Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cables

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 2:29:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects, price
points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many electrons can
you lose etc.

I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and the
"If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.

Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?

Aesthetics

Bragging rights

I mean we've spent all this money on beautiful looking amps, CD players,
speakers, racks, turntables and subs. How could we possibly hook it up with
radio shack and lamp chord and call it a thing of beauty?

More about : cables

Anonymous
April 29, 2004 5:49:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/28/04 6:29 PM, in article c6pb8c01kkn@news4.newsguy.com, "John Royer"
<jroyer@istar.ca> wrote:

> I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects, price
> points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many electrons can
> you lose etc.
>
> I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and the
> "If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.

Cables and interconnects are the wacky world of audio - there certainly are
ways to make cables that are really good (I am thinking of RF cables as is
my professional experience) and they won't be cheap - and it is debatable
how noticeable the differences might be (some claim to notice a difference,
some don't), though noting stirs passion than a subjectivist and objectivist
arguing about them!

> Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
> various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?
>
> Aesthetics

For sure a handsome cable is a thing of beauty - and a well packages
interconnect or speaker cable can improve the looks of a rat's nest.

>
> Bragging rights

Depends to who.

There are people who earnestly believe that certain cables can be used as
tone controls.

> I mean we've spent all this money on beautiful looking amps, CD players,
> speakers, racks, turntables and subs. How could we possibly hook it up with
> radio shack and lamp chord and call it a thing of beauty?
>
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 2:45:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:c6pb8c01kkn@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
> various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?
>
> Aesthetics
>
> Bragging rights
>
> I mean we've spent all this money on beautiful looking amps, CD players,
> speakers, racks, turntables and subs. How could we possibly hook it up
with
> radio shack and lamp chord and call it a thing of beauty?
>

I'm pretty much in total agreement here. Another thing might be the peace
and comfort in their knowing that they bought the best their current
available funds permit. After all when you feel good about yourself
everything sounds and looks better. Since the whole shebang is in your mind
anyway, they *are* right despite DBT and measurements.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 8:05:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

John Royer writes:
> I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects, price
> points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many electrons can
> you lose etc.
>
> I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and the
> "If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.
>
> Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
> various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?
>
> Aesthetics
>
> Bragging rights

It doesn't seem to be right to bag everyone into the groups
"Subjectivist" or "Objectivist". It seems to me that there's a
spectrum of beliefs in audio.

Here's a few examples of things some people claim make a difference to
their listening experience:

The P.W.B. Red 'x' Co-ordinate Pen

Tice Clock

Shakti Stones

Green CD marker pens

Expensive cables with special properties

Amplifiers with ineffable properties

CD vs. SACD

Supersonic tweeters

Valve amplifiers

Loudspeakers

Room acoustics

Aesthetics and Bragging rights don't explain all the things in this
list. Everyone interested in hi-fi reproduction believes in some of
these. There's a spectrum of belief here, not a simple yes/no.

Andrew.
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 2:43:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

arahe@littlepinkcloud.com wrote:
> John Royer writes:
> > I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects, price
> > points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many electrons can
> > you lose etc.
> >
> > I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and the
> > "If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.
> >
> > Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
> > various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?
> >
> > Aesthetics
> >
> > Bragging rights

> It doesn't seem to be right to bag everyone into the groups
> "Subjectivist" or "Objectivist". It seems to me that there's a
> spectrum of beliefs in audio.

> Here's a few examples of things some people claim make a difference to
> their listening experience:

> The P.W.B. Red 'x' Co-ordinate Pen

> Tice Clock

> Shakti Stones

> Green CD marker pens

> Expensive cables with special properties

> Amplifiers with ineffable properties

> CD vs. SACD

> Supersonic tweeters

> Valve amplifiers

> Loudspeakers

> Room acoustics

> Aesthetics and Bragging rights don't explain all the things in this
> list.
> Everyone interested in hi-fi reproduction believes in some of
> these. There's a spectrum of belief here, not a simple yes/no.

You've included stuff that *everyone* would agree makes a sonic diffefence
if changed -- speakers, room acoustics -- and which *no one* would explain as
being due to 'aesthetics' or 'bragging rights'. So *of course*
your statement is true.




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 7:47:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<arahe@littlepinkcloud.com> wrote in message
news:vLNnc.19847$z06.3270558@attbi_s01...
> John Royer writes:
> > I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects,
price
> > points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many
electrons can
> > you lose etc.
> >
> > I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and
the
> > "If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.
> >
> > Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
> > various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?
> >
> > Aesthetics
> >
> > Bragging rights
>
> It doesn't seem to be right to bag everyone into the groups
> "Subjectivist" or "Objectivist". It seems to me that there's a
> spectrum of beliefs in audio.
>
> Here's a few examples of things some people claim make a difference to
> their listening experience:
>
> The P.W.B. Red 'x' Co-ordinate Pen
>
> Tice Clock
>
> Shakti Stones
>
> Green CD marker pens
>
> Expensive cables with special properties
>
> Amplifiers with ineffable properties
>
> CD vs. SACD
>
> Supersonic tweeters
>
> Valve amplifiers
>
> Loudspeakers
>
> Room acoustics
>
> Aesthetics and Bragging rights don't explain all the things in this
> list. Everyone interested in hi-fi reproduction believes in some of
> these. There's a spectrum of belief here, not a simple yes/no.

There was once a fad for CD dampers. Mod Squad had one. Following that one
following that one was another by Mel Schilling of "Music and Sound". His
first location IIRC was in Pennsylvania. He was the first dealer in the USA
to sell Magneplanar and Audio Research. He sold a SP3-A-1 and Tympani IIIA
(8 panels in all) to a long lost friend of mine where I spent many an hour
of listening. I remember his also having bought a Technics SP-10 turntable
fitted with one of the first, if not THE first, Decca tonearm and cartridge,
also from Mr. Schilling, whose "Music and Sound" moved to California. So for
my little reminiscence, but these $20 disc dampers, little platters placed
over CDs, could hardly come under the headings of aesthetics and bragging,
being more like the green marking pens. Included in this group might be
those little rings applied to the CDs outer edge and Armor All :-). I recall
one of the first exotic, but short-lived, loudspeaker cables by Mark
Levinson (the man), pure copper in a flat and very pliant plastic like
casing. I remember listening to a Mark Levinson HQD system (Hartley
sub-woofers, double stacked Quad speakers and Decca ribbon tweeters. Amps,
preamps and crossovers for the whole system again by Levinson. It's nearly
impossible for me to compare that system to today's modern marvels, but I
feel it could more than hold its own. After all short term audio memory
recall is said to be amazingly short, but 35 years?
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 7:40:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Back when used to look at some of the literature I read an article
about "high quality" cable. The writer came to the conclusion that yes,
there is a difference, but that cheap wires may sound better than
expensive, heavy duty cable. One of my Probe Jades ( powered by Mac
tubes) has heavy cable, the other the cheapest wire possible...no
difference in sound. BTW I am easy to please with TV...a 19` set is OK
for me, but I require great audio for music.
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 4:07:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I think you're right. I mean who doesn't want garden-hose thickness speaker
wire going from their super amp to their super speakers? Unfortunately, the
garden-hose thickness wire can cost as much as a good amp. Fortunately, I
have hit on a sensible and economical solution that provides esthetic chic,
excellent performance, and reasonable cost. I use 12 ga. speaker wire from
Lowe's and run it through a length of 1/2" garden hose. (I find the
braided-look green style works best.) Cost me about $10. Works great.
Thinking about contacting a garden hose company about having them make up a
run of the hose with a ground wire (oxygen free copper) running through it
and selling into the audiophile market.

I think if I price it high enough (not too high, though, I have some
scruples) and place some ads, those guys at STEREOPHILE will come through
with a favorable review.

What do you guys think?

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:c6pb8c01kkn@news4.newsguy.com...
> I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects,
price
> points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many electrons
can
> you lose etc.
>
> I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and the
> "If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.
>
> Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
> various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?
>
> Aesthetics
>
> Bragging rights
>
> I mean we've spent all this money on beautiful looking amps, CD players,
> speakers, racks, turntables and subs. How could we possibly hook it up
with
> radio shack and lamp chord and call it a thing of beauty?
>
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 7:18:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5/16/04 8:07 PM, in article c88vnn082j@news1.newsguy.com, "GRL"
<GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.COM> wrote:

> I think you're right. I mean who doesn't want garden-hose thickness speaker
> wire going from their super amp to their super speakers? Unfortunately, the
> garden-hose thickness wire can cost as much as a good amp. Fortunately, I
> have hit on a sensible and economical solution that provides esthetic chic,
> excellent performance, and reasonable cost. I use 12 ga. speaker wire from
> Lowe's and run it through a length of 1/2" garden hose. (I find the
> braided-look green style works best.) Cost me about $10. Works great.
> Thinking about contacting a garden hose company about having them make up a
> run of the hose with a ground wire (oxygen free copper) running through it
> and selling into the audiophile market.
>
> I think if I price it high enough (not too high, though, I have some
> scruples) and place some ads, those guys at STEREOPHILE will come through
> with a favorable review.
>
> What do you guys think?

Sounds like a good busness plan - good luck to you.

I think a lot of the interconnect malarchy has a lot to do with the
speakers, length of wire and the output impedance of the amplifiers in
question. I have spent countless hours in the lab designing RF amplifiers
changing impedances by 0.5 Ohms or less and seeing a fairly substantial
change in output power, gain or so on. And while Audio amplifiers are
supposed to be more robist to this sort of tweaking - the loads are entirely
arbitrary (speaker + cable) and I do wonder if there couldn't be an effect.

Perhaps if you are open minded, you could get 3 of those zip cords, braid
them and take 3 hot leads and 3 grounds and see if you can sense any
difference on a recording you understand. Though if your speakers are not
good, it won't matter.
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 9:27:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:c89au602orj@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 5/16/04 8:07 PM, in article c88vnn082j@news1.newsguy.com, "GRL"
> <GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.COM> wrote:
>
> > I think you're right. I mean who doesn't want garden-hose thickness
speaker
> > wire going from their super amp to their super speakers? Unfortunately,
the
> > garden-hose thickness wire can cost as much as a good amp. Fortunately,
I
> > have hit on a sensible and economical solution that provides esthetic
chic,
> > excellent performance, and reasonable cost. I use 12 ga. speaker wire
from
> > Lowe's and run it through a length of 1/2" garden hose. (I find the
> > braided-look green style works best.) Cost me about $10. Works great.
> > Thinking about contacting a garden hose company about having them make
up a
> > run of the hose with a ground wire (oxygen free copper) running through
it
> > and selling into the audiophile market.
> >
> > I think if I price it high enough (not too high, though, I have some
> > scruples) and place some ads, those guys at STEREOPHILE will come
through
> > with a favorable review.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
>
> Sounds like a good busness plan - good luck to you.
>
> I think a lot of the interconnect malarchy has a lot to do with the
> speakers, length of wire and the output impedance of the amplifiers in
> question. I have spent countless hours in the lab designing RF amplifiers
> changing impedances by 0.5 Ohms or less and seeing a fairly substantial
> change in output power, gain or so on. And while Audio amplifiers are
> supposed to be more robist to this sort of tweaking - the loads are
entirely
> arbitrary (speaker + cable) and I do wonder if there couldn't be an
effect.
>
> Perhaps if you are open minded, you could get 3 of those zip cords, braid
> them and take 3 hot leads and 3 grounds and see if you can sense any
> difference on a recording you understand. Though if your speakers are not
> good, it won't matter.

So many things have been said and written about the sound of all things
hi-end, including cables. From all amplifiers and cables sound the same to
they sound different...even, "little wooden disks stuck to the wall worked
wonders." Much of it is bologna. However, facts are facts whatever anyone
says. One fact is that switching out the MIT MI 750 Bi-wire speaker cables
in my system with Analysis Plus Oval 12 not only changes the sound, but the
entire characteristics of the system. Which if either is closer to right?
Well, that may very well be a subjective matter. Right now, I do not really
care why cables change the sound of my system, and I doubt most (but not
all) who argue about it know anything at all. When a verifiable reason for
differences is revealed, then I will care about why some cables sound
different. Maybe it is simply a matter of component quality and design, if a
cable can be thought of as part of a circuit.
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 8:45:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Glenn Garza <glenngarza@adelphia.net> wrote:

> So many things have been said and written about the sound of all things
> hi-end, including cables. From all amplifiers and cables sound the same to
> they sound different...even, "little wooden disks stuck to the wall worked
> wonders." Much of it is bologna. However, facts are facts whatever anyone
> says. One fact is that switching out the MIT MI 750 Bi-wire speaker cables
> in my system with Analysis Plus Oval 12 not only changes the sound, but the
> entire characteristics of the system.

The fact is that the St. Louis Arch is higher than it is wide.

Oh, wait, actually, it only *looks* that way. In fact, the height
and width are found to be equal, when they are actually measured.

Perceptions aren't necessarily *correct*, you see. It's a fact that
you *believe* the switch you made changes the sound. Whether
it does, in fact, cause a change in sound, remains to be determined.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 9:20:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the
beholder. And just because the electrical engineers cannot measure any
difference in cables does NOT mean they cannot produce a perceptional change in
people that may even differ from person to person. But, everything in Life is
filtered through our perceptions. We cannot live without our perceptions since
that is HOW we interact with our world. So, who cares whether they measure the
same or not? They can STILL produce a perceptional difference. Otherwise, WHY
have different types of wire, different companies and different product lines?
Because even if they measure the same, they are all perceived as different by
different customers. If everyone agrees on the same perceptions, then there
would only be one cable, period. -Bob Bernstein.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 9:20:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/2/04 1:27 AM, in article Tydvc.30476$IB.17093@attbi_s04, "Glenn Garza"
<glenngarza@adelphia.net> wrote:

> and I doubt most (but not
> all) who argue about it know anything at all. When a verifiable reason for
> differences is revealed, then I will care about why some cables sound
> different. Maybe it is simply a matter of component quality and design, if a
> cable can be thought of as part of a circuit.

So.... If you think you hear a difference, you will ignore it until someone
gives you an explanation?
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 10:15:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 05:27:15 GMT, "Glenn Garza"
<glenngarza@adelphia.net> wrote:

>So many things have been said and written about the sound of all things
>hi-end, including cables. From all amplifiers and cables sound the same to
>they sound different...even, "little wooden disks stuck to the wall worked
>wonders." Much of it is bologna. However, facts are facts whatever anyone
>says. One fact is that switching out the MIT MI 750 Bi-wire speaker cables
>in my system with Analysis Plus Oval 12 not only changes the sound, but the
>entire characteristics of the system. Which if either is closer to right?
>Well, that may very well be a subjective matter. Right now, I do not really
>care why cables change the sound of my system, and I doubt most (but not
>all) who argue about it know anything at all. When a verifiable reason for
>differences is revealed, then I will care about why some cables sound
>different.

How about caring about whether they really *do* sound different,
before chasing the cause?

>Maybe it is simply a matter of component quality and design, if a
>cable can be thought of as part of a circuit.

Maybe it is simply inaudible.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 10:57:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"So many things have been said and written about the sound of all things
hi-end, including cables. From all amplifiers and cables sound the same to
they sound different...even, "little wooden disks stuck to the wall worked
wonders." Much of it is bologna. However, facts are facts whatever anyone
says. One fact is that switching out the MIT MI 750 Bi-wire speaker cables
in my system with Analysis Plus Oval 12 not only changes the sound, but
the entire characteristics of the system. Which if either is closer to
right? Well, that may very well be a subjective matter. Right now, I do
not really care why cables change the sound of my system, and I doubt most
(but not all) who argue about it know anything at all. When a verifiable
reason for differences is revealed, then I will care about why some cables
sound different. Maybe it is simply a matter of component quality and
design, if a cable can be thought of as part of a circuit."

We have now done enough blind testing of amps and wire we need no longer
wonder if all the writing and speaking done has substance, and we have a
good insight as to the source of differences heard. The blind tests using
listening alone show results close to the same level as guessing would
produce. This strongly suggests that any difference is a product of the
perception process that occurs in the brain after the signal reaches the
ears. The differens so frequently written and spoken about absent
controled testing disappear when even simple blind is done, such as
putting a cloth over the wire connections so the active bit of gear is not
known. We are no longer slave to the "some think and write this or that
and some others think different things", we now have a listening alone
benchmark against which all reports can be evaluated. This includes the
report you make, do you think your experience is an exception to the
testing bemchmark? Isn't mit one of those wires with the network, in
which case the difference is because it is likely acting as an eq filter
on the signal by changing well known properties of rcl in an electrical
circuit. A tone control knob makes similar changes to sound.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 8:42:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:uyyvc.1471$%F2.631@attbi_s04...
> On 6/2/04 1:27 AM, in article Tydvc.30476$IB.17093@attbi_s04, "Glenn
Garza"
> <glenngarza@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > and I doubt most (but not
> > all) who argue about it know anything at all. When a verifiable
reason for
> > differences is revealed, then I will care about why some cables
sound
> > different. Maybe it is simply a matter of component quality and
design, if a
> > cable can be thought of as part of a circuit.
>
> So.... If you think you hear a difference, you will ignore it until
someone
> gives you an explanation?

If I hear a difference between 2 cables, and cannot think of any
technical reason why I should, my first step is to find out whether
the difference is there when I don't know which of the 2 cables is
actually in-circuit. If I can consistently tell which cable is in
use without extra-audio information, then I will turn up heaven and
earth to find out why. I'm just like that. So far, cable changes
have never survived the first test, so I haven't had to address the
technical issues.

Norm Strong
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 2:51:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929)
wrote:

>Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
>"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the
>beholder.

You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical
world.

> And just because the electrical engineers cannot measure any
>difference in cables does NOT mean they cannot produce a perceptional change in
>people that may even differ from person to person.

There are *always* easily measurable differences in cables. There are
however *no* instances of differences which are actually *audible*,
given a very basic level-matching to +/- 0.1dB.

> But, everything in Life is
>filtered through our perceptions. We cannot live without our perceptions since
>that is HOW we interact with our world. So, who cares whether they measure the
>same or not? They can STILL produce a perceptional difference.

No, they don't.

> Otherwise, WHY
>have different types of wire, different companies and different product lines?

It's called marketing.

>Because even if they measure the same, they are all perceived as different by
>different customers. If everyone agrees on the same perceptions, then there
>would only be one cable, period. -Bob Bernstein.

If everyone *really* trusted their ears, then there would indeed be
only one cable - 12AWG Home Depot stranded cable........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 3:35:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929) wrote:



>Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
>"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the
>beholder. And just because the electrical engineers cannot measure any
>difference in cables does NOT mean they cannot produce a perceptional change
>in
>people that may even differ from person to person. But, everything in Life
>is
>filtered through our perceptions. We cannot live without our perceptions
>since
>that is HOW we interact with our world. So, who cares whether they measure
>the
>same or not? They can STILL produce a perceptional difference. Otherwise,
>WHY
>have different types of wire, different companies and different product
>lines?
>Because even if they measure the same, they are all perceived as different by
>different customers. If everyone agrees on the same perceptions, then there
>would only be one cable, period. -Bob Bernstein.

Actually according to the controlled listening tests I've conducted; sonically
there does appear to be only "one" cable.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 8:36:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929) wrote in message news:<nyyvc.38749$eY2.8954@attbi_s02>...
> Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
> "disprove" anyone's perceptions.

Actually... in Daniel Dennett's book "Conciousness Explained" he
explores this common fallacy. According to Dennett (he's a
neuropsychologist & chairman of the Cognitive Studies Department @
Tufts) you *can* often prove that a subjects perceptions are indeed
wrong...but while that is a useful data point, it's only useful in the
context of understanding what the subject believes their perceptions
are.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 12:55:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the
beholder. And just because the electrical engineers cannot measure any
difference in cables does NOT mean they cannot produce a perceptional
change in people that may even differ from person to person. But,
everything in Life is"

Perception is very changable, when blind tests are done on wire the
perception of difference disappears, meaning the source of the perception
is not in the wire but manufactured in the brain downstream of the ears.
When people know which wire is being used, the attribute thought different
in the wire is originated in the brain and applied to the wire, all at the
level of the brain. When a test is done and two wires are said to be
switched alternatly but one is in fact used all the time, the differences
are reported still because it originates in the brain and not the wire.
When people come to realize it, the perception of difference collapses.
In the end on a practical level, one needs no longer give thought to wire
but enjoy the sound experience without the stress and worry that a
different wire might make it "better", as the marketing/hifi mags are egar
to be mutually supporting in convincing you.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 12:01:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929)
> wrote:

> >Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
> >"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the
> >beholder.

> You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical
> world.

Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 8:11:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/5/04 4:01 AM, in article C5fwc.10954$%F2.8208@attbi_s04, "Steven
Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929)
>> wrote:
>
>>> Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
>>> "disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the
>>> beholder.
>
>> You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical
>> world.
>
> Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.

Ah - but if you can produce an illusion on a consistent basis - and the
illusion is pleasing - you might have a new format!

I believe our hobby is about the consistent creation of the illusion of
performers in the room with you as much as it is about truth.
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 4:25:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929)
>> wrote:
>
>> >Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
>> >"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the
>> >beholder.
>
>> You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical
>> world.
>
>Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.
>
>--
>
>-S.
>
>"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
>-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Yes, but optical illusions are at least reliable individually and across a
large segement of the population, quite unlike cable/amp sound which cannot be
replicated by even the most ardent proponents when someone else is
watching.(and they're not :-)
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 5:43:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/5/04 8:25 PM, in article 9wtwc.45415$pt3.28224@attbi_s03, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

>> Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.
>>
>
> Yes, but optical illusions are at least reliable individually and across a
> large segement of the population, quite unlike cable/amp sound which cannot be
> replicated by even the most ardent proponents when someone else is
> watching.(and they're not :-)

And as I said before - the goal is to produce a convincing illusion of a
performance where there are a few boxes, panels and spinning plastic disks.

Since stereo imaging is an illusion based upon your perception of the sound
- it makes one wonder if there will ever be a broad agreement of what works
"best" --?

I just got done setting up a C541i vs. a Bel Canto DAC2 DAC converter (one
in the "CD" slot and the other into the "AUX" slot in the Receiver) being
driven by both the TOSLINK and the digital SPDIF - and so far - darned if I
can find a difference in the two - though there seems to have very, very
minor differences - I sense some artifacting in some compressed CD's I have
on one, and the noise floor seems a tiny bit lower on the same one (really
did do blind testing on this one since I had my wife set it up and not tell
me which one was controlled by which button)- though both required listening
through the headphone out jack with a pair of Grados and the studio 'phones
I have from the back room. One is 3x the cost of the other.
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 9:24:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Nousaine <nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com wrote:

> >Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929)
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
> >> >"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the
> >> >beholder.
> >
> >> You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical
> >> world.
> >
> >Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.
> >
> >--
> >
> >-S.
> >
> >"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
> >-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

> Yes, but optical illusions are at least reliable individually and across a
> large segement of the population, quite unlike cable/amp sound which cannot be
> replicated by even the most ardent proponents when someone else is
> watching.(and they're not :-)

Psychological biases are rather replicable too, even if not as
spectacularly as sensory ones.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thatsright@excite.co>
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 9:24:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On 6/5/04 4:01 AM, in article C5fwc.10954$%F2.8208@attbi_s04, "Steven
> Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

> > Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929)
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
> >>> "disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the
> >>> beholder.
> >
> >> You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical
> >> world.
> >
> > Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.

> Ah - but if you can produce an illusion on a consistent basis - and the
> illusion is pleasing - you might have a new format!

> I believe our hobby is about the consistent creation of the illusion of
> performers in the room with you as much as it is about truth.

It would still be wrong, however, to claim that the performers were actually
in the room with you.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thatsright@excite.co>
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 10:26:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>Date: 6/6/2004 10:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <6rIwc.48713$pt3.16925@attbi_s03>
>
>Nousaine <nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com wrote:
>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929)
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove"
>or
>> >> >"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of
>the
>> >> >beholder.
>> >
>> >> You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical
>> >> world.
>> >
>> >Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >-S.
>> >
>> >"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
>> >-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
>
>> Yes, but optical illusions are at least reliable individually and across a
>> large segement of the population, quite unlike cable/amp sound which cannot
>be
>> replicated by even the most ardent proponents when someone else is
>> watching.(and they're not :-)
>
>Psychological biases are rather replicable too, even if not as
>spectacularly as sensory ones.
>
>--
I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so long
as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias affects
can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls seem
more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question, can one
be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions?
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 1:23:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/6/04 1:24 PM, in article erIwc.48714$pt3.47033@attbi_s03, "Steven
Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>>> Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.
>
>> Ah - but if you can produce an illusion on a consistent basis - and the
>> illusion is pleasing - you might have a new format!
>
>> I believe our hobby is about the consistent creation of the illusion of
>> performers in the room with you as much as it is about truth.
>
> It would still be wrong, however, to claim that the performers were actually
> in the room with you.

Of course - but the *illusion* of them there in the room with you is the
goal. If you wanted to really have them in the room - it would be rather
expensive in hiring a chamber orchestra or jazz ensemble to play for you in
the living room every evening. (Thought it would be LOADS of fun!)
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 2:30:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com wrote:

>Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On 6/5/04 4:01 AM, in article C5fwc.10954$%F2.8208@attbi_s04, "Steven
>> Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> > Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929)
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove"
>or
>> >>> "disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of
>the
>> >>> beholder.
>> >
>> >> You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical
>> >> world.
>> >
>> > Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.
>
>> Ah - but if you can produce an illusion on a consistent basis - and the
>> illusion is pleasing - you might have a new format!
>
>> I believe our hobby is about the consistent creation of the illusion of
>> performers in the room with you as much as it is about truth.
>
>It would still be wrong, however, to claim that the performers were actually
>in the room with you.

This is somewhat off the point. But for my personal "illusionment" I don't want
the performers in the room with me (unless that's where they were when the
recording was made.) What do I want? To be transported to the location where a
live recording occured. This would also be true with studio recordings .....
where the producers/performers want you to believe you are.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 4:58:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
> >From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
> >Date: 6/6/2004 10:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <6rIwc.48713$pt3.16925@attbi_s03>
> >
> >Nousaine <nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com wrote:
> >
> >> >Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove"
> >or
> >> >> >"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of
> >the
> >> >> >beholder.
> >> >
> >> >> You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical
> >> >> world.
> >> >
> >> >Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >
> >> >-S.
> >> >
> >> >"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
> >> >-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
> >
> >> Yes, but optical illusions are at least reliable individually and across a
> >> large segement of the population, quite unlike cable/amp sound which cannot
> >be
> >> replicated by even the most ardent proponents when someone else is
> >> watching.(and they're not :-)
> >
> >Psychological biases are rather replicable too, even if not as
> >spectacularly as sensory ones.
> >
> >--
> I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so long
> as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias affects
> can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls seem
> more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question, can one
> be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions?

One camn certainly be affected by biases without preconception -- an example
is the tendency for the slightly louder of two presentations, to be rated
as sounding better.


--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thatsright@excite.co>
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 6:45:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>Date: 6/6/2004 5:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ca0ej80fh8@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>S888Wheel <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
>> >From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>> >Date: 6/6/2004 10:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <6rIwc.48713$pt3.16925@attbi_s03>
>> >
>> >Nousaine <nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot
>"prove"
>> >or
>> >> >> >"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear)
>of
>> >the
>> >> >> >beholder.
>> >> >
>> >> >> You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical
>> >> >> world.
>> >> >
>> >> >Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> >
>> >> >-S.
>> >> >
>> >> >"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
>> >> >-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
>> >
>> >> Yes, but optical illusions are at least reliable individually and across
>a
>> >> large segement of the population, quite unlike cable/amp sound which
>cannot
>> >be
>> >> replicated by even the most ardent proponents when someone else is
>> >> watching.(and they're not :-)
>> >
>> >Psychological biases are rather replicable too, even if not as
>> >spectacularly as sensory ones.
>> >
>> >--
>> I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so
>long
>> as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias
>affects
>> can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls
>seem
>> more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question, can
>one
>> be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions?
>
>One camn certainly be affected by biases without preconception -- an example
>is the tendency for the slightly louder of two presentations, to be rated
>as sounding better.

Poor example given you cannot find a listener without a preconception of better
sound in this case.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 6:58:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
> From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
> >Date: 6/6/2004 5:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <ca0ej80fh8@news1.newsguy.com>
> >
> >S888Wheel <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
> >> >Date: 6/6/2004 10:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: <6rIwc.48713$pt3.16925@attbi_s03>
> >> >
> >> >Nousaine <nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, rbernst929@aol.com (RBernst929)
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot
> >"prove"
> >> >or
> >> >> >> >"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear)
> >of
> >> >the
> >> >> >> >beholder.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical
> >> >> >> world.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >--
> >> >> >
> >> >> >-S.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
> >> >> >-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
> >> >
> >> >> Yes, but optical illusions are at least reliable individually and across
> >a
> >> >> large segement of the population, quite unlike cable/amp sound which
> >cannot
> >> >be
> >> >> replicated by even the most ardent proponents when someone else is
> >> >> watching.(and they're not :-)
> >> >
> >> >Psychological biases are rather replicable too, even if not as
> >> >spectacularly as sensory ones.
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so
> >long
> >> as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias
> >affects
> >> can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls
> >seem
> >> more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question, can
> >one
> >> be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions?
> >
> >One camn certainly be affected by biases without preconception -- an example
> >is the tendency for the slightly louder of two presentations, to be rated
> >as sounding better.

> Poor example given you cannot find a listener without a preconception of better
> sound in this case.

You're claiming that anyone who rates the louder presentation as better, already
*assumed* that louder is better?

Wrong. The effect shows up even when people *don't know* that the level has
changed. It appears to be a 'built in' response...not learned.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thatsright@excite.co>
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 7:21:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In message <c9vnlj013bk@news2.newsguy.com>, S888Wheel
<s888wheel@aol.com> writes

>I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so long
>as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias affects
>can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls seem
>more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question, can one
>be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions?

If only it were that easy. We all have preconceptions that are very
difficult, sometimes impossible, to train ourselves out of. We start
learning them very early in life; we have formed biases based on our
experiences before we have any notion of what bias is. At that point
it's too late.

There are many examples of illusions that persist even when we know them
to be 'false', where intuition misleads us. It's been brought up in this
forum before I think, but the book "Inevitable illusions" by
Piattelli-Palmarini does a good job of exploring many of them. The Monty
Hall paradox and the St. Louis arch are two of many examples.

Weight of research suggests that there is always some tendency towards
bias, even in the most intelligent and level headed among us. Borrowing
from the aforenamed book, "We see what we see, even when we know what we
know". We can't just turn bias off, and we can't experience life without
generating preconceptions.

I don't know if it's true, but apparently Niels Bohr had a horseshoe
hung on his wall. A visitor was astonished to see it, and said "But
Professor Bohr, surely you can't believe in such a stupid superstition".
Bohr answered "Of course I don't, but they tell me it works even if I
don't believe in it!".

As to placebos, medical statistics sometimes includes a 'susceptibility'
measure to gauge how likely a given individual is to respond to a
placebo over a number of trials.

Predictably, some people are more likely than others to 'get better'
after eating chalk pills.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 3:46:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Glenn Booth glenn@qtlg.demon.co.uk wrote:

>In message <c9vnlj013bk@news2.newsguy.com>, S888Wheel
><s888wheel@aol.com> writes
>
>>I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so
>long
>>as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias
>affects
>>can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls
>seem
>>more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question, can
>one
>>be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions?
>
>If only it were that easy. We all have preconceptions that are very
>difficult, sometimes impossible, to train ourselves out of. We start
>learning them very early in life; we have formed biases based on our
>experiences before we have any notion of what bias is. At that point
>it's too late.
>
>There are many examples of illusions that persist even when we know them
>to be 'false', where intuition misleads us. It's been brought up in this
>forum before I think, but the book "Inevitable illusions" by
>Piattelli-Palmarini does a good job of exploring many of them. The Monty
>Hall paradox and the St. Louis arch are two of many examples.
>
>Weight of research suggests that there is always some tendency towards
>bias, even in the most intelligent and level headed among us. Borrowing
>from the aforenamed book, "We see what we see, even when we know what we
>know". We can't just turn bias off, and we can't experience life without
>generating preconceptions.

That author does a good job f describing human decision-making tendencies that
exacerbate bias.

>I don't know if it's true, but apparently Niels Bohr had a horseshoe
>hung on his wall. A visitor was astonished to see it, and said "But
>Professor Bohr, surely you can't believe in such a stupid superstition".
>Bohr answered "Of course I don't, but they tell me it works even if I
>don't believe in it!".

That is really funny. That's kind of like prayer as a bet-padder.

>
>As to placebos, medical statistics sometimes includes a 'susceptibility'
>measure to gauge how likely a given individual is to respond to a
>placebo over a number of trials.
>
>Predictably, some people are more likely than others to 'get better'
>after eating chalk pills.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Glenn Booth

As for the human tendency to choose between identical stimulus my limited
research indicates that the tendency to "prefer" one of 2 identical reproduced
sound alternatives didn't seem to differ sigificantly among subjects.
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 10:58:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Glenn Booth" <glenn@qtlg.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XPkxc.62851$eY2.12635@attbi_s02...
> In message <c9vnlj013bk@news2.newsguy.com>, S888Wheel
> <s888wheel@aol.com> writes
>
> >I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so
long
> >as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias
affects
> >can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls
seem
> >more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question,
can one
> >be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions?
>
> If only it were that easy. We all have preconceptions that are very
> difficult, sometimes impossible, to train ourselves out of. We start
> learning them very early in life; we have formed biases based on our
> experiences before we have any notion of what bias is. At that point
> it's too late.
>
> There are many examples of illusions that persist even when we know them
> to be 'false', where intuition misleads us. It's been brought up in this
> forum before I think, but the book "Inevitable illusions" by
> Piattelli-Palmarini does a good job of exploring many of them. The Monty
> Hall paradox and the St. Louis arch are two of many examples.
>
> Weight of research suggests that there is always some tendency towards
> bias, even in the most intelligent and level headed among us. Borrowing
> from the aforenamed book, "We see what we see, even when we know what we
> know". We can't just turn bias off, and we can't experience life without
> generating preconceptions.
>
> I don't know if it's true, but apparently Niels Bohr had a horseshoe
> hung on his wall. A visitor was astonished to see it, and said "But
> Professor Bohr, surely you can't believe in such a stupid superstition".
> Bohr answered "Of course I don't, but they tell me it works even if I
> don't believe in it!".

That's good! It never ceases to amaze me the sort of inside comical wisdom
that the big thinkers of our scientific history have produced when "not
looking". This is of course indirectly related to the subject. This reminds
me of a remark that Albert Einstein made which is off topic here, and yet
right on topic . . .

After Albert Einstein fled nazi Germany, a German publication was released
entitled (loosely translated) "100 scientists against Einstein", to of
course undermine his reputation. When a reporter asked him what he thought
of this he said +/- "Why 100? If I am wrong, one would be sufficient"

> As to placebos, medical statistics sometimes includes a 'susceptibility'
> measure to gauge how likely a given individual is to respond to a
> placebo over a number of trials.

Over placebos and evidence based medicine. Think about it. One who
participates with an informed concent, double blind randomized trial is
looking for something.

Wessel
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 6:45:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/19/04 2:58 AM, in article FuRAc.54441$2i5.41860@attbi_s52, "Wessel
Dirksen" <wdirksen@p-we.com> wrote:

> "Glenn Booth" <glenn@qtlg.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:XPkxc.62851$eY2.12635@attbi_s02...
>> In message <c9vnlj013bk@news2.newsguy.com>, S888Wheel
>> <s888wheel@aol.com> writes
>>
>>> I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so
> long
>>> as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias
> affects
>>> can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls
> seem
>>> more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question,
> can one
>>> be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions?
>>
>> If only it were that easy. We all have preconceptions that are very
>> difficult, sometimes impossible, to train ourselves out of. We start
>> learning them very early in life; we have formed biases based on our
>> experiences before we have any notion of what bias is. At that point
>> it's too late.
>>
>> There are many examples of illusions that persist even when we know them
>> to be 'false', where intuition misleads us. It's been brought up in this
>> forum before I think, but the book "Inevitable illusions" by
>> Piattelli-Palmarini does a good job of exploring many of them. The Monty
>> Hall paradox and the St. Louis arch are two of many examples.
>>
>> Weight of research suggests that there is always some tendency towards
>> bias, even in the most intelligent and level headed among us. Borrowing
>> from the aforenamed book, "We see what we see, even when we know what we
>> know". We can't just turn bias off, and we can't experience life without
>> generating preconceptions.
>>
>> I don't know if it's true, but apparently Niels Bohr had a horseshoe
>> hung on his wall. A visitor was astonished to see it, and said "But
>> Professor Bohr, surely you can't believe in such a stupid superstition".
>> Bohr answered "Of course I don't, but they tell me it works even if I
>> don't believe in it!".
>
> That's good! It never ceases to amaze me the sort of inside comical wisdom
> that the big thinkers of our scientific history have produced when "not
> looking". This is of course indirectly related to the subject. This reminds
> me of a remark that Albert Einstein made which is off topic here, and yet
> right on topic . . .
>
> After Albert Einstein fled nazi Germany, a German publication was released
> entitled (loosely translated) "100 scientists against Einstein", to of
> course undermine his reputation. When a reporter asked him what he thought
> of this he said +/- "Why 100? If I am wrong, one would be sufficient"
>
>> As to placebos, medical statistics sometimes includes a 'susceptibility'
>> measure to gauge how likely a given individual is to respond to a
>> placebo over a number of trials.
>
> Over placebos and evidence based medicine. Think about it. One who
> participates with an informed concent, double blind randomized trial is
> looking for something.

There is a fair contention that the crowd that claim they hear nothing (or
what differences they might hear are imaginary) because they didn't measure
it - is another flavor of the 'emperor has no clothes' argument. Given the
level of vitriol and aggression - it is almost as if they are trying to
silence anyone who claims observation in contradiction to their position.

The "subjectivists"/"empiricists" have their placebo's - but the hard core
"objectivists"/"theorists" are not enirely free of their notions.

And true to most hobbies - polarizations have occurred and battle lines
drawn! ;-)
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 8:57:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> There is a fair contention that the crowd that claim they hear nothing (or
> what differences they might hear are imaginary) because they didn't measure
> it -

what 'crowd' is this?

> is another flavor of the 'emperor has no clothes' argument. Given the
> level of vitriol and aggression - it is almost as if they are trying to
> silence anyone who claims observation in contradiction to their position.

Then again, it's subjectivists who start most of the DBT threads here.
What does that tell you?




--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thatsright@excite.co>
Anonymous
June 23, 2004 10:30:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 19 Jun 2004 14:45:33 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>There is a fair contention that the crowd that claim they hear nothing (or
>what differences they might hear are imaginary) because they didn't measure
>it - is another flavor of the 'emperor has no clothes' argument.

Which 'crowd' is this? I have never yet seen such an argument advanced
- except by the 'subjectivists' as a strawman argument.

> Given the
>level of vitriol and aggression - it is almost as if they are trying to
>silence anyone who claims observation in contradiction to their position.

The only 'they' who have *ever* tried to *silence* the opposition have
been the 'subjectivists'. The 'objectivists' are always happy to
accept any *evidence* opposing their position. Interestingly, none is
*ever* forthcoming.................

>The "subjectivists"/"empiricists" have their placebo's - but the hard core
>"objectivists"/"theorists" are not enirely free of their notions.

Such as?

>And true to most hobbies - polarizations have occurred and battle lines
>drawn! ;-)

Indeed - but it hardly seems a fair fight! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
!