The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[SoundAndMotion]

6 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Yet you refuse to accept the results when the anomaly has been scrupulously validated by way of the " Gold Standard" DBTs when correctly performed,

 

6 hours ago, jabbr said:

I suspect you have no real idea what a real DBT is, nor what I would consider “scrupulously validated”.

I don’t consider your claims validated

 

6 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Even Eloise appeared to be happy with the way they were performed after becoming an HiFi Critic member to ask directly.

 Yet, you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable than others in this area, although most likely never having performed a series of DBTs for publication in your life.***

 

6 hours ago, jabbr said:

I have no idea nor care who “Eloise” is. I am willing to tell you what it would take to convince me. I strongly doubt you could articulate what it would take to convince you that you are wrong.

 

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

I  will NEVER consider that for even one moment, when I have all the confirmation that I need from...

 

Alex,

Here is the problem. You have stated for years that you were involved with "correctly performed" DBTs that show... 

, and that piqued my interest. I have asked you in PMs and forum posts for details, that you have kindly provided. But...

 

Let's back up. I am aware and critical of goal-post moving by objectivists. "Do A and B and C, or I won't believe it" followed after ABC is complete with "Well, you really need D and B is invalid without E..." This is shameless. But I don't do that. I can tell you what it takes to convince me. Hint: it is unchanged by what jabbr, Eloise or a bunch of EEs say or think. My requirements for being convinced stand independent of others.

 

Back to the "But..." your methods have been unconvincing to me. I have no interest in going round and round with you, so I gave up. Part of giving up is your last quote above. I am an open-minded skeptic, open to many ideas..., except a closed mind.

 

BTW. *** Yes, I have published several DBTs in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals, but that is unimportant to you given your unequivocal last quote. So why did you even bring it up with jabbr?

[SoundAndMotion]

@sandyk, you continue to believe that names and resumes matter, and detailed descriptions of methods don't so much. For most who read science, that is reversed.

 

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Jabbr keeps rejecting the results of the M.C. 6 separate DBT sessions insisting that the sessions couldn't possibly have been  correctly performed, yet has no inside information on how they were performed .

[snip]

[MC's resume]

[snip]

POSITIVE results , should have at least  been worthy of further examination.

I believed it WAS worthy of further examination, which is why I contacted you. I don't reject the results; I simply don't accept them, since the methods remain unclear. 

 

46 minutes ago, sandyk said:

  So ?  Why should I need your validation ?  I know very little about you .

Mine? Who cares about mine? I wouldn't expect you to, unless you repeat some form of the following quote countless times in countless threads on multiple forums. Everyone should reject your claim about the tests unless more detail is forthcoming and it shows valid methodology.

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Yet you refuse to accept the results when the anomaly has been scrupulously validated by way of the " Gold Standard" DBTs when correctly performed,

[SoundAndMotion]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

Lets postúlate that there is no electrical difference, nothing measurable by any measurement technique. Yet there is a sound perception difference. What do you conclude?

 

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The scientifically correct answer is a) there is a difference in sound that tests have not detected (for any number of reasons) or b) there is no difference in the eliciting sound stimulus and something else explains the perception (for any number of reasons)

I agree with @Audiophile Neuroscience. Assuming no one jumps up with better/other measurements for a), and assuming jabbr concedes that the 2 measurements of the analog signal won't completely null, the next step is careful evaluation of the differing perceptions, b)

It's too bad the red pill/blue pill didn't continue...

[SoundAndMotion]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 You could always ask Martin this question directly as Eloise did.

In the meantime, I have made available more recent examples where you don't even need to use your ears.

 

 BTW, this is mainly an Audiophile based forum where we shouldn't need to provide the standards of proof that you demand, as the majority of members are not suitably qualified in these areas, although I do come from a basic Technical background due to 43 years with Telstra where I was a Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer.

 

.

Perhaps I should ask Martin or Eloise, but they are not writing in threads I read about data that has been "scrupulously validated by way of the " Gold Standard" DBTs when correctly performed". So I asked the person who is. It's not such an urgent issue that I lose sleep...

 

This is the Objective sub-forum of said forum. I never demand proof, unless my acceptance of data/claims is the issue. I feel it quite appropriate when lack of acceptance of "mystery" data is brought up by others.

50 minutes ago, jabbr said:

This isn’t intended to be a trick question. I am offering that no electrically measurable difference exists. 
 

Previously I have discussed possible electrical differences eg EMI etc and suggested that a good isolation transformer would be a much better filter. Additional  physics hypotheses could be developed. I’ve said that for a physics hypothesis I want a measurement to confirm — electromagnetic physics is well established. 
 

The premise/assumption that there is no electrically measurable difference at the output of the DAC or amp, is to allow the assumption that the audio signal traveling to the ears is identical. Yet there is a perceptual difference. So yes!

 

I get exactly what you are saying. You're either 2 steps ahead of me or 2 behind. I love what-if-ing about possible physical causes and how to measure/confirm them. But right now, my simple-mindedness can't get past the easier question of whether perceived differences actually exist. I don't mean reported; I mean tested with standard methods.

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Your argument here is with M.C, NOT me,

[snip]

 

 Yes, this is the Objective forum , so PROVE that the DBT sessions performed in the U.K. were flawed !!!!

M.C. is not here touting his data, but you are.

 

That's not how it usually works. People doing tests describe in detail what they have done, so others can discuss the validity of the methods. "Prove" or "proof" don't really apply here, but only with the methods can meaningful discussion occur.

[SoundAndMotion]

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi my kinky titled friend S&M (yeh its an old joke)

 

Jonathan's thought experiment established that there was a difference heard (as I understand it)

 

I presume you are talking about response bias in assessment of perceptions ? It is often cited in placebo studies as I am sure you know. Are you neuroscientist or neuropsychologist?

I assumed a perceived difference was reported in jabbr’s TE. Yes, I would want to see biases addressed.

[SoundAndMotion]

10 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Well yes, but I was not addressing a particular experiment, rather a report of a get together in which sound perceptions were reported as different. I extended that from perhaps 4 people to 1000. 
 

Previously I used the term “placebo effect” but that was met with hostility from some parts. People also don’t react well to the term “expectation bias”.

 

I would like to use the general term “bias” like the electrical bias applied to a transistor, to mean a force that pushes, in this case perception, in one direction or another. 
 

Has anyone met someone or had personal experience with synesthesia? In that case a color may evoke or modulate a sound as might touch, likewise a sound might evoke a color. 
 

Id say that all perceptions are real (ala Descartes) If we are interested in explaining perceptions then yes you want to identify the force pushing the perception in one direction or the other. 

I understand. But given the time-intensive nature of such experiments, I prefer (well, need) 4 carefully obtained datasets over 1000 with careless or unknown methods.

 

I also understand people's sensitivity to the terms. Some terms connote to some people: "you are delusional", "you are weak-minded", "you could be lying". The dilemma is we need to share common vocabulary to communicate, but it's also not worth fighting over definitions. "Biases" works fine for me.

 

But my observation is that there are not thousands of new physical theories, waiting to be tested with measurements, while there are thousands of people who report perceiving differences. I want to test, or to have them tested, with standard psychophysical methods. That allows one to not only pursue the nature of the "force pushing the perception in one direction or the other", but also guides hardware measurement.