>>just because we don't know what to measure for, or precisely how to measure a certain event; this does not mean that it does not exist, nor that it didn't happen.<<
Well, when a subject listens to two different cables and swears he/she can hear large differences while having access to the identity of the two cables and then is confronted with the fact that he/she cannot pick out the identity of these cables without that access, I would say that this is significant.
Researchers have reported that people become quite angry when these "differences" that were so easy to spot just moments ago seem to disappear.
Further, look around these audio forums. Just the other day, I was witing to a kid who was telling me that one set of speaker cables had absolutely no bass,
but excellent sound-stage while another had excess "bloom" in the bass and had no "tonality." When I asked him to post his system, he was listening to 20 year old low end speakers and a 5 year old low end home theater receiver. The kid wants to know which cables will make his system sound transparent, give it accurate bass, etc. And people wrote in to tell him which cables to buy, most of which cost more than his entire system.
This is part of the cable phenomenon.
But, this is what I would say: Take the people in the study where the subjects reported hearing large differences when, unbeknownst to them, the researcher hadn't even changed cables; Those people obviously HEARD differences. Since the cables were never changed, we know what caused the same cable to sound radically different -- the subjects expected them to sound different and their MINDS produced differences.
Would I tell them they heard no differences?
No. They did hear differences. That was their experience.
On the other hand, every scientist knows that he/she is open to these various influences and that's why any scientist who wishes to have his/her findings confirmed will subject his/her results to objective testing.
In audio, the only thing that matters is -- can people hear what they profess to hear when they are deprived of the knowledge of that to which they are listening.
In absence of this kind of confirmation, all we have are "experiences" which are open to influence by the imagination for hundreds of reasons.
The last person I would trust would be the person who DOESN'T believe he or she is open to these influences.
Having said that, how many of us did rigorous double-blind tests before we bought our gear? With level matching, conducted by disinterested third parties who also did not have access to the identities of the gear under review?
I would venture none of us.
Every one of us, if we would be honest and put all pride aside, would have to admit that we conducted informal listening tests and bought what we experienced and believed was the better gear.
So, why don't we all just share our experiences and beliefs?
There should be room in the audiophile community for believers AND skeptics.
I think it would be a larger, more inclusive community.
We don't all have to drink the same Kool-Aid.
Problems only arise when one of tries to lay claim to "the truth."
Well, when a subject listens to two different cables and swears he/she can hear large differences while having access to the identity of the two cables and then is confronted with the fact that he/she cannot pick out the identity of these cables without that access, I would say that this is significant.
Researchers have reported that people become quite angry when these "differences" that were so easy to spot just moments ago seem to disappear.
Further, look around these audio forums. Just the other day, I was witing to a kid who was telling me that one set of speaker cables had absolutely no bass,
but excellent sound-stage while another had excess "bloom" in the bass and had no "tonality." When I asked him to post his system, he was listening to 20 year old low end speakers and a 5 year old low end home theater receiver. The kid wants to know which cables will make his system sound transparent, give it accurate bass, etc. And people wrote in to tell him which cables to buy, most of which cost more than his entire system.
This is part of the cable phenomenon.
But, this is what I would say: Take the people in the study where the subjects reported hearing large differences when, unbeknownst to them, the researcher hadn't even changed cables; Those people obviously HEARD differences. Since the cables were never changed, we know what caused the same cable to sound radically different -- the subjects expected them to sound different and their MINDS produced differences.
Would I tell them they heard no differences?
No. They did hear differences. That was their experience.
On the other hand, every scientist knows that he/she is open to these various influences and that's why any scientist who wishes to have his/her findings confirmed will subject his/her results to objective testing.
In audio, the only thing that matters is -- can people hear what they profess to hear when they are deprived of the knowledge of that to which they are listening.
In absence of this kind of confirmation, all we have are "experiences" which are open to influence by the imagination for hundreds of reasons.
The last person I would trust would be the person who DOESN'T believe he or she is open to these influences.
Having said that, how many of us did rigorous double-blind tests before we bought our gear? With level matching, conducted by disinterested third parties who also did not have access to the identities of the gear under review?
I would venture none of us.
Every one of us, if we would be honest and put all pride aside, would have to admit that we conducted informal listening tests and bought what we experienced and believed was the better gear.
So, why don't we all just share our experiences and beliefs?
There should be room in the audiophile community for believers AND skeptics.
I think it would be a larger, more inclusive community.
We don't all have to drink the same Kool-Aid.
Problems only arise when one of tries to lay claim to "the truth."