How much does it cost to be an audiophile?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

So it's one of the things we miss out on when we dismiss accounts of changes in sound due to cables

Nobody ever said changes in wiring topology can't alter the sound.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

Nobody ever said changes in wiring topology can't alter the sound.

 

Or switching cables in the same topology - some may be more subject to various forms of interference or noise, for example, or for some reason may not make as good a path for ground currents.

[crenca]

19 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Lemme fix this for you: "I suspect that any system where the owner says interconnects don't matter, I would find to be owned by someone who has done his due diligence and knows that short runs of coax designed to be conductors and not filters in all probability cannot alter the sound of his system, so he buys well made competent cables rather than useless expensive ones."

There that's better!

 

Just a correction - it was not I who wrote what you are responding to 

[crenca]

28 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Yup.  So it's one of the things we miss out on when we dismiss accounts of changes in sound due to cables rather than engaging and trying to figure out a reasonable explanation for what may be going on.  If this happened more often and was heard to work by those asking the questions, do you think it might manage to shrink the snake oil market more than dismissal and ridicule (which to me only serve to drive people into the clutches of those who act friendlier, for a price)?

 

Yes and no, as the available evidence points in several directions at once.  Perhaps it's human nature, perhaps it's the dynamics of subjectivised Audiophiledom, or perhaps it's another reason all together.  Whatever the reason, it is apparent that it is faster than the speed of information.

 

IMO, the situation, the culture of Audiophiledom is changing but dialogue only goes so far.  Demographic shifts account for it as much as anything. Some aspects, such as the Great Cable Debate remain what they are and are rather impervious to information and reasoned dialogue...

[semente]

20 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Re the red pill/ blue pill -the possibly of chance occurrence is true as is the other explanations; that there is no audio measurement identified that explains the perceptual difference (aka you are measuring the wrong thing); that a reason for the audible difference has/is being identified;  a new measurement specification will be identified.

 

None of this changes the evidence as it stands when dealing with these possibilities and that is 100:1 against it being a chance occurrence.

 

Even if it was 1,0000,00000: 1 against a chance occurrence there remains that  possibility of chance.One has to set the acceptable significance levels before entering into an experiment or otherwise, by definition, nothing will be accepted.

 

As said previously, if that 100:1 could be reproduced by @manisandher  one more time it would be approaching conclusive (for want of a better word and avoiding "proof"). As it is, IMO, it is very significant (p=0.01).

 

Did you see the news?

 

A Frenchman has won a million euros twice in the last eighteen months on the same lottery, media reported Wednesday, a feat mathematicians said carried odds of around 16 trillion to one.

[Ralf11]

what fraction of the 6 billion people on this planet play the lottery, and how many times a year do they play it?

[mansr]

58 minutes ago, semente said:

Did you see the news?

 

A Frenchman has won a million euros twice in the last eighteen months on the same lottery, media reported Wednesday, a feat mathematicians said carried odds of around 16 trillion to one.

Be careful with such statistics. The odds of somebody winning a million once are pretty high, depending on the format of lottery possibly as high as 100%. The odds of a winner winning again are exactly the same as for any given player to win once. The odds of the same player winning in two specific draws are indeed extremely slim. The odds of winning twice in a larger number of draws are considerably better.

 

Still, he's probably the luckiest man in France. That is, assuming being in France can be considered lucky at all. ?

[Ralf11]

what's wrong with France?  ?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

what's wrong with France?  ?

It's on the wrong side of the English Channel.

[Ralf11]

careful  -   the Normans may invade again (not for the food or culture, obviously)

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

careful  -   the Normans may invade again (not for the food or culture, obviously)

Again? They never left.

[Ralf11]

they never mixed much with the vanquished either

 

but, yes, again - it's about time

[semente]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

they never mixed much with the vanquished either

 

but, yes, again - it's about time

 

The food is rubbish here, a gastro-invasion would be most welcome.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, semente said:

The food is rubbish here, a gastro-invasion would be most welcome.

You must be eating at the wrong places.

[gmgraves]

43 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

what's wrong with France?  ?

It's full of silly Frenchmen? You don't think Frenchmen are silly? Have you ever seen a 2CV? But I kid. Being quirky is part of what it means to be French. God bless 'em! and remember what Jeremy Clarkson calls the French: "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

[mansr]

 

[gmgraves]

52 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

careful  -   the Normans may invade again (not for the food or culture, obviously)

If you are talking about British food, might I remind you that Britain got the reputation for lousy food during WWII when American G.I.s were stationed there. Hardly the best time to explore any nation's cuisine, but especially then for the British as they had nothing to eat. It's easy to have a great cuisine when you have good ingredients. The British had strict rationing and were lucky to get a tin of corned beef or Spam per month. People often forget this (and many never knew it) but here in the USA, rationing ended as soon as the war ended, but in England it continued into 1953! As for British culture, any country that can produce Shakespeare, Thomas Tallis, Handel, Elgar, Gainsborough, Turner, Vaughan-Williams, The original Morris Mini-Minor and the E-Type Jaguar, and the Mini-Skirt, needn't take a back-seat to anybody; culture wise.

[Ralf11]

17 minutes ago, mansr said:

You must be eating at the wrong places.

 

 

he is likely eating at English food places, instead of the foreign/international food places

[gmgraves]

54 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

careful  -   the Normans may invade again (not for the food or culture, obviously)

The Norman idea of food back in 1066 was salted cod and stinky cheese.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Ummm, I think you missed the point of the exercise, Frank. It is to learn what each distortion may sound like, alone, or in combination with others at various levels.

 

 

Pardon my continuing this exercise ... but why? If your car is playing up, is your interest in whether if someone makes various areas of the vehicle faulty, one by one or in combination, how it feels and sounds - or, what needs to be done to make sure that it never shows faulty behaviour?

 

"Standard" distortions are not relevant to achieving what I call competent sound - so knowing what they sound like would be completely useless, to me.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, manisandher said:

It's funny that Mans is still banging on about the possibility of my having achieved the p=0.01 result through sheer chance. Taken out of context, I think it's valid. I mean, had a person been dragged randomly off the street and achieved the same result, it would indeed be 'interesting' and perhaps nothing more. But that's not what happened. There's context here. I invited Mans to my place because I was confident that I could demonstrate that what I was hearing was real - either he would hear it for himself (he couldn't) or I would prove it in a test (I did).

 

Does anyone really think I would have invited Mans to my place if I wasn't 100% confident that I was hearing what I was hearing?

 

Mani.

 

The situation is that some people are totally convinced they have a handle on everything that matters to SQ. And frequently use "scientific" means to conduct a thumbs up, thumbs down evaluation of the apparatus. It deeply disturbs them that others move outside this pattern of behaviour, and so will do everything in their power to debunk what those others report, and supposedly achieve. Including ridicule ... .

[Ralf11]

36 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

The Norman idea of food back in 1066 was salted cod and stinky cheese.

 

Wrong in general, tho xlnt cheese was made.

 

In general, French food did get a big boost from the Arabs - one good thing to come out of the Crusades.

 

Here is a quote from a History of the Med. period: "The tastes of the Norman nobility were far more sophisticated than the English."

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

Hi David, I'm totally confident I could reproduce the results - the bit-identical difference we applied in the ABX remains readily audible to me (and to all the other XXHighEnd users around the world... without exception).

 

But as for repeating the ABX, I'm not sure. No one has managed to explain what exactly was inadequate in the way it was conducted (other than the possibility of my having heard and correctly decoded key strokes through 2 totally closed doors and a corridor!), and how any such inadequacies would be addressed in a repeat.

 

It's funny that Mans is still banging on about the possibility of my having achieved the p=0.01 result through sheer chance. Taken out of context, I think it's valid. I mean, had a person been dragged randomly off the street and achieved the same result, it would indeed be 'interesting' and perhaps nothing more. But that's not what happened. There's context here. I invited Mans to my place because I was confident that I could demonstrate that what I was hearing was real - either he would hear it for himself (he couldn't) or I would prove it in a test (I did).

 

Does anyone really think I would have invited Mans to my place if I wasn't 100% confident that I was hearing what I was hearing?

 

Mani.

 

Hi Mani,

I believe you but it would be nice, no, instructional to all to have it documented even further. It has the potential to actually influence the way we all think about things, whether that's a change or a confirmation.This extends to the validity of ABX test methodology itself.

 

A repeated trial could also address any confounders that have been thrown up by others, however incredible they might be.

 

Please don't take this the wrong way but IIRC I did caution to nail down the conditions and have agreed acceptable significance levels before going into it. Anyway, as you know, lots of studies are run as a pilot to determine the lay of the land.

 

I fully agree that in the context and setting of what occurred you have demonstrated what you set out to achieve. If reproduced, it would demonstrate to the world that you were right beyond that context and setting.

 

If I were in your shoes I would repeat it but invite independent qualified researchers and statisticians to set it up. I would approach a University to maybe take it on as a training exercise or some such involving supervising their students (at no cost to you). I wouldn't spend more time than a few phone calls but may be worth a shot. I actually did this once in a study I was involved in when the stats were beyond the clinical research team. I was surprised how easily the academics came on board. A win/win.

 

Cheers

David

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

you can  have a journey just by buying and selling used stuff and never have to pay much at all, and as technology improves and new products come out, you can get better and better for less....and if you are really good, you can have a journey where you actually profit from the buying and selling....i know that i have made far more money on stereo equipment than i have invested, and it has been a journey for sure.

 

Yeh I did just that for over 25 years. Can't say i made a profit tho but good for you !

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

What are you trying to prove? You know as well as I do, that when we discuss interconnect sound, ground loops are not what we're discussing!

 

I am looking at any and all possible reasons that may effect a change in SQ with a change of cable. I don't need to know the explanation to hear the change. Conversely, some people need an explanation before they can hear a change. This assumes a change is there in the first place which as you say in most cases is unlikely. Paraphrasing @Jud it is the "doctrine" espoused in competing views that sends up red flags for me.