or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Audiophile CD Player? Which One?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audiophile CD Player? Which One? - Page 10

post #271 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

BTW, don't forget to make sure that the wires under test are switched instantaneously one from another, or your test will be pointless.
Why? Just because you said so?
You have zero proof for that, since your 'tests' cannot discern any differences, regardless of how fast or slow you switch the equipment. 'No evidence' is not a positive proof. If you can't see the Sun, night or day, because you are inside a windowless building, it doesn't mean the Sun is 'gone' and others can't see it.

 

Not because I said so, but because there is massive evidence that human auditory memory persists for only a few seconds. Unless the cables can be switched more or less instantly, this characteristic of the human brain negates the value of the test - if you are incapable of remembering what you just heard after more than 3 seconds or so, clearly you will be incapable of comparing what you are now hearing with what you just heard in any meaningful way. I suggest you google auditory memory and check it out. 

 

The common mistake you are making is to assume that any differences which can be heard are real and not simply a result of the test procedure itself. This is why the test procedure needs to follow well-established methods.

post #272 of 497
Omg....auditory memory persist alot longer than just a few seconds...
if you hear your child laugh..or cry..your telling me a week later when i hear it again..i will not be able to tell from the sound that its not my child?
Maybe because im so close to the equator on a island surrounded by water..the gravitational pull from the moon transporting my sound waves from my speakers are being effected from the solar flares of the sun..im sorry..you guys listen to your 200$
Avrs and radio shack cables and vizio disc players
if that makes you happy..you have no reason to upgrade then fine.
I am telling you I..repeat..I hear a yes hear it comes
NIGHT and DAY difference between cheap standard speaker cable and very good 1000$ cables...
You do not....i do
Maybe you believe in ufos...life after death...and if you think humans built the pyramids...oh boy!
There is more in life that can never be explained
if we all really knew the truth about what is really happening....
Hearing changes in cables is not something i really want to waste my time with...done it...done it...done it...and no i have not read that speaker cable folly yet..but i will.
this has turned out to be like going to the fair to see the three headed lizard boy!
Anyway...im working gotta go
as i said before..you all have a great friday!
Put our differences aside...no one is budging!
PEACE....
post #273 of 497
^^nonsense from someone who refuses to learn how the brain and audio reproduction works. Study up son, then we can have an educated debate.
post #274 of 497
Quote:
You have zero proof for that, since your 'tests' cannot discern any differences, regardless of how fast or slow you switch the equipment.
Simply false, though hardly surprising from someone who knows nothing about the subject. There have been numerous positive DBT results.

Stop embarrassing yourself.
post #275 of 497
There have been numerous dbt test that prove us both right and both wrong.
Lets move on......
post #276 of 497
Quote:
There have been numerous dbt test that prove us both right and both wrong.
Really? Please cite a few that prove you right.

And DBTs cannot prove us both right, because our positions are mutually exclusive. Either we can trust our ears at all times, or our hearing is subject to illusions and biases that make trusting our ears outside of properly controlled tests folly. Anyone who's not scientifically illiterate knows which is right.
post #277 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Omg....auditory memory persist alot longer than just a few seconds...
if you hear your child laugh..or cry..your telling me a week later when i hear it again..i will not be able to tell from the sound that its not my child?
Maybe because im so close to the equator on a island surrounded by water..the gravitational pull from the moon transporting my sound waves from my speakers are being effected from the solar flares of the sun..im sorry..you guys listen to your 200$
Avrs and radio shack cables and vizio disc players
if that makes you happy..you have no reason to upgrade then fine.
I am telling you I..repeat..I hear a yes hear it comes
NIGHT and DAY difference between cheap standard speaker cable and very good 1000$ cables...
You do not....i do
Maybe you believe in ufos...life after death...and if you think humans built the pyramids...oh boy!
There is more in life that can never be explained
if we all really knew the truth about what is really happening....
Hearing changes in cables is not something i really want to waste my time with...done it...done it...done it...and no i have not read that speaker cable folly yet..but i will.
this has turned out to be like going to the fair to see the three headed lizard boy!
Anyway...im working gotta go
as i said before..you all have a great friday!
Put our differences aside...no one is budging!
PEACE....

 

You didn’t google auditory memory. You didn't read the article on speaker wire. Scared you will learn something and realise how much money you have poured down the drain over the years?

 

Is there ANY science you understand - even a little bit?

post #278 of 497

Why we all continue to argue in the face of such incredible ignorance is becoming a mystery to me... I think I would be able to teach my dog to understand this sooner than these guys ;)

post #279 of 497
Quote:
I think I would be able to teach my dog to understand this sooner than these guys
True, but remember: Your dog might actually be able to hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96!
post #280 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post
 
Quote:
I think I would be able to teach my dog to understand this sooner than these guys
True, but remember: Your dog might actually be able to hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96!

 

ROTFL!!  Very good point :)

post #281 of 497
You are trying to MAKE me understand something i do not believe in.
how can something sooooo obvious thats right in front of you..not be there??
As i said before...lets move on...
But i forgot you guys are hard at hearing....
post #282 of 497

Some may be hard of hearing. But, on balance, that's probably better than being hard of thinking ;)

post #283 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

You are trying to MAKE me understand something i do not believe in.
 

 

You don't believe in science?  I guess that says a lot.

 

But this is more nonsense anyway - it's perfectly possible to understand something you don't believe in. 

post #284 of 497
How many times has esh posted "I'm done...." only to come back and post again?

Anyone want to count? Because it would be more productive than debating with him, which is like having a debate with one of the chimps at the local zoo.
post #285 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

How many times has esh posted "I'm done...." only to come back and post again?

Anyone want to count? Because it would be more productive than debating with him, which is like having a debate with one of the chimps at the local zoo.

 

That is very insulting...

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
... to the chimp :)
post #286 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Why? Just because you said so?
You have zero proof for that, since your 'tests' cannot discern any differences, regardless of how fast or slow you switch the equipment. 'No evidence' is not a positive proof. If you can't see the Sun, night or day, because you are inside a windowless building, it doesn't mean the Sun is 'gone' and others can't see it.

Huh? I already told you that *my* tests easily found two instances of positive results, ie, audible differences between equipment. Did you not read that part, or did your mind subconsciously skip over it because it doesn't align with your deeply held views?
post #287 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

You are trying to MAKE me understand something i do not believe in.

We're trying to make you at least contemplate the mere possibility that there's a difference in what you believe you hear versus what exists within reality. You won't even contemplate or consider that possibility. That just equates to you being close minded to the topic. Hence, there's nothing for you to gain from this discussion, so ending your involvement as you have promised multiple times is a good idea at this point.
Quote:
But i forgot you guys are hard at hearing....

Why do you insist on the personal insults?
post #288 of 497
Like I have not been personally insulted..please
I have contemplated the mere possibility and concluded my personal evaluations on subject.
What's wrong with having a personal opinion?
Life is to short..enjoy what you have, love the day and please let's stop talking about THE differences between speaker cable.....let's talk
Interconnects!!!
..no really..I'm sure we all have better things to do.
post #289 of 497
Quote:
What's wrong with having a personal opinion?
What's wrong with telling someone their personal opinion is scientifically wrong?
post #290 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Quote:
What's wrong with having a personal opinion?
What's wrong with telling someone their personal opinion is scientifically wrong?

Well strictly speaking personal opinions aren't right or wrong, rather we agree with them or not.

Problem is that some people don't understand the difference between personal opinions and hard facts.

If I said that it was my opinion that New York city was the largest city New York state, that would be silly, because the identity of the largest city in New York State is a knowable hard fact.

If I said that it is a fact that the Democratic party was ill-advised in their political policies, that would be presumptuous, because political policies relate to the future, and nobody knows the future that accurately.

The problem on this forum is that some people have confused the realm of issues that aren't knowable and therefore people can only have opinions about, and issues that are knowable, and for which hard facts can be known.
post #291 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Like I have not been personally insulted..please
I have contemplated the mere possibility and concluded my personal evaluations on subject.
What's wrong with having a personal opinion?

Sometimes personal opinions are not appropriate.

For example, if you said that it is your personal opinion that iron was lighter than steel, that would not be appropriate because whether iron or steel is heavier is a knowable known fact. Anybody who thinks that iron is lighter than steel is not well-informed and is, in fact spouting garbage.
post #292 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Like I have not been personally insulted..please
I have contemplated the mere possibility and concluded my personal evaluations on subject.
What's wrong with having a personal opinion?
Life is to short..enjoy what you have, love the day and please let's stop talking about THE differences between speaker cable.....let's talk
Interconnects!!!
..no really..I'm sure we all have better things to do.

 

So, Esh, what did you make of that article on speaker wire?

post #293 of 497
Guys...I think I figured out what's happening.
OK....so I go buy very nice hi-end cables..
That makes me very happy!
I hook everything up..and when I sit down to that first listen..I'm already very happy..when the music starts..since Im already very happy..the music sounds better!!.... Because I'm in a good mood and happy it makes the music sound different!!!!
Now I got it...lol
post #294 of 497
.......i hope you realize im just kidding...
post #295 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

How many times has esh posted "I'm done...." only to come back and post again?
Anyone want to count? Because it would be more productive than debating with him, which is like having a debate with one of the chimps at the local zoo.
I will post as long as you call me out with comments based on your fake religion.
Happy now?
PS: The ratio of previous posts is 18:1 in favor of your religion, so I don't see why are you afraid.
post #296 of 497
Quote:
.......i hope you realize im just kidding...
Pity. It was the first sensible thing you've said.
post #297 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Guys...I think I figured out what's happening.
OK....so I go buy very nice hi-end cables..
That makes me very happy!
I hook everything up..and when I sit down to that first listen..I'm already very happy..when the music starts..since Im already very happy..the music sounds better!!.... Because I'm in a good mood and happy it makes the music sound different!!!!
Now I got it...lol

Some questions and comments with the quoted statements as a starting point:

(1) are you raising the possibility that "your mood (emotional or psychological state) can make the music sound different (be perceived differently by you, the listener)" only to dismiss this possibility as a ridiculous, nonsensical idea ("LOL")?

(edit: I see that esh516 posted a followup to clarify that he does view this as a ridiculous, nonsensical idea.
Quote:
.......i hope you realize im just kidding...
Clarifying comments that actually clarify a poster's views are all good wink.gif )

(2) Why is the idea stated in (1) ridiculous and nonsensical? Or, alternatively, why should this idea be taken seriously?

My next comments are a bit more complicated. (Of course, feel free to skip if you don't like complications.)

(3) Are the claims in the indented paragraph true or false?
For some people, who are not critical listeners, their emotional or psychological state can make the music sound different. But other people, who are critical listeners, have the ability to "tune out" their emotional or psychological state and listen in a purely "objective" manner to music. For these latter people, the critical listeners, their emotional or psychological state does NOT make the music sound different. For example, in a listening test of a "new" component in their audio system, the "critical listener" will not be influenced by their happiness at obtaining and trying out the "new" component, and may hear an "improvement in sound quality" only if inserting the new component causes an objective change in the sound that reach their ears.

(4) Now consider the type of "blind listening" that people mean when talking about "double-blind listening tests" (DBTs): not literally "listening with your eye closed or wearing a blindfold", but rather "listening such that you don't know, at the start of the test, whether the old or new component is connected". Do you also agree that for a "critical listener", as defined in (3), the "blind listening" done in a DBT is equivalent to "sighted listening"? In other words, do you agree that a "critical listener" will be equally able to perceive changes in sound quality (such as caused by switching components) in "sighted listening", and in "blind listening" as done in a DBT?

(5) Now consider the following claim:
Some critical listeners, as defined in item (3), have much less ability to perceive changes in sound quality when doing "blind listening" than in "sighted listening". In other words, for these people, "sighted" critical listening works great (for example, they have great ability to hear subtle changes in sound quality caused by switching components) , but in a DBT, their critical listening ability doesn't work or is severely degraded, relative to their "sighted" critical listening ability.
In my opinion, this claim is internally contradictory and thus false (such people cannot exist). There cannot be a "critical listener", as defined in (3), whose critical listening ability is reduced by "blind" listening conditions. The contradiction is as follows: people who talk about degradation of critical listening ability, on going from "sighted" to "blind" listening, describe the degradation as a psychological effect, due to factors such as to "testing anxiety" that may reduce ability to perceive subtle differences, or "disorientation" that results from being forced to listen to an audio system without knowing in advance the identities of all components. But, a "critical listener" as defined in (3) is immune to psychological effects on their hearing. CONCLUSION: a "critical listener" as defined in (3) can hear differences in sound quality equally well in a DBT as in sighted listening.


And one more set of concepts that may be relevant to these questions (the following is from Wikipedia articles): the human hearing system has multiple "components", somewhat analogous to a component audio system - including "transducers", "cable", and "processor" (!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_hearing
Quote:
Hearing, auditory perception, or audition[note 1] is the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations,[1] changes in the pressure of the surrounding medium through time, through an organ such as the ear. ... In humans and other vertebrates, hearing is performed primarily by the auditory system: vibrations are detected by the ear and transduced into nerve impulses that are perceived by the brain (primarily in the temporal lobe).

The main components of the human hearing system can be described as follows:
(a) our ears, which are transducers that convert sound ("changes in the pressure of the surrounding medium through time") to nerve impulses (electrochemical signals).
(b) the cochlear (or auditory) nerve that transmits the nerve impulses from the ears to the brain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_nerve
(c) The temporal lobes of the brain, that "process" the nerve impulses that started at our ears. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe
And here are some characteristics of the temporal lobes:
Quote:
The temporal lobes are involved in the retention of visual memories, processing sensory input, comprehending language, storing new memories, emotion, and deriving meaning.
Quote:
Processing sensory input. Auditory. Adjacent areas in the superior, posterior, and lateral parts of the temporal lobes are involved in high-level auditory processing. The temporal lobe is involved in primary auditory perception, such as hearing, and holds the primary auditory cortex. The primary auditory cortex receives sensory information from the ears and secondary areas process the information into meaningful units such as speech and words.
So the temporal lobes are "processors" not just for the sensory inputs of our five senses, but also for other "mental events" such as "storing new memories, emotion, and deriving meaning" - that's interesting.
Edited by Sonic icons - 8/31/13 at 3:29pm
post #298 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Pity. It was the first sensible thing you've said.
Ha ha..I knew you would say that!
post #299 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic icons View Post

Just a few questions and comments with the quoted statements as a starting point:

(1) are you raising the possibility that "your mood (emotional or psychological state) can make the music sound different (be perceived differently by you, the listener)" only to dismiss this possibility as a ridiculous, nonsensical idea ("LOL")?

(edit: I see that esh516 posted a followup to clarify that he does view this as a ridiculous, nonsensical idea. ".....i hope you realize im just kidding...". Clarifying comments that actually clarify a poster's views are all good wink.gif )

(2) Why is the idea stated in (1) ridiculous and nonsensical? Or, conversely, why should this idea be taken seriously?

My next comments are a bit more complicated. (Of course, feel free to skip if you don't like complications.)

(3) Are the claims in the indented paragraph true or false?
For some people, who are not critical listeners, their emotional or psychological state can make the music sound different. But other people, who are critical listeners, have the ability to "tune out" their emotional or psychological state and listen in a purely "objective" manner to music. For these latter people, the critical listeners, their emotional or psychological state does NOT make the music sound different. For example, in a listening test of a "new" component in their audio system, the "critical listener" will not be influenced by their happiness at obtaining and trying out the "new" component, and may hear an "improvement in sound quality" only if inserting the new component causes an objective change in the sound that reach their ears.

(4) Now consider the type of "blind listening" that people mean when talking about "double-blind listening tests" (DBTs): not literally "listening with your eye closed or wearing a blindfold", but rather "listening such that you don't know, at the start of the test, whether the old or new component is connected". Do you also agree that for a "critical listener", as defined in (3), the "blind listening" done in a DBT is equivalent to "sighted listening"? In other words, do you agree that a "critical listener" will be equally able to perceive changes in sound quality (such as caused by switching components) in "sighted listening", and in "blind listening" as done in a DBT?

(5) Now consider the following claim:
Some critical listeners, as defined in item (3), have much less ability to perceive changes in sound quality when doing "blind listening" than in "sighted listening". In other words, for these people, "sighted" critical listening works great (for example, they have great ability to hear subtle changes in sound quality caused by switching components) , but in a DBT, their critical listening ability doesn't work or is severely degraded, relative to their "sighted" critical listening ability.
In my opinion, this claim is internally contradictory and thus false (such people cannot exist). There cannot be a "critical listener", as defined in (3), whose critical listening ability is reduced by "blind" listening conditions. The contradiction is as follows: people who talk about degradation of critical listening ability, on going from "sighted" to "blind" listening, describe the degradation as a psychological effect, due to factors such as to "testing anxiety" that may reduce ability to perceive subtle differences, or "disorientation" that results from being forced to listen to an audio system without knowing in advance the identities of all components. But, a "critical listener" as defined in (3) is immune to psychological effects on their hearing. CONCLUSION: a "critical listener" as defined in (3) can hear differences in sound quality equally well in a DBT as in sighted listening.


And one more set of concepts that may be relevant to these questions (the following is from Wikipedia articles): the human hearing system has multiple "components", somewhat analogous to a component audio system - including "transducers", "cable", and "processor" (!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_hearing
The main components of the human hearing system can be described as follows:
(a) our ears, which are transducers that convert sound ("changes in the pressure of the surrounding medium through time") to nerve impulses (electrochemical signals).
(b) the cochlear (or auditory) nerve that transmits the nerve impulses from the ears to the brain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_nerve
(c) The temporal lobes of the brain, that "process" the nerve impulses that started at our ears. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe
And here are some characteristics of the temporal lobes:

So the temporal lobes are "processors" not just for the sensory inputs of our five senses, but also for other "mental events" such as "storing new memories, emotion, and deriving meaning" - that's interesting.
....um...what?
post #300 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

....um...what?
You just spent the better half of a holiday weekend Saturday to write allll that?
But it looks like you scrambled my post...insert that..pull out that..etc
But..yes I will re-read it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Audiophile CD Player? Which One?