USB audio cracked... finally!

[Cxp]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Thx to you, Ciukas, and others for the listening impressions, but...  have you been tested to determine if you have really trained yourself out of confirmation bias?  Or is it only confirmation bias that makes you think you don't have confirmation bias???

Just a thought?

 

How do guitarists tell that a Marshall amp sounds better than a Mesa amp or vice versa? Do they need noise measurements? Double blind testing? How far has confirmation bias infiltrated the musical society? Are we going to assume that orchestra players cannot sufficiently pick out new instruments by themselves without confirmation bias getting in the way or FFT plots of their instrument responses?

 

I believe that confirmation bias may sway some into thinking a certain cable sounds better than another, not in swaying whether there are audible impacts. 

 

If everyone jumps on the Lush bandwagon, this cable will have a specific signature. Confirmation bias may play a role in getting people hyped up and liking that signature more than others. 

 

 

 

[Jud]

56 minutes ago, elcorso said:

This goes also for the other seals that applaud...

 

Seal of approval?  

[Speed Racer]

23 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Seal of approval?  

 

Where is my herring?

[Johnseye]

2 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Where is my herring?

 

[Ciukas]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Thx to you, Ciukas, and others for the listening impressions, but...  have you been tested to determine if you have really trained yourself out of confirmation bias?  Or is it only confirmation bias that makes you think you don't have confirmation bias???

 

@Ralf11  To your latter point, it would imply that I was overly confident in proclaiming no bias in my test, smth to which I was careful not to do. I did state that there is the possibility of such a bias but I can't really know for sure unless I consider the test from multiple perspectives such as blind testing w the help of friends for instance. 

 

Like I've already mentioned I wouldn't be too confident w slower bass light tracks in a double blind test where I couldn't really tell a difference in vocals, cymbals or soundstage except perhaps for a more effortless airier feel. 

 

However I'm very confident that I could pick out the Lush at will w the deep house and techno tracks I tested. The Lush cable makes the bass much tighter, more punchy, allowing other details to come through. This much I'm sure of. I would invite other audiophiles to challenge me in my home but I doubt any of you live where I'm currently situated atm. 

 

The difference w the Lush present is not like a night and day jump to a much better dac or amp but it's also a much more pronounced difference to the system than say, the addition of an Audioquest jitterbug. 

 

Please note I haven't had time to test the Lush w classical or 'audiophile approved' music yet. Testing it w my rock/pop and electronic tracks already took me the better part of a few hrs. I'm already very satisfied w the Lush, and will be able to say a little more when I get the USPCB shortly. 

 

[Bystander]

I wonder if it would change people's perception of the cable at all if it was named Dull or Veil instead of Lush...

[k-man]

45 minutes ago, Bystander said:

I wonder if it would change people's perception of the cable at all if it was named Dull or Veil instead of Lush...

Mush?

[rando]

51 minutes ago, Bystander said:

I wonder if it would change people's perception of the cable at all if it was named Dull or Veil instead of Lush...

 

Too on the nose.  Try something more clever like asking people to take ownership of their own demise.  "My Aupiq, that cable did things for my system on the order of macro changes."  Are you paying attention @PeterSt  

 

 

(This wasn't directed at whoever made the macro/micro system changes comment.  Or anyone else.)

 

[Ralf11]

Thx, Ciukas - but my post referred to barrows post (which was immediately above mine until yours popped up from hyperspace or something)

[Ralf11]

54 minutes ago, Bystander said:

I wonder if it would change people's perception of the cable at all if it was named Dull or Veil instead of Lush...

 

 

yse it would - the Oxford cross-sensory lab and others have shown that effect

[PeterSt]

"Are you paying attention @PeterSt  :D"

 

I stipulated about exactly this (addressed at speed racer) but nobody responded. So when the chips are down, it seems about funny remarks only, which aren't intended to be funny.

Anyway,I could seriously question what a name could do.

But name it Dull won't work. Maybe for one or two with the Clairixa, and then still for a couple of minutes only.

[acg]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

yse it would - the Oxford cross-sensory lab and others have shown that effect

 

Haha...Lush in my part of the world means "perpetual drunkard"...are you saying that "drunkard" has a sound and that my opinion of the cable has been influenced by my life experiences around outback watering holes?  I can't imagine the effect sound wise (other than slurry vocal range) but my largest trigger to that word is one of smell, not sound, and when the cable is on my system I certainly do not smell XXXX or VB or vomit or the plethora of other odours following a Lush.

 

Oh my, some people just take this stuff too seriously.

[esldude]

4 hours ago, Cxp said:

Just a thought?

 

How do guitarists tell that a Marshall amp sounds better than a Mesa amp or vice versa? Do they need noise measurements? Double blind testing? How far has confirmation bias infiltrated the musical society? Are we going to assume that orchestra players cannot sufficiently pick out new instruments by themselves without confirmation bias getting in the way or FFT plots of their instrument responses?

 

I believe that confirmation bias may sway some into thinking a certain cable sounds better than another, not in swaying whether there are audible impacts. 

 

If everyone jumps on the Lush bandwagon, this cable will have a specific signature. Confirmation bias may play a role in getting people hyped up and liking that signature more than others. 

 

 

 

Well confirmation bias seems to have extended into the upper reaches of the violinist ranks.  The renowned and revered Strads in a blind test weren't so superlative all of a sudden. 

 

Now interesting comments about the Marshall and Mesa.  Those aren't intended to be transparent conveyors of the input signal.  They are designed to have a sound of their own they add to the input.  When gear alters the input at levels well above human audibility it will be heard.  Even here a mimic of either brand might be judged less good a copy than it would blind just because of the bias knowing you are hearing a real Marshall or Mesa. 

 

So is the Lush a cable made to add a signature of its own?  The descriptions of it seems that way.  Or are people hearing what has been hinted and it actually adds nothing.  Some measurements might show you if the signal seemed altered with Lush vs Clarixa.  Or what sounds different might suddenly sound the same if the listeners didn't know what they were listening to. 

[PeterSt]

"So is the Lush a cable made to add a signature of its own?  The descriptions of it seems that way."

 

No, most certainly not. If that would be so then I would never have approved it.

A neutral sound is key here.

 

I know, this is BS when even an "analog" flavor is added, but I like to see it the other way around; the digitus flavor is removed (not as an explicit process because I wouldn't know how to do that).

Anyway, the digital sauce just *is* luring always, and somehow (ahum) with real analog this is not a problem. This (Lush) now too seems to get rid of all this "digitus" problems. This is not advertising but what I notice myself.

So back to the beginning of the Lush story "I don't know what I have done *now*, but ... ".

 

Flavors I just can't allow (is a kind of brain killing).

[Bystander]

31 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

the digitus flavor is removed (not as an explicit process because I wouldn't know how to do that). 

The what now?

 

31 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

This is not advertising 

Of course not. I'm assuming this beauty sells itself:

 

070cm : 200 euros.
100cm : 200 euros.
150cm : 225 euros.
200cm : 275 euros.
300cm : 400 euros.

 

EDIT:

 

To be fair, I expected it to be even more expensive.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

The renowned and revered Strads in a blind test weren't so superlative all of a sudden. 

 

Other violins in the blind test were louder.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

[beerandmusic]

nvm...wrong thread

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Well confirmation bias seems to have extended into the upper reaches of the violinist ranks.  The renowned and revered Strads in a blind test weren't so superlative all of a sudden. 

 

One report/study does not make a fact. Why are you so willing to conclude that the upper reaches of violinists don't know their instruments?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

One report/study does not make a fact. Why are you so willing to conclude that the upper reaches of violinists don't know their instruments?

Well actually there were two or three tests like that.

 

Several violins, some newer quality ones, a Strad, professional violinists asked to play them while blinded folded.  Asked to pick the ones they liked and the Strad didn't top the results.  So not to twist my words that they don't know their instruments.  Just the result of a test, that despite an assumption the Strad was a superior instrument, it didn't turn out that way by their evaluation when they don't know which was the Strad.

 

https://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/994.article

 

https://www.livescience.com/44651-new-violins-beat-stradivarius.html

 

https://www.thestrad.com/players-favour-new-violins-over-old-in-largest-ever-blind-testing-experiment/6848.article

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/08/527057108/is-a-stradivarius-violin-easier-to-hear-science-says-nope

 

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/07/stradivarius-violins-arent-better-than-new-ones-round-two/

 

To paraphrase Rick James:  Sighted bias is a hell of a drug!!!

[barrows]

That could be interpreted as evidence that blind testing is flawed.

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, barrows said:

That could be interpreted as evidence that blind testing is flawed.

That's cute and all.  How original. 

 

To quote Colonel Jessup:  You can't handle the truth!

 

Or more specifically the implications of that truth.

The links above by the way are for three different tests covering some 7 years.  So not a one time fluke result.

[rando]

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

"Are you paying attention @PeterSt  :D"

 

I stipulated about exactly this (addressed at speed racer) but nobody responded. So when the chips are down, it seems about funny remarks only, which aren't intended to be funny.

Anyway,I could seriously question what a name could do.

But name it Dull won't work. Maybe for one or two with the Clairixa, and then still for a couple of minutes only.

69 pages in if you can't take a joke it might be time to admit this has run out of material interest.  Mentioning you was an afterthought to what was at the time self effacing banter.  Amusing and direct word play where the trolls are circling around stirring any who will follow.  

 

Your personal aesthetic has been the source of a few too many jokes here.  I meant no harm. 

[Cxp]

Regarding the violin testing, there is a big difference between reliably telling violins apart when blinded and the preference for a  violin when blinded. 

 

This does not prove or address that bias can actually change our perception of sound... only our preference for a sound. 

[Superdad]

14 minutes ago, esldude said:

Several violins, some newer quality ones, a Strad, professional violinists asked to play them while blinded folded.  Asked to pick the ones they liked and the Strad didn't top the results.  So not to twist my words that they don't know their instruments.  Just the result of a test, that despite an assumption the Strad was a superior instrument, it didn't turn out that way by their evaluation when they don't know which was the Strad.

 

Really, the violins again?

 

This thread is like the movie Groundhog Day.  When do we all wake up and do something new and original?

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Cxp said:

Regarding the violin testing, there is a big difference between reliably telling violins apart when blinded and the preference for a  violin when blinded. 

 

This does not prove or address that bias can actually change our perception of sound... only our preference for a sound. 

Please read about the tests.  Not all used the same methodology. 

 

If your preference is based upon the sound, then it would be the same blind or sighted.  If your preference is biased based upon the source reputation, then your preferences may differ depending upon the information you are working with.