I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. One test means nothing. Blind test, ABA, AB, what have you. A test cannot prove anything, but it certainly cannot prove that there are no differences among cables if the results are negative. Too many things can go wrong, even when everyone is on the up and up and trying to be thorough, etc. Geez, even disrupting the connections when unplugging and plugging cables during testing changes the whole playing field. Come on, people! No offense to anyone testing but don’t try to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.
|
The test has no value for the claimant either.but you are free to believe whatever you want to. |
Anyone who believes negative results can be used to prove anything is a ____________. If negative results meant anything every Yahoo in the world would be claiming this cable is a scam, that fuse is a scam, this tweak is a scam, that tweak is a scam, etc. Follow? I mean, they already do that, now they’re trying to dress up their statements in some sort of scientific finery. You can paint a turkey different colors, it’s still a turkey. 🦃 When someone wants to join the debate and get noticed but doesn't have a real argument that's usually when the name calling starts. 😄
|
Geez, that’s the best you guys can come up with? Expectation bias? 😬 Give me a break. I can give you at least five reasons off the top of my head why negative results don’t mean anything. I was the Government witness for the testing and evaluator of test results for a multi billion dollar critical communications project. Cables are merely child’s play. Cut me some slack, Jack. |
shadorne
Geoff,
The onus is on the person making wild claims to provide proof. If someone else says it is a scam then those making the wild claim should simply provide proof to the contrary.
That is how science works. Jinjuku should have been challenged and easily proved wrong a long time ago( if any of the wild cable claims were the least bit true).
Those who are justifiably skeptical do not have to provide proof that the wildest claims are indeed bogus. Every significant leap in technology comes with a repeatible demonstration to convince others of the new scientific discovery.
>>>>>>Uh, give me a break. This is a hobby, not some pretend science project or peer review or any such thing. There is no audio Oversight Committee and we don't follow AES rules or any such thing. I'm afraid we are on our own. There is no onus on anyone for anything. Not for the claimants not for the naysayers. That’s in your head. That’s what naysayers have been using for decades trying to win the same argument. No one has to prove anything or back up claims. They don't even have make claims or provide explanations. Those are all old wives' tales. maybe some people are skeptical in the real sense of the word, you know, they actually investigate things and are curious about things, but most here are just pretending to be skeptics. They're actually pseudo skeptics. No offense intended.
|
jinjuku
Why Pink? Quite offensive, I’d say. : )
Don’t color shame my Invisible Pink Unicorn Buddy. He’s having a hard enough time with the naysayers that would like some evidence other then my and a few 100 thousand other peoples say so.
>>>>>>Yeah, right. Voting is real scientific. 😀 On the other hand I would not be surprised if there were 100 thousand who are somewhat hearing impaired 👂🏻and/or all thumbs. 👎🏻
Jujistu
I can leap tall buildings in a single bound but it wouldn’t be scientifically significant even if you asked me to prove it to so I don’t bother with it. Need a rather large N of people jumping buildings for my claim to be even relevant.
>>>>>>That’s quite a silly argument. Kind of what I’ve come to expect from naysayers, if I can speak frankly. 😁
|
Cut me some slack, Jack. I know that's what you said. And I responded by pointing out....oh, never mind!
|
Ouch! Another name caller with no real argument enters the fray. Let's get it together, people. Heck, I don’t even use cables. Is that wrong? And does that mean I can’t post on this thread? 😀 Should I ban myself?
|
Wow, I guess I didn’t realize there were so many Crusader Rabbits on this forum. Let the Crusades begin! 🐇🐇🐇🐇. Look out for the rabbit droppings!
|
jinjuku
"I got into a conversation with William Low at WBF forum. He said people, all over the world, all the time, at all sorts of venues (trade shows) hear the difference in their Ethernet cabling.
Even in this very thread someone said they had people over that could hear the difference. Were they camping out for two weeks?
Michael Lavorgna said the differences in Ethernet cabling are 'Plain as Day' and 'Readily Apparent'.
So someone is lying."
well, not lying necessarily. So it goes.
|
|
Actually the OP suggested no such thing. Good try.
|
Next up, controlled blind testing and how it would show there’s no difference between zip cord and the Megabuck cable and that it's all psychological. Ten, nine, eight, seven....
|
Dynaquest4
goeff:
I said: "...the OP suggested, no...he essentially said, that the equipment in your test did not cost enough and therefore would only provide mediocre results."
You said: "Actually the OP suggested no such thing. Good try."
OP actually said to jinjuku:
"Seriously, a couple hundred dollar system is what you are putting up for evidence? How about you get some serious gear and do the test? Audiophilia is not the reduction of quality to the lowest common denominator. You WILL get mediocre sound that way."
Makes sense to me. Not to mention he might very well be all thumbs. Or deaf in one ear. Who knows? there are lots of reasons why people sometimes get negative results.
|
jinjuku
@geoffkait
I know Mike Lavigne couldn’t tell his $30,000 Magnum Opus from Monster cable. Helpful hint: He has a $500,000 system.
You don’t say? Was that during the period when his system was out of phase? There are many reasons why some people don’t hear things. Not being able to put together a system that doesn’t have at least one mistake in it or be able to maintain that system are just two reasons. Could be the time of day. Cables not broken in. Yada, yada, yada. One test doesn’t prove anything. Getting negative results proves nothing. I would be the first to say even a very expensive system can sound bad. I’ve heard plenty that didn’t sound good. It’s not generally because of the equipment or the cables, though. It’s something else. Look within.
|
The reason negative results don't mean anything is because too many things can go wrong. Blame it on the Stones. You do realize cables aren't the only thing in audio where this happens, don't you? It's the nature of the beast. 😩
|
jinjuku
"Wait, so people can have positive results totally sighted, negative results when the answers are taken away before hand?"
I didn’t say that. Nor do I think the statement is true.
"So you are saying sighted evaluation is the legitimate way to go about this and controlling for confirmation bias is not?"
No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying ALL tests are subject to a whole range of potential problems and issues. Consequently, one test cannot prove anything. Especially if results are negative. Too many things can and do go wrong.
"Ergo: sighted means everything goes ’correct’ and bias controlled evaluation means everything can go wrong."
I’m not saying that at all. I don’t think it’s true, either.
"In your setup, if you have a layer 3 managed switch, and I turn on link aggregation and supply a generic CAT6 cable that all bets are off because now everything is wrong?"
I don’t agree with that statement. I don’t even know what that statement is supposed to mean. 😄
|
I admit you got me there. |
Fast Fourier Transforms always settle these sorts of arguments for me. 😀
Next stop, controlled blind testing.
|
There it is! Did I call that one or not? It was just a matter of time. The Appeal to Controlled Blind Testing argument. One of the most oft used logical fallacies of them all.
😀
|
In response to the statement,
"proposed testing protocol is not valid for several reasons including the simple fact that it is not double-blind"
jinjuku said,
"Who said it was going to be double blind?"
No one said it was going to be double blind. That's what he's objecting to, apparently.
😀
|
|
Geoffkait: There it is! Did I call that one or not? It was just a matter of time. The Appeal to Controlled Blind Testing argument. One of the most oft used logical fallacies of them all.
to which jinjuku replied,
"You may have missed the evaluation of a $250 computer output and that of high end streamer where the claimant could listen at their leisure fully sighted. On their own equipment, their own room, their own material, their own time frame.
Fully sighted testing and complete control of the tracks."
I was commenting on the recent post outlining double blind testing protocols.
|
Re Teo’s link to holographic universe. The following paragraphs describe David Bohm’s view of the universe, which he enunciated many years ago, circa 1980.
Borrowed from photography, the hologram is Bohm’s favorite metaphor for conveying the structure of the Implicate Order. Holography relies upon wave interference. If two wavelengths of light are of differing frequencies, they will interfere with each other and create a pattern. “Because a hologram is recording detail down to the wavelength of light itself, it is also a dense information storage.” Bohm notes that the hologram clearly reveals how a “total content–in principle extending over the whole of space and time–is enfolded in the movement of waves (electromagnetic and other kinds) in any given region.” The hologram illustrates how “information about the entire holographed scene is enfolded into every part of the film.” It resembles the Implicate Order in the sense that every point on the film is “completely determined by the overall configuration of the interference patterns.” Even a tiny chunk of the holographic film will reveal the unfolded form of an entire three-dimensional object.
Proceeding from his holographic analogy, Bohm proposes a new order–the Implicate Order where “everything is enfolded into everything.” This is in contrast to the explicate order where things are unfolded. Bohm puts it thus:
“The actual order (the Implicate Order) itself has been recorded in the complex movement of electromagnetic fields, in the form of light waves. Such movement of light waves is present everywhere and in principle enfolds the entire universe of space and time in each region. This enfoldment and unfoldment takes place not only in the movement of the electromagnetic field but also in that of other fields (electronic, protonic, etc.). These fields obey quantum-mechanical laws, implying the properties of discontinuity and non-locality. The totality of the movement of enfoldment and unfoldment may go immensely beyond what has revealed itself to our observations. We call this totality by the name holomovement.”
g kait
machina dynamica
advanced audio concepts
|
dgarretson
@jinjuku
"The main problem with your test(if I understand it correctly) is that it is a multivariable experiment. You swap cables 7-10 times at regular intervals throughout one track. Unfortunately the music is changing on top of the cable changes-- confusing the listener by precluding direct comparisons. What you need to do is to repeat the track(or a segment of that track) with the same cable across the duration of each sample. Then all that the listener must do is to identify and appraise the deviant segment. And the odds at 7:1 are still in favor of the house..."
Not only that but the simple act of unplugging one set of cables and inserting another destroys the subtle electric mechanical interface, so in my book is a big NO NO when you’re trying to get to the bottom of things. Rome wasn’t built in a day. There’s no reason to hurry. Having the cables under test completely broken in is critical, too. Preferably on a cable cooker, not just music. In addition, to be technically correct about the test, the proper directionality of all cables involved should be predetermined. Otherwise the whole exercise would be more than a little fruitless IMHO.
|
Jinjuku wrote,
"What you are seeing is the same convolution of logic applied to a straight forward evaluation method that is applied to all sorts of baseless and unproven claims about data cabling."
There’s the problem! Buy declaring it "data cabling" you’re completely ignoring the fact that the actual signal is the same as any other signal through wire or cable. It’s an electromagnetic wave that obeys the same laws of physics as any other signal, whether the signal contains data or music or doodlebugs. This is all starting to look like the same old bits is bits argument we’ve heard so much about over the past what, 35 years?
|
If the cables are copper they are directional. All bets are off. |
Shadorne wrote,
"Almarg +1 I agree it is most likely the faulty poorly designed boutique equipment used by the evangelists here."
By poorly designed boutique equipment one supposes you’re referring to things made by Meitner, Oppo, Lamm, Curl or DartZeel. Or did you mean Bose, Radio Shack and Pioneer and Kenwood?
Shadorne then wrote,
"Knowing what Jinjuku has stated technically about Ethernet (all that buffering of digital bits) then the ONLY conclusion is that "unintended pathways" are interfering with the audio signal for those few audiophiles that have noted audible differences."
Well, that would certainly explain why my Sony Walkman CD player sounds so good, you know, what with the data buffering and lack of unintended pathways. Are no fuses better than any fuse and are no cables or interconnects better than any interconnects?
|
Jujinku wrote,
"I’m not bothered by the idea of people hearing differences between ethernet cables.
Not at all. If I actually believed this mystical ability I wouldn’t offer $2000 and if they actually believed in this mystical ability they wouldn’t refuse to take it."
Sorry to say you’re a long way from the going rate for audiophiles. Self respecting Audiophiles would turn their noses up at the suggestion of $2000. The going rate was set by The Amazing Randi a long time ago in his Million Dollar Challenge to Michael Fremer if he could hear the difference between some uber expensive $20K cables and some Monster Cable which, in case you don’t know, is the de facto standard for cables that are just OK but nothing special. All you folks out there that like Monster Cable please don’t tweet me or send any angry emails.
|
Obviously with a name like Wiggles he cannot be trusted.
|
almarg
Shadorne, I partially agree and partially disagree with your latest post above. I agree that sensitivity to ethernet cable differences is a manifestation of less than ideal behavior by the components that are involved. And in at least some cases might be an indication that the designer’s expertise is less than ideal. However arguably no design is perfect, and all designs represents the net result of countless tradeoffs, including practical ones such as cost. (And by that I am not referring just to production costs, but to development costs, time constraints on the development process, etc). So components having less sensitivity to differences in that cable may very well have any number of countless other downsides that are conceivable, in comparison with competitive products that are more sensitive to those differences.
Let’s see, no design is perfect. All designs represent the net result of countless tradeoffs. Including practical ones like cost. Costs involved with production. Development costs. Time constraints on the development process. Some components may have countless other downsides conceivably compared to other products. Whoa! Hey! You forgot one thing, Al. The sky is blue.
😀
|
Yes, I did forget that one, Geoff. Thanks for pointing that out. But sometimes common sense and technically supportable middle-ground positions seem to get overlooked in disputes between those at opposite extremes of the belief spectrum.
Al, no they don’t get overlooked. Those common things you listed, the ones that are patently true, don’t mean anything. It’s an interesting logical fallacy, though, using obvious truths to try to make it seem like your argument must be true. It's really the old Appeal to Reason logical fallacy in different clothes. My hat’s off to you. Old lawyer trick? 😬 You could employ the same tactics to try to prove almost anything in this hobby. Because such and such is true there must be no audible differences between fuses. Or, because such and such is true there must be audible differences between fuses. They can’t both be true. Let’s call it the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Occam’s razor. 😬 I actually don’t think this is an argument between two extremes. It’s just a typical audiophile argument, subjectivists vs objectivists, that’s all. Same old, same old. |
|
|
Waterzlife +1 I’ve POOGED my Dyna monoblock amps by having regulated everything including regulated filament supplies, aircraft output tubes, upgraded power supplies, military NOS Sylvania, RCA and Sylvania tubes I got from my bud who was in tech maintenance at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Enid Lumley cable tunnels, and naked Quad 57s - no grills, no dust covers. No more teacher’s dirty looks!
|
Yikes, it's the Anti Taters!
|
Ah, the controlled double blind test rears its ugly head. One wonders why it took so long. What is it about negative blind test results not meaning anything don't people get? Hmmmm...🙄
|
That's usually what controlling bias, your words, implies. |
However you wish to phrase it or perform it or teach it, the results are simply a data point and don't prove anything, especially if the results are negative. If the results are positive I might say, well, that's interesting. |
jinjuku
The point behind the offer, and it’s an honest offer, is to simply show that people don’t have as much faith in their ears as they think they do or would like others to believe.
>>>>>>We we also know that people’s hearing is frequently not as good as they think it is or claim it to be. We also know that people’s systems are frequently not as good as they think it is or as good they claim them to be. So what else is new?
I’m ok with that outcome. It’s a data point in and of itself and that data is certainly valid. Out of a count of 52 people that I’ve seen directly state large delta in Ethernet cabling SQ I have 0 takers. That forms a picture that any reasonable and prudent person can form for themselves.
>>>>>The data point is, however, not (rpt not) valid IF the person is unable to hear differences that are actually there OR if the test system is either not (rpt not) resolving enough or has errors in it. That’s kind of the whole point why negative results should be thrown out. If negative results meant anything every pseudo skeptic in town would be crowing that this or that controversial tweak failed his little controlled blind test. Follow?
On the typical response of scientifically invalid. My suggested evaluation rig closely mirrors the evaluation process that people use to come to the conclusion of SQ differences. If their opinion is good in that case then it will hold water with the same people when done with my proposed setup.
>>>>I suppose you never got the memo that skeptics and pseudo skeptics never actually get positive results for these sorts of things. Something to do with the reverse expectation bias or some other psychological issue. Besides if they did get positive results how could they face their friends? 😫
|
geoffkait: I suppose you never got the memo that skeptics and pseudo skeptics never actually get positive results for these sorts of things. Something to do with the reverse expectation bias or some other psychological issue. Besides if they did get positive results how could they face their friends?
to which jinjuku replied,
"I’m pretty sure I could, bias controlled, get results with say 128Kbps MP3 vs 24/192."
>>>>>Huh? First, the differences between 24/192 and MP3 aren’t really controversial, I.e., "these sorts of things." Second, I said negative results mean nothing, not (rpt not) positive results. If you get positive results with 24/192 vs MP3 it certainly doesn’t mean there are not (rpt not) audible differences in cables, something that is controversial. That would be illogical. And audible to whom?
|
wgutz
Give it a rest. This thread is DEAD.
Uh, it would appear not. The cable controversy shall never die. How long has it been going on? 40 years?
|
Geoffkait: Second, I said negative results mean nothing.
To which jinjuku replied,
"You can say whatever you want. No result certainly has value however just like it does in all other branches of science."
>>>>>>Nope, sorry, it’s the same in all (rpt all) branches of science. You just haven’t figured out what I mean yet. A test is just a data point. It has no value all by itself. It only has value when placed in the context of other tests. Even if many tests are negative but a few are positive I would not be so fast to discount the thing under test. Yes, I realize a positive result could be due to bias, but we are eliminating bias, remember? Obviously pseudo skeptics are different.
Then jinjuku wrote,
"It means one of two things in the context here:
1. There is no difference
2. You can’t hear the difference"
>>>>As I just said it does not (rpt not) mean any such thing. As I already explained at least twice there are many reasons why a test can have negative results. If life was so simple every pseudo skeptic in town would be running around yelling, "I told you it didn’t work!" For whatever controversial thingamabob you want to talk about.
Either is okay by me. Email me at ethernetcablechallenge@mail.com when you are ready to walk vs talk. I’ll get you all the details and we can move forward from there.
->>>>>>No. Thanks, anyway.
|
|
The Amazing Randi ran the cable scam with Stereophile magazine some years ago but at least he was talking real money back then - a million bucks, not some chump change. And he was more entertaining to boot.
|
"Notice this person offering an e-z $20,000 hasn't posted there name or any other details."
to which jinjuku responded,
"Re-read the thread: I'm offering $10K. Someone else has matched for another $10,000.
It's their"
Actually it's neither there or their. It's his. But that's neither here or there. 🤓
|
"This person" is singular so the correct word is his. Singular possessive. Case closed. |
I’m sure you’re wrong. Their is obviously plural. It's not even close. End of story. |
shadorne wrote,
"Ah yes the bait and switch technique. People don't like the challenging idea that claimed results aren't audible enough to be tested - so now they protest about the use of pronouns, suggest that this is some kind of Nigerian scam and self proclaim that the thread is dead!"
>>>>>>Whoa! Huh?! Your reading comprehension skills are about the same level as jujitsu. Did you both go to the same school? You know, when you put words in other people's mouths it's called a Strawman argument, a logical fallacy. Better luck next time.
then, shadorne wrote,
"These are all smoke and mirrors from what has been demonstrated here: when challenged nobody is willing to stand behind their claims of audible differences!"
>>>>>No, what is clear, however, is that pseudo skeptics won't even test their own ridiculous claims. Real skeptics would at least make some modicum of effort to get to the bottom of things. Pseudo skeptics never do. They keep waiting for someone else to do it then complain when nobody does anything. So, what else is new?😳
|
shadorne wrote,
"Jinjuku presented a difference in opinion on the audibility of Ethernet cables and was actually willing to challenge others to test the differences in the system of choice of those making the wild claims. All harmless stuff to me. The fact that no test will happen simply adds more weight to the view that the audibility of differences are pretty small or subtle, if any."
Whoa! Huh? Difference of opinion? That’s exactly the same way that The Amazing Randi presented his Million Dollar Challenge to audiophiles to pass a double blind test for expensive cables and the Intelligent Chip. What made the whole thing so preposterous is that The Amazing Randi and his band of merry skeptics previously made a career out of challenging folks who claimed to have paranormal abilities, you know like Uri Geller, the famous spoon bender. And dowsers! spiritualists, ghost chasers, etc. Why he chose to go after audiophiles is anyone’s guess. Although, I can pretty much guess. Whereas The Anazing Randi had deep pockets courtesy of Johnny Carson one assumes jujitsu doesn’t have such rich friends in high places.
|
jinjuku
This person" is singular so the correct word is his. Singular possessive. Case closed.
"Their, them, themselves, they (as singular pronouns)
Many English speakers believe that using the plural pronouns they, them, themselves, and their in gender-neutral singular constructions is incorrect. For example, these people would consider the them in “call a friend and ask them to come over” to be wrong because them by definition refers to multiple people, whereas in this clause its antecedent (a friend) is singular.
But there are problems with this view."
You are inferring a gender when it hasn’t been provided to you. Keep on swinging and missing.
>>>>Again with the logical fallacies. English must be your second language. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Except when it comes to English grammar.
"Knowledge is defined as everything that’s left after you subtract out all the stuff you forgot from school." - old audiophile axiom
|
It’s funny how people take naysayers sooo seriously, as if they have legitimate arguments. It’s like saying The Amazing Randi just has a difference of opinion about high end cables or that he’s just skeptical that the Intelligent Chip works. Give me a break. It’s nothing of the kind. It’s just that people get a lot of pleasure going after audiophiles. Just like they do going after spoon benders and ghost whisperers. 👻 You’ve seen cats tease dogs, right? Same thing.🐩
|
Atlaudio353
geoffkait: "...going after spoon benders and ghost whisperers."
So you admit to being in league with charlatans?
>>>>If I was I wouldn’t admit to it. Unless it benefitted me somehow, naturally. 💰 💰 |
I believe in the influence of human consciousness and the subconscious on water - among other things - especially in relation to the formation of ice crystals of water, not only when exposed directly to specific spoken words and phrases or thoughts but also specific written messages. But this is very different from what you referred to, water memory. My Morphic Message Labels, which influence sound, would be quite capable of influencing how ice crystals form. ❄️ ❄️ ❄️
|
