advertisement


[Poll] A poll on whether Power Cords make a difference

Do Power Cords Make A Difference?

  • Yes they do make a difference

    Votes: 145 39.8%
  • No they don't make a difference

    Votes: 166 45.6%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 53 14.6%

  • Total voters
    364
Again, Bill Low, CEO of Audioquest, has admitted that a marketing video for Audioquest HDMI cables was doctored in such a way as to deceive customers into thinking Audioquest HDMI cables made a real sonic difference. We know that a major Audioquest store and an Audioquest employee (their sales manager for the south-western USA) were involved in the making of the video. So, a clear admission of collusion between manufacturers and stores to 'delude' (as you put it) customers.

I agree this doesn't tick all three of duckworp's boxes (manufacturers, stores, journalists), but two out of three is pretty good. And it's also worth noting that the person who originally broke this story, Mark Waldrep, was subsequently attacked several times in the audiophile press. Shoot the messenger.

Not sure if it is 2 out 3.

The store clearly yes, about Audioquest I have my doubts because:

The employee (that subsequently left the company as you say) may have been naif or he may have acted in a rogue manner.
Considering how knowledgeable sales people in some other businesses actually are I wouldn't be too surprised if it could have been the former. ;)
 
How does thinking one hears something differ from actually hearing something?

The significance is really in the issue of the 'reason' people ascribe to the *cause* or *mechanism* for a percived change/difference.

Thus the listener may well hear a 'difference', but then presumes it was caused by one factor when in reality it was caused by something else.

An underlaying problem is that the both the physiological and mental state change as we listen. So simply listening to something can alter the responses of your ear-brain, causing a noticable change in what you perceive if exactly the same thing is played again.

None of this requires any dishonesty or intent on the part of the listener. Just requires them to be human with the usual human hearing systems.

So hearing a differences doesn't in itself establish *why* you heard it.

I'm ignoring other factors like a slight change in the position of the head, or becoming familar from one listen with what you might mentally focus on during another listen.
 
IThe problem is that when subjective audiophiles consider themselves to have "failed" a blind listening test they are confused and upset because they know they heard differences before. This is unlikely to lead to a dispassionate public reporting of what they heard blind.
And they seem to frequently become angry at anyone who disagrees with them.
 
And they seem to frequently become angry at anyone who disagrees with them.

From my experience the people who get most angry (though not on this particular thread which has been mostly cordial) are some of the people who don't hear a difference in cables, and for some reason they get angry at people who do.
 
Not sure if it is 2 out 3.

The store clearly yes, about Audioquest I have my doubts because:

The employee (that subsequently left the company as you say) may have been naif or he may have acted in a rogue manner.
Considering how knowledgeable sales people in some other businesses actually are I wouldn't be too surprised if it could have been the former. ;)

Your desire to whitewash Audioquest is thoroughly admirable. I salute you.
 
The significance is really in the issue of the 'reason' people ascribe to the *cause* or *mechanism* for a percived change/difference.

Thus the listener may well hear a 'difference', but then presumes it was caused by one factor when in reality it was caused by something else.

An underlaying problem is that the both the physiological and mental state change as we listen. So simply listening to something can alter the responses of your ear-brain, causing a noticable change in what you perceive if exactly the same thing is played again.

None of this requires any dishonesty or intent on the part of the listener. Just requires them to be human with the usual human hearing systems.

So hearing a differences doesn't in itself establish *why* you heard it.

I'm ignoring other factors like a slight change in the position of the head, or becoming familar from one listen with what you might mentally focus on during another listen.
I don't disagree with what you say but it is not really answering the question asked. An objectivist has stated that subjectivists only think they hear differences when there are no differences in the sound field loud enough to identify blind. I am asking what the difference is between thinking you hear something and hearing something. The point being of course that everything we hear is "thought".
 
I don't disagree with what you say but it is not really answering the question asked. An objectivist has stated that subjectivists only think they hear differences when there are no differences in the sound field loud enough to identify blind. I am asking what the difference is between thinking you hear something and hearing something. The point being of course that everything we hear is "thought".

Not sure what you are saying. You either can confirm a difference or not through scientific measurement, our ears may differ in ability to hear sound at different levels that is when science can help out.
 
Your desire to whitewash Audioquest is thoroughly admirable. I salute you.


Genuinely I have no desire to whitewash Audioquest. Perhaps you are right and if you are right their CEO was (is) truly a hypocrite.

I just don't think that I know enough to condemn them as a company guilty of knowingly manipulating a test to deceive their clients.
 
I don't disagree with what you say but it is not really answering the question asked. An objectivist has stated that subjectivists only think they hear differences when there are no differences in the sound field loud enough to identify blind. I am asking what the difference is between thinking you hear something and hearing something. The point being of course that everything we hear is "thought".

For that, I guess the question is wrt the meanings of the terms used. e.g. Is 'only think' being used as a synonym for 'only believe', etc. But to get an answer, the specific 'objectivist' you have in mind would need to clarify the wording you've quoted them as using.
 
Not sure what you are saying. You either can confirm a difference or not through scientific measurement, our ears may differ in ability to hear sound at different levels that is when science can help out.
Not really true, though. We now have measurements that were not available in previous years, and they are improving all the time. So when did measurements become good enough to to be definitive? Or have they yet? Our hearing has evolved over millions of years, so forgive me if I have doubts about the infallible superiority of our current set of measurements. One wonders how on earth makers and players of musical instruments coped for the millennia before there were ANY measurements.
Besides, the creation, choice, application and analysis of the measurements is decided by humans.
 
From my experience the people who get most angry (though not on this particular thread which has been mostly cordial) are some of the people who don't hear a difference in cables, and for some reason they get angry at people who do.

A case of subjective assessment. And a case of 'hooray for my side!'
 
Not really true, though. We now have measurements that were not available in previous years, and they are improving all the time. So when did measurements become good enough to to be definitive? Or have they yet? Our hearing has evolved over millions of years, so forgive me if I have doubts about the infallible superiority of our current set of measurements. One wonders how on earth makers and players of musical instruments coped for the millennia before there were ANY measurements.
Besides, the creation, choice, application and analysis of the measurements is decided by humans.

Quite correct we have better measuring equipment, and all are saying no difference. This is the same as the HDMI debate that was put to bed some years ago.
 
PS to 889:

In general terms everything we 'think' is a 'thought'. But the purpose of tests is to gather evidence which can be assessed not only as a 'result' but for 'reliability'.

On that basis we can't say that a lack of ability to tell a 'difference' between two things in a given test 'proves' there was no actual difference which any other test might pick up. Only that the test result is consistent with any difference being either absent or too small to be noticable during that test. i.e. that test outcome failed to support the idea that there was a distinct *audible* difference.

In the even of doubt or contention, more tests would then be needed. Scientists and academics love the outcome "more work is required" because they can then translate 'work' into requests for more money, write more journal papers, argue in the bar, etc. 8-]
 
Creeping up only 0.1 % before the Significant 40% of Yesers

And I still do not hear differences due to mains cables. What I am puzzled by is the need for people to say mains cables sound different.

Others have touched upon influences to why our hearing will be different to another moment in time. Hunger, temperature, thirst, air pressure, weather generally, ambient noise environment, electricity others will contribute other influences. But mains cables?
 


advertisement


Back
Top