Only $2,000 to improve your amp's performance

[Limeman]

I got a real hospital cable for free once. Didn't sound different, but about as breakable as an M1A1 Abrams

The "hospital cable" is built to a specific standard for high-durability, not for the design or layout of the components in the cable itself.

 

[Limeman]

Because the science is.

Science is not absolute. It is a tool to uncover facts from which the "use" of is pertinent to the specific paradigm from which it was obtained.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Skimmed the thread... why are the techie folks so stubbornly absolutist?

Because they know what they're talking about. Because they don't believe that the things people can be fooled into believing trump the things that people actually know.

Look, if the golden-ears type could ever offer anything resembling proof that they can hear what they claim to hear, they would be taken seriously. But they generally can't. The idea that people respond emotionally in different ways to different sounds presupposes that they can tell those sounds apart; otherwise all their responses would essentially be random. If they truly can, it's easy to test, and they'll easily be able to prove it. if they can't prove it, they can't do it.

What I want to know is, why are the golden ears crowd so afraid of any kind of rational examination of their claims? Suppose that they can hear differences between power cables. This would be very easy to test and very easy to prove. It would not involve any kind of complicated machinery or rocket science; it would just require a small amount of intellectual rigor and a smidgen of patience and thoroughness. So why can't they do it, and why won't they even try? Why are they afraid of double-blind testing? Scientists aren't, for the most part; they're willing to subject their claims to the intense and sometimes even hostile scrutiny of their peers. For those who don't know, that's basically how science works--not, as some of you seem to think, by issuing proclamations ex cathedra like the Pope.

 

[Limeman]

Because they know what they're talking about. Because they don't believe that the things people can be fooled into believing trump the things that people actually know.

Or possibly fool others into NOT believing as well? Works both ways.

 

[guy n. cognito]

Or possibly fool others into NOT believing as well? Works both ways.

Wow........

 

[fdeck]

Science is not an entity, or a body of facts. Science doesn't "say" anything. It's an informal method of naturalistic inquiry.

I'm a scientist. I don't dispute that cable effects are real. A parsimonious explanation is that cable effects are primarily caused by psychological bias.

The only problem with this explanation is that we have a social custom that equates "psychological" with "not real," thus it is taboo to suggest it. Even the terms that we use such as "bias" have a negative connotation.

Now, on a lighter note, it occurs to me that if we believe that a $3500 cable is snake oil, but that a $150 cable just might be beneficial, then the $3500 cable has done its job.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Or possibly fool others into NOT believing as well? Works both ways.

Not so much, no.

 

[Limeman]

Now, on a lighter note, it occurs to me that if we believe that a $3500 cable is snake oil, but that a $150 cable just might be beneficial, then the $3500 cable has done its job.

 

[Limeman]

Not so much, no.

Explain...

 

[Richard Lindsey]

It's an informal method of naturalistic inquiry.

++1. It's the methodology, not the machinery.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Explain...

I would have thought that was already abundantly clear from earlier posts in this thread. The scientific method involves attempts to prove something, which is by definition the opposite of trying to fool anyone. In trying to fool someone, you try to make them believe something that there is no good reason to believe. If there were a good reason, you wouldn't have to fool them. Proof involves supplying good reasons to believe, or, if you like, to know.

 

[B-string]

Go a step further? Those inclined to believe will continue to believe even in the face of "proof" otherwise. If they then doubt, the doubt was always there from the start. {must be getting late, I'm getting deep again}

 

[Queg]

Because they know what they're talking about. Because they don't believe that the things people can be fooled into believing trump the things that people actually know.

Science works great when you narrow the scope, working within specific assumptions and well-defined goals, such as what is the minimum spec material, gauge and shielding required to perform yada yada..
But if you add one little twist, like hm, maybe this power cord might also be designed to perform a function other then merely supplying power at minimum spec.. such as shunning noise from the A/C line (not saying that's what it does.. but it's in the realm of what it possibly COULD do) ..and you have a can of worms.

My problem isn't with the techies or science, it's with scientism, an almost religious belief that science provides the answers to all our questions, which ironically closes the mind to possibility.

My direct, EMPIRICAL experience is that a standard IEC doesn't quite sound the same as one made with Belden 83803 and hosp grade connectors on my home system, playing a familiar track. I don't know why it sounds different, it's extremely subtle and I wouldn't pay $1k for the difference, but it does sound different. And yes, different enough to pass a blind-test. I'm sorry if the techies may not be able to identify a difference in their calcs or on their scopes, but to condemn the direct experience of a huge community of music lovers as psychosomatic, placebo effect, or merely gullible to marketing is both haughty and offensive.

 

[fdeck]

Go a step further? Those inclined to believe will continue to believe even in the face of "proof" otherwise. If they then doubt, the doubt was always there from the start. {must be getting late, I'm getting deep again}

In my old age, I have realized that nobody will convert anybody. So I am happy to settle for articulating general technical knowledge and hopefully conveying the sense that following a scientific / technical approach isn't weird or esoteric.

 

[B-string]

In my old age, I have realized that nobody will convert anybody. So I am happy to settle for articulating general technical knowledge and hopefully conveying the sense that following a scientific / technical approach isn't weird or esoteric.

Now you're getting deep on us I didn't sneeze your way did I?

 

[fdeck]

Science works great when you narrow the scope, working within specific assumptions and well-defined goals, such as what is the minimum spec material, gauge and shielding required to perform yada yada..
But if you add one little twist, like hm, maybe this power cord might also be designed to perform a function other then merely supplying power at minimum spec.. such as shunning noise from the A/C line (not saying that's what it does.. but it's in the realm of what it possibly COULD do) ..and you have a can of worms.

Any of those additional benefits could be tested and measured. But they can also be evaluated against general technical knowledge. For instance it is known that most bass amps are already designed to be immune to AC line noise.

My problem isn't with the techies or science, it's with scientism, an almost religious belief that science provides the answers to all our questions, which ironically closes the mind to possibility.

Not wanting to get philosophical, but my view is this: Science doesn't provide all of the answers, but it is the only method that provides any answers that are not arbitrary or imposed by authority.

My direct, EMPIRICAL experience is that a standard IEC doesn't quite sound the same as one made with Belden 83803 and hosp grade connectors on my home system, playing a familiar track. I don't know why it sounds different, it's extremely subtle and I wouldn't pay $1k for the difference, but it does sound different. And yes, different enough to pass a blind-test. I'm sorry if the techies may not be able to identify a difference in their calcs or on their scopes, but to condemn the direct experience of a huge community of music lovers as psychosomatic, placebo effect, or merely gullible to marketing is both haughty and offensive.

In my above post, I was not "condemning" anything. Like I said, a psychological effect is not a sign of mental illness or gullibility. But the placebo effect is a scientifically established fact. If we are going to follow a scientific approach, we have to consider psychological effects, despite our social discomfort with the language.

As for gullibility, one way to deal with that issue is for those who believe in cable effects to take the lead in debunking the marketing claims that can't be substantiated in a controlled test.

 

[Limeman]

I would have thought that was already abundantly clear from earlier posts in this thread. The scientific method involves attempts to prove something, which is by definition the opposite of trying to fool anyone. In trying to fool someone, you try to make them believe something that there is no good reason to believe. If there were a good reason, you wouldn't have to fool them. Proof involves supplying good reasons to believe, or, if you like, to know.

You missed my point. If the individual conducting the test has closed his/her mind to the potential of possible outcome deltas due to their hardened stance based on their current understanding or belief in physics and the confrontation that "X" product presents to this understanding, are they not then a "potential" breakdown in the testing process? An open mind is critical to "not" being fooled, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Richard Lindsey]

But if you add one little twist, like hm, maybe this power cord might also be designed to perform a function other then merely supplying power at minimum spec.. such as shunning noise from the A/C line (not saying that's what it does.. but it's in the realm of what it possibly COULD do) ..and you have a can of worms.

No, you don't have a can of worms. if a cable can do that in such a way as to yield an audible difference, that can be tested in the same way that any other assertion about hearing capacity can be tested.

My problem isn't with the techies or science, it's with scientism, an almost religious belief that science provides the answers to all our questions, which ironically closes the mind to possibility.

I'm afraid this is a straw man argument. No one is saying what you claim they're saying. I haven't really seen this scientism applied to this thread. What people are saying is that if a perceptible difference exists, in apparent contradiction of what is known or is supported by the best currently available evidence, then people ought to be able to prove they can perceive it, and if they can't prove it, there's no good reason, at least for the time being, to believe they can perceive it. If I, at 53 years old and never having been an especially good baseball player even when I was younger, claim I can throw a 97 mph fastball, either I can prove it or I can't. If I can't prove it, no sane person should believe I can do it.

My direct, EMPIRICAL experience is that a standard IEC doesn't quite sound the same as one made with Belden 83803 and hosp grade connectors on my home system, playing a familiar track. I don't know why it sounds different, it's extremely subtle and I wouldn't pay $1k for the difference, but it does sound different. And yes, different enough to pass a blind-test.

So you have done a double-blind ABX test? Any idea why the makers of the cable apparently haven't?

I'm sorry if the techies may not be able to identify a difference in their calcs or on their scopes, but to condemn the direct experience of a huge community of music lovers as psychosomatic, placebo effect, or merely gullible to marketing is both haughty and offensive.

It has nothing to do with calcs or scopes, it has to do with rigor of thought. The aim is not to "condemn," and I don't think it was anybody's intention. But as the saying goes, the truth is no respecter of persons. The idea is to try to tell the difference between what we actually know and what we only think we know. If the pursuit of this idea "offends" this community you speak of, I'm sorry, but that's their problem. There is no particular reason anybody else should be obliged to kowtow to technical beliefs that have no real evidence to back them up. We're not talking about religion here. These are things that can be verified or falsified in the material world.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

You missed my point. If the individual conducting the test has closed his/her mind to the potential of possible outcome deltas due to their hardened stance based on their current understanding or belief in physics and the confrontation that "X" product presents to this understanding, are they not then a "potential" breakdown in the testing process? An open mind is critical to "not" being fooled, wouldn't you agree?

All you're saying is that if a person is a bad scientist, they're likely to do bad science. What does that have to do with anything? People who are not by any stretch of the imagination scientists at all are likely to do even worse science. No offense, but so what? Neither example says anything about the value of scientific methodology for settling questions like the ones we're supposed to be talking about.

 

[Jason P Bass]

You missed my point. If the individual conducting the test has closed his/her mind to the potential of possible outcome deltas due to their hardened stance based on their current understanding or belief in physics and the confrontation that "X" product presents to this understanding, are they not then a "potential" breakdown in the testing process? An open mind is critical to "not" being fooled, wouldn't you agree?

No.

2+2=4, even if you very firmly believe it is 5.

The entire "audiophile" industry is an arguably successful attempt at profiting from the placebo effect. Until a reputable, scientific test which negates the placebo affect (such as a double blind test, or a purely physical/electrical measurement) can prove otherwise, and withstand scrutiny, then it is a simply the placebo effect put to profit. There is an abundance of evidence supporting this conclusion and nothing to refute it except anecdotes ("I know what I hear, and I hear a difference") from the people who are usually the ones most likely to be under the influence of the placebo (i.e., those who fear that they have been duped into buying placebos).

Even the $3500 amplifier is, by the salesman's own admission, a $250 amp that was intended to be used as a free give away to sweeten the deal on a $50k pair of speakers. FREE GIVE AWAY is an old fashioned marketing ploy to PSYCHOLOGICALLY MANIPULATE the buyer into believing he is getting a deal. It's not a $3500 amplifier - it's a $250 placebo.