2 microphones cannot do this in the same way
What about three? Or six? Or twelvety?
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.
Which is exactly what I've been saying from the outset and been told by more than one person that the Scientific Method won't work because... I don't even know, the most robust reason I've seen thus far is "I can't be bothered."
It absolutely; unequivocally *does*.
Why? If a difference is found in blind trials then the difference is there. If its something that cannot be measured then that does not mean it does not exist.
If we could find a difference in blind trials; then we must be able to design some sort of apparatus to measure it. Then we can prove what the difference actually is.
But arguing that there's a difference even if we can't measure it is just silly.
I mean; we've got CERN finding the subatomic particles that make up the matter of the universe; this is nothing like as fancy
I can think of many things both in audio and in general physics where there is an effect but it cannot be measured
If a properly blind study shows a difference then that difference exists whether it can me measured or not
Like what ?
This handwaving around being able to measure stuff is getting ridiculous tbh !
It's the core of experimental physics.
It’s the core of experimental physics.
Designing experiments and sensors to measure and record observed or theoretical stuff, yes it is.
Going around saying "we cant measure a difference at all but you can hear it" - less so 😀
I can think of many things both in audio and in general physics where there is an effect but it cannot be measured
Many things? Name, oh, I don't know, half a dozen. That's less than "many", yes?
If a properly blind study shows a difference then that difference exists whether it can me measured or not
Agreed. But it seems that everyone asserting this to be the case has a note from their mum when asked to try it.
Many things? Name, oh, I don’t know, half a dozen. That’s less than “many”, yes?
OK I am not going to use google so feel free to pick holes in this 'cos I am sure there will be some. Have fun
Position AND speed of an electron. IIRC ( certainly 2 qualities of an electron) You only know one or the other
Weight of a photon. We know it acts as both a wave and a particle - as a particle it must have weight but can you weigh it?
"warmth" of sound. We all know some sound output sounds are "warm" some "cold". You can hear the difference. Can you measure it?
How an individual perceives sound. indside my head is the sound I hear the same as what you hear?
Pi. Yo can draw diagrammes that demonstrate pi. But you cannot measure it accurately even tho its clearly drawn ( ever increasing sided polygons inside and outside a circle). Its on paper, you can show it but you cannot measure it accurately only calculate it
colours - we can see them, we can measure the wavelength but we do not know if what I see as red you see as red.
changes in the weight of things as they approach the speed of light. We know ( or believe) this to happen but it cannot be measured because your measuring tool will also be effected by the same effects. You can infer it from observation even I believe, but it cannot be directly measured
The status of a cat in a box whose death is controlled by decaying radioactive elements. Without opening the box we do not know if its alive or dead.
have fun with that lot.
Designing experiments and sensors to measure and record observed or theoretical stuff, yes it is.
Going around saying “we cant measure a difference at all but you can hear it” – less so 😀
That second thing is literally a follow on from the first one.
Even I'm bored with this now, and that's saying something. I'm trying to point out that the experiment with the microphone isn't necessarily as cast iron as you think it is, in a variety of ways, and you're just saying 'no' all the time, so I'll leave you to it Mr Cleese.
I’m trying to point out that the experiment with the microphone isn’t necessarily as cast iron as you think it is, in a variety of ways, and you’re just saying ‘no’ all the time, so I’ll leave you to it Mr Cleese.
Interesting - given people saying "no matter how you measure it; there might be a difference you can't measure" - I've repeatedly asked *what* proof people would accept; and yet nobody has given me an answer. It doesn't have to be a microphone; I already mentioned other options. If there's a difference; it has to be measurable somehow; right ? It's only speaker cable after all !
If a blind listening test shows a statistically significant effect that effect is there. If you cannot measure the effect then its still there.
If a blind listening test shows a statistically significant effect that effect is there.
Thats a rather big if though.
Position AND speed of an electron.
...
Weight of a photon.
No idea here. Chemistry is not my bag, baby.
“warmth” of sound. We all know some sound output sounds are “warm” some “cold”. You can hear the difference. Can you measure it?
Can you not?
How an individual perceives sound.
This is almost philosophy. Does what I think of as 'red' look the same to you?
Pi. Yo can draw diagrammes that demonstrate pi. But you cannot measure it
...
you cannot measure it accurately only calculate it
But we can calculate it far beyond any practical usage. Is this not true of other things? Can you measure the length of your desk to several trillion decimal places?
colours – we can see them, we can measure the wavelength but we do not know if what I see as red you see as red.
Hah, I just said this. (-:
changes in the weight of things as they approach the speed of light.
Again, not something I know anything about so I can't comment.
The status of a cat in a box whose death is controlled by decaying radioactive elements. Without opening the box we do not know if its alive or dead.
The flaw in Schrodinger's thought experiment is that he's clearly never owned a cat. Put a cat in a box and seal it up, you'll know with cast iron certainty whether it's alive or not.
If a blind listening test shows a statistically significant effect that effect is there. If you cannot measure the effect then its still there.
Why would it *not* be measurable ? Honestly; why this insistence ? You'd look again at your system of measurement; refine and adjust until you worked it out.
stevehine - the point is simple. If in a blind listening test a difference is detected that difference is there whether you can measure it or not. I am not saying it is not measurable - I am saying being able to measure it is not the critical point,. the critical point is detecting the difference. Maybe you can maybe you cannot measure it - thats irrelevant. the difference is there.
You do not have to be able to measure something to know its there.
Technically, TJ is correct. If you can reliably detect a difference in fair conditions then that difference is clearly there even if it's immeasurable.
However, the chances of this scenario actually occurring are hypothetical at best.
OK I am not going to use google so feel free to pick holes in this ‘cos I am sure there will be some. Have fun
Position AND speed of an electron. IIRC ( certainly 2 qualities of an electron) You only know one or the other
Weight of a photon. We know it acts as both a wave and a particle – as a particle it must have weight but can you weigh it?
“warmth” of sound. We all know some sound output sounds are “warm” some “cold”. You can hear the difference. Can you measure it?
How an individual perceives sound. indside my head is the sound I hear the same as what you hear?
Pi. Yo can draw diagrammes that demonstrate pi. But you cannot measure it accurately even tho its clearly drawn ( ever increasing sided polygons inside and outside a circle). Its on paper, you can show it but you cannot measure it accurately only calculate it
colours – we can see them, we can measure the wavelength but we do not know if what I see as red you see as red.
changes in the weight of things as they approach the speed of light. We know ( or believe) this to happen but it cannot be measured because your measuring tool will also be effected by the same effects. You can infer it from observation even I believe, but it cannot be directly measured
The status of a cat in a box whose death is controlled by decaying radioactive elements. Without opening the box we do not know if its alive or dead.
have fun with that lot.
That's about the most impressive example of whataboutery I've ever seen.
I'd call it a dead cat except, well you know....
You do not have to be able to measure something to know its there.
Careful now. You're on the cusp of proving god.
The other thing with the cat in the box cougar is all cat owners know if yo uput a box on the floor the cat will get in it
@tjagain you are obsessing over something that has never been questioned. The question is whether a particular cable makes a difference to the output of a speaker. End of.
That output may be measured electrically, acoustically, magnetically, dynamically or any combination thereof. Your observer effect is irrelevant since the measuring devices are constants and in a controlled environment the only variable is the cable. Change the music, run it again. Change the speakers or source, run it again. Compare the results. Congratulations, you either have repeatability and thus science wins or it's all over the place and proves a writer from What HiFi knows better than hundreds of years of empiricle observation.
Leave philosophical questions out of this and you are left with the science. How you choose to translate the output between your ears is not what is being discussed here.
Change the music, run it again. Change the speakers or source, run it again. Compare the results. Congratulations, you either have repeatability............
100% agree with this. the only thing that matters is can you hear a difference. It matters no one jot if you can measure it - accurately or not
I was just nitpicking daft statements from folk claiming absolutes when you cannot and claiming other stuff that is not correct. Just being nitpicky and amusing myself sorry.
It's probably worth noting that behind the scenes TJ and I have been slapping each other about the face with gloves. It's all done in the best possible taste, or something.
That’s about the most impressive example of whataboutery I’ve ever seen.
I’d call it a dead cat except, well you know….
I was challenged to come up with a bunch of unmeasurable things having claimed that this was so. I did my best and am somewhat disappointed no one pulled it to pieces
am somewhat disappointed no one pulled it to pieces
If you've paid for the full half hour I'm sure someone will be along in a minute
“warmth” of sound. We all know some sound output sounds are “warm” some “cold”. You can hear the difference. Can you measure it?
Can you not?
Of course you can. Spectrum analysis.
OK criticise this experiment.
Place one speaker in an anechoic chamber.
Play some source material.
Record it with a single high quality mic.
Change the speaker cable.
Repeat experiment.
Align the start points of both recordings, normalise levels, invert the phase of one recording.
Combine.
Any difference will show up as a deviation from a flat line (i.e zero signal).
Now then as for double blind testing, it simply isn't adequate to do the experiment once. Anyone can say "yes I heard a difference". What needs to be done is for the experiment to be done several times and for the subject to record whether condition A or condition B exists.
Well more than once for blind testing - I would have thought in the range of hundreds of times to get statistically significant results but I am no statistician. I never said do it once - thats obvious nonsense
good point on the measuring of an ill defined thing - so you would be able to tell a difference but could you state which was the "warm" sound and use the difference you have found to be able to predict whether another sound was "warm" or are you finding a difference but an unquantifiable one?
Well more than once for blind testing – I would have thought in the range of hundreds of times to get statistically significant results but I am no statistician. I never said do it once – thats obvious nonsense
So do you think given many repeats a listener could reliably pick the same cable as their favourite?
good point on the measuring of an ill defined thing – so you would be able to tell a difference but could you state which was the “warm” sound and use the difference you have found to be able to predict whether another sound was “warm” or are you finding a difference but an unquantifiable one?
My understanding is that "warm" refers to more bass leads treble. Easily demonstrated by spectrum analysis.
Is this the longest ever thread resurrection?
This arguing about testing criteria bollocks has been going on now for almost more pages than the original thread 🤣
It's certainly the worst thread resurrection.
You know that theory about monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare?? I feel like you lot are edging real close.
Although....it'll be more like the script for Eldorado than Shakespeare.
So do you think given many repeats a listener could reliably pick the same cable as their favourite?
I am really not sure. After many repeats you would get a valid answer tho - either there is a statistical correlation or there is not
My understanding is that “warm” refers to more bass leads treble. Easily demonstrated by spectrum analysis.
Fine - every day is a school day 🙂
This arguing about testing criteria bollocks has been going on now for almost more pages than the original thread
Well it's more interesting than speaker cable.
I am really not sure. After many repeats you would get a valid answer tho – either there is a statistical correlation or there is not
So on that basis "does speaker cable make a difference?" has not been answered either way.
OK criticise this experiment.
Place one speaker in an anechoic chamber.
You don’t need an anechoic chamber, use a klippel near field scanner, this method of measuring can be more accurate than using anechoic chamber especially for 50hz and less
NOt until someone runs a proper trial no
IMO ( and its only an opinion) the difference between shitty bell wire and some proper cable at a couple of quid a metre can be heard easily. Beyond that you so quickly get into diminishing return that I doubt you can and I am perfectly happy to accept the hypothesis that above a certain level it makes no difference
But a proper blind study done with multiple people and many multiples of tests would give a definitive answer
I think the reason that hi fi companies will not do this is that they don't want to hear the answer. If they were sure of their products then they would test them properly in this way
is this thread why the site keeps asking me to 'agree and move on'
Well it’s more interesting than speaker cable.
It's actually not, depressingly.
So on that basis “does speaker cable make a difference?” has not been answered either way.
If its a simple yes or no answer, the answer has to be yes.
Although I'd caveat that with as long as it's reasonable quality, decent sleeving and decent terminals. Which might mean spending £10/20 quid rather than £2.99.
I'm really not convinced spending more on super fancy audiophile grade stuff will make any difference.
IMO ( and its only an opinion) the difference between shitty bell wire and some proper cable at a couple of quid a metre can be heard easily.
This is my opinion also. But I sure as shit wouldn't hang my hat on it, I'd have zero confidence in my own ability to actually be able to reliably tell the difference.
But a proper blind study done with multiple people and many multiples of tests would give a definitive answer
Not necessarily because I'm fairly sure that 50% of the population don't give a toss and probably 40% aren't really that good at listening. It'd be like asking the general public to rate fine wine. Most people would go 'mm that's nice wine' and a good many would say 'I don't like wine'.
So on that basis “does speaker cable make a difference?” has not been answered either way.
If its a simple yes or no answer, the answer has to be yes.
How's that if the test hasn't been done? Surely the simple answer is "we don't know"?
Given that quantum effects and Schrodingers thought experiment based challenge to the Copenhagen interpretation have been raised as evidence against being able to prove/disprove anything via measurement I postulate that whether anyone of us here is personally wearing underwear at any given moment will made a difference to how TJ’s morning coffee tastes.
Measure that!
NOt until someone runs a proper trial no
I did one for myself.
It wasn't blind
I couldn't hear a difference.
Why don't you get two cables, a mate to a/b them over the same hifi, same music, same seat, same room.
You won't find out if it's true for everyone, but you will find out if it's true for you.
It would take less time than reading this whole thread!
I postulate that whether anyone of us here is personally wearing underwear at any given moment will made a difference to how TJ’s morning coffee tastes.
My morning coffee tastes great. who has the pink knickers on?
Not necessarily because I’m fairly sure that 50% of the population don’t give a toss and probably 40% aren’t really that good at listening.
repeat it enough times and you still get a statistically significant answer even if half the folk doing it are deaf
Perhaps. But if only say 1% of people are capable of differentiating the sound, given how time consuming it is to do it the study wouldn't be large enough to give results that weren't 'statistically insignificant', I suspect.
When I was about 8 or so they offered violin lessons, but they gave us a test to see how much of a musical ear we had which screened out about 80% of kids. Seems a bit elitist these days to be honest, but for violin teaching I can sort of understand it.
