[kwkarth]

Here's your chance to pursue this fascinating subject!
 

1. The assumption is that the subjective differences are real, so we're not here to discuss that. (different discussion altogether)
2. The supposition is that very minute changes in measurable characteristics lead to very audible changes.
3. It is valid to seek for methods to objectively measure and quantify those audible differences heard.
4. Repeatability of subjective listening tests will be used as an indicator of potential validity.

 
Let's keep things civil.

 

[kwkarth]

Great link shared by USAudio:
 
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

 

[Willakan]

Starting a thread in the Sound Science forum and asking people to throw science out of the window in the first post is unconventional, to say the least. But let's roll with it.
You then, after stating you want to discuss articles looking at the correlations between measurements and subjective impressions of cables, link an article saying that cable differences are a load of baloney?
I'm confused...

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Starting a thread in the Sound Science forum and asking people to throw science out of the window in the first post is unconventional, to say the least. But let's roll with it.
You then, after stating you want to discuss articles looking at the correlations between measurements and subjective impressions of cables, link an article saying that cable differences are a load of baloney?
I'm confused...

I never once advocated throwing science "out the window."  To the contrary this thread seeks to find correlation between objective measurement and subjective evaluation.  Did I not make that clear enough?  Hence, the title of the thread. 

 
usAudio's link was data well worth taking into consideration.
 

 

[Willakan]

Both the assumption and the supposition are resoundingly unscientific, hence that's exactly what it advocates. As the first assumption has absolutely no coherent evidence to support it, anything built on that is pseudoscience. There are few things more misleading than taking numbers and relating them with abandon to anything you perceive to be audible - and due to the unscientific nature of this enquiry, that is all such comparison/relation can ever be.
As you specifically said you didn't want this thread to be derailed, I won't go any further than again expressing my surprise that you would link something which flatly denies the assumption you wish to be held as true during the thread in your second post.
 
 
 
 

 

[kwkarth]

Sorry that you disagree with the attempt to improve our understanding of this topic.  You are welcome to not participate if you wish. 

 

[JRG1990]

You've both confused me, so this thread is about cable construction and the audiable differences between differently constructed cables?.

 

[Head Injury]

Could an admin move this thread to a subforum more appropriate, like the Cables subforum?
 
Oh, wait...

 

[gregorio]

1. It is valid to seek for methods to objectively measure and quantify those audible differences heard.

2. Repeatability of subjective listening tests will be used as an indicator of potential validity.

1. No, it is not valid. Differences in cables are orders of magnitude below the hearing threshold. The tiny differences measured have no correlation to the sound signatures perceived and described by some audiophiles. However, there does seem (to me) to be a correlation between the differences described by some audiophiles and the differences documented in marketing literature and reviewers opinions.

2. DBTs have been carried out many times, repeatability has been demonstrated to occur only when some audiophiles believe the same cable is being used, regardless of the reality of which cable is actually being used.

Unfortunately, science at the present time has no way to objectively measure human perception of aural illusions or placebo effects. The problem being that perception is not a constant, it varies from person to person and even within the same person, depending on their belief of what they are listening to. There is no way to measure this, so unfortunately your experiment will have to wait until science has a better understanding of the processes which allow perception to vary so much relative to reality.

G

 

[kwkarth]

Too many of you seem to be more eager for argument than learning, so I guess I'll close the thread.