as cables do not make a difference.

Until you actually try some of this and hear (or not) for yourself, I will never be able to convince you. I have heard the benefits many times and have converted complete cable sceptics ,who were totally convinced the improvements from the likes of mains cables were impossible (through our own blind tests). Religious fundamentalists are a red herring, as their views are not supported by science, whereas with this, the jury is still out.....I am hoping the likes of Shunyata will prove that there are sound scientific principals to account for the improvements that many hear. 

You are a worthy adversary, who always robustly argues your point (and always likes to have the last say!)...but much as I've enjoyed the sparring, I don't think it's going anywhere, except round in circles. 

One of these days you will realize I'm right!

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12081
RE: more 'snake oil'

Dynamight wrote:

Cno, the only evidence that  points to analogue cables sounding different is the subjective observations of various people, everything else tells us that they do not differ, including the results of blind tests carried out on believers and non believers, and the basic scientific knowledge that that there is no correlation between cables and end sound.

Also, most that think that analogue cables effect sound quality believe that digital cables can too, and this is impossible, and indisputable.

So whilst there are opposing views on cables, only one viewpoint has scientific credibility, the other has been proven to be the culminative result of the factors idc has highlighted. It is a viewpoint with no credibility, albeit a harmless enough one.

Right, well that's that sorted. 

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

BenLaw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 56 min 14 sec ago
Joined: 21/11/2010 - 20:21
Posts: 6316
RE: more 'snake oil'

CnoEvil wrote:

BenLaw wrote:

You know better than this Cno, you must be tripping up over your own arguments. Galileo didn't have to change because of what was 'known', it would be because of prevailing doctrine / dogma. The argument works against you, because it is an example of someone being forced to go along with 'belief' rather than 'evidence'. The evidence, I'm afraid, is all against things like cables making a difference. 

Again, it depends on how you twist it (and to give you credit, you are good at twisting it!). Galileo had to fight his corner against a tide of people who "knew better". At that stage I believe he had strong evidence that needed further validating.  If, as I believe will happen, it will be proved that there are perfectly sound scientific reasons for the differences I'm hearing, then my opinion will be validated. That is the only point I'm trying to make.

Quote:
Nonetheless, your 'balance' argument is exactly that used by creationists. They wish for their point of view to be put on an equal footing with that corroborated by (an abundance of) evidence. It is not wrong or dogmatic to say that should not happen.

Just because creationists use it, is neither here nor there, and is getting away from what I'm saying....though it so happens to suit your counter argument. The "dogmatic" that I was referring to was not in what was said, but the way in which it was said. I feel strongly, but try not to bludgeon others into my point of view.

 

Quote:
To continue the analogy, religious fundamentalists argue their views should have equal footing because 'so many people' hold those views. Hifi and cables are not worth getting as excited about as the (mis)education of children. So telling people to keep an open mind is fine, and as IDC has said people may still get their moneys worth due to their perception of it. But for now, I do not feel uncorroborated subjectivism should be given equal status to the science and evidence that suggest things such as cables do not make a difference.

Until you actually try some of this and hear (or not) for yourself, I will never be able to convince you. I have heard the benefits many times and have converted complete cable sceptics ,who were totally convinced the improvements from the likes of mains cables were impossible (through our own blind tests). Religious fundamentalists are a red herring, as their views are not supported by science, whereas with this, the jury is still out.....I am hoping the likes of Shunyata will prove that there are sound scientific principals to account for the improvements that many hear. 

You are a worthy adversary, who always robustly argues your point (and always likes to have the last say!)...but much as I've enjoyed the sparring, I don't think it's going anywhere, except round in circles. 

One of these days you will realize I'm right!

 

I think it's unfair that you say I am 'twisting' anything, but I agree we're unlikely to progress the argument much further, so I shall leave you to enjoy the golf  :cheers:

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12081
RE: more 'snake oil'

BenLaw wrote:

.....so I shall leave you to enjoy the golf  :cheers:

Amen to that! Wink

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12081
RE: more 'snake oil'

BenLaw wrote:

I think it's unfair that you say I am 'twisting' anything,

It may not have sounded like it, but it was in fact a complement. You are one of the few people who really challenge any given argument to be completely water tight.....any weakness will be ruthlessly highlighted and a slam dunk ensues!

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: more 'snake oil'

What I dont understand really is why nobody holds the manufacturers of speakers, amps, cd players etc to task for letting aftermarket third party cable companies muddy the waters and cream massive amounts of cash out of punters pockets.

There should be a universal standard of cable that is scientifically proven to transmit noise from one end to the other properly without electrocuting anyone, and then that gets put in the box with whatever you're buying. Its not difficult really.

Or is there some financial connection between the device sellers and the cable people? Am I being massively naieve here?

The market is now so saturated, there are even companies out there devoted to selling magic headphone cables that will somehow transmit your music the 2 foot from your phone to your ears so much better than the standard cable you've been using! Look, its all shiny and futuristic looking - it must be an upgrade!

What utter nonsense. People have become so totally unaware of whats really important.  Just think about your favourite album and the moments when hearing it has had the most impact on you. Most of my treasured memories are not forged from times spent sitting like a startled rabbit at the perfect apex of a triangle between my speakers, straining like a mentalist  to assess bass control and mid range bloom. No, they're mostly from hearing music on speakers in smoky bedrooms after graphic acts have been performed. EDITED by MODS - House Rules.

Form and content have become confused. Does this three hundred quid hdmi cable make the black on your giant tv seem, um, more black than it did before? 

I mean, do you think there's a forum out there where kettle owners are debating the best mains cable to use for making the perfect cuppa?

How much money and time and effort is wasted on this tail chasing?  If we had proper governments, they'd be employing people to kick any shyster making these claims.

And, to return to my earlier point about What hi-fi running a Big Question with only female participants - I would imagine a big reason why it would be so great is because the responses you'd get about cables and system matching would be actually quite astute:

 

Woman A: Why are you playing Radiohead?

WHF: Because this track demonstrates the full range of frequencies across the dynamic range

Woman B: turn it off, its making me sad

WHF: Now, would you say the treble is slightly more focused in this track than the last one?

Woman C: what's treble? Why are you making us sit in this room? I don't like those curtains.  And just look at her boots!

WHF: Please focus on the music. Do you prefer system 1 or system 2?

Woman A: Do you have Take That's last one? I like Jason.

 

 

Andrew Everard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 hour ago
Joined: 30/05/2007 - 12:34
Posts: 28837
RE: more 'snake oil'

Biggerboat wrote:
And, to return to my earlier point about What hi-fi running a Big Question with only female participants - I would imagine a big reason why it would be so great is because the responses you'd get about cables and system matching would be actually quite astute:

Woman A: Why are you playing Radiohead?

WHF: Because this track demonstrates the full range of frequencies across the dynamic range

Woman B: turn it off, its making me sad

WHF: Now, would you say the treble is slightly more focused in this track than the last one?

Woman C: what's treble? Why are you making us sit in this room? I don't like those curtains.  And just look at her boots!

WHF: Please focus on the music. Do you prefer system 1 or system 2?

Woman A: Do you have Take That's last one? I like Jason.

So not anachronistic audiophiles but outdated stereotypes, then...

The_Lhc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 12874
RE: more 'snake oil'

Andrew Everard wrote:

Biggerboat wrote:
And, to return to my earlier point about What hi-fi running a Big Question with only female participants - I would imagine a big reason why it would be so great is because the responses you'd get about cables and system matching would be actually quite astute:

Woman A: Why are you playing Radiohead?

WHF: Because this track demonstrates the full range of frequencies across the dynamic range

Woman B: turn it off, its making me sad

WHF: Now, would you say the treble is slightly more focused in this track than the last one?

Woman C: what's treble? Why are you making us sit in this room? I don't like those curtains.  And just look at her boots!

WHF: Please focus on the music. Do you prefer system 1 or system 2?

Woman A: Do you have Take That's last one? I like Jason.

So not anachronistic audiophiles but outdated stereotypes, then...

He's lucky Ms Newsome doesn't still work here, there'd be an ICBM with his IP address programmed into it by now.

Paul.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 12 hours ago
Joined: 26/11/2010 - 21:44
Posts: 2956
RE: more 'snake oil'

Radiohead makes me sad too

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: more 'snake oil'

Andrew Everard wrote:

Biggerboat wrote:
And, to return to my earlier point about What hi-fi running a Big Question with only female participants - I would imagine a big reason why it would be so great is because the responses you'd get about cables and system matching would be actually quite astute:

Woman A: Why are you playing Radiohead?

WHF: Because this track demonstrates the full range of frequencies across the dynamic range

Woman B: turn it off, its making me sad

WHF: Now, would you say the treble is slightly more focused in this track than the last one?

Woman C: what's treble? Why are you making us sit in this room? I don't like those curtains.  And just look at her boots!

WHF: Please focus on the music. Do you prefer system 1 or system 2?

Woman A: Do you have Take That's last one? I like Jason.

So not anachronistic audiophiles but outdated stereotypes, then...

 

Take That, outdated?  Just look what they've done for Marks & Spencers and The Queen!

My point stands.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments