[kwkarth]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/779704...o_of_the_year/
If the first URL doesn't work, try this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpBm4KoWsrY

 

[rb67]

Wow! Absolutely amazing. Someone needs to give him the head-fi treatment

 

[jsaliga]

That was truly incredible. Thanks for post it.

--Jerome

 

[goldenratiophi]

Seen it, but still amazing. Let's hope he remembers to keep the volume down!

 

[GAD]

Holy CRAP! That was cool.

GAD

 

[Wmcmanus]

Interesting that you would bring up the topic of the now famous Ben Underwood video as it relates to "golden ears". I wonder, might it have implications for the rest of us in terms of our own hearing abilities?

Just a couple of weeks ago, I made reference to that same Ben Underwood video in an attempt to make a useful post and to get people to think a little bit about how we humans process sound, or at least what we're capable of. The post that I made was in an otherwise totally useless thread in which the opposing camps of cable "believers" and "nonbelivers" (as they seem to like to refer to each other) were squared off in their usual diatribe. You know how it goes; one side argues to hear themselves talk, while the other side (not bothering to listen) argues back to hear themselves talk, and on and on for 20 pages.

One of the non-believers had been continually shouting out "Show me the money" to the believers, and as hard as the believers tried to persude him (and other non-believers) they had arrived at a hopeless standstill. No evidence was good enough to "prove" that someone might be able to hear the sonic differences between various cables.

My position was that, as a mild believer, I think I hear differences, and at least know that I enjoy some cables more so than I do others. Just don't know for sure if that is because of real differences that I hear, but perhaps may not be able to distinguish in a "test" as such, or whether it's all placebo.

Not trying to settle the "great cable debate" once and for all, but instead attempting to steer the "discussion" (an outright argument is what it really was) in a more positive, and dare I say interesting direction, I offered up this same video and posed some questions to everyone.

But of course they were much more interested in fighting their respective fights than in having an intelligent discussion about issues of substance, so my initial post about this video (and some follow up posts as well) simply got glossed over. Nobody bothered to respond; perhaps because the quesitons involved were too layered; perhaps because they may have had to conclude that they were no longer 100% convinced that their side of the argument was the correct one, and that indeed, there is some genuine mystery as to how human hearing really works.

To break things up, I'll post those posts below, rather than all at once here.

 

[Wmcmanus]

The aforesaid "totally useless thread" (my opinion, so shoot me if you participated and disagree with my assessment of what went on there) was this one:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=261765

In fairness, my first post about the Ben Underwood video didn't appear until Page 20 (post 385) so it's easy to see how it might have gotten buried in the muck. Here it is, verbatim, although perhaps a bit out of context:

"Just curious if you guys have seen this video about Ben Underwood, the 14 year old kid who navigates by listening to echos with amazing agility. As I watch this and think about my "normal" sense of hearing I'm utterly amazed by it, but to him it's actually quite simple. His ears are trained in ways that I can't imagine. He hears things that we can't? Or simply that we don't? Or that we do but don't realize? I'm not sure, are you? Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpBm4KoWsrY

If you've watched the video (either now or previously, as I think it may have been discussed in a previous thread) and still don't think that humans can perceive sonic differences caused by the varying materials used in cables (or, as I'm sure some of you will insist on putting it, even Ben couldn't hear the differences because the differences don't exist to begin with), then I must applaud you for your commitment to the "cause" of being right.

At the same time, I've got to wonder (and I don't know because I'm not too "smart" when it comes to scientific things) whether all of our fancy man made measuring devices could even pick up on the things he can pick up on with his own two ears; and thus whether in fact his own two ears comprise an even more sophisticated measuring device than the measuring devices that are designed to measure such things; and thus whether our own two untrained ears might be just as good as Ben's ears, only we don't realize what their true potential is; that in fact, not only are we capable of hearing those same things that Ben hears, but that we actually do hear them, just not a a conscious level.

In other words, our ears may well be hearing sounds that our minds don't process in a meaningful way due to our lack of training, and with our eyes wide open we may never come to this realization at a conscious level. But of course, at night, with our eyes closed and headphones on, for maybe an hour here and an hour there, if we can relax enough to really let it happen, we can (kind of, sort of) begin to hear like a blind child who has never known any different can hear. Maybe, under this theory, the more we listen to our headphones, at night with eyes closed and attention rapt, for several hours each night, night after night for years on end as we immerse ourselves deeper into the headphone listening hobby, then maybe, just maybe, if indeed cables can make slight differences, then perhaps we might be able to hear those differences.

I know I do. Put that in your "show me the money" pipe and smoke it!"

 

[Wmcmanus]

My second post in that thread, which did get a couple of brief replies, was this:

"Referring to my previous post about the video I linked to, Chu said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu All of this ignores the fact that from a skeptic's position the ears are still the ultimate tool. It's just a lot of care has to be taken that it's just the ears that are effecting your perception of sound when asking the types of questions we do in this forum.

The point was exactly that and didn't ignore that at all. The blind kid uses just his ears to hear things that we think of as unimaginable. Yet there is no reason, a priori, that at his birth he could be expected to have been given exceptional hearing. His hearing ability at birth was, much more likely than not, completely normal and average in every sense of the word. Yet, over time he developed an uncanny ability to hear things that we (much more likely than not) have the ability to hear just as he does. The difference is that he has developed his sense of hearing to a far greater degree than we have out of a sense of necessity. It has become natural to him whereas is would seem impossible to us, but the inate ability resides within all of us. Why? Because our ears are extraordinary instruments capable of amazing things.

So yes, the ears are still the ultimate tool but blind tests don't necessarily reveal their ultimate abilities because, in the ultimate sense, much of what our ears have to offer us has remained an untapped resource due to a lack of proper training, discipline and exercise of their capabilities. Thus, by extension, the more experienced and "trained" one's ears are (whether formally by those who have studied audiology, for instance, or informally by those who are highly experienced audiophiles) the more likely they will be able to hear subtle differences caused by cables (in the dark and blind tested), or at least be able to recognize that they are hearing it.

More importantly, what young Ben Underwood suggests to me, is that we all, at some level at least, have the inate ability to hear a lot of things that our minds simply can't process at a conscious level. That the measuring instruments designed to calibrate fequency response curves cannot pick up on the subtle differences that cables make doesn't necessarily mean that the human ear cannot! The human ear is capable of hearing in an infinite array of "shades of grey", perhaps even to an order of magnitude that is beyond measure by standard instruments. One's hearing, or more aptly, listening, ability in turn sends signals to the brain which translate into varying degrees of musical enjoyment.

I'm not necessarily saying that all of this is true, only that what I'm seeing in the video about Ben tells me that it's entirely possible and that on a perceptual level these differences may indeed be much larger than on any measured level that we're familiar with. To some people, Monet's work is infinitely more complex than Matisse's work. To others, they look pretty much the same in terms of the degree of complexity in the visible picture that emerges. But what matters to those who think these things matter are the layers underneath that most people tend not to see immediately (and thus don't think they matter). If you can see it, it matters; if you can hear it, it matters! But the beauty in all of this is that we can all see it if we look close (assuming "normal" eyesight) and we can all hear it if we listen carefully. Or so I would posit given what Ben has achieved with his exceptionally well developed listening skills. We might not ever get there, but we could get a lot closer than we are now if it mattered enough to us (as it obviously did to him).

Thus for the casual listener, Rat Shack cables do the trick and it immediately becomes senseless to them to spend one dime more on "improvements" that they can't hear and might not appreciate even if they did (in a blind test, that is). For others, there is something underneath the music, layers that they hadn't heard before, that suddenly emerges in the right audio system. They can and do hear differences in cables and feel the presence of these differences as the music pulses through their veins.

But then again, I could just be full of sh!t like everyone else. I don't know the answers to this phenomenon any more than anyone else does, so I'm only speculating, I'm not trying to pretend anything. As with philodox, I'm a mild believer that cables make a difference but find it to be a rather sad state of affairs that some people love to argue for their side rather than joining a discussion with an interest in learning from the points of view expressed by others. Said another way, he who yells loudest doesn't necessarily win, unless of course, he's using the right cables."

 

[Wmcmanus]

My third and final post on the topic, again largely ignored in that thread, but so be it, was this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra In all fairness, despite the fact that this boy has these amazingly developed hearing abilities, that doesn't really support the claim that cables do cause perceivable sound differences. Interestingly, that young man would also need to pass a blind test between cables to support the claim that at least someone can reliably differenciate between two cables. I point this out because it wouldn't be enough if you just brought him one cable first, then the other and he claimed "Wow they sound very different". Because in spite of his developed hearing abilities, just two exposures won't clear all doubts with respect to how misleading our own perception can be. The key is to make sure someone or some people can reliably identify differences between cables. That's why DBT would be required (apologies mods for mentioning this )

Ya, what you said! I didn't go into the thing about Ben Underwood because I thought it proved anything with respect to the great (yawn) cables debate, but instead to simply point out something about his hearing (and by extension our hearing) that most people are not aware of. Our ears are capable of making tremendous differentiations in sound much like our eyes are capable of seeing in an infinite array of colors.

This understanding of our eyes and ears doesn't necessarily mean that the world has more colors than simply black and white, but my perceptal cues tell me I can see more. I'm thinking the same might be true with respect to my ears and that I'm at least capable of hearing things just as well as Ben, in fact, demonstrably, does. These infinite shades of hearing that we might just be capable of, even if not at a fully conscious level, would thus allow us to hear any differences that might be there (assuming that we haven't suffered any serious hearing damage which is another serious assumption for someone my age who has been an audio nut for so long).

But I agree, knowing that we might be able to hear what might be there, if it was there, doesn't tell us if in fact it is there. What I don't necessarily agree with is your acid test! I don't think, necessarily, that I'd need to see any scientific evidence that someone (Ben Underwood even) could reliably differentiate various cables in a double blind test (which would be kind of redundant in his case). Of course that sort of evidence would help to "prove" once and forever that the differences, themselves, existed. Yet at the same time, it is entirely possible that the differences do in fact exist but yet even the best among us cannot pass a test to prove it on a conscious level.

Sounds like a bunch of nonsense? I agree, when looked at from the same angle we keeping looking at it from, what I've said above could be thought of as complete nonsense. But guess what! My eyes can meaningfully distinguish infinite shades of color, such as that wonderful array of increasingly darker tones as you go from light to darkness when looking at a shadow that is cast right in front of you. You see it! No doubt about it. It's there. But could you describe, accurately, each and every shade from light to darkness? How many shades of grey can be seperately differentiated when you begin to describe what you are seeing, whether verbally or in writing? And what about the streak of sunlight that pierces through a crack in the wall to cast yet different sorts of shadows along the same wall that you're examining, and at the same time revealing yet another array of airbone dust particles that were there for you to see the whole time? You're seeing it now, aren't you? But what is even more exciting is that the "picture" that you're seeing is not static. It's ever changing. The millions of shades of grey that you were looking at 5 minutes ago are all slightly different now because the angle of the sun has changed, and in fact is always changing.

The beauty of it all is that we see all of this and don't "think" about it on a conscious level at all. It's just taken for granted. A deaf man sees more than we do because he needs to rely on his sense of sight more extensively to compensate for his inability to hear. Ben hears things that we don't? Or that we do but can't seperate in a meaningful way like he can? If our eyes are capable of distinguishing an infinite array of shades from total lightness to darkness, but yet we can't pass "double deaf tests" to "prove" that we in fact can see these things that we KNOW we can see (because we see them every day with our own two eyes), then why in the world can't people accept even the POSSIBILITY that our ears are capable of differentiating on this same level of magnitude? Just as our hands give us a similar such sense of touch and our tongue gives us a similar such sense of taste!

No "double deaf test" is needed for me to know what I see, and even if I can't meaningfully describe, let alone differentiate, all of those shades of grey, I can see them! So can you, don't lie about it! I can hear all sorts of things as well, and my reaction to music isn't entirely on a conscious level. I might say, "Oh, I loved the bass in that song" but that's simply because I don't have the ability to describe the beauty of what I was hearing, and although I know it was a heck of a lot more complicated than that, those were the best words I could come up with on the spot to describe what I liked. Chances are is wasn't just the bass, and even if it was, it wasn't just the depth but it was the texture as well, and the resonances, and the decay, and the reverberations, and the interplay of all of this that I'm hearing at once, in a single moment, with everything else that is happening in the room around me, not to even mention the mids and highs and vocals.

So what if the differences that I do indeed hear and can differentiate with my ears (just like the shades of grey with my eyes) but can't necessarily describe, let alone pass a "double blind test" on, are called "placebo" by others! They can placebo themselves to death all day long as far as I'm concerned because my reaction to music is on an emotional level and if some cables evoke more positive emotional responses that do others, then they're better. Better for me and my purposes because they allow me to hear more shades of grey just like my contact lenses help me to see more shades of grey. I could be wrong, but that's Ok, that won't make me sad. Using crappy cables when I know they're holding back my system, would, however, make me sad.

In other words, it's complicated. Our hearing, that is. Same for our sight, touch and taste. Would I pay a bunch of money to slightly improve my sight? Nah. Not worth it to me in terms of the value proposition. Logic should dictate the same when it comes to sound, but thankfully I'm not Dr. Spock. That helps me to enjoy the music, by the way. People can try to make it simple, but it's not simple. If you can't accept that, then you will forever be lost in this infinite cables debate.

Quote:

PS. For the record, I'm neither a skeptic, nor a believer; I'm a bit of both. I think I hear differences between some cables, but I'm also quite too aware of how our brains and perception can play tricks on us. I have just suspended belief on this issue till further, more conclusive evidence is available. It wouldn't surprise me or shock me which side, whether cable believers or skeptics, were the ones eventually proved right. That would just let me checkmark one of the facts of life that I have in pending verification status.

I agree with that too. Same place I'm at. I think cables make a slight difference. I think I can hear some of those differences. On an emotional level, I react differently to different cables, but I could be wrong about it and wouldn't be surprised if one day I were proved to be. But thankfully that doesn't bother me too much. As Neil Young would say, "I've been wrong before and I'll be there again, I don't have many answers, my friend. Just this pile of old questions my memory's left me here. In this field of opportunity it's plowing time again." In other words, you learn what you can learn from the experience and move on.

Speaking of which, have you tried the Virtual Dymanics Master's series? Lovely sounding cables..."

 

[kwkarth]

Great posts Wayne. Too bad the wisdom, observation, and wonder was lost on those whose own cause and voices spoke so loudly, they could but only hear themselves.

This boy, in all probability, as you say, has "normal" hearing acuity and range. By reason of focused training, he has developed an ability to interpret what he hears into a finely honed sense of the world around himself. Oh, that we could be so open minded as to actually "hear" with our ears, something other than what comes out of our own mouths.

He is truly a remarkable example of someone who does the seeming impossible through discipline, training, and believing.

I do hear, without a doubt, repeatably, differences between one cable and another in the right circumstances. Those who say I cannot, are only limited by their own small minds. My hearing is not in the least exceptional, it is only minimally trained.

This video is a powerful testament to the wonders of our hearing system.

 

[spritzer]

Great posts Wayne. Our hearing is indeed a wonderful instrument but as with other such items you need the experience to know what to look for and how to analyze it. It's the same with all of our senses and that boy is the walking proof.

To hear the difference between anything you need the small nuances and for that you need to know them i.e. experience. The idiots that want to argue about cables all day lack the necessary experience and babble on about things they don't understand, like resistivity and capacitance.

 

[rb67]

Man does everything have to turn into a cable argument?

To speak for the other side it's quite easy to explain how one can perceive objects based on the reflection because there is an actual physical deviation in the sound waves. I would bet most people can tell a difference between a brick wall and a curtain by the sound. His ability (and it IS amazing) is simply a honing of that skill.

Reflections of sound waves are a totally different matter compared to the transmittal of electronic signals. I have personally heard a number of "high end" cables and saw no difference. (I definitely wanted to see a difference) Of course, this certainly doesn't mean I believe that others' claims are false because I can't hear it. I have not yet seen anything other than anecdotal evidence that cables make a difference.



Anyways, back to the kid.... I recall hearing about blind people learning echolocation. I assume this is quite rare, but how often does this happen?

 

[truant]

WOW!! I admire him

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rb67 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Man does everything have to turn into a cable argument? To speak for the other side it's quite easy to explain how one can perceive objects based on the reflection because there is an actual physical deviation in the sound waves. I would bet most people can tell a difference between a brick wall and a curtain by the sound. His ability (and it IS amazing) is simply a honing of that skill. Reflections of sound waves are a totally different matter compared to the transmittal of electronic signals. I have personally heard a number of "high end" cables and saw no difference. (I definitely wanted to see a difference) I have not yet seen anything other than anecdotal evidence that cables make a difference. Anyways, back to the kid.... I recall hearing about blind people learning echolocation. I assume this is quite rare, but how often does this happen?

This is not a cable arguement. This is evidence that the "seeming" impossible with one's ears, can be a learned skill.

What is rare, is both he and his mother chose not to buy into a boxed/limited existence as others (the experts) around them tried to tell them it was not possible.

In order to hear differences between cables, one has to have adequate (not expensive) equipment, and a trainable mind/ear..

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by truant /img/forum/go_quote.gif WOW!! I admire him

His skill and his spirit are truly wonderful!