DBT Report

[penance]

Well i did join in the joke and made my contribution to it, although i thought it was jovial fun and not digging.

It seems hard to understand sometimes. We had a forum where we all got on very well, very helpful people and good discussion.
Has all that really left us?

I hope not.

 

[sideshowbob]

Originally posted by lowrider
ZG is indeed a waste of time nowadays, but because you have been sulking for weeks, instead of letting the majority of us discuss our cables or whatever we used to discuss over here... :bub:

Antonio, I've never made a sarcastic comment about anybody's hearing capabilities, attacked anyone for their cable choices, or stopped anyone discussing them for that matter. Discuss them all you like, but expect a short response if you suggest people who don't agree with your choices are "aurally challenged".

I'm totally relaxed about my choices, and other people's. I honestly don't care if someone disagrees with me. I keep saying it, but none of it matters.

-- Ian

 

[merlin]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
Suggesting those who don't believe have faulty hearing is rather more provocative than "we all hear differently". Not posting anything at all would have been better. Seems sulky to resurrect a DBT agrument that's been done to death in order to suggest you have better hearing than others.
Ian

I didn't say better - that's your interpretation Ian. What exactly is "better hearing" in the context of a music lover anyway? More analytical would be how I would describe what I was saying, but that would still be ridiculed.

I don't believe you've ever done a DBT of cables.

I've heard enough without actually seeing the change to know Ian. I don't know if you have ever subjected yourself to a set of hearing tests and compared the results with others.(and before you jump up and down, I'm not suggesting your ears are shot - it would however be interesting to compare different peoples ears' performance when subjected to a strict testing procedure. Only then, and assuming the results were the same for all parties, would you be able to tell some of us that we are imagining things.

 

[sideshowbob]

I didn't say better - that's your interpretation Ian.

Your words were "aurally challenged". There's only one way to interpret that.

I've heard enough without actually seeing the change to know Ian. I don't know if you have ever subjected yourself to a set of hearing tests and compared the results with others.(and before you jump up and down, I'm not suggesting your ears are shot - it would however be interesting to compare different peoples ears' performance when subjected to a strict testing procedure.

Yes, it would, wouldn't it? A DBT test of cables, perhaps? (I can't think of a stricter testing procedure than that, but I thought you were opposed to such tests in principle.)

-- Ian

 

[lowrider]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
From now on, perhaps I should start referring to the people zanash describes as "the enlightened" as "the gullible". Or would I get vitriol if I did?

This is not a sarcastic comment... :SLEEP:

Also I used you in the plural...

 

[michaelab]

Originally posted by lowrider
ZG is indeed a waste of time nowadays, but because you have been sulking for weeks, instead of letting the majority of us discuss our cables or whatever we used to discuss over here... :bub:

Antonio, you don't have to come here if you don't want to . No one is preventing anyone (and from the recent poll I wouldn't say it was the majority) from discussing cables (or anything else) anyway so I don't know what your problem is .

What I and others have a problem with is people like you and merlin suggesting that we don't hear differences because we are "aurally challenged" .

Originally posted by merlin
I didn't say better - that's your interpretation Ian. What exactly is "better hearing" in the context of a music lover anyway? More analytical would be how I would describe what I was saying, but that would still be ridiculed.

It was you who coined the term "aurally challenged" in your first post - if that's not meant to imply better/worse then I don't know what is. More analytical is just another way of saying better.

Everything had calmed down once we were all able to accept the term "different" but you had to go and re-light the fire again didn't you?

Michael.

 

[voodoo]

Two points before I run behind the sofa, as the DBT Cybermen approach:

1: I recently went to a hearing specialist about my ears and after numerous tests I was told that they are fine. But alas, I know they are screwed as I have Tinitus and my left ear can hear static from tweeters, whereas my right cannot. The test was made with the usual frequency response tests, in a sealed room. Can I tell differences between cables ? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

2: If you compare hearing to eyesight some interesting comparisons can be made. Take two people with 20/20 vision (not me I must add !) and show them a peice of paper coloured red. Neither person will see the colour in the same way as each person interprets colour in a different way. Any reason why two people, with perfect hearing would not interpret sound differently ?

If someone asks for opinion on a cable, and you have tried it but didn't hear any discernable difference, give your opinion and leave it at that.

If someone asks for opinion on a cable, and you have tried it and did hear a discernable difference, give your opinion and leave it at that.

 

[sideshowbob]

If someone asks for opinion on a cable, and you have tried it but didn't hear any discernable difference, give your opinion and leave it at that.

If someone asks for opinion on a cable, and you have tried it and did hear a discernable difference, give your opinion and leave it at that.

Good policy. Completely agreed.

Originally posted by sideshowbob
From now on, perhaps I should start referring to the people zanash describes as "the enlightened" as "the gullible". Or would I get vitriol if I did?

This is not a sarcastic comment...

No, it's a rhetorical question.

-- Ian

 

[lowrider]

Originally posted by michaelab
What I and others have a problem with is people like you and merlin suggesting that we don't hear differences because we are "aurally challenged" .

I am convinced that you are aurally challenged, I also believe a lot of people hear and see better than me, both phisically and because of more trainning, what is the problem...

I showed this to my wife and she was appalled, what is the problem that some people hear different than others, you are all nuts...

 

[merlin]

Originally posted by michaelab
It was you who coined the term "aurally challenged" in your first post - if that's not meant to imply better/worse then I don't know what is. More analytical is just another way of saying better.
Michael.

OK Over 20% of a wide crossection of listeners were found to be unable to identify changes in a test. It is therefore quite possible that a similar percentage of forum members would also be unable to pass the test.

So yes there is the distinct possibility that a good percentage of forum members have less acute hearing than others- why the hell should you worry about it! I have not used the term better nor worse for very deliberate reasons. I do not believe that more acute hearing neccessarily gives you any greater pleasure from your music.

All we are saying is, hear is potential evidence that we might not just be imagining things - and you act like children Give us a break

 

[michaelab]

Originally posted by lowrider
I am convinced that you are aurally challenged

Well, if you want to play it like that then I'm convinced you are imagining differences in cables.

I don't have any problem with people hearing things differently, I have a problem with people suggesting that the only explanation for me not hearing cable differences is that my hearing is deficient in some way. Let's not forget that the claimed differences we're talking about here are often described as "huge" and "a much bigger change than any component swap" - so the implication is that my hearing must be pretty bad to not be able to hear those changes. I'm sure there are people with better hearing than mine but I'm equally sure that my hearing is more than capable of detecting changes in hifi equipment of any significant magnitude.

Originally posted by merlin
All we are saying is, hear is potential evidence that we might not just be imagining things - and you act like children Give us a break

dat19 has already stated why your "potential evidence" is flawed. I know I can hear differences between speakers, amps and CD players but not between cables (that I've tested). So, does my hearing somehow change when I'm trying to compare cables, cables that many claim to have as big an effect as box swaps?

Oh, and starting this thread wasn't childish at all? Re-igniting old fires just because you think you've found the trump card that will finally silence the cable sceptics instead of just letting sleeping dogs lie. As Ian said, the whole Blue LED thing was pretty childish too. Funny for about 5 minutes maybe but now it's just f**king boring.

There is, and always has been, one way to settle this and that would be to get all of us together for a properly configured DBT run by an independent 3rd party. If someone wants to organize it I'll be there but TBH I don't really care. I've got nothing to prove and it really isn't important to me at all. Clearly for you though it's of vital importance .

Michael.

 

[sideshowbob]

Merlin, "challenged" is a synonym for disablement. Your example proves nothing whatsoever about the hearing abilities of cable sceptics, or cable believers for that matter, since nobody has conducted a similar study of those who claim to hear cable differences to see what percentage of them are "aurally challenged". Or are you assuming that the "aurally challenged" are more likely to be cable sceptics? On what basis do you make that speculation?

Of course, it's possible that those who can't hear cable differences have "less acute" hearing. It's equally (or, IMO, more) likely, however, that electrically identical cables are in fact indistinguishable, given the weight of evidence suggesting that this must be the case, and the inability to date of anybody under DBT conditions to pass a test proving they can identify differences.

I'm willing to accept your hypothesis if you're willing to accept mine, but I'd much prefer if the evangelists stopped raking up old disputes that, in the absence of any real testing, have no possible resolution, and just lead to bad feeling.

-- Ian

 

[michaelab]

Dammit Ian - how do you always manage to say exactly what I wanted to say so much more eloquently?

Michael.

 

[merlin]

Michael,

nothing regarding this petty little place is essential to me any more I'm afraid. And that is sad. I posted genuinelt because I stupidly thought it could provide possible reasons behind your disagreements, not withthe intention of reigniting them.

Just that you are soooo f**king cynical some of you that you instantly take umbrage and throw insults everywhere.

Can you create a seperate forum for those of us who actually care about these things so that when we want to discuss things that are of interest to us, we don't have to put up with this sort of rubbish?

 

[merlin]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
Merlin, "challenged" is a synonym for disablement. Your example proves nothing whatsoever about the hearing abilities of cable sceptics, or cable believers for that matter, since nobody has conducted a similar study of those who claim to hear cable differences to see what percentage of them are "aurally challenged". Or are you assuming that the "aurally challenged" are more likely to be cable sceptics? On what basis do you make that speculation?
Ian

Ian

I never said it proved anything, just that it might provide some form of explanation other than the usual crap ( you're deaf vs. you're deluded) A vane hope I grant you given the childish responses.

I am happy for you to have you theory and for me to have mine. But why the hell can I not post something which is genuinly interesting rather than the usual "what £100 phono stage should I buy"

HCC really has arrived hasn't it

 

[Uncle Ants]

Bloody hell you lot, I was wondering why things were so quiet over on the part of the forum that actually matters (the music bit) and discover that you lot are over here bitching over cables ... again.

Jeez, what is it with you guys. Go to more live gigs, get yerself a bit deaf and it really won't matter :MILD:

Seriously though - I don't know why you can't all just agree to differ - maybe you can hear a difference maybe you can't - who cares. I have (or have believed I have) heard differences (and I will williingly admit my hearing IS impaired for what its worth), but not enough difference to convince me of the basic truth that most fancy cabling is a complete rip off in VFM terms.

Perhaps that's something we can agree on - whether or not we believe there are differences, they can't be such big differences that cables running into 4 figures don't verge on the fraudulent - and also perhaps that music journalists mostly write complete garbage on the subject

 

[lowrider]

Originally posted by michaelab
Antonio, you don't have to come here if you don't want to .

I wonder why you didn't say this to SB as well, after all he is the one that said "ZG is a waste of time nowadays" first...

 

[joel]

Originally posted by merlin

I never said it proved anything, just that it might provide some form of explanation other than the usual crap ( you're deaf vs. you're deluded) A vane hope I grant you given the childish responses

I think this is a fair question to ask. But to prove it you'd have to show a statistical relationship between those who "don't" hear and physical hearing impairment. An interesting thing to test, but tricky and requiring of a good deal of effort.
Since most people on here aren't even interested enough to discover if there is a difference between what we actually hear and what we think we hear, I don't think it will get very far, sadly. Most of us do not want to learn that our hearing is less good than we imagine it to be (me included)...
Antonio: every time you buy something, anything, it becomes the "nec plus ultra". I suggest you try listening to a "really good" system. It's a humbling experience - leave the :MILD: smiley at the door.

 

[michaelab]

Originally posted by merlin
Can you create a seperate forum for those of us who actually care about these things so that when we want to discuss things that are of interest to us, we don't have to put up with this sort of rubbish?

If you feel a separate forum is required then you're welcome to create your own, at your own expense, or perhaps with sponsorship from a cable manufacturer

Originally posted by merlin
nothing regarding this petty little place is essential to me any more I'm afraid. And that is sad. I posted genuinelt because I stupidly thought it could provide possible reasons behind your disagreements, not withthe intention of reigniting them.

Only you could seriously belive that. You're a serial wind-up merchant and this thread is just your latest effort. I think it would be very sad if anyone thought anything in this forum, or any other, was essential.

Michael.

 

[merlin]

Originally posted by michaelab
You're a serial wind-up merchant and this thread is just your latest effort. IMichael.

Prejudging indeed Michael

Just think, if i really wanted to wind you up, I think I could manage it in ooh, let's say 2 minutes. But it would n't be anything as obvious as this

I move in three weeks. I propose that on the weekend of 22/23rd of May, we carry out this DBT at my new place. We will need someone to change the kit, someone to mark the scores and possibly 3 listeners (with good hearing). Anyone interested should let me know. Hopefully that will put this to bed once and for all.