darrylfunk
Banned
so your 'claim' has changed again dave....???
USB cable group test in HFN
- Thread starter 337alant
- Start date
- Status
so your 'claim' has changed again dave....???
Peter Stockwell
Back for more ...
It's amazing what you can learn when ready about usb cables (How many posts ?, we'll be up there with the MDAC threads ...). Someone mentioned Vilfredo Pareto, which if you google & wiki leads to Sturgeon. I think Maxflinn needs to take note of Sturgeon's law (as defined by Sturgeon)
I think Maxflinn already has a good handle on Sturgeon's revelation (often referred to as Sturgeon's law, leading to some confusion)
Going back to Pareto, the 80:20 principle is interesting too. 80:20 are often used but the two numbers don't have to add up to 100. So how does this apply to usb cables?
- Nothing is always absolutely so
I think Maxflinn already has a good handle on Sturgeon's revelation (often referred to as Sturgeon's law, leading to some confusion)
- 90% of everything is crap
Going back to Pareto, the 80:20 principle is interesting too. 80:20 are often used but the two numbers don't have to add up to 100. So how does this apply to usb cables?
darrylfunk
Banned
if people fixate about the wires they join their kit up with i can 100% say they are way past caring about listening to the song or musicians....
dave
Plywood King
What claim?
hammeredklavier
owner of two very cheap hi-fis
Not necessarily. You need to be quite selective with Furtwangler recordings.That one's easy. Buy the version this bloke conducted.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Yes all true, but where does any of this take us? The issue is not over whether the body of knowledge changes in the light of evidence, but over what constitutes evidence in the context.
And on that note, rather appositely
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22991014
Notes that the MOD's UFO unit closed after 50 years because of the absence of a shred of evidence for UFOs.
Were there loads of believers? Yes. Were there loads of "reports" of "sightings"? Yes. Was there any evidence? No.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Now lets be honest here. That research does *not* dispel the myth that foot tapping is a sales ploy, does it?
Werner
pfm Member
Yes.
Erm.
No.
What matters (and what a certain S. always seems to miss) is perception. And in the cause of music replay perception is a complex function, not only of the actual sound in the room, but also of the listener's intellectual, mental, and physical states, which encompass (but reach far wider than) prior experience, expectation, knowledge (or lack thereof), familiarity with the music, immediate history, mood, ... and so on.
thus
P = f (S,A,B,I,N,M,H,O)
Now in order to establish what the subject actually hears one should suppress all other stimuli.
P = f(S,-,-,-,-,-,-,-)
Sadly, one cannot entirely suppress a person's inner states (well, not without killing him), so what one gets at the best of times is something like:
P = f(S,a,b,i,-,-,-,-)
But this deprivation of stimuli, to most people, is rather unsettling and definitely brings them in conditions very much unlike actual music listening conditions (where pleasure is the ultimate aim). This changes mood. One might even wonder if we are not looking at:
P = F(S,a,b,i,-,-,-,-)
So on the one hand we have casual and uncritical listening, where P = f (S,A,B,I,N,M,H,O) holds. delta-Ps may be very well real, but it would be false to attribute them exclusively to delta-Ss. Yet that is what the archetypical subjectivist does.
On the other hand we can exert maximal control, in which case we run the risk of getting P = F(S,a,b,i,-,-,-,-). delta-Ps may be more accurately known, but at the same time they may be less relevant. f has changed into F.
I see the uncertainty principle at work.
If optimising one's P involves buying an expensive piece of jewelry that also happens to double as USB cable then this is perfectly fine.
But it is less fine to preach that for an USB cable to be capable of generally optimising people's P it has to be built like an expensive piece of jewelry.
All puns fully intended.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
The aspect of the 80/20 rule which I hear most often is that you make 80% of your money from 20% of your customers. This is often taken to imply that the easiest way of increasing sales is to sell more stuff to the existing good customer base.
In hifi the 20% are "enthusiasts" and can be relied on to buy new product categories -cables, supports, power conditioners, cd lathes, and to trade each of them up to more expensive ones.
Selling them expensive accessories is easier than selling a new customer a new pair of speakers.
Was that what you had in mind?
maxflinn
pfm Member
Interesting how you rephrase what I said about HDMI cables to state my supposed 'position' on all digital cables..... Intended or not?
Sorry once again. So, what is your position on the non HDMI digital cables?
Do I 'believe' there can be differences between digital cables? It's not a 'belief', but I'm open to the possibility that there might be, whether HDMI, S/PDIF, USB, whatever. If I can see or hear such differences, all good and well
So perceiving differences means there are differences?
I'm also open to the possibility, as stated above, that they might perform differently, even if the makers didn't design them to do so, and even if the makers can't see or hear those differences themselves (and even if the makers are doggedly insistent that they don't perform differently).
In other words, even if there's nobody on the planet that says they can perform differently, you're still open to the possibility that they can? Why?
And, why might the scientists that created digital data transfer be doggedly insistent about the way it works? It's not like they're trying to convince anybody, is it? I mean, who wouldn't believe them anyway, and why?
I have severe difficulty accepting the blanket premise that everyone who claims to see and/or hear differences is imagining things, deluding themselves, or falsely claiming as such to keep themselves in a job.
There's a blanket premise that nothing sounds or looks different? That anyone who says so imagines it, Or is deluded? And these claims are made to keep them in a job?
Or there's a blanket premise that anyone who claims to see and hear things that are proven impossible, are perceiving these things due to expectation bias, that the guys looking to stay in work have prepped them for by way of test like the one in question?
I also have difficulty accepting the premise that because a certain subset of scientific evidence at this point in time says that there 'can't' be differences, that there are none.
But digital data transfer isn't something we don't yet fully understand, it's based on mathematics, it isn't organic or mysterious! Everything about it is completely understood by the people that created it, you know, the ones who tell us how it works so doggedly. There's nothing that isn't known about it and nothing further to find out.
10 x 10 will always be 100, even if you think you see 99.
And there's no such thing as an audiophile 100, a foot tapping 100, or a 100 that has more musicality!
Come on, you're an intelligent guy, surely you can't be serious about some of what you've said above?
maxflinn
pfm Member
What's the difference between these two numerical values?
100 and 100
??
If the answer was anything other than nothing, then I'd be scribing this that I write on a rock, and your prime minister would probably be called Gandalf!
That's Maxflinn's law
OK. You're quite right. I did get a bit Daily Mail-esque! I've amended my post accordingly.
teachersrus2
pfm Member
You would if the floor numbers were reversed as in some countries...
Says it all really, regarding absolutes...
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
I can see how the factors other then sound in room can influence P
But I'm not sure that they are quite as extensive as you suggest.
P = f (S,A,B,I,N,M,H,O) may therefore be going too far. Maybe it could be reduced to intellectual and cultural factors, hence
P= f(S, I,C,-)
Mescalito
pfm Member
You would if the floor numbers were reversed as in some countries...
Says it all really, regarding absolutes...
Wooly thinking. In a planet's gravitational field, "up" & "down" are defined in relation to the centre of the earth, not the numbering convention of floors in buildings.
Chris
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Thanks for posting the link it's very interesting. Nevertheless:
Moderators: I wish to report a violation of the most important provision of the AUP namely that posters must never ever concede a point, especially not politely.
- Status