Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
LOL at this thread being resurrected to reply 6 years later!
Well, what can I say, Mr.Harkness, I've got a life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
In early 2000 I got hold of a Nordost S-Video cable (still have it). Given how ridiculously expensive it was even I fell for it at first.
How much was it at the time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
I replaced a regular old S-Video cable and thought "Yeah...yeah...you know, I think that DOES look better. Looks more clear, better color..."
Then I came to my senses and did a blind test between it, the lower end cable and a monster S-video cable. Guess what? Couldn't tell a damned difference once I didn't know which cable was in the system (a friend helped me).
I have done the same. It was kinda scary since monster has this 'death grip' so one had to be extra careful not to damage the socket. Especially someone other than me doing the switching. I could tell the difference. It was no contest. Monster sucked the life of picture. Nordost sparkled in comnparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
I had the same experience with some super expensive AC cables. Thought I bsolutely-no-one-can-tell-me-I'm-hearing-things heard a difference. Wasn't even sure I still liked my system the difference seemed so big. Then I blind tested the cable against a standard 15 dollar military-grade AC cable. No perceptible difference at all once I didn't know which cable was in the system.
I
I have no experience with AC cables with regard to the 'quality' of video/audio reproduction. I do know what I like when I hear and when I see with my own eyes and ears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
I went on to do more blind testing of various levels of component video cables, even involving AVSmembers. Results: choice of "which image looked better" turned out no better than blind chance, statistically.
Mr.Harkness, with all due respect for statistical testing, what is true for an individual is not necessarily true for a large group of people and vice versa.
Think about vision of fighter pilots vs. the rest of us. Figher pilots can see things most of us cannot see, so does this invalidate the what the fighter pilots can see that the rest of us cannot see?
Or what about those who are color blind? Most of us can differentiate different colors, but that is not true for those who are color blind. Now does this mean we are being delusional about being able to differentiate different colors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
This is not news to people who actually know engineering, science and the research on human perception. It is news - though rejected - by people who want to stick with what they think they percieve.
I guess this means what a color blind person thinks perceives is not valid for those who are not, therefore what a color blind person think perceives is not valid?
Your above sentiment contradicts what you said about parameter of your Harkness calibration. After all, it depends on one particular individual's perception of color, contrast to determine the optimal setting. The optimal setting for one individual may not be true for another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
Have you tried a true blind test with your Nordost vs any other cable?
Ditto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
And any results, differences in contrast, color etcs would be OBJECTIVELY measurable calibration instruments, which are more sensitive in some ways than your eyes.
So if a color blind person cannot detect the difference in color, and as a result sees no difference even though the differences in colors are OBJECTIVELY measurable in calibration instruments, which are far more sensitive in some ways than the color blind person's eyes. then does this mean what a color blind person sees is FALSE? Especially for him/her?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
You can find VASTLY cheaper cables made to broadcast video standards and it is magic-thinking to believe that Nordost will transmit a perceptibly better picture.
Mr.Harkness, do you think if OBJECTIVELY measurable calibratioin instruments detect the difference in color and contrast, does this mean you can necessarily see the difference yourself the same way?
If your ability to detect the difference in color and contrast necessarily correlated the OBJECTIVELY measurable calibration instruements (which are far more sensitive in some ways than your ability to see the difference), then why would you even bother to use OBJECTIVELY measurable calibration instruements when your own eyes are already good enough?
The very fact that OBJECTIVELY measurable calibration instruements 'see' the difference in color and contrast differently from what you see with your own eyes is the proof that what matters is what you see with your own eyes, not what OBJECTIVELY measurable calibration instruments 'see'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
You will want to still "laugh" at all this no doubt, because you have come to rely so firmly on your personal subjective experience.
No, Mr.Harkness. I don't laugh at what you said. In fact, I appreciate your input as it made me articulate more clearly what one sees doesn't have to correspond to OBJECTIVELY measurable calibration instruements 'see'.
So I guess this means a color blind person is not 'crazy' or 'dishonest' when he/she couldn't detect the difference in color that OBJECTIVELY measurable calibration instruements detect?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
"You can't tell me what I'm seeing!"
Mr.Harkness, does this mean OBJECTIVELY measurable calibration instruements can tell what a color blind person sees?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
It's not until you recognize just how
fallible your subjectivity is - you are no less susceptible than anyone else to the effects of bias! - that you will be able to find out you are likely wrong. Scientists don't employ blind and double blind testing just to make their lives harder - it's necessary to get around the incredibly strong effects of our biases.
Mr. Harkness, please contrast your above observation with what you had said on the steaming rat method you advocated below on 08/04/05 Post 195 of your steaming rat method;
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
Yes, the steaming rat method does depend on developing a
decent eye for acheiving quality. But short of hiring a
professional calibrationist, why don't you start with AVIA and then adjust from there. At least you should get the colors closer to
"correct" and have a decent starting point. Then if it's too much color and brightness - hey,
you are in control, not the TV. Adjust the color and brightness intensity
until it looks best to you.
Best of luck.
Mr.Harkness, do you see your contradiction? You're admonishing me how fallible my subjectivity is, yet your steaming rat method is dependent on subjectivity of a person for oneself for what looks best.
...and how does your above sentiment apply to a color blind person? True, a color blind person's lack of ability to see the difference in colors that OBJECTIVELY measurable calibration instruements can detect makes the color blind person 'fallible', but is it due to bias that a color blind person cannot see the difference that OBJECTIVELY measurable calibration instruements can detect?
Is it 'wrong' that a color blind person cannot detect the difference in colors that OBJECTIVEVLY measurable calibration instruements can detect?
Can blind and double blind testing employed by scientists of a color blind person can decide what a non-color blind person can see?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
There's a reason you don't see cable manufacturers like Nordost supplying objective, measurable differences between images using their video cables vs a competently designed cheaper cable.
I understand the reason. It's because people's ability to see the difference in color, contrast, etc are not the same. What works for others doesn't work for some others, otherwise we wouldn't go to get our own personal eye exam to get glasses.
Literally, we see things differently. There is no one universal prescription that works for all. Even if one can find a prescription that works for the majority, that doesn't mean it works for the rest.
Now, Mr.Harkness, that's from optimologiests themselves, a scientific discpline that specializes in vision perception. That''s why your Harkness calibration works for you and some others, but not all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness 
I'll set myself a timer to check back in 2019 for your reply.

No need for that Mr.Harkness. I respond well to those who are serious.
Edited by Red Grant - 3/12/13 at 1:56am