View Full Version : False positives
magiccarpetride
02-07-2010, 19:07
I know that traditional A/B comparison tests are wonky and iffy, to say the least, but there's one thing about these tests that is starting to intrigue me:
It is one thing to not catch any audible difference between two components in the blindfold A/B test situation (the 'false negative' situation), but what's with the 'false positive' scenarios? What I mean by that is when the person conducting the test pretends to be swapping components, while actually not touching anything, leaving it exactly as it is. Then, upon playing the same track back again, he hears that the participants are all of a sudden noticing big differences in sound from the previous playback!
Have you ever been through that humiliating experience? I have, and it is quite unnerving. But how does it work, and why would our ears trick us in that way?
The Vinyl Adventure
02-07-2010, 19:31
Isn't this the same convo as the one about you mate and the dac?
montesquieu
02-07-2010, 19:40
One of the issues is that repeated listening to the same track repeatedly, with full attention, results in the brain hearing ever increasing levels of both explicit and implicit grasping of subliminal details & musical structure ...
The one thing that can't be part of any control experiment is the intensity of attention present in the minds of those listening, which can go up as well as down: a phenomenon which is sometimes attributable to the kit, but often isn't (ie, other factors at play, be it positive - glass of wine, sense of relaxation - or negative such as feeling under slight pressure to have an opinion from other present).
Where subjective experience is concerned, the scientific method will always be flawed.
It is one thing to not catch any audible difference between two components in the blindfold A/B test situation (the 'false negative' situation), but what's with the 'false positive' scenarios? What I mean by that is when the person conducting the test pretends to be swapping components, while actually not touching anything, leaving it exactly as it is. Then, upon playing the same track back again, he hears that the participants are all of a sudden noticing big differences in sound from the previous playback!
Have you ever been through that humiliating experience? I have, and it is quite unnerving. But how does it work, and why would our ears trick us in that way?
I've been there. I thought I'd swapped a component, and was 'amazed' by the improvement in sound quality, only to spot the 'better' component still sitting on a shelf, and not connected to the system in any way.:doh:
I believe the phenomenon is called 'expectation bias', but i've no idea what (if any) evolutionary purpose such jiggery-pokery could have served, apart from keeping snake oil salesmen in a job.
magiccarpetride
02-07-2010, 20:24
Isn't this the same convo as the one about you mate and the dac?
No, this one is the opposite. Nothing changed, and yet participants are convinced that it sounds different. In the case of my mate, the DAC changed, but he didn't hear any differences whatsoever.
magiccarpetride
02-07-2010, 20:26
One of the issues is that repeated listening to the same track repeatedly, with full attention, results in the brain hearing ever increasing levels of both explicit and implicit grasping of subliminal details & musical structure ...
The one thing that can't be part of any control experiment is the intensity of attention present in the minds of those listening, which can go up as well as down: a phenomenon which is sometimes attributable to the kit, but often isn't (ie, other factors at play, be it positive - glass of wine, sense of relaxation - or negative such as feeling under slight pressure to have an opinion from other present).
Where subjective experience is concerned, the scientific method will always be flawed.
True. Nevertheless, most of the times, we tend to feel that, all else being equal, the sound hasn't changed at all. Every now and then, however, we fall for the 'false positive' trap. Hard to understand why.
why would our ears trick us in that way?
how do you know its the ears tricking. Ears are like loudspeakers they do nothing unless connected to something else, except look amazing. How do you know you can trust your brain/mind. If we get fooled by optical illusions why not our hearing - its only another sense not as some believe a source of divine revelation and/or source of absolute truth.
Whats to understand we get fooled and fool ourselves. Secret is to keep quiet about it.
Do you learn anything from answers to your posted questions or are they for entertainment?
Sorry for taking you seriously.
magiccarpetride
03-07-2010, 05:45
how do you know its the ears tricking. Ears are like loudspeakers they do nothing unless connected to something else, except look amazing. How do you know you can trust your brain/mind. If we get fooled by optical illusions why not our hearing - its only another sense not as some believe a source of divine revelation and/or source of absolute truth.
Whats to understand we get fooled and fool ourselves. Secret is to keep quiet about it.
Do you learn anything from answers to your posted questions or are they for entertainment?
Sorry for taking you seriously.
Alan, please stop obsessing over me. I feel almost as if you've become my stalker. You're weirding me out, man. You're a mentalist!
If you have something useful to add to the discussion, I'm all ears. Otherwise, do me a personal favor and please, please fcuk off!
The Vinyl Adventure
03-07-2010, 06:16
I think Alan's responses are interesting Alex
It is the same psychology involved as in the last question... The best answer to any question along these lines is that we all know the brain can fool us so just be aware that it might be...
I heard clear as day my mobile phone ringing the other day... It wasn't ringing at all... ... I know that sorta thing is rare (and perhaps a product of some misspent years) but it does happen...
The way round it is to not make snap decisions on how something sounds... I know of people who seem to be able to spot major differences within the first few notes.... I can't, or at least I don't nessasarily trust my self if I do... It's just common sence really i think... Or at least an awareness of your own mental condition!
I'm not saying people can't hear definite differences within first notes, but for me making that judgement is risky ... So I don't do it... I prefer to sit with a product for a while before I decide on it's properties...
I'd suggest, based on your posts, that you do the same...
I don't want to get involved in the pissing contest but anyways...
I'm a total non-believer in the A-B testing for audio. I always shake my head when I read about guys going to extreme "scientific" lengths to do A-B testing of audio (not directed at you, Alex). We don't listen to music for 2-3 minutes at a time so why do we test like that?
All of our senses/thoughts/ideas/perceptions are connect to our brains, which make it all psychological. Why treat a human being like lab equipment? When I try a new tweak, mod or whatever, I try to give it at least a few weeks before forming a personal opinion. The only time I will immediately change it out is if it 1. it doesn't work at all, or 2. something's gone terribly wrong and there's some static or screeching coming out. :lol:
A while back friend of mine had just gotten some decent JBL speakers and Luxman amp but was using this $20 dvd player as a source. I thought it sounded kind of lifeless so I brought over an Audio-gd dac I have to see what would happen.
I was pretty damn surprised when I could hardly tell any difference (just a little maybe) and I know very well the sound of that dac. But his face was completely lit up and he kept saying how it was completely different! I was left scratching my head. :scratch: Needless to say after that he went out and bought a proper CDP.
I'd say as long as you got a system you can enjoy hour after hour, year after year, then you are a very successful man.
The one thing that can't be part of any control experiment is the intensity of attention present in the minds of those listening, which can go up as well as down: a phenomenon which is sometimes attributable to the kit, but often isn't (ie, other factors at play, be it positive - glass of wine, sense of relaxation - or negative such as feeling under slight pressure to have an opinion from other present).
Where subjective experience is concerned, the scientific method will always be flawed.
That's why I have always believed that ABX, or whatever tests cannot and will not, ever bow to objective testing methods - it's impossible in fact.
Over the years I have carried out quite a few "controlled" ABX tests and each one has ended in failure - it couldn't happen any other way. Once I told my chosen listening guinea pigs that we are about to do a test, it was doomed to fail. However, spring a simple AB test on people without any forewarning and you could pretty much guarantee some sort of measurable result. I still have the results of one such test session in a drawer that was carried out during one of my bakeoffs. It was a formalised test routine with specific tracks off specific CDs in conjunction with ABX swapping around of cables in a specific order. Big set of curtains around the system with some poor sod (Me!) sweltering his cobs off on a hot day. Pencil and paper for each listener, sat in silence in a group. Total kiss of death, but an objectivist's dream apparently.
After an hour and a half of this swapping around, me and the listeners were just about ready to open a vein to be honest and were very thankful when it finished. I gathered up the pencils and paper, had a quick to look to see that I wasn't disappointed to find a complete mess with no consensus at all. From total silence to large exhales told me that the listeners were subjected to stress, so little surprise there wasn't any sort of common ground on those papers. I then told them to sit down for just a couple of minutes more to prove a point and put on the same CD track twice with the cable change in between. Everyone was 100% bang on in identifying what was what, yet failed to do so in the preceding 90 minutes. Why? Because it wasn't a "test".
The variability of the human brain is just too complex to constricted into a box to be subjected to a flawed procedure and have consistent results. The human brain can be sensitive and receptive when it wants to be and equally so unresponsive and unreceptive too. It can easily shut down and suppress the noise of a road drill or a nagging wife, it can to a degree lessen the impact of loud disco noise, yet still be able to filter out other sounds like conversation.
The trouble with "expectation bias" is that it has a VERY short shelf life, usually two instances at best and I have yet to see any evidence contrary to that. I can only find one documented case of placebo impacting in more than one instance where the subject was informed a placebo had been introduced. It doesn't then automatically follow that EVERYONE will act or behave in a similar manner if subjected to a repeated placebo element. Yet the objectivists continuously drag these two up as a prime example of how "believer" audiophools are suffering from delusions. Call them out though to explain why these instances of "delusions" can be consistently repeated for THOUSANDS of times over a time span lasting many many years well beyond any known expectation bias and placebo parameters and they cannot.
Ears are like loudspeakers they do nothing unless connected to something else, except look amazing.
Eh?... Someone has amazing looking ears?
I think we should be told! :exactly:
Eh?... Someone has amazing looking ears?
I think we should be told! :exactly:
Mister Spock, the Elves from Lord of the Rings, Dumbo...I could go on...
Oh, right.... I thought it was a forum member. :doh:
Do we have any Elves or Vulcans here, btw? :scratch:
I think Alan's responses are interesting Alex
It is the same psychology involved as in the last question... The best answer to any question along these lines is that we all know the brain can fool us so just be aware that it might be...
I heard clear as day my mobile phone ringing the other day... It wasn't ringing at all... ... I know that sorta thing is rare (and perhaps a product of some misspent years) but it does happen...
The way round it is to not make snap decisions on how something sounds... I know of people who seem to be able to spot major differences within the first few notes.... I can't, or at least I don't nessasarily trust my self if I do... It's just common sence really i think... Or at least an awareness of your own mental condition!
I'm not saying people can't hear definite differences within first notes, but for me making that judgement is risky ... So I don't do it... I prefer to sit with a product for a while before I decide on it's properties...
I'd suggest, based on your posts, that you do the same...
Thank you Hamish. You obviously follow the point I was making even if the OP does not recognise it or does not welcome it. Beware you may be deemed a stalker too as you post to his threads more than I do.
Good to ear from you.
Thanks too to James G and Effem for their sanity checks. No pissing contest for me either or piss offs.
On the subject of comparisons I have 2 identical rca outputs on my Cyrus CD. That allows realtime swapping between them by using another input on my amp, not swap then listen later, checking cables that way has shown me the differences are small but present sometimes. Play swap then play again later is fraught with illusions best left unmentioned lest it offend those who believe otherwise.
Ears are amazing only truely appreciated when they go wrong.
Spectral Morn
03-07-2010, 17:40
Lets keep this friendly guys :)
Regards D S D L
The Vinyl Adventure
03-07-2010, 17:44
i have to say, i am always shocked at how out of contex alans posts are taken
Steve Toy
03-07-2010, 18:04
There was an element of Alan's post that was inflammatory and in breach of the ethos regardless of the context. Alex simply reacted to that.
The essence of what Alan said was fine but the way he said it was abrasive and vitriolic.
Thanks too to James G and Effem for their sanity checks. No pissing contest for me either or piss offs.
On the subject of comparisons I have 2 identical rca outputs on my Cyrus CD. That allows realtime swapping between them by using another input on my amp, not swap then listen later, checking cables that way has shown me the differences are small but present sometimes. Play swap then play again later is fraught with illusions best left unmentioned lest it offend those who believe otherwise.
Alan, the entire cables argument has been summed up in your statement that I have underlined and bolded (Is that the right word? :lol:)
There are differences of only a small maginitude between any cables and it's the individual person's interpretation of that maginitude and therefore the value of that "difference" that either makes cables a worthwhile proposition, or not, as they each see fit. If you as an individual cannot hear those differences, then it's remarkably akin to explaining the colour blue to a blind person - you won't succeed.
This has always been my stance on the subject and if someone believes they are pure snake oil then that's fine. BUT, when many thousands if not millions of other individuals are having exact identical experiences with those same cables, located in completely different continents, it begs the question who is kidding who in the cable debate?
Alan, the entire cables argument has been summed up in your statement that I have underlined and bolded (Is that the right word? :lol:)
There are differences of only a small maginitude between any cables and it's the individual person's interpretation of that maginitude and therefore the value of that "difference" that either makes cables a worthwhile proposition, or not, as they each see fit. If you as an individual cannot hear those differences, then it's remarkably akin to explaining the colour blue to a blind person - you won't succeed.
This has always been my stance on the subject and if someone believes they are pure snake oil then that's fine. BUT, when many thousands if not millions of other individuals are having exact identical experiences with those same cables, located in completely different continents, it begs the question who is kidding who in the cable debate?
Says who?
Alan, the entire cables argument has been summed up in your statement that I have underlined and bolded (Is that the right word? :lol:)
There are differences of only a small maginitude between any cables and it's the individual person's interpretation of that maginitude and therefore the value of that "difference" that either makes cables a worthwhile proposition, or not, as they each see fit. If you as an individual cannot hear those differences, then it's remarkably akin to explaining the colour blue to a blind person - you won't succeed.
This has always been my stance on the subject and if someone believes they are pure snake oil then that's fine. BUT, when many thousands if not millions of other individuals are having exact identical experiences with those same cables, located in completely different continents, it begs the question who is kidding who in the cable debate?
Frank- agree with this 100% - summed it up nicely sir.
Says who?
Says me. Others too if you know where to look ;)
I have had more experience with cables than you could imagine and it isn't mere coincidence that my findings with a particular cable will mirror exactly what others hear from it.
I once sent a prototype cable to a chap in Australia and deliberately avoided describing it's sonic attributes when I sent it to him, so he had not a clue what to expect. In reality it was two dimensional, dull and muffled with very woolly indistinct bass, a tizzy treble, yet somehow still managed to have a clear uncongested midband. Now you work out the variables on just 3 bands of the audible spectrum being described and the odds of him getting those variables spot on first time without guessing - it's bigger than you think. He replied back word for word what I have just written above, so I sent it to someone else, with the same result, then repeated again four more times with different people, all saying the same thing. How blind a test do you or anybody else want?
Says me. Others too if you know where to look ;)
I have had more experience with cables than you could imagine and it isn't mere coincidence that my findings with a particular cable will mirror exactly what others hear from it.
I once sent a prototype cable to a chap in Australia and deliberately avoided describing it's sonic attributes when I sent it to him, so he had not a clue what to expect. In reality it was two dimensional, dull and muffled with very woolly indistinct bass, a tizzy treble, yet somehow still managed to have a clear uncongested midband. Now you work out the variables on just 3 bands of the audible spectrum being described and the odds of him getting those variables spot on first time without guessing - it's bigger than you think. He replied back word for word what I have just written above, so I sent it to someone else, with the same result, then repeated again four more times with different people, all saying the same thing. How blind a test do you or anybody else want?
So we have a cable that is dull and muffled, yet has a clear uncongested midband and a tizzy treble? Yet your Antipodian collegue managed to describe these mutually exclusive properties, word for word?
Amazing!
Regards
So we have a cable that is dull and muffled, yet has a clear uncongested midband and a tizzy treble? Yet your Antipodian collegue managed to describe these mutually exclusive properties, word for word?
Amazing!
Regards
Amazing indeed.
Do you think I am inventing these things for your benefit or are you simply taking the p*ss?
Amazing indeed.
Do you think I am inventing these things for your benefit or are you simply taking the p*ss?
Frank - Barry is a sound bloke it is just that you do need to be very exact with your wording on here (especially when discussing - horror - cable effects) - I think semantics is the issue.
Amazing indeed.
Do you think I am inventing these things for your benefit or are you simply taking the p*ss?
I certainly don't think you are inventing these things for my benefit, but maybe for yours. Qui bono?
I'm not taking the piss, no more than you are.
I know that traditional A/B comparison tests are wonky and iffy, to say the least, but there's one thing about these tests that is starting to intrigue me:
It is one thing to not catch any audible difference between two components in the blindfold A/B test situation (the 'false negative' situation), but what's with the 'false positive' scenarios? What I mean by that is when the person conducting the test pretends to be swapping components, while actually not touching anything, leaving it exactly as it is. Then, upon playing the same track back again, he hears that the participants are all of a sudden noticing big differences in sound from the previous playback!
Have you ever been through that humiliating experience? I have, and it is quite unnerving. But how does it work, and why would our ears trick us in that way?
As Joe stated, it is called expectation bias.
Winer believes it comes from comb filtering (see article http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html ):
http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe-treated.gif
Figure 3: This graph shows the full range response at seven locations one inch apart in a large room well-treated with broadband absorption and bass traps. With bass traps the response at low frequencies varies much less, but the mid and high frequencies still change drastically over very small distances
I believe detecting false differences in a controlled environment (my room, my equipment, my music) is the result of simple inexperience, haste, inattention, conscious will or a combination of these.
the human brain [cannot] be subjected to a flawed procedure and have consistent results.
...
The trouble with "expectation bias" is that it has a VERY short shelf life, usually two instances at best and I have yet to see any evidence contrary to that.
These two sentences [my brackets] sum up my opinion, too. :)
I certainly don't think you are inventing these things for my benefit, but maybe for yours. Qui bono?
I'm not taking the piss, no more than you are.
I wouldn't dream of concocting a story just to look good on a forum, least of all to anyone who can't be bothered to look into what motive I might have for doing so.
I just wanted to present an example that if what I and others are hearing is identical, then it's in as blind a condition that you could wish for, with no placebo effects introduced, no expectation bias and across different continents and probably cultures too.
I really do despise dumb one liner responses designed only to goad, so if you want detailed responses, then kindly ask detailed questions.
aquapiranha
04-07-2010, 07:30
well I normally stay away from these arguments. they are cyclical and cannot be proved either way - no matter how much 'proof' is presented. There will never be an answer.
My own personal point of view is that is people think they have heard a difference then great, they are happy! For me though, I have tried many different cables over the years and I honestly can't say I have noticed the slightest difference. Of course, I have heard all the corkers over the years such as 'your system isn't capable of resolving the difference' and 'you must be deaf' or 'you were not expecting it to sound different so it didn't' etc.
Perhaps I need to spend more on cables? maybe this expectaion bias will kick in then and I will hear a difference?
:scratch:
My own personal point of view is that is people think they have heard a difference then great, they are happy! For me though, I have tried many different cables over the years and I honestly can't say I have noticed the slightest difference. Of course, I have heard all the corkers over the years such as 'your system isn't capable of resolving the difference' and 'you must be deaf' or 'you were not expecting it to sound different so it didn't' etc.
Perhaps I need to spend more on cables? maybe this expectaion bias will kick in then and I will hear a difference?
:scratch:
I had reverse expectation bias recently; I had some Mark Grant interconnects on loan and, based on comments here, was expecting great things of them. Instead, I thought they made the system sound worse thatn the cheapo ones I was currently using. But I certainly heard a difference, even if it was the reverse of what I was anticipating.
The Vinyl Adventure
04-07-2010, 12:12
i wouldnt call that reverse expectation bias... thats just not liking a cable in your system ... surely?... you were actually hearing what is going on, rather than just hearing what you expect...
The Vinyl Adventure
04-07-2010, 12:14
unless you were so determined to not follow the crowd veiw that you didnt like the cable because you didnt want to like it... thats reverse expectation bais... ... i think?
Steve Toy
04-07-2010, 12:23
For some reason Joe I don't actually believe you. Your user title doesn't make me want to see such contributions as anything other than disingenuous, specifically where audio is concerned.
If you are going to carry that user title, don't expect me to take any of your audio scribings seriously.
There are those who hear what they want to hear and for the sceptic the desire to hear a benefit is inversely proportional to cost. Also there are those who say simply what they want others to hear with the truth of the matter being largely irrelevant. It's called having an agenda and you Joe seem to reek of agendas.
It would help if you could tell us what the Mark Grants were compared with and precisely what you heard. Orwellian better/worse, good, double plus good/bad descriptions are meaningless.
unless you were so determined to not follow the crowd veiw that you didnt like the cable because you didnt want to like it... thats reverse expectation bais... ... i think?
A bit more diplomatically put but I'm clearly not alone.
Joe, you've definitely got some explaining to do :mad:
Hi Joe,
I had reverse expectation bias recently; I had some Mark Grant interconnects on loan and, based on comments here, was expecting great things of them. Instead, I thought they made the system sound worse thatn the cheapo ones I was currently using.
I don't doubt what you've heard with the MGs whatsoever. However, have you considered the possibility that the 'cheapo' cables are perhaps masking deficiencies which the Mark Grants are revealing instead?
I know the effect of these cables rather well in a variety of systems, and they are extremely revealing of any system deficiencies.
Marco.
P.S Steve (Aqua), next time I come round I'll bring some MGs with me and we'll try them in your system and see what happens :cool:
well I normally stay away from these arguments. they are cyclical and cannot be proved either way - no matter how much 'proof' is presented. There will never be an answer.
My own personal point of view is that is people think they have heard a difference then great, they are happy! For me though, I have tried many different cables over the years and I honestly can't say I have noticed the slightest difference. Of course, I have heard all the corkers over the years such as 'your system isn't capable of resolving the difference' and 'you must be deaf' or 'you were not expecting it to sound different so it didn't' etc.
Perhaps I need to spend more on cables? maybe this expectaion bias will kick in then and I will hear a difference?
:scratch:
I don't think you should allow people that accuse you of being deaf or your system being inadequate as a sound argument for why you cannot hear differences. Oddly enough, there are some people that CANNOT hear these subtle differences at all, even if you put a big neon lit arrow pointing towards it. No need whatsoever to belittle these people.
My view has always been that we all listen to our systems in DIFFERENT ways and it tends to be the people that disseminate what they hear note for note and get pissy when some detail they know is there not manifesting itself that get the most excited about cables, but those that listen to a "wall of sound" with the finer details and timbres almost an irrelevance, or those that that bathe in the tonality of the music rather than it's rythmns, or there are some love bass by the shipload, some are treble freaks and dozens of other variables who are simply not really "into" the whole cables thing.
I know several hard bitten cable cynics that put their hands straight into their pockets and bought fancy cables when they heard these differences with their own ears, then go on some sort of guilt trip afterwards, still decrying that they heard anything at all in the first place. No wonder I have so little time for these cynics.
At the end of the day cables differences are minor and the vast majority are flawed in some way or another. The "bright" ones are generally attenuating the bass, the "warm" ones are generally attenuating the treble with a mixed bag cocktail in between extremes. The real trick is to find a cable with the right combination of flaws that suits you, your hearing and your system.
The Vinyl Adventure
04-07-2010, 12:53
Yeah, id agree with that marco
Steve Toy
04-07-2010, 12:59
Hamish, Marco, it is a possibility but the post was rather glib and forget not that Joe is here first and foremost to irk the purists.
With that intention I find myself unable to believe a single word of what he says about audio other than the bit about indolence.
I understand where you're coming from, Steve, but I suspect that's not the case. Joe may enjoy 'poking fun at/irking the purists' (which incidentally I have no problem with whatsoever), but I don't think he's being deliberately disingenuous.
Marco.
Steve Toy
04-07-2010, 13:14
Poking fun is fine when you can also be sincere with your own account.
Re another matter, did you get my email yesterday?
Spot on, Frank! I completely concur with that view, as it mirrors my own experiences.
The problem is that people who judge, in a rather matter-of-fact way, the presentation of a system or components largely in terms of their tonality, will rarely 'get' what cables do other than at their most fundamental and basic level, which is to alter tonality for precisely the reasons you gave.
If you don't listen for aspects of musical presentation, such as rhythm or pitch and timing acuity, cohesion and expressiveness - all things which cables can indirectly alter in the way a system presents music, either positively or negatively, then you'll always miss the biggest effect cables have on a system's performance, and therefore most likely become a cable sceptic.
I know several hard bitten cable cynics that put their hands straight into their pockets and bought fancy cables when they heard these differences with their own ears, then go on some sort of guilt trip afterwards, still decrying that they heard anything at all in the first place. No wonder I have so little time for these cynics.
Me neither; and I consider them as a cancer on forums, but let's not forget that there is a big difference between a sceptic and a cynic. Healthy scepticism is good, cynicism isn't.
And incidentally, dude, you've got Barry all wrong. When it comes to audio, he shows a natural (healthy) scepticism where cables and such like are concerned, but a nicer, more inquisitive and open-minded chap you won't meet, as indeed all proper scientists are - not the technical jobsworths or reductionists on forums posing as such!
Genuine scientists are those who strive to constantly learn, seeking answers for phenomena which current science cannot fully explain, rather than deluding themselves that science currently proves every effect we can genuinely hear in audio (which seems far from the case), and then arrogantly proclaiming that fallacy as the truth! ;)
Once you get to know Barry better, you definitely won't peg him as a cable cynic. He also never sets out to deliberately upset or annoy anyone.
At the end of the day cables differences are minor and the vast majority are flawed in some way or another. The "bright" ones are generally attenuating the bass, the "warm" ones are generally attenuating the treble with a mixed bag cocktail in between extremes. The real trick is to find a cable with the right combination of flaws that suits you, your hearing and your system.
Indeed. In other words, as I've said many times, it's all about choosing your compromises!!
Marco.
Having been called out by ST as none ethos, abraisive and vitriolic can I enter a plea on behalf of the OP by way of compensation and goodwill?
Alex have you found an answer to your false positives question that you are comfortable with? There are certainly several I concur with.
For some reason Joe I don't actually believe you. Your user title doesn't make me want to see such contributions as anything other than disingenuous, specifically where audio is concerned.
Joe, you've definitely got some explaining to do :mad:
Basically, you're calling me a liar, so you'll get no explanations.
Who else gets annoyed by the people that claim there are no differences in cables and then act SOOO intellectually superior to those that claim there are differences?
Don't see it happen here really but I'm sure you guys know the places.
Techno Commander
04-07-2010, 16:09
If I approach this from my professional angle, I have never noticed anyone either live music PA, or studio install use such esoteric cables as people fit to their hi fi. Admittedly due to the quantities involved this could become rather silly on the financial front.
Generally the guys doing live work will use something like Van Damme OFC (http://www.vdctrading.com/products_gridview.asp?SubSectionID=1&secName=Van+Damme&ProductID=12#p12) which retails for a lofty £1.21 per meter. They used to do a "stereo pair" version of this as well, but I dont seem to be able to find it.
I am tempted to try some of their 6mm speaker cable (http://www.vdctrading.com/products_gridview.asp?SubSectionID=1&secName=Van+Damme&ProductID=17#p17) though. :)
I must admit, most of my cable experimentation has been at the lower end of the financial spectrum. I also prefer to make my own cables using whatever I can buy as unterminated cable.
I am tempted to try some of their 6mm speaker cable (http://www.vdctrading.com/products_gridview.asp?SubSectionID=1&secName=Van+Damme&ProductID=17#p17) though. :)
.
It's what I have and I don't think I will upgrade cables anytime soon. ;)
Steve Toy
04-07-2010, 16:14
James, we know the type. They've visited this place and found the exit... :eyebrows:
James, we know the type. They've visited this place and found the exit... :eyebrows:
Steve this is good to know and another reason for me to LOOOVE this forum.
I can sometimes agree with a point they might make but I think it's such bad form to belittle and humiliate someone that has a different opinion than yours. Is this a mostly American thing or does it happen in the UK a lot too? The reason I ask is I'm American and that's where most of my experience with those types comes from.
I'm beginning to see the US as getting a little too stuck in empiricals (with is also important, mind you) but the UK and Japan is getting on with experimenting with the unknown (queue the word "mystical") and trying some crazy ideas. Weren't some of the greatest discoveries of mankind found completely by accident? Sure there will be some fails, but if there is one gem found it will be all worth the effort, right? And lead to a trickle down affect.
This might stir the kettle, but I just gotta know.
Steve Toy
04-07-2010, 17:17
James, I would say the problem may be even worse in the UK. AOS was conceived as a safe haven from these types in order that we may begin to dig deeper into the effects of cabling, microphony/isolation and mains supply in particular.
Basically, you're calling me a liar, so you'll get no explanations.
What about an answer to the question I asked you in post #35, pretty please? :)
Marco.
What about an answer to the question I asked you in post #35, pretty please? :)
Marco.
No probs, I must have missed that post. Here's what I posted on PFM a few months back about my experiences with the MGs:
'OK, firstly for context, I used two G1000HD cables, the first between my Exposure CDP and the second between the Exposure pre and the Exposure power amp. In the first location they replaced a Cambridge Audio cable (the 'Pacific'), in the second they replaced an Exposure interconnect.
The Mark Grant cables made the sound 'harder' and at the same time less detailed than before. Ultimately, the overall effect was fatiguing. I tried using just one pair at a time, thinking they might work OK in isolation, and/or that the combined effect of two pairs was too strong, but the results were the same using one pair.
Putting the original cables back in place, they sounded 'right', with plenty of detail, and no fatigue even after several hours of listening.
Clearly, many people really like these cables, and my own expectations were high. I can appreciate that a longer burn-in period might have helped, but the end of the 30 day trial period was fast approaching, so I decided to send them back'
So, it's quite possible that the system is actually fatiguing, and that my current cables are adding 'warmth' that disguises this failing, but that's hard to reconcile with the loss of detail that the MG cables also introduced.
Steve Toy
04-07-2010, 17:56
James, empiricism is great. It works as follows:
1) Discover or observe a phenomenon.
2) See if there is an existing theory to explain the phenomenon.
3) Consider new theories to explain the phenomenon.
4) Above all do not dismiss the phenomenon because it doesn't fit in with your (narrow) range of known theory. That's what the cynics and technical jobsworths do.
James, empiricism is great. It works as follows:
1) Discover or observe a phenomenon.
2) See if there is an existing theory to explain the phenomenon.
3) Consider new theories to explain the phenomenon.
4) Above all do not dismiss the phenomenon because it doesn't fit in with your (narrow) range of known theory. That's what the cynics and technical jobsworths do.
5) Don't accuse someone of lying simply because you disagree with them.
James, empiricism is great. It works as follows:
1) Discover or observe a phenomenon.
2) See if there is an existing theory to explain the phenomenon.
3) Consider new theories to explain the phenomenon.
4) Above all do not dismiss the phenomenon because it doesn't fit in with your (narrow) range of known theory. That's what the cynics and technical jobsworths do.
Aha, I think I understand my problem with empiricism now.
Too many people are leaving out step 4! :)
Steve Toy
04-07-2010, 18:20
Joe, now that you've elaborated further I cannot contest your findings.
Please change your user title though it makes you appear to have an agenda where there may be none.
James, it is fair to say that if in accordance with 3) you introduce new theory the burdon of proof rests with you but this does not apply when your findings are supported by existing theory.
My approach is often to witness the phenomenon and leave it to others to provide the plausible explanation which I am curious to hear about.
James, empiricism is great. It works as follows:
1) Discover or observe a phenomenon.
2) See if there is an existing theory to explain the phenomenon.
3) Consider new theories to explain the phenomenon.
4) Above all do not dismiss the phenomenon because it doesn't fit in with your (narrow) range of known theory. That's what the cynics and technical jobsworths do.
Did you just make that up, Steve? :lolsign:
When did this become another cable thread, btw? :scratch:
If I approach this from my professional angle, I have never noticed anyone either live music PA, or studio install use such esoteric cables as people fit to their hi fi. Admittedly due to the quantities involved this could become rather silly on the financial front.
Generally the guys doing live work will use something like Van Damme OFC (http://www.vdctrading.com/products_gridview.asp?SubSectionID=1&secName=Van+Damme&ProductID=12#p12) which retails for a lofty £1.21 per meter. They used to do a "stereo pair" version of this as well, but I dont seem to be able to find it.
I must admit, most of my cable experimentation has been at the lower end of the financial spectrum. I also prefer to make my own cables using whatever I can buy as unterminated cable.
Try SOUNDSTABLE (http://stores.ebay.co.uk/SoundStable?_rdc=1) on eBay. Excellent service and I don't think you can roll your own i/c's any cheaper than they sell them.
Cheers
Hi Joe,
No probs, I must have missed that post. Here's what I posted on PFM a few months back about my experiences with the MGs:
'OK, firstly for context, I used two G1000HD cables, the first between my Exposure CDP and the second between the Exposure pre and the Exposure power amp. In the first location they replaced a Cambridge Audio cable (the 'Pacific'), in the second they replaced an Exposure interconnect.
The Mark Grant cables made the sound 'harder' and at the same time less detailed than before. Ultimately, the overall effect was fatiguing. I tried using just one pair at a time, thinking they might work OK in isolation, and/or that the combined effect of two pairs was too strong, but the results were the same using one pair.
Putting the original cables back in place, they sounded 'right', with plenty of detail, and no fatigue even after several hours of listening.
Clearly, many people really like these cables, and my own expectations were high. I can appreciate that a longer burn-in period might have helped, but the end of the 30 day trial period was fast approaching, so I decided to send them back'
So, it's quite possible that the system is actually fatiguing, and that my current cables are adding 'warmth' that disguises this failing, but that's hard to reconcile with the loss of detail that the MG cables also introduced.
That's cool. Like we agreed before - the effect of cables is very system dependent. I suspect there exists a sonic mismatch between the Mark Grants and Exposure electronics, as what you heard isn't typical.
It would be interesting to hear from anyone else who's used Exposure kit with G1000HDs :)
Marco.
P.S Mike's right. I think this thread is now more at home in The Artist's Palette.
I don't think you should allow people that accuse you of being deaf or your system being inadequate as a sound argument for why you cannot hear differences. Oddly enough, there are some people that CANNOT hear these subtle differences at all, even if you put a big neon lit arrow pointing towards it. No need whatsoever to belittle these people.
My view has always been that we all listen to our systems in DIFFERENT ways and it tends to be the people that disseminate what they hear note for note and get pissy when some detail they know is there not manifesting itself that get the most excited about cables, but those that listen to a "wall of sound" with the finer details and timbres almost an irrelevance, or those that that bathe in the tonality of the music rather than it's rythmns, or there are some love bass by the shipload, some are treble freaks and dozens of other variables who are simply not really "into" the whole cables thing.
I know several hard bitten cable cynics that put their hands straight into their pockets and bought fancy cables when they heard these differences with their own ears, then go on some sort of guilt trip afterwards, still decrying that they heard anything at all in the first place. No wonder I have so little time for these cynics.
At the end of the day cables differences are minor and the vast majority are flawed in some way or another. The "bright" ones are generally attenuating the bass, the "warm" ones are generally attenuating the treble with a mixed bag cocktail in between extremes. The real trick is to find a cable with the right combination of flaws that suits you, your hearing and your system.
Frank,
I think we are in agreement here; though I don't think cables should ever be used as 'tone controls', to correct a tonally inbalanced system.
To understand my stance on cables, you might like to look at:
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6417 .
Regards
Please change your user title though it makes you appear to have an agenda where there may be none.
I don't think I can do that; I had no user title at all until someone else added 'X Factor winner' after it. You could put (no agenda) after my user title if you like!
Which would you rather, Joe? It's your user title, so therefore your decision as what is put there, even though you can't action it yourself :)
Marco.
Put (no agenda) there, thanks Marco.
I think there has been a bit of leaping to conclusions here.
Thanks Joe, for putting it right.
Put (no agenda) there, thanks Marco.
Done! :)
Marco.
JOE!BLOGGS
04-07-2010, 20:25
Funny that joe, I had the exact same results with going from Cambridge Pacific cables to Mark Grant cables. I left them in the system for a few days but just couldn't get along with them.
Finally ended up with Van Damme, bargain all round.
Funny that joe, I had the exact same results with going from Cambridge Pacific cables to Mark Grant cables. I left them in the system for a few days but just couldn't get along with them.
Finally ended up with Van Damme, bargain all round.
Joe - is this the 'New You'? I will miss your old title; I think all purists need 'irking', so as to bring them down to earth.
Whereabouts in Burma (Myanmar) do you live? ;)
Regards
Joe - is this the 'New You'? I will miss your old title; I think all purists need 'irking', so as to bring them down to earth.
Whereabouts in Burma (Myanmar) do you live? ;)
Regards
Two different Joe's I think, Barry... I could be wrong though. :)
Just to make it clear that I'm still here and am not JOE!BLOGGS.
Spectral Morn
04-07-2010, 20:39
Funny that joe, I had the exact same results with going from Cambridge Pacific cables to Mark Grant cables. I left them in the system for a few days but just couldn't get along with them.
Finally ended up with Van Damme, bargain all round.
Welcome to AOS
Please pop into the welcome section and say hello.
Tell us about yourself, your system and the music you like ? Please also add your first name as your signature. These are basic requirements for all our new members.
Regards D S D L
I think what I need to do is get hold of some Cambridge Pacific cables and compare them to the G1000HDs, so I can get a handle on their sonic signature.... I will then report on the forum what I discover :)
'JOE!BLOGGS',
Welcome to AOS. Could you please pop into the Welcome area and introduce yourself properly to our members by telling us your real first name (if it isn't Joe), what system you use and what your music tastes are?
Cheers! :cool:
Marco.
I think what I need to do is get hold of some Cambridge Pacific cables and compare them to the G1000HDs, so I can get a handle on their sonic signature.... I will then report on the forum what I discover :)
Currently on offer at a mere £30 per metre pair at Richer Sounds!
Just to make it clear that I'm still here and am not JOE!BLOGGS.
Oops! My mistake - apologies Joe (both of you!)
Regards
Frank,
I think we are in agreement here; though I don't think cables should ever be used as 'tone controls', to correct a tonally inbalanced system.
To understand my stance on cables, you might like to look at:
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6417 .
Regards
Aha, I understand a bit more on your stance Barry.
Cables are not really about bits of wire linking two components, it is far more to do with the variability of the listener than anything else and that includes the listening environment, the components used and and a host of other things that add to the complexity of the subject, hence this is why the objectivists have such acute difficulties getting their heads around them, because they cannot be reduced down to a lowest predictable common denominator to be put into a fixed size convenient box for study. The more you try to do that, the less you understand them. There is also a deep connection with the other senses and heck, that really does put a spanner in the works big time.
A prime example: Anyone here seen a good film and as they are watching it they are rather struck by how good the soundtrack music is? Yep, me too. Go out and by the OST CD release, pop it into the player and it errrrm, it usually sounds pretty awful. Same music, so why does it sound awful? It is because your brain during the film has synchronised the visual and audible cues and made a pleasant cocktail out of the two, yet separately neither amounts to much on it's own. Hollywood has understood this for a long time and people like James Newton Howard have got very rich off it.
Does your system sound any better with the lights off at night? It isn't the fact that it's dark that makes the difference, it's that your brain has quite naturally turned up the gain controls on what senses it has left it can rely upon, as in noises in the night within the house sound louder than noises in the house during the daytime. Your sense of smell also increases at night in the dark.
My study of the cables phenomenon is still ongoing and am learning quite a bit about human nature, psychology and biology at the same time. It is inextricably linked and really adds another starting point well away from simply resistance, capacitance and inductance.
A prime example: Anyone here seen a good film and as they are watching it they are rather struck by how good the soundtrack music is? Yep, me too. Go out and by the OST CD release, pop it into the player and it errrrm, it usually sounds pretty awful. Same music, so why does it sound awful? It is because your brain during the film has synchronised the visual and audible cues and made a pleasant cocktail out of the two, yet separately neither amounts to much on it's own. Hollywood has understood this for a long time and people like James Newton Howard have got very rich off.
Hasn't it also got something to do with the massive sound systems that cinemas use? I recall going into a club once, and Bowie's "Young Americans' was playing. It's a track I knew well, but the volume at which it was being played, and the size of the venue, added hugely to its power and impact.
Currently on offer at a mere £30 per metre pair at Richer Sounds!
I have some Cambridge Pacific interconnects - I have used them with a lot of different kit over the years. They have a distinctive character that I notice every time I try them which is that they are quite toppy whilst also emphasising low bass. I've also have Mark Grant canare (the £30 one), again tried with a variety of kit in 3 different systems. Very different (as much as cables can differ from one another) to the Pacific.
I don't tend to stick with the Pacific long as I have always found them a bit 'thuddy' and therefore fatiguing. Which is interesting in so much as Joe found the opposite with his exposure kit. I didn't really get on with the Mark Grant either but why is a bit more difficult to quantify.
Marco if I ever get oiver to your place will try to remember to bring the Pacific with me.
Hasn't it also got something to do with the massive sound systems that cinemas use? I recall going into a club once, and Bowie's "Young Americans' was playing. It's a track I knew well, but the volume at which it was being played, and the size of the venue, added hugely to its power and impact.
That doesn't apply though to domestic DVD watching at normal listening levels, even with surround sound systems. It's the link between audio and the visuals which your brain fuses together what you are watching with what you are hearing. Break the link and it's a different ball game altogether.
That doesn't apply though to domestic DVD watching at normal listening levels, even with surround sound systems. It's the link between audio and the visuals which your brain fuses together what you are watching with what you are hearing. Break the link and it's a different ball game altogether.
One could break the link by closing your eyes perhaps?
Hi Martin,
Marco if I ever get oiver to your place will try to remember to bring the Pacific with me.
Please do, as I suspect the results would be quite intriguing. Let's move this forward and make it happen soon :)
To use a food analogy: I think what's happening is that we're playing around with 'flavours', and so when our favourite 'recipe' (the sonic signature of our system) is missing an essential ingredient (the sonic signature of our usual cables), this adversely affects the 'palatability' of the overall dish, if you will.
What I strongly suspect though, given the comments here and the results of my own listening experiences, is that the G1000HDs are more neutral sounding than the Pacifics, and thus likely to work better in a variety of systems, which probably explains why Mark gets vanishingly few returns with his 30-day money back guarantee.
Marco.
What I strongly suspect though, given the comments here and the results of my own listening experiences, is that the G1000HDs are more neutral sounding.
I'll be finding out for myself soon. :)
I'd be interested in your thoughts, muchacho :)
Marco.
I don't do "thoughts".... not enough brain cells left! :lol:
Mark Grant
21-04-2011, 08:24
Funny that joe, I had the exact same results with going from Cambridge Pacific cables to Mark Grant cables. I left them in the system for a few days but just couldn't get along with them.
Finally ended up with Van Damme, bargain all round.
Funny that, I dont have any record of you ever buying or returning anything at all that I can find, and I have extensive searchable records of every sale and return and IP address for the last 8 years.
I know you cant reply here, but send me an email with some details if you did buy or return anything.
I am suspicious as there is someone from the Midlands area who joins forums using various names just to post negative comments about my products, and your first post was this one.
Mark.
That idiot was just a troll, Mark, and so not worthy of further recognition.
You get losers like that sometimes who lead sad, empty lives, who have nothing better to do to 'amuse' themselves :wanker:
Marco.
chris@panteg
21-04-2011, 09:37
Funny that, I dont have any record of you ever buying or returning anything at all that I can find, and I have extensive searchable records of every sale and return and IP address for the last 8 years.
I know you cant reply here, but send me an email with some details if you did buy or return anything.
I am suspicious as there is someone from the Midlands area who joins forums using various names just to post negative comments about my products, and your first post was this one.
Mark.
Hi Mark
I did an A-B between your interconnect and a Cambridge Azur reference , it was no contest , also my Paul Greenfield silver blew the Cambridge away , the CA sounds like its been designed to work with very bright CD player's .
magiccarpetride
21-04-2011, 17:33
That idiot was just a troll, Mark, and so not worthy of further recognition.
You get losers like that sometimes who lead sad, empty lives, who have nothing better to do to 'amuse' themselves :wanker:
Marco.
Guilty as charged.
In what way, Alex?
Marco.
The Vinyl Adventure
21-04-2011, 18:27
Funny that, I dont have any record of you ever buying or returning anything at all that I can find, and I have extensive searchable records of every sale and return and IP address for the last 8 years.
I know you cant reply here, but send me an email with some details if you did buy or return anything.
I am suspicious as there is someone from the Midlands area who joins forums using various names just to post negative comments about my products, and your first post was this one.
Mark.
Is me Mark, I'm ganging with flash cookies and we are out to get ya!
magiccarpetride
25-04-2011, 18:14
In what way, Alex?
Marco.
In a goofy way.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.