I think the shiny pound coin thing is a red herring too, like Molgrips says - just introduces an unnecessary level of jeopardy.
Why is “scientific” in inverted commas?
Good question. I think maybe I had a John Prine line in mind - 'the lonesome friends of science say...'
I think the shiny pound coin thing is a red herring too
I have a dull pound coin if that's preferable?
Close your eyes and see if you can tell them apart.
🙂
I could do that with my quartz crystal.
Oh, you do, you just refuse to accept that it works.
Now your just being a blunt instrument.... as usual
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.
No I don't think I am. Some people have understood you don't. Not much more I can do.
You can tell the difference, or you can't. Set your own parameters as you see fit. It's that simple, there's little for either of us to misunderstand.
... because, I don't believe you can tell the difference. And I believe that you know you won't be able tell the difference if pressed. So you're inventing all sorts of "science doesn't work" excuses to try to bury that, then tying a "you just don't understand me" bow on it to insinuate that it's actually my failing.
Shiny pound coin, Peter. Shiny pound coin. I'll even throw in a grubby one for blind testing purposes if you like.
Regardless of any scientific testing or blind-testing etc. if the person listening to the music who has invested in 'better' cables thinks the music sounds 'better' to them, then the rest of it is just, erm noise.....if they perceive an improvement & as a result increase their enjoyment of listening to music - who cares if a scientific test can prove there is no difference?
as for "does it actually make a difference"....here follows a crap story.....
My girlfriend at uni was massively into Reef. The album Glow was virtually on repeat and we knew it inside out.
I'd swapped my speaker cable from basic 79p/m stuff to some Cable Talk 3, which I think was about £4.50/m. She didn't know I'd changed the cable. I hadn't mentioned it as it didn't seem like something she'd be terribly interested in.
The next time we had Glow on the stereo she kept pointing out nuances that she hadn't heard before. There was some words she'd struggled to understand that she said were clearer and lots of little background subtleties.
She even commented on it; words to the effect of "this is a bit weird. Why are there all these things I'd not notice before". I was pretty chuffed by this, but didn't say anything to give the game away until she'd listened to a bit more stuff.
After that I put The Commitments soundtrack on & got a similar response to that.
Eventually I told her that I'd changed the cables & maybe that was why she was picking up some differences. But, there was no question that she heard more of the nuance in the music without having knowledge that anything had changed.
I remember it because these arguments about speaker cable & interconnects were always being had and as a student, spending about £30 on some cable was a pretty extravagant thing to be doing. I was pleased that the cost seemed to have been justified.
I have no idea whatsoever if a piece of scientific equipment could have picked up on it, but it was definitely enough of a change for someone to comment on it with no prior knowledge that anything had changed.
You’re arguing that there is a difference, just not a measurable difference?
Nope - I am saying that you cannot measure two things and say they are identical. You can only say you cannot measure any difference
Scientific and linguistic rigour ( and teasing)
cougar - i quite agree with you that properly designed blind testing will tell you which people prefer or which is "better" or that no one can hear a differnce.
… because, I don’t believe you can tell the difference. And I believe that you know you won’t be able tell the difference if pressed
It's why I said "because if there is a difference (which I feel is quite likely with equipment but not so likely with cables)" - did you read that?
So you’re inventing all sorts of “science doesn’t work” excuses to try to bury that,
No I'm introducing another area of science, I've never said science doesn't work.
Shiny pound coin, Peter. Shiny pound coin. I’ll even throw in a grubby one for blind testing purposes if you like.
The image that conjures up isn't pleasant...
Stumpy01's post is interesting isn't it.
No I’m introducing another area of science, I’ve never said science doesn’t work.
Nope - you are claiming blind testing - the gold standard - does not work.
Blind testing is the only [possible way to show differences. What you suggest is far far weaker and prone to bias and memory issues
How the brain works is another area of science
Maybe your right... I'm just not sure I care anymore....
If these are the same; then where (because I’m struggling to work it out) would the ‘subjective differences’ emerge from ?
Because a microphone does not work in the same way as ears and ears can detect things a microphone cannot. You can tell if a sound is in front or behind you. Not because of the stereo sound and triangulation ( that only gives you either in front or behind) this ability is to do with harmonics / delays generated in the external ear at tiny relative volume levels
also the brain does not just accept raw sound - its highly processed leaving some stuff out and amplifying some stuff
It’s why I said “because if there is a difference (which I feel is quite likely with equipment but not so likely with cables)” – did you read that?
So you're saying that cables probably don't make a difference?
Stumpy01’s post is interesting isn’t it.
So you're saying that cables probably do make a difference?
No I’m introducing another area of science, I’ve never said science doesn’t work.
"Making shit up" isn't another area of science, it's making shit up.
ears can detect things a microphone cannot.
A microphone array will outstrip ears any day of the week, by a long chalk.
Not that that's relevant in this discourse because, again, are we setting up a home system to listen to music or to measure it?
.....
Can a microphone ( and any processing) tell you the direction of the sound source?
Microphones will be more accurate but ears and brain processing can do things a microphone and computer processing cannot
See the word "array" back there?
Maybe like you doesn't read stuff properly......
It has been fun though.
..
Because a microphone does not work in the same way as ears and ears can detect things a microphone cannot. You can tell if a sound is in front or behind you. Not because of the stereo sound and triangulation ( that only gives you either in front or behind) this ability is to do with harmonics / delays generated in the external ear at tiny relative volume levels
You don't need to determine the direction, you are literally only interested in what the speaker is producing. If it produces the exact same output across two cables then that's that. The cable isn't going to magically change the acoustics of the room.
Cougar - - a microphone or even array still does not do the same as your ears. But point taken - with 3 microphones and a lot of processing you could replicate the infront or behind but not by the same methods yo can do it with two ears.
Squirrelking the direction issue is just an example of how ears work differently to microphones
If it produces the exact same output across two cables then that’s that
But thats only the same within the limitations of your measuring devices - and as we know there is no such thing as a perfect measuring device
Again all you can say is they are the same within the limits of your measurement
You simply cannot state with surety that there are not differences undetectable by microphones but detectable by ears
You are usually good at the sciencey stuff 🙂
cougar - you have a PM
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”
I'm not setting a bar, I'm just pointing out how experiments work. And even if I were setting the bar, complaining you can't meet it is a bit pointless. First we need to establish the required level of proof and then we need to find out how to obtain it. We can't just say 'well that's too hard so let's reduce the level of proof required'. Wel you can, but it significantly reduces the value of what you're doing.
We’ve only got mol + tj arguing that we can’t measure the things that make the difference
No, I'm saying that there MIGHT be things you cannot measure with your audio testing equipment, but you cannot be sure if you're not measuring it because a) you're not looking for it, b) your equipment can't detecting it or c) it's not there.
@stumpy01 I had a similar experience with my fancy headphones and HD music. I thought 'yeah this is nice' then I realised I could understand way more of the lyrics than I previously could.
An interesting side point here - my wife is more or less completely un-musical, where as I consider myself fairly musical. She can barely remember tunes and is incapable of things like picking out instruments or recognising melodies and the like. However she's much better at hearing lyrics than me and anecdotally I'm quite poor at this, because everyone seems to know the words much better than me.
So are our ears different? Or are our brains simply processing it differently? Does that mean different things go into our brains when the vibrations enter our ears?
I'm keen to know why Cougar is so adamant that we cannot hear a difference between different cables. I mean be sceptical by all means, but you can't be sure can you?
You simply cannot state with surety that there are not differences undetectable by microphones but detectable by ears
And you cannot state with equal surety that there are.
It's very easy to make wild claims without any evidence, isn't it. But as we learned from the brexit threads, it's equally easy to dismiss them with the same substantiation.
Observer effect
"This effect can be found in many domains of physics, but can usually be reduced to insignificance by using different instruments or observation techniques".
https://audiophilereview.com/news/why-double-blind-testing-cant-work-for-audio/
Hardly surprising they should argue against double blind testing. That way if someone says something couldn't be proven using double blind testing they can say it doesn't work in audio so proves nothing.
Here's another thought.
When you do hearing tests, to see what frequencies you hear, you have headphones on usually right? It's not difficult to see how that could interfere with the function of your outer ear. And your outer ear is sensitive to sound in general - after all, if you touch it, you can hear the sound it makes. Try gently touching your tragus and then the skin just in front of it - sounds quite different.
Also if you sit with headphones on for any length of time the air in the ear cup becomes very humid. This could also affect the experiments.
I'm not asserting anything here by the way - just talking about things that could be affecting what we observe from experiements.
And you cannot state with equal surety that there are.
apart from you can because its proven 🙂
How relevant that is is highly debatable.
Slowold man - insignificant does not equal zero 🙂
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
If the mic can demonstrate that there is (objectively) no difference, how can ears (subjectively) detect a difference?
apart from you can because its proven 🙂
Apart from you can't because it isn't.
We can do this all day, have you got a citation?
Slowold man – insignificant does not equal zero 🙂
But it is insignificant.
how can ears (subjectively) detect a difference?
Cost per metre.
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…
"The production on that album is amazing".
If the mic can demonstrate that there is (objectively) no difference, how can ears (subjectively) detect a difference?
Because microphones and ears work differently. Insisting that the output of the microphone is the absolute fundamental truth of the sound in its entirety is a bit daft.
Hear ( sic) you go cougar
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.413219
https://direct.mit.edu/pvar/article-abstract/1/2/251/58771/On-the-Externalization-of-Auditory-Images
2 microphones cannot do this in the same way - they will always produce two possible locations that are a front / rear mirror image and cannot tell vertical angle
Its one of the weird things with ears - being able to tell the vertical and front / rear direction of noises with only two receptors in the same vertical frame
Ok; I'll bite
Again all you can say is they are the same within the limits of your measurement
What is a good enough level of measurement that any of you *would actually accept the results* ? There isn't one; the bar isn't set too high; the bar doesn't exist on this planet. Or if it does would you *please* tell me where the hell it is ?
'there is a difference I know it'
'Ok; lets set up a controlled experiement to see if we can actually prove or disprove it'
'Doesn't matter; you might not be able to measure it'
I mean.. come on. There's moving goalposts; and then there's fastening them onto a SpaceX rocket and lighting the tailpipe! 😀
Insisting that the output of the microphone is the absolute fundamental truth of the sound in its entirety is a bit daft.
But I would insist that it's an accurate and representative of the pressure waves produced by a moving diaphragm attached to a moving coil being deflected by the presence of an electrical current passing through it. This handwaving around being able to measure stuff is getting ridiculous tbh !
that is true steve - but it does not tell you how ears react to the sound
Or can the human ear and associated processing do things a microphone cannot ( sound in front or behind is one example)
Can a microphone ( and any processing) tell you the direction of the sound source?
Calrec Soundfield mic or similar?
2 microphones cannot do this in the same way – they will always produce two possible locations that are a front / rear mirror image and cannot tell vertical angle
We're not using microphones to work out where the noise is coming from. Your argument is spurious to being able to measure if a sound wave produced by a known source in a known location is the same or different depending on which cable is attached.
‘there is a difference I know it’
‘Ok; lets set up a controlled experiement to see if we can actually prove or disprove it’
‘Doesn’t matter; you might not be able to measure it’
A proper blind control will be able to tell you if ears can detect a difference. It does not matter if you can measure that difference or not.
We’re not using microphones to work out where the noise is coming from. Your argument is spurious to being able to measure if a sound wave produced by a known source in a known location is the same or different depending on which cable is attached.
I am simply using that as one example of how ears can do things microphone cannot
It does not matter if you can measure that difference or not.
It absolutely; unequivocally *does*.
