If we measure a change a blind test should show whether that is audible as well.
And the other way around, if blind testing shows there’s a definite change, but our measurements didn’t show anything, we should revisit what and how we were measuring.
Not sure about that. It reminds me the thread about the Melco ripper. Some analysis were done on the metadata, which finally looked identical to Dbpoweramp one.
However many found the Melco rips better sounding vs the Dbpoweramp rips.
It can also be that the tools are inadequate. Audio Science review compared cheap Ethernet switches with the Etheregen. They found no difference. However many found the Etheregen was giving a clear better sound.
Whilst there are numerous claims of people hearing differences, there would appear to be a vanishingly small proportion having conducted a direct comparison of ‘burnt’ and unburnt cables rather than relying on either memory or constancy of human hearing (or both). And as far as I am aware none conducted blind. The test would aim to establish whethr indeed people can genuinely detect a difference ( regardless of whether the difference is beneficial or detrimental), regardless of what may or may not be detectable by any particular tests applied. N.B, just as with quality of equipment used for measurements, the system used, including listening room, must be good enough to be resolving of small differences. And cognisant of Mark84’s observation, thee must be agreement on music choices.
In the event of nothing being measurable under the conditions of non-listening tests with the available equipment, also doing listening tests would answer the challenge either way as to whether or not the human ear can hear differences that the tests can’t detect. Without the listening test that challenge will remain from those who say they have heard differences. Simply declaring that ears/brain are not more sensitive to differences that scientific instruments does not make it a fact and won’t be accepted by those who believe otherwise.
…depends on how you look at the conundrum…cables have a negative influence (with reference to a hypothetical no cable situation)…maybe one of the things that human hearing/brain detects is loss of musical timing etc.
Could be all sorts of explanations!
That discussion re the Melco ripper did have some people suggest possible causes of different sound unrelated to the actual data: One having thought being the different approach to metadata storage somehow altered some aspect of the subsequent file read process. (There was another rather insidious thought that ripping on the manufacturer’s own device could be used to set a tag that is looked for during play and if missing a subtle change is made to the replay causing a small but noticeable difference in quality.).
These things could be explored further, but unfortunately the thread petered out because no-one was willing to circulate relevant files for More detailed examination.
Coming back to the present topic, personally I would not be adamant in absolute terms that scientific instruments can inevitably (easily or not) detect any change that human ears/brain can detect, not least because it depends what exactly the change is, and the equipment available, measuring conditions, etc. (E.g, I understand the hearing can detect very small differences in phase, but I am unsure how readily such differences can be measured.) However, in the case of te subject in hand, being change in characteristics of a cable due to passing a low level electrical current, I cannot conceive of a possible change in the characteristics of the cable that could cause changes in phase, so with regard to the subject of the hearing of differences between burnt and unburnt cables I am inclined to feel that any relevant differences would be measurable.
That, though, is quite a different area of ability from detecting the difference between two signals. We are very poor at that when elapsed time is involved (e.g. the several days it takes for burn-in to become apparent). For that sort of thing, measuring instruments are far better than humans.
I hope I’m not upsetting frenchrooster for still being here, by the way.
…but, I put this to you (sound like we are at the High Court)…
We do remember what our music sounds like without determining specifics. If I come back to the same music the next week I might well say ’ that sounds different, without being more specific. All this subjectivity!
But we don’t know if we just feel differently ourselves, maybe we are just in a better mood because of the weather, or maybe we are slightly more stressed due to work or family matters. It’s very difficult to say if our hifi system itself is objectively sounding (slightly) different…
Or what our eyes see! A number of studies have been done to determine how accurate our memory is in various situations, one of them focused on eyewitness accounts in court cases:
The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom
Another commonly held belief among the general public is that an eyewitness’ confidence in the accuracy of his or her memory is a strong indicator of the actual accuracy of the memory. Jurors often place great weight on how confident an eyewitness is regarding their memory of the event — enough to convict an individual even if eyewitness testimony is the only condemning evidence (Box 1). Meta-analyses have reported that mistaken eyewitness identification occurred in 75% or more of cases in which a convicted individual was later exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence. Importantly, memory experts generally do not endorse the idea that the confidence and accuracy of a memory are always tightly linked.