70-80%? I don’t know that study. Where was it carried out and by whom? Has it been published yet?
Do you really want to go there?
- Please point me to these tests.
- About the statistics, how big was the test sample, what were the selection criteria for the test panel? Where there “untrained” listeners included? What are the criteria for a “trained” ear?
- About the test, was it announced to the test panel what would be tested? If so, expectation bias must be factored in.
Furthermore, there is a whole branch of science (neuropsychology) that researches the human brain’s interaction with the physical world. This includes how the human brain processes sound (psychoacoustics).
Then there is the fact that the human body is not a precision instrument. My system doesn’t sound so good today. The sound stage shifted a bit to the left. That’s logical because I’ve got a bit of a cold and my right ear is a bit stuffed.
Must have been amateurs doing the measurements. If there is a difference, it can be measured. And what cables? Not Ethernet, for sure.
Yes, I do expect that when there is enough observational evidence to lead at least some credence to the existence. And that exists in the cable controversy.
It is 100% false that if there is a difference, it can be measured. It just means that mankind and science is not yet sophisticated enough to be able to measure and quantify the differences. It does not mean that some day in the future they won’t be able to. Until two years ago, mankind did not have the measuring capabilities to prove Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Does that mean it was valid for all those decades, then all of a sudden it became valid?? OF COURSE NOT!! Mankind is incapable of measuring far more real things than he is capable of measuring.
The very same general public who swear blind they hear differences. Completely laughable.
Still waiting @Magnus…
Sorry, this is just BS. In the realm of all things waves, instruments beats human senses for many years.
There is nothing to prevent you from conducting a blind test with 30 minute sample periods using your very own ears on your own equipment. Wouldn’t it be so wonderful for you to have some compelling data to use when discussing this issue with doubters and skeptics? What’s stopping you?
THAT is total BS. When tests have been conducted using trained ears, on cables measuring as identical, the trained ears have shown a 75-80% ability to detect the differences, which is a very significantly high percent.
Citation? What tests?
As it should.
Here is where we don’t see eye to eye. I believe there are differences in interconnects and speaker cables and there is some evidence to back that up. But I’ve never seen anyone AB ethernet cables let alone ABX them with any credible results.
You are repeating yourself.
Modern instruments are still better than the human ear.
No, your argument is fundamentally flawed. Science doesn’t prove anything. Rather science tackles human biases by providing insight and understanding through theories and experiments. Neither does science accept the status quo; understanding is always improved upon.
It’s okay to say current scientific knowledge is wrong with replicable and falsifiable evidence to support a particular view. But it is unacceptable is to make such claims without substantial and verifiable evidence. And this is something purveyors of snake oil do in buckets.
I don’t think anyone doubts people perceive a difference; what’s being suggested is that it is unlikely–given current understanding–that it has anything to do with the devices discussed in this thread.
Maybe, but I could argue that science has already established why people perceive those differences. Do you deny such evidence? If so, do you have a new theory that explains this phenomenon?
Actually, the same general public who can not tell the difference between mp3 and DSD.
But, how much was learned in those 3000 years?? Probably less than in the last ten years. Our learning is on an exponential curve, with it currently at a fairly low increase. as each century goes by, the learning curve keeps getting steeper and steeper. Man has made more scientific advances in the last 50 years than he did the entire history of mankind before that.
I am confused by one aspect of your recent posts. Perhaps you can clarify. You have made these two claims:
ABX testing is not feasible with this issue because the sample periods need to be at least 20 to 30 minutes long.
An ABX test was successfully conducted which demonstrated that people with trained ears could identify which cable was in use with 75-80% accuracy.
It seems to me that both of those things can’t be correct, they do sort of contradict each other, right?
Can you please provide more detail?
Not really. Maybe when very short snippets are compared, but when that sample starts getting over 20 minutes long, the longer the better, human ears start to be able to detect differences that can not be measured. Plus, mankind doesn’t even know yet what to look for, let alone measure, to verify the differences.
Computers don’t get fatigue after 20 minutes, and sound waves are an easy match. A difference is a difference, it could be Boolean or more advanced. In the world of science, this case is simple.
Theories and experiments IS a HUGE part of science.Science, in and of itself, is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
“the world of science and technology”
And, whether or not science proves anything, or accepts the status quo totally depends on the results of its studies and experiments.
And yes, I do deny that science has already established why people perceive or don’t perceive those differences. Science will come up with those theories once it has matures enough to be able to, if mankind lasts long enough, that is. But first science must find WHAT it is that it needs to look for that might cause the detected differences, then invent and perfect the equipment needed to measure those parameters. Remember, nuclear science thought they knew it all, until the quark came along. It is doubtful that even one area of science even know most of what there is to know. Knowledge is cumulative, and demonstrates that the more we know, the more we realize how much more we need to know.