|   Very interesting......(revisited) | entrope
Jun 26, 2002 1:57 PM | | Just caught up with responses to this old thread-from both camps
The follow on comment was not specifically related to the previous post from mtry but his view in general. Perceptions are a two way street.
The fact that he or anyone does not hear a sonic difference in cables is a perception. If yeasayers can be fooled by perceptions are naysayers immune? Could mytr be wrong and there really are differences that he is not perceiving? Lacking the proof of a definitive, current, valid and accepted cable DBT this is all hyberbole from both sides of the issue anyway.
The "reading in" of unintended meaning in text or missing an intented meaning is a limitation of the format because of missing cues used verbally such as voice tone, facial expression, volume, etc. Add bad typing and grammar and its a wonder anything useful is conveyed at all (still some debate on finding useful info here).
Many are dragged from civility by the refusal to agree to disagree(what fun is that) and the inherent lack of information transmitted by text alone. |
| re: Very interesting......(revisited) | mtrycrafts
Jun 26, 2002 10:15 PM | | b . If yeasayers can be fooled by perceptions are naysayers immune?
Are you asking? Why? Anyone tried to tell you that they are immune from bias, the effects of placebo?
b Could mytr be wrong and there really are differences that he is not perceiving?
Sure I could be wrong. But, I just have not seen any evidence that I am. First time for everything, right:)
b Lacking the proof of a definitive, current, valid and accepted cable DBT this is all hyberbole from both sides of the issue anyway.
Nope, it is not. That is where you are mistaken, grossly.
Absent evidence after 25+ years is real evidence to demonstrate the hypothesis. |
| re: Very interesting......(revisited) | pctower
Jun 27, 2002 6:04 AM | | b Absent evidence after 25+ years is real evidence to demonstrate the hypothesis.
It may be evidence, but its persuasiveness depends on an analysis of the possible underlying reasons for such absence. After each side has offered its speculations as to the possible reasons for such absence, each side will choose to believe what it wants, which is where we are right now. |
| re: Very interesting......(revisited) | MonstrousMike
Jun 27, 2002 12:21 PM | | Persuasiveness is much more than analysis. Beliefs are still held by many in the face of analysis which shows the opposite is likely true. Therefore emotions, early age teachings, beliefs of parents, siblings and friends all play a larger part in most people's belief systems than science or analysis.
On top of that, people are very resistant to changing their beliefs once strongly formulated. I think this is the cause of much strife in our lives. |
| re: Very interesting......(revisited) | pctower
Jun 27, 2002 5:01 PM | | Mike:
With all due respect, it seems to me you cannot let go of your belief that all of us yeasayers hold beliefs that are due to poor potty training or insufficient or inadequate scientific backgrounds.
My reference to persuasiveness had nothing to do with beliefs. Mtry was talking about evidence. I assumed he meant evidence that would be judged by an impartial finder of fact, be it a judge, jury or a panel of scientific scholars. My post was to question the value of mtrys evidence within such a dispassionate environment.
But you are so convinced that you know where I and the other yeasayers are flawed in our thinking and you are so convinced of the superiority of your scientific background, that you see this whole thing in terms of black and white black being the yeasayers who are wedded to their beliefs out or ignorance or psychological disabilities, and the whites being the naysayers who have on their side the full weight of the history of the development of rational, dispassionate, critical thinking which has evolved over the centuries.
b Beliefs are still held by many in the face of analysis which shows the opposite is likely true. Therefore emotions, early age teachings, beliefs of parents, siblings and friends all play a larger part in most people's belief systems than science or analysis.
Thats all well and good, but to whom is it directed and what the hell does it have to do with most things that are discussed on this forum?
I know your style is to ignore any serious challenge that is made to your condescending attitude toward yeasayers and the puffing up of your scientific feathers, so Im sure you will ignore the above question.
Regardless of the tired old material posted by A above, most of which is totally unsubstantiated opinion and speculation, dripping with bias, there is very little reliable data on any of this. Yet, you continue to view those who report they hear differences in sighted auditions as almost sub-human creatures. It is one thing to point out that sighted auditions are not reliable from a scientific viewpoint and to request proof of differences. But I believe you go further and assume that such evidence can never be produced, overlook the almost complete lack of reliable DBT data, and claim victory. That, in and of itself is bad enough, but the gloating and prancing is really too much. |
| re: Very interesting......(revisited) | MonstrousMike
Jun 28, 2002 7:03 AM | | <<<< Thats all well and good, but to whom is it directed and what the hell does it have to do with most things that are discussed on this forum?
I know your style is to ignore any serious challenge that is made to your condescending attitude toward yeasayers and the puffing up of your scientific feathers, so Im sure you will ignore the above question. >>>>
Ignore? I think not. The statement is directed to everyone, myself included. And I think my statement has relevence anytime we try to determine the truth when there is no evidence either way.
My belief in spirituality is purely emotional. I have no scientific data or evidence to support this belief. My belief in cable differences is purely scientific. While I cannot prove the null hypothesis, I believe it to be true.
I don't see how you find that condescending. |
| re: Very interesting......(revisited) | pctower
Jun 28, 2002 1:34 PM | | b My belief in cable differences is purely scientific. While I cannot prove the null hypothesis, I believe it to be true.
To the best of my knowledge, it has never been established by DBTs that people could detect audible differences between cables (other than that one instance of substantially different gauges). When you couple that fact with your belief that your position on audible differences is purely scientific, it leads you inevitably to the conclusion that your beliefs are based on scientific objectivity and the opposing view is based on voodoo.
The problem is that a sufficient number of valid DBTs have never been conducted under conditions that would give rise to statistically reliable results and subject to peer review to afford the yeasayers viewpoint a fair opportunity to be verified. Until such tests have been conducted, neither side can point to convincing scientific results that would help to bring some closure to this debate.
Now, we have discussed and speculated at length in the past as to the possible reasons why such tests have not been conducted. One might speculate that the cable companies have secretly conducted such tests for years and know that they cant establish audible differences and that none of these companies has ever had one disgruntled employee who would eventually blow the whistle on them.
However, recently at AA, Jon argued somewhat convincingly, in my opinion, that such tests are extremely expensive to conduct properly and that there is absolutely no commercial motivation for cable companies to conduct such tests. If they failed to demonstrate that audible differences could be detected, that fact would be used against them. On the other hand, if they could establish that such audible differences could be detected, such tests still would not necessarily demonstrate that their cables were better than all the other cables and the marketplace would be relatively indifferent to such positive outcomes. To the extent a cable company has discretionary funds (and I doubt many of them have such funds), from a pure self-interest viewpoint, it would not be a sound business decision to squander such funds on DBTs.
Moreover, given the relatively small and inconsequential size of the high end cable market, there will never be public or foundation funds available to support such tests.
Accordingly, we here are reduced to choosing our sides based primarily on bias, which is why I bristle at your attempts to paint yeasayers as know-nothing, flat-earthers. |
| re: Very interesting......(revisited) | mtrycrafts
Jun 29, 2002 7:49 PM | | b The problem is that a sufficient number of valid DBTs have never been conducted
Does not negate the fact that yeasayers base their claims on unreliable sighted listening. So, there cannot be any basys for such claims. Afew that claimed bias controls, would not repeat the tests for other observers to determine validity of protocols.
b However, recently at AA, Jon argued somewhat convincingly, in my opinion, that such tests are extremely expensive to conduct properly
Oh, he does that convincingly for some. But he is just plain wrong and such rigor is not necessary.
But he insists that his results are valid. Very interesting, isn't it.
b If they failed to demonstrate that audible differences could be detected, that fact would be used against them.
Certainly couldn't be used to support them.
b On the other hand, if they could establish that such audible differences could be detected, such tests still would not necessarily demonstrate that their cables were better than all the other cables and the marketplace would be relatively indifferent to such positive outcomes.
But they could claim differences. Certainly a vindication of their claims and evidence.
No, Jon is just good at confusing the less informed.
b it would not be a sound business decision to squander such funds on DBTs.
Of course no as cursory investigation of the answer would tell them it is a foolish endevor and that they will not prevail.
b Moreover, given the relatively small and inconsequential size of the high end cable market, there will never be public or foundation funds available to support such tests.
Oh, I don't know about that. After all, anything above the 12ga zip is high end, including the Monster cables that rule the marketplace. |
| re: Very interesting......(revisited) | mtrycrafts
Jun 28, 2002 11:18 AM | | b or a panel of scientific scholars.
Only this will suffice. The rest are not capable. This isn't a court of law.I would not mind prestentin my evidence and the lack for positives. Even if mine is insufficient, zero exists for positives that can be analized. And Vandy's would not be sufficient.
b But I believe you go further and assume that such evidence can never be produced,
Nothing has been yet, over 25+ years. What does it take, 50 years? My acoustic memory is very short.
b overlook the almost complete lack of reliable DBT data,
Ah, reliable to you? Leventhal? I am sure it is reliable enough to a substantial number in the industry and reasun not to persue the gold at the end of the rainbow.
b and claim victory.
Hardly. Only when you and JOn are convinced. |
| Are you asking? Why? | entrope
Jun 27, 2002 6:49 AM | | b "Are you asking? Why? Anyone tried to tell you that they are immune b from bias, the effects of placebo?"
You are right-no one needs to tell me you are biased. But you seem to point out it is the bias of others- not you -causing yeasayers to incorrectly perceive sonic difference in wires. It could be the other way around.
How many years elapsed before it was proved the Sun was not the center of the universe or that smoking is bad for you (sadly still being debated by expensive lawyers). Lacking evidence any statement can be supported or denied which as pctower said is were we are now. |
| Are you asking? Why? | Spiky
Jun 27, 2002 7:20 AM | | Entrope, please try to pay attention to what's really going on here. Mtry isn't anything, he's not even a typical naysayer. He simply comes here to debate, hence the unofficial name of the forum is the Great Cable Debate. He will contradict you no matter what you say, requesting proof for your supposed "claims". Mostly this proof is pointless, and none of these topics really matter in the grand scheme of things. Cables for an audio system? Not really a big deal. Mtry "claims" that everything anyone else types here is a "claim", regardless of topic. So he attempts to beat your comments down with relentless requests for proof. Try ignoring his requests, it's easier. That's what he does if you ask him for proof of his "claims". |
| Are you asking? Why? | pctower
Jun 27, 2002 8:55 AM | | b He will contradict you no matter what you say, requesting proof for your supposed "claims".
I must respectfully disagree. There is no one on the internet that I argue with more than mtry. But he and I have found some common grounds.
b requesting proof for your supposed "claims".
Certainly his demands for proof get tedious, just as many of the unsupportable claims of yeasayers also can get tedious.
b Mostly this proof is pointless, and none of these topics really matter in the grand scheme of things.
In fact, the whole debate is really pointless. Very few people care. Those that care generally choose sides on the basis of personal experience and personal bias. Actual truth has little to do with it on both sides, as there is such a woeful lack of reliable data. What is clear from the debate is the intense need many of us have for all others to view the world as we do, somewhat like those that demand that all people accept the Bible as the one true source of spiritual truth.
b Mtry "claims" that everything anyone else types here is a "claim", regardless of topic. So he attempts to beat your comments down with relentless requests for proof. Try ignoring his requests, it's easier. That's what he does if you ask him for proof of his "claims".
Agreed, he is certainly guilty of that. It is this side of the naysayers that really bothers me. They often claim the mantel of objectivity and truth, yet engage in extreme examples of uncritical and anti-rational allegations and claims. |
| Are you asking? Why? | mtrycrafts
Jun 28, 2002 11:22 AM | | b He will contradict you no matter what you say,
Is that a fact, or your speculation?
b Mostly this proof is pointless, and none of these topics really matter in the grand scheme of things.
Not at all poinless. But you are correct about the grand scheme, the universe doesn't care. |
| Are you asking? Why? | pctower
Jun 28, 2002 1:05 PM | | b Not at all poinless. But you are correct about the grand scheme, the universe doesn't care.
I think when push comes to shove, we all, somewhat sheepishly, end up admiting that the cable debate is hardly of cosmic importance. And your comment that the universe doesn't care is very well taken.
However, with respect to human knowledge, unchallenged superstition, bias, thought control, sophistry, ignorance and fuzzy thinking (I'm not trying to point fingers necessarily at one side or the other), regardless of what subject is involved, are, in my opinion, cancers, which if allowed to flourish, can undermine the very fabric of civilized society. So while the particular subject we argue over may be of minor consequence, the means we employ to conduct our arguments are, in my opinion, fairly important.
And yes, I know, someone reading the above is bound to point out that there must have been a sale of commas at Home Depot today. |
| Are you asking? Why? | Spiky
Jul 1, 2002 11:18 AM | | b He will contradict you no matter what you say
i Is that a fact, or your speculation?
i I must respectfully disagree. There is no one on the internet that I argue with more than mtry. But he and I have found some common grounds.
You are both correct, of course. I retract the "no matter" and change it to "almost no matter what you say". There are the occasions when mtry supports naysayers and also off-topic posts where people are just chatting. |
| Are you asking? Why? | mtrycrafts
Jul 1, 2002 8:43 PM | | b You are both correct, of course. I retract the "no matter" and change it to "almost no matter what you say".
Makes a big difference, night and day difference as does cables for some people:)
b There are the occasions when mtry supports naysayers and also off-topic posts where people are just chatting.
But pctower just told you otherwise. We agree on on topic issues, some. More than none. |
| Actually... | pctower
Jul 2, 2002 6:35 AM | | we probably agree on more than we disagree on. In fact, right now I'm having some difficulty in thinking of any major area of disagreement.
I think where we differ has more to do with the fact that I tend to question certain statements made by naysayers more than mtry and mtry tends to question certain statements made by yeasayers more than I. Also, I don't put nearly as much weight on the lack of evidence of differences as mtry.
But I certainly agree with mtry that sighted tests are not a valid means of supporting claims of differences. |
| Actually... | TomN
Jul 2, 2002 7:20 AM | | What is surprising to some, is that Jon and mtry have agreed on quite a few discussions.
I remember pointing it out once during a discussion. For a brief moment, all was quiet, the two looked at each other, their eyes lit up with the joy of common cause. Then each shook their head, realizing that the common cause was probably a typo and returned to the work before them.
Actually they do agree and quite a bit. But that is usually drowned out by other comments.
So who can list what they both agree on?
Tom N. |
| Actually... | mtrycrafts
Jul 2, 2002 8:54 PM | | b But I certainly agree with mtry that sighted tests are not a valid means of supporting claims of differences.
At least you jumped the hardest hurdle:) |
| Are you asking? Why? | A
Jun 27, 2002 12:34 PM | | You state:
] You are right-no one needs to tell me you are biased. But you seem to point out it is the bias of others- not you -causing yeasayers to incorrectly perceive sonic difference in wires. It could be the other way around.
You might be interested in reading:
<a href="/crforum?14@@.ef875dd">A "Explanation of Double Blind Test" 3/30/02 2:46pm</a>
If you read my 'replies' to myself (this forum does not allow long posts), you will get to the portions that deal specifically with the subject of the 'absence' of evidence. |
| re: Very interesting......(revisited) | MonstrousMike
Jun 27, 2002 12:29 PM | | Your example of the Sun rotating the earth was a whopper of a wrong belief.
However, if people believe things to be true for years and years with no evidence to back it up, it is much more likely to be untrue. i.e. dispelling untrue beliefs like the sun going around the earth is the exception, not the norm. |
| This is good stuff-like metaphysical cabling | entrope
Jun 27, 2002 2:12 PM | | These perspectives are fascinating and informative showing how each approaches their reality. Much better and more civil than "does to does not"
My compliments to all....... |
| This is good stuff-like metaphysical cabling | caldera
Jun 28, 2002 12:37 PM | | Regarding the "reality" thing. what really confuses me is subjectivists ask for proof, people (Mtry, Richard Green, etc) offer it by posting links or carefully & calmly explaining a concept in a coherent, 1-2-3 method a 10 year old can understand and they STILL don't believe it.
You could say toa subjectivist that gravity will cause a ball to fall to the ground when dropped-A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON SENSE FACT-and if they are outof subjective ammunition, will start questioning Reality Itself (my caps) just to insert doubt into the discussion, ANY kind of doubt. This is so they can "win" their argument that the ball is not going to strike the ground, even after they see it actually do so!!!!!!! They don't make any sense!
I write posts here because I don't want people (especially newbies) to get ripped off by certain cable comapnies. and so they can enjoy their audio system without worrying about imaginary audio gremlins hiding in every part of their system.
<b>__/C\__</b>
The REAL thing: http://soonersports.ocsn.com/sports/m-wrestl/okla-m-wrestl-body.html
(and no, we don't throw chairs at each other, don't wear leather outfits, and aren't closet fruitcakes) |
| This is good stuff-like metaphysical cabling | pctower
Jun 28, 2002 12:55 PM | | b Regarding the "reality" thing. what really confuses me is subjectivists ask for proof, people (Mtry, Richard Green, etc) offer it by posting links or carefully & calmly explaining a concept in a coherent, 1-2-3 method a 10 year old can understand and they STILL don't believe it.
I won't presume to speak for anyone else, but here's my take. Mtry and others have presented a substantial body of information that strongly suggests that none of the theories advanced by yeasayers can withstand critical scrutiny. However, I think they also, rightfully, point out that the burden of proof is not on then and that it is impossible to prove with absolute certainty a null proposition.
I have looked at their material and, with my lack of technical background, attempted to understand it as best I can. I have looked particularly closely at reported audio DBTs and have concluded that the DBTs reported to date are of little value.
b I write posts here because I don't want people (especially newbies) to get ripped off by certain cable comapnies. and so they can enjoy their audio system without worrying about imaginary audio gremlins hiding in every part of their system.
Apparently, you are willing to give unqualified advice to newbies based on your belief that your version of the "truth" is indisputable. I have yet to see any body of information which irrefutably shows that there is no audible difference between cables. In fact, such proof would be impossible because it is impossible to prove a null hypothesis. However, I have not even seen any body of proof that establishes with any degree of certainty that people cannot detect differences under blind testing, which in the end is the only way that some degree of finality can be brought to this debate. Would you care to reference those reported DBTs that convince you to any degree of certainty that audible differences cannot be detected? |
| My last post on this unproductive subject. | caldera
Jun 28, 2002 5:45 PM | | As far as where I read those DBTs? Over the years on various forums, websites and in magazines. And (how convenient!) I didn't keep track of EXACTLY where. They aren't a big priority for me to do so.
Here is MY belief system on those cable DBTs: They were conducted, and the participants couldn't hear a difference between the tested cables. END OF STORY. No amount of playing with words or mind-bending pretzel logic will change those findings for me.
Over and out.
__/C\__ |
| |
