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.
The ABX tests were done using very long samples, as they knew that that is how these subjects usually listened.
Well, you can’t get sound to play outside your speakers in headphones
With speakers you can though, in some cases they use something called Q-Sound, but also with simpler tricks using phase modifications. But if the sound in your HiFi system always feels like it comes from the speakers, than tests like this won’t work. You have to work more on your HiFi system, so at the very least the speakers becomes invisible in the sound-stage.
Another example: the steps from right to left in the beginning of Thriller with Michael Jackson, with good HiFi system in a good room the steps will sound like they start far to the right of the right speaker, and end far to the left of the left system.
But this highlights what I have said earlier, you need a well setup HiFi system to hear subtle changes.
This is audible on almost any system. Nothing special.
That comment has absolutely nothing logical about it, and no bearing to anything I have read. And, not all difference are the same.
Well, you’ve ignored my questions about this piece of research, so I’ll add another question: was this test duplicated by anyone else? As you should be aware, to be considered valid, an experiment must be at least duplicated to ensure the integrity of the outcome.
I am leaning towards the preliminary assumption that this test is made out of whole cloth.
So when you said “The human hearing process is unlike anything else I know of that is ABX tested that the test becomes pretty much meaningless” in an earlier post, had you just forgotten about these other tests that meaningfully support your position?
Or are these nameless tests which demonstrate 75-80% success also meaningless?
Yes, I am sure most can hear it, how much outside the speakers the steps are is another matter. It also depends a lot of the room and its acoustical properties.
And the positioning of the speakers, their toe-in, etc., etc.,etc. I can get sounds seemingly emanating 40 feet behind me, but that is unique to my system, my room, my hearing, etc. It will never be accurately be replicated. Approximated?? Maybe.