I think we can get this thread to 200 if we really try.
Those Arthur Salvatore thread guys won't know what hit 'em.
Go team! |
Dunlavy's argument is that people can not distinguish between cables better than chance IN BLIND TESTS. His support is the result of many tests conducted at his facilities.
If you want to argue against Dunlavy, prove that people can sucsesfuly distinguish between cables IN A BLIND TEST, or that his sample was not statisticaly strong enough to make the generalization.
Mentioning that you can discern differences under other circumstances is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. That is what he claims is the placebo effect which he is so frustrated by.
And even if under his circumstances YOU can, that does not refute the claim, you would also need a reasonably statisticaly valid sample of people to perform the same way. |
My post was stuck on the front of Bears.
*I* wrote So You Want To Argue, everything down to "...frustrated by". We must have hit POST simultaneously or something.
Re: system resolution and J. Peter Moncrieff, like I said, you can't draw conclusions from that small a sample, he may be an extreeme statistical outlier. I'm not convinced yet, but I am willing to accept that a critical number of people can hear cables in a "high enough resolution" system, it's just a shame to have to rely on so much anecdotal evidence from both sides.
Still, overall we're talking about the discernment abilities of everyone who considers cables (most all audiophiles willing to make the investment) and their individual systems.
:Grungle:
end of message (just in case!)
----- |
Ah, gotcha Bear. It's even more confusing in that we both use CAPS for EMPHASIS.
Doc Warnock, good point about practicality. I was geting carried away because I just finished a statistics course. I was all ready to wip out the null hypothesis, sample size, and a confidence interval...bunch a' greek letters too.
The point being that anecdotal evidence isn't really that strong, and enjoyable as they may be, these arguments can't be satisfactoraly settled without something more rigorus. Even then people would keep setting up straw men, flawed analogies, etc. so they won't have to change their comfy little outlooks.
Anyway, until I can at least try this stuff out properly for myself, I'm going to side with the skeptics and spend my resources elsewhere. |
Sean, when I said i wanted to try this out "properly", I meant in a blind test, in my room, with my equipment. THAT'S what it will take to convince to 'upgrade' my cable. But that's just me. I would suggest you try a blind comparison also, let us know how it goes.
I can't dispute that cables can be engineered (allowing for in-line passive electronics too) to change the sound you get, but if "lamp cord" is electronicaly transparent where it matters to an audio signal, anything else would be coloration. Of course, who knows; I might just like the colored sound better.
If the effect is purely psychoacoustic, I'd rather upgrade my speakers or buy more music or something.
Re: Dunlavy's cables, the impresion I got is that he doesn't claim a sonic difference, only that he has tweaked and flatened electronic properties that don't have a discernable effect on the sound, pure specsmanship. It looks like he has no moral qualms about exploiting the market that cares about such things. At least he's not lying about it. |
I put lamp cord in quotes because I meant any reasonably priced 20 gauge wire, like the speaker wire off the rolls at the home center or whatever people call monster cable. I'm not sure that acctual lamp wire would be such a good idea. |
That should be 12 gauge. That's the second time I've made that mistake here. 20 WOULD sound bad. |
My last statement? This looks like another confusion about "lamp cord" and lamp cord. By "Lamp cord" [in quotes] I mean zip cord, I probably should have called it that in the first place. I've never paid atention to the innards of lamp cord [no quotes] proper, so I said I wasn't sure if there was a physical difference between it and zip cord.
And why are "plastic" and "speaker cable" in quotes? Now this is getting really confusing. That's real PVC, and they are used to connect speakers to amps. |
Hm, I'll have to check the rule book, there are already several power cord "debates" going on, using the topic to pad a signal cable fight may not count. Of course, neither will silly meta discussion, so....
Jadem isn't offering an argument or support, he's just sniping. Nothing to disagree with.
J Thunders, congratulations on your ears. You sound like you have enough faith in them to try a blind test, eh? Any chance?
By all means trust your ears, our point is that you hear with your BRAIN, which is susceptible to all kinds of prejudicing and suggestion. IMO, your best bet is to accept this and say the extra money is worth the perceived improvement, even if it quite likely disappears when you don't ALREADY know what you are listening to. After all, under normal circumstances you know what's there. |
I don't think there's anyone here trying to claim that all audio gear is of the same quality, or that no changes made to equipment will have an effect on the sound it produces. That's absurd.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm just interested in what happens in blind tests, and if anyone remembers, that's what the article that started this thread is about.
The relevance of such tests to your listening is debatable. |
Bravo Trappist. Just don't take it to far is all I ask. |
