What do we hear when we change the direction of a wire?

cleeds3,753 posts04-20-2021 3:37pmdjones51

A Theory is never proved but they can be disproved.

That is completely mistaken. Every theorem began as a theory and existed as a theory until the proof was developed.

Theorems are mathematical, theories are more generic, but who is counting anyway.

It’s true that the Naysayer Church is based on faith-based religious doctrine, and that would be fine by itself. However, the church’s fundamentalist evangelists preach their brand of faith by trying to cloak it with the respectability of real science, and then attempt to minister in a forum intended for hobbyists, not scientists.

You were saying?


This has nothing to do with science, but more to do with faith. One group is honest with itself and does not rely on the "faith" that they are infallible, while the other group does. No more, no less. You can special plead science that does not exist, or not. It really does not matter. The issue is the special pleading of lack of bias. That does not cut it. Learn to be honest with yourself, and you will progress much faster towards your audiophile goals. 


When certain audiophiles say "trust your ears", they really don't mean that. They say it. They probably say it 10-20 times a day on these forums. But they prove over and over they don't mean it.  If they really meant it, then they would not take every single opportunity they can to discourage blind testing.  You can't honestly mean "trust you ears" while you discourage blind testing. You are being dishonest with yourself and other audiophiles. 

linnvolk

A simple test, done under controlled conditions with witnesses and published for all to read in a reputable journal would help.

I'm not sure who it would really help. It wouldn't help those who are uninterested in such tests and have already made their choices about what to buy. Neither would be of much help to those interested in such tests but still undecided. For that listener, the only test that matters - whether blind or otherwise - is one in which he's the subject.

Person A has cables for which he/she believes she/he can hear directionality in his/her system. Person B comes to where this system is, with witnesses. Person A selects the music and listens to everything blindfolded or otherwise ...

Your "simple test" is too simple and what you describe are not controlled conditions. For example, your test isn't double-blind and doesn't allow for quick switching, requirements that experts in the field (Johnson, Toole) insist are necessary.

A poorly designed or conducted blind test has no advantage over any other kind of listening test - yet it will still suffer the disadvantages and risks associated with blind testing.

When certain audiophiles say "trust your ears", they really don’t mean that. They say it. They probably say it 10-20 times a day on these forums. But they prove over and over they don’t mean it. If they really meant it, then they would not take every single opportunity they can to discourage blind testing. You can’t honestly mean "trust you ears" while you discourage blind testing. You are being dishonest with yourself and other audiophiles.

I dont discourage blindtesting in SPECIAL occasion like some marketing affirmation about cables...

But attacking people who spoke of their experience ALWAYS with mistrust because there is  no blindtesting behind is not science it is ridiculous...It is more easy and practical  to replicate their experience to verify than organize a rigorous and useless blindtest session...I replicate many "tweaks" without blindtest at no cost by the way....

I created my own "mechanical equalizer" with my ears, 32 tubes and pipes with orientable and adjustable necks, i fine tuned them like someone finetuned a piano...Do a piano tuner need to be blindtested?

Results: the voices of singers comes from my back when the orchestra play behind the speakers in front of me in some recordings...
The wood sound in the middle of my room and and the strings behind my speakers in my version of Bach orchestral suite...

Who said 3-d sound OUT of the speakers is impossible filling ALL the room ? He is wrong... It is called psychoacoustic....It is also a science...

Did i need blindtesting all my steps in the few weeks needed to fine tune them? Or for each embeddings controls i used in the last 2 years? No.... Save when occured some small audible change borderline case in some occasions thats all....My biases are there but an hallucination dissipate when you act on it, like a city mirage vanish itself when walking toward it... Simple... Biases are not only something to erase anyway, it is also in the case of learned musicians somthing to cultivate by the way....All biases are not equal...


Advocating blindtest is interesting to assess statistical facts in the industry like pharmacology and erasing human biases or debunking or making publicity for a product.... Using it to debunk systematically ALL audiophiles claims and calling that science is sunday club scientism.....Thanks.... And anyway a rigorous protocol is usable ONLY in exceptional circonstance... Then using that for argument is childish saturday scout science...

I will wait for an official blindtest for some cables with interest but dont call that science....Or call James Randi nobel prize in physics... Many products dont need blindtest to reveal their effect without doubts anyway...only a listening session...

Dividing people between subjectivist and objectivist is pure stupidity... Not science.... It is astounding that people buy these useless distinction and argue about that....

Correlating measures with human perception in audio is a science called psychoacoustic..... Negating measures value is stupid.... More stupid perhaps reducing All there is to some measured known chosen parameters.... In the 2 case science is lost...Only technology need static facts, science need plastic brain....

Jonathan Swift already wrote about that centuries ago... He called that the big egg end party against the little egg end party....

Results: the voices of singers comes from my back when the orcjhestra play behind the speakers in front of me...

One day you will research how we determine how we determine the location of sound, front to back, and realize that what you describe, is at best illusory, heavily influenced by preconception, and if true, would cause all vocals to do this, whether that is in the original recording or not, and probably causes a lot of the instrument sounds to have a false location. That is not what I would consider a positive result. You can create all kinds of illusions for a given set of speakers, in a given room, with a given set of reflectors, diffusers, absorbers, that will work for one effect, on one recording and create chaos with anything else. This is not news, but can be fun.

 Advocating blindtest is interesting to assess statistical facts or debunking or making publicity for a product.... Callint that science is sunday club scientism.....

You may, just may, want to read the title of the thread you are posting in and consider whether your statement makes any sense at all?  You have gone on and on about acoustics in a thread that is about cable direction, a topic that screams exactly for blind testing, whether the claim is made by a manufacturer (it has been in this thread) or by someone who could be misleading others (or not).

dletch2

This has nothing to do with science, but more to do with faith.

Agreed!

One group is honest with itself and does not rely on the "faith" that they are infallible, while the other group does. No more, no less.

True, to a point. The Naysayer Doctrine (the measurementalist approach) does very much acknowledge that we humans are fallible and our senses prone to deception. Good for you! But then the measurementalists insist the doctrine is perfect and infallible; hence, those in conflict with the doctrine are labeled as deluded, insane, confused, stupid, and the like.

You can special plead science that does not exist, or not. It really does not matter.

Call it what you like, but it does clearly matter very, very much to you. That’s consistent with your evangelism and why you’ve made more than 80 posts here since joining just a week ago. And it’s why you’ve been banned from the group multiple times under your previous user names. Your proselytizing insults really get old.

You can’t honestly mean "trust you ears" while you discourage blind testing. You are being dishonest with yourself and other audiophiles.

There’s another example of how those who claim science and reason as being on their side commit some of the most confounding acts of ill logic along the way.

I don’t discourage blind testing, by the way. But neither have I adopted it as a religion or accepted it as my personal savior.