This 'state of my ears now' thing is a red herring, though, because we're not talking about 'what we can hear' we are talking about 'what it sounds like' which is what Cougar seems to be missing entirely or wilfully ignoring for the sake of her argument.
Also I think Molgrips's point about the amygdala is great, and that all the people banging on about measurements and double-blind tests are missing the point completely ...
Do I win a shiny pound coin?
👏👏👏
Cougar is also missing/ignoring the reason why I think blind/back to back testing is not useful and substituting it for their own reason which seems to be the general argument that you can't tell the difference between cables because there isn't any, then trying to discuss that point with me rather than my actual reason (which so far hasn't happened). I don't know why but I can't be bothered anymore, how can that work as a discussion.
but the microphone is not “hearing” the same as your ears. Observer effect and many other issues. so that can give you a “more accurate” or “same accuracy” but cannot tell you “better” – only your ears and the processing in your head can tell you that
I wasn't sure before; but I think you are deliberately missing my point.
I'm not trying to say anything is better. I'm talking about taking measurements of two systems; in identical environments and comparing those to show that there are no significant differences between "speaker cable thats good enough" and "speaker cable that costs as much as a decent bike" - Which is entirely objective and not subjective at all. Your basically claiming that even if those two measured identically that one might be subjectively better; which is what I'm arguing against.
peter - why don't you think blind testing is useful - and what would you accept as a way of testing/proving/disproving any of this ?
Your basically claiming that even if those two measured identically that one might be subjectively better; which is what I’m arguing against.
yes basically - because the microphone is an objective measure but what you hear is subjective - and thats due to the processing between your ears and your conciousness and because your ears function differntly to a micro[phone
which is what Cougar seems to be missing entirely or wilfully ignoring for the sake of her argument.
while not wishing to put words in his mouth, I think Cougars arguments is; Those two phrases are just splitting hairs. he argues; there's either a difference, or there's not.
Thats all your brain is – a series of switches
While this has some element of truth to it, it's so ridiculously simplified as to be meaningless. It's like describing War and Peace or the Bible by the letters it uses. One obviously can, but doesn't reveal anything useful
Right; well - to be honest; if you are going to argue that two things that are provably identical can sound different then I'm out of ideas.
we’re not talking about ‘what we can hear’ we are talking about ‘what it sounds like’
You may be.
The question posed was "does speaker cable make a difference?"
The answer is, for all practical purposes, no it doesn't once you've met the criteria for accurately transmitting a signal. And even that is seemingly questionable.
It may be true that, hypothetically, in TJ's "putting a microphone in the room changes the dynamic" sort of nonsense scenario, there is a microscopic difference measurable by highly sensitive frequency analysers but really, who cares beyond winning Internet arguments? Are you buying speaker cable to listen to music or to measure it?
which is what Cougar seems to be missing entirely or wilfully ignoring for the sake of her argument.
"Her"?
Are you buying speaker cable to listen to music or to measure it?
Given that an audiophile friend of mine made me listen to a whole side of a Phil Collins album once, because of the way it was recorded, it's definitely the latter...
Cougar is also missing/ignoring the reason why I think blind/back to back testing is not useful
If you've explained your reasoning as to why you don't think science applies to sound then I missed it. Or I've forgotten, that might be on me, I didn't sleep well last night and I'm pre-coffee this morning.
Also, you've been "done" at least twice now yet are still posting.
It may be true that, hypothetically, in TJ’s “putting a microphone in the room changes the dynamic” sort of nonsense scenario, there is a microscopic difference measurable by highly sensitive frequency analysers but really, who cares beyond winning Internet arguments?
not even measurable! ( observer effect)
I'm just having a bit of fun on this thread partly because of the obvious confusion between objective and subjective measures
Most accurate is objective. sounds better is subjective.
Our ears and our auditory processing means that what we hear will always be different to what can be measured and no two people will hear in the same way. the auditory processing in our heads actually loses some of the sound ( thresholds etc) and alters others.
Most accurate is objective. sounds better is subjective.
Sounds preferable is subjective.
I'm swerving away from the word "better" because it's meaning is seemingly, uh, subjective.
One of the things your ears can do that a microphone ( even dual microphones) cannot do is tell if a sound is in front of you or behind you. Thats due to the shape of the external ear and sound reflections in it ie harmonics and stuff.
Put two microphones 25 cm apart and put them in artificial external ears then it gets closer to what you hear but will be "less accurate" because of the harmonics and of course then the brain processes the signals before you recognise it.
I’m swerving away from the word “better” because it’s meaning is seemingly, uh, subjective.
Yeeeeha!
“Her”?
Gender's all fluid now. Get with the program, Grandad. 😉
I have to admit I am fascinated why "blind trials dont work with music"
Blind trials are the only way to tell. My guess is because you cannot find a subjective or objective difference in blind trials then there is no difference and to the audiophile who believes in thousand pound cables they do not want their delusions destroyed
I’m swerving away from the word “better” because it’s meaning is seemingly, uh, subjective.
Depends...Better can be a noun, verb, adverb, or adjective...whether it's subjective depends on context.
peter – why don’t you think blind testing is useful – and what would you accept as a way of testing/proving/disproving any of this ?
Okay I will give it another go.... I feel it's not useful for audio equipment and cable purely because if there is a difference (which I feel is quite likely with equipment but not so likely with cables) and especially if it's on the subtle side, the break between listening (switching equipment going back to the start of the track so your listening to the same piece) means the brain can't be relied upon to compare the 'memory' of the earlier music with what's going into the ears now, even if it's a quick switch your still relying on memory and that's the problem. If you think about it it can't possibly work very well relying on the memory to recall such detail. As I said before I feel it's much better listening to many albums you know well over the space of say a week and then at the end decide if the whole experience was more enjoyable, more musical than before and make a decision based on that.
I don't know of a way of proving or disproving all this, I'm not sure there is one with speaker cables (the video posted a while ago didn't deal with speaker cables but I don't know if that could be modified to do so). I dont have expensive speaker cables, I've never tried any because I can't afford them, I mainly listen on good headphones and the speakers are Bose (because they are small) wired with the cables that came with them. If I could afford to I would happily try some, and some new equipment, and if I enjoyed the music more I'm not sure I would be bothered why. That would be a subjective response but music and listening is to a large degree subjective.
I can't really say much more than that, I don't feel that's an outlandish belief or 'trotting out nonsense' - if you want to disagree with that fine but at least disagree with the actual point I'm trying to make about why I think back to back/blind testing isn't useful.
@petercook80 - thanks for that. I agree with pretty much all of what you said.
I think the problem is - that you absolutely *can* do tests akin to the null test video for speaker cables; and I actually proposed such a test earlier. But then we have tj jumping in with "but microphones are objective not subjective" and "the observer effect" - So people wont accept scientific evidence that there's no difference.
So we're left in an impasse - where nobody is prepared to agree on a test to prove or disprove this. Which is why companies can still market and sell £2000/m speaker cables !
“Her”?
I didn't want to assume that you were male just because you're prepared to spend days and days arguing on an internet forum with strangers about speaker cable and hypothetical double-blind testing and proving a point that is neither here nor there anyway. 🙂
Also, you’ve been “done” at least twice now yet are still posting
I know , it's the frustration with the follow ups when my reasons getting substituted for something else that bring me back 🙂
why you don’t think science applies to sound
Hopefully the above post explains I'm not arguing that at all and I don't think I ever have, you have just thought that which is wrong. It's about the science of the brain in back to back/blind testing.
steve - missed my point slightly
the microphone can measure accuracy. It cannot measure "sounds better" because thats subjective and the mic can only measure objectively
I will happily accept a blind listening test can decide which sounds better and a microphone can assess which is the more accurate representation. Its just those two things may not be the same because of the way our ears and brain works
Peter - I get your point and it has a little validity but properly designed blind testing eliminates the unconcious biases
If you make it "listen to set up with cable A then listen with cable B for a single person once" then its fallible in the way you describe. If you do it multiple times in varying orders then that bias is removed
Right; well – to be honest; if you are going to argue that two things that are provably identical
It's only identical within the constraints of how you are measuring it. You can't say 'these two things are identical' you can only say 'the readings from our instruments were identical'. See the difference?
I think the problem is – that you absolutely *can* do tests akin to the null test video for speaker cables; and I actually proposed such a test earlier.
That's fine , I missed that in all the posts. If that's possible then that would obviously negate the whole back to back/blind testing argument.
So we’re left in an impasse – where nobody is prepared to agree on a test to prove or disprove this. Which is why companies can still market and sell £2000/m speaker cables !
Not really, does it really matter. If someone wants to spend £2k on speaker cables so what , if they enjoy them fine. I wouldn't spend 8k plus on a mountain bike but plenty do and if they get enjoyment from it then good on them.
tj - no; I didn't miss your point at all.
I'm saying - for a given input (lets choose Queen Greatest Hits II for the sake of argument) that you could record the output of the speaker using a high quality; calibrated microphone.
You could then swap the cables and repeat the test with all other things remaining the same; and compare the resultant outputs.
If these are the same; then where (because I'm struggling to work it out) would the 'subjective differences' emerge from ?
same for mol - ok; you can argue a microphone is not 100% without it's own frequency response (though this would be unchanged across both tests of course) - what kind of standard of measurement would suffice ? We could shine a laser at the speaker cone and sample it's movement; but you're basically arguing that "there are things we can hear that we can't measure"
Not really, does it really matter.
It matters; of course; that I think someone is wrong on the internet 😉
what kind of standard of measurement would suffice ?
Now you're getting it. These are the questions that need asking.
I have no idea, by the way, I'm not the one trying to prove anything. l'm happy that the modest sum I spent on cables had a modest effect, however I'm not sure enough that I could reproduce it in a double blind test to go to the trouble of setting it up in a different room and listening context etc etc. I probably could, but the confrontational nature of the discussion makes me reticent. And one person wouldn't be a very scientific sample either. If you came to me with a mobile listening setup in a lorry and asked me to take part in a survey, I would.
you’re basically arguing that “there are things we can hear that we can’t measure”
There might well be. Thing is, you can't set up an experiment and then say you conclusively proved there isn't a difference. You can only report that you didn't find a difference. I'm not sure how much scientific literature you read (I don't read much) but this is how they talk, for a reason.
Peter – I get your point and it has a little validity but properly designed blind testing eliminates the unconcious biases
If you make it “listen to set up with cable A then listen with cable B for a single person once” then its fallible in the way you describe. If you do it multiple times in varying orders then that bias is removed
But I'm not talking about any unconscious biases, I don't think you have absorbed what I said , or judging from your reply you haven't. Short and sweet - I'm saying that the falibity of memory can make the back to back/blind test as useless as random guessing which makes it pointless.
Stevehine says there is a more scientific way of doing it and that sounds more useful.
I'm almost tempted to take up Cougar's challenge tbh.
I think I could tell bell wire apart from the Audioquest Rocket I have on my own system, using those components as reference.
(Which I prefer or which is 'better' would be irrelevant for Cougar's purposes I think.)
I'm not sure I could tell £2,000 per metre stuff (say) from the Audioquest but that point's been made anyway (diminishing returns).
But I really can't be arsed 🙂
@tjagain regardless of the microphones lack of perception it can still produce a measurable result, with all other factors remaining constant you could change the cable and then compare the data. Job jobbed. If the data captured is the same then there is no way you can argue that one is better than the other.
@petercook80 sorry but your argument against double blind testing could be equally applied to any other testing. If memory is such an issue then write notes about your depth of punch, sound stage, treble tribbing or whatever else you think you can hear. Take as many goes as you need. Then move on to the next test. You're literally arguing against science.
I’m saying that the falibity of memory can make the back to back/blind test as useless as random guessing which makes it pointless.
Which can be eliminated with proper blind testing. alter the order, pretend you have changed when yo haven't and most importantly repeat many many times. that way you get a statisticlly significant resulrt
Squirrelking - can the microphone do everything the human ear can? Or can the human ear and associated processing do things a microphone cannot ( sound in front or behind is one example)
so the best you can get from a microphone is no measurable difference
Thing is, you can’t set up an experiment and then say you conclusively proved there isn’t a difference. You can only report that you didn’t find a difference.
See; this right here for me is the problem. You are correct from a purely technical point of view. But you are also setting a bar so impossibly high that there is always some wiggle room for "but maybe you didn't measure the thing that made the difference"
As I said before I feel it’s much better listening to many albums you know well over the space of say a week and then at the end decide if the whole experience was more enjoyable, more musical than before and make a decision based on that.
So do that. Then do it again. Without knowing which set of cables are connected.
In one breath you're arguing against blind testing because switching every couple of minutes isn't valid, in the next you're incidentally arguing for the same thing just over a longer time frame.
I don’t know of a way of proving or disproving all this
Oh, you do, you just refuse to accept that it works.
Once more with feeling: You can either tell a difference or you can't. Even if you can't quantify it, you don't need to, that's not important. Those 'many albums you know well' over the course of the week that you think sounded better or worse than they did last week will tell you what you need to know. But only if you don't know which cables are in use.
Actually Cougar - I think peter is happy that we could prove this with measurements and science. We've only got mol + tj arguing that we can't measure the things that make the difference 😀
I think I could tell bell wire apart from the Audioquest Rocket I have on my own system, using those components as reference.
I think I could too. But I really wouldn't like to bet any serious coin against it.
But I really can’t be arsed 🙂
Funny how this seems to be a common narrative, isn't it.
We’ve only got mol + tj arguing that we can’t measure the things that make the difference
and me
Funny how this seems to be a common narrative, isn’t it.
Well that was a joke really.
so the best you can get from a microphone is no measurable difference
I rather fear you've got that arse-backwards.
You're arguing that there is a difference, just not a measurable difference?
Well that was a joke really.
I know.
I really need to use more smileys.
What would be interesting is if the human listener could tell the cables apart, but the 'scientific' instruments couldn't.
We’ve only got mol + tj arguing
Must be Tuesday.
What would be interesting is if the human listener could tell the cables apart, but the ‘scientific’ instruments couldn’t.
It would be astonishing.
Why is "scientific" in inverted commas?
