The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Of course!  Perception,  by the brain,  is what this is all about

 

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?

 

is this a trick question? No Matter

 

you don't have to postulate, it happens constantly as far as I can tell.

 

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)

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

24 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Love it. 
 

Why Physics? Some people consider that a religion just like any other.

I love Physics. I did it concurrently with Medicine for two years (Nuclear medicine then also had some appeal). I dropped it when the maths got too much and Medicine and girls were more ...appealing🤷‍♂️. In many ways I wish I had continued 'to get the letters' but I still enjoy it.

 

I think Physics as a religion would be insulting to a Physicist (but the two are not mutually exclusive strangely enough) but I agree there are some that worship at the altar of science. It seems antithetical to me. One is faith based ,one is not.

 

Physics and metaphysics (ontology) are complementary as is epistemology, logic and reasoning.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

27 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I mean the electricity entering the speaker is not different ie (b) yet the perception is different. What could it be?

 

Now consider when 1000 people hear the same difference in perception (though the electricity is identical)

 

Ok, then unlike "Russell's Teapot" i say, hmmm I wonder what's going on here. maybe i should listen or at least enquire further. If the number then raises to 1001 my interest is further piqued. I still question whether the tests that assert no electrical difference may be wrong or there is some other variable not accounted for. I also still consider that just the perception has altered, nothing else. I would be curious to know how many people do not report the difference,is it 1000 naysayers (50/50) or ten million. Sample size counts

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

It’s not a trick question. I assert no electrical difference. Pick any sample size you choose. There is a perceptual difference. 

 

On the basis of no difference in the ilicting stimulus, not just electrical, then the conventional wisdom is expectation bias. Other factors like central auditory processing variations and hallucinations should wash out if the numbers are big enough. Even shared illusions should not explain it IF there is no change to the stimulus.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

Expectation bias is one type of bias, but bias in the electrical sense describes a voltage applied to a transistor to “push” the function in one direction — so there is something pushing the sensory perception in a direction other than the electricity. 

Yes but the electrical bias has not changed, by definition. My amp has adjustable bias - but we are saying the stimulus has not changed.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Right, we are talking extra electrical bias — you tell me what it is  

 

Ok, but the premise is still that the stimulus has not changed in any way.

 

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Have you done blind wine tastings? They are very fun!

 

Yes and agreed

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

39 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Ok so ... use a high quality isolation transformer. If you hear an SQ difference between AC power cables either a) demonstrate a measurement difference at the DAC output*** or

b) explain the sensory bias

 

Tell me?

*** it’s trivial to measure electrical differences between DACs and amps

 

This makes no sense to me ,sorry. If the stimulus hasn't changed then there is no need to fix it.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

Paul McGowan, head of PS Audio, on youtube not that many weeks ago did a nice video on many of the horrid problems of A/B testing, besides its being just plain awkward.. Many decades ago AR (Acoustic Research) did a much publicized A/B experiment, where out of vision real musicians were playing and all of a sudden they would stop playing and a prerecorded tape of the same music seamlessly took over, played through their AR 3 speakers, and the group of people could not distinguish each time (or any time) when the real musicians stopped and the AR speakers kicked in. The ultimate AB experiment. Does this mean that the AR speakers are indistinguishable from live unamplified acoustic instruments? No. It proved peoples ineptitude at distinguishing between (live and real) vs.a tape playback through a speaker. AR3 speakers, If you've ever heard them at length, they are not even capable of fooling a seasoned listener into thinking they are a really good speaker; YET ALONE LIVE MUSIC!  They have a really chopped off high end, they are full of cabinet resonance, and the midrange sounds murky and dark with 1960 vintage tube equipment, which was the only equipment there was in 1960.

 

  I listened to certain albums hundreds of times, over and over again throughout my life. My sonic memory is not so short that I would need the comparison switching  less than 1 second apart. If I listened to the Who's Next LP a hundred times in my life, if I hear a superior reproduction of it, I will easily & instinctively know it without a doubt within the first few minutes of the first track. A/B comparisons, using music people are not intimately familiar with is just one of the many stupid things about A/B testing. About as exciting as watching paint dry too.

 

The whole audio blind testing thing is a rabbit hole that has been hotly argued for as long as I can remember, well 90's to my recollection. There are those that preach it as gospel and those that reject it entirely. For me the science usually doesn't adequately stack up but there are times when it is useful. Eliminating bias and confounders is not only important but required.

 

I will tell you this, if debated there will be another 40 pages added to this thread and at the end of which no-one will have changed their minds.

 

People will want to draw you out on this so be wary. It is an interesting topic as is placebo effect mentioned earlier but that too I have skirted around.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Sad, but true.

 At least we now have way more agreement in these areas than previously, after the move to ASR by several "Measurements are Everything" members.

 

35 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Even Paul R. who was an I.T. manager and Specialist, who  originally gave me a very hard time in concert with Prof. W.G.Scott for quite a few years

 

I remember Paul, he was a good guy. Don't remember the other guy tho

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

30 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, do you teach elementary conclusion jumping?

 

Nothin' elementary about it, strictly advanced🤣

 

30 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I wish we lived close to each other. I’d love to hear what you’ve done, and even more, I’d love for you to hear my setup. I’d be willing to wager that if you heard my system playing one or more of my own recordings, your jaw would drop at the reality I’ve achieved and have done so without soldering interconnects to components and without using boutique cables.

 

I disagree here. Respectfully to Frank, putting aside the good natured humor, Frank is invested in his method. From the bad recordings sound good thread some interesting perspectives came across, in some ways reinforcing Frank's method.

 

I think much of it boils down to sounding less bad, hearing past the flaws, enjoying the music and then calling that "good". And it is except you and I would still identify that bad sound cant be turned into good sound even if colored - maybe enjoyable sound nonetheless.

 

That said, my prediction is that Frank would not like your or my "rig" as it would go against his credo and expectation bias. I have little doubt if we heard Frank's system we would not be in agreement with Frank's assessment of good sound. You might call that expectation bias also but I wager most audiophiles, not knowing about Frank or his method, would have the same view.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

33 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The reason I say this is that a central tenet of science is falsifiability. There is nothing in currently accepted physics that I consider non-falsifiable.

Popper's falsifiability does work and serve well in many situations but may not be one size fits all. It has its limitations and indeed its criticisms. There are things that by nature cannot be falsified and things that can be falsified but still not advance truth - it depends on how you frame the hypothesis. I don't want to argue about it, it is not a contest, but just be careful of generalizations.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

21 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

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.

 

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?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours 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. 
 

 

Reporting a difference and perceiving a difference are separate things (irrespective of the stimulus changing) . My understanding was that in your thought experiment a difference was perceived (not just reported). I know it gets tricky but this is why I questioned SAM about "response bias" regarding his comment relating to reporting vs perceiving.  All good, just a clarification.

 

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

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”.

 

Placebo is a bit different....but in non medical circles, like expectation bias, it takes on negative connotations. Indeed it seems to used as some kind of weapon of ridicule by some.

 

 

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

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 see where you are going now with electrical bias as analogy. The term bias is well recognized and studied in medical and scientific research as you know. The term will obviously need to stay in the vocabulary but I think it is great you are trying to dissociate it from negative connotations.

 

IMO, we simply need more people in audio taking on an indifferent (impartial) approach, scientifically speaking, interested in answers , not being right or proving something in a "I told you so" manner.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, SoundAndMotion said:

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.

 

Amen to that.

 

I would wager there are no new theories that need developing to address the questions in audio.

 

I am of course talking theories in the scientific sense not the popular usage of 'a bit of a guess'. I find myself guilty at times of doing this also, mea culpa.

 

Hypotheses take on a much more limited scope and while they do not grow into theories they still have explanatory powers, and when tested, may be integrated within theories.

 

Sam, you may or may not agree, but I make the distinction because I believe at times people just assume that a particular hypothesis should be dismissed if it doesn't seem to fit under a known theory. No experimental evidence is required. This of course comes back to how preposterous or absurd the reported observation is deemed to be, that leads to a new hypothesis.

 

Case in point - audio cables, the great debate - right smack back on topic.

 

How would you go about testing perceived differences with standard psychophysical methods. Can you explain those methods in plain English.

 

Could you please elaborate a little more on the distinction between "reported" and "perceived" differences and how standard psychophysical methods address this.

 

TIA

Cheers

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

 Lots of interesting theories between you guys, but do you think this will ever come to an actual checkmate? It sort of reminds me of a thing Woody Allen. once wrote about 50 years ago about a chess match he was having "through the mail" with a guy who lived halfway across the globe in France. Each move they would mail to each other in a stamped envelope, and wait several weeks for the others next move. In the end they disagreed about a move & subsequently who won the chess match and were writing back and forth arguing about it. "I won."  "No No I won." The postage ended up costing them both a small fortune in money; not to mention time.

 

Yep, seems that way sometimes, which is why i say

 

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

IMO, we simply need more people in audio taking on an indifferent (impartial) approach, scientifically speaking, interested in answers , not being right or proving something in a "I told you so" manner.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

No single example.   Assuming that you could somehow reasonably quantify good/better (which I doubt) and graph its value against cost/price in a scatter plot, I predict a cloud without a visually discernible trend.  It may be possible to derive a statistically defined trend line but its usefulness would be minimal.  Just look at the wildly different choices that individuals make in building a system and how many of those choices would be antithetical to others because they are based on different criteria and value systems.

 

Vivent les différences. 😎

 

 

Hi Kal,

agreement (concordance) between choices is not necessary to establish a correlation between variables. In statistical terms correlation and concordance (magnitude of agreement) both indicate strength of association between variables but are conceptually distinct.

 

correlation of variables can be assessed for variables that look at completely different constructs. "wildly different choices that individuals make in building a system"  and non agreement due to "different criteria and value systems" does not exclude a possible correlation of say price and desired outcome.

 

Strictly speaking it is not sensible to speak of agreement (concordance) between variables that measure different constructs eg weight and height - one can assess correlation but not agreement.