Fri, 21 August 2009
Slau
0:00:00 Introduction Richard Saunders 0:01:35 Kylie Sturgess interviews Slau of www.sessionswithslau.com 0:29:50 THE THINK TANK - Dr Rachael Dunlop, Dianne, Joanne Benhamu Comments[13]
|
- Find it sort of strange that cables are repeatedly brought up.. I wonder when Green Peace are going to take up the issue on "Franken Wire"?
My humble PC now rocks the unit down (surprise surprise, I have actually had a noise complaint).
As a skeptic I am bound to say that my own experiment over the years is just mine.
I am dead sure that if the effect were true, there would be an I.E.E.E. monograph on the minimum requirement for grade speaker wire. This could then be comfortably tested in the Richard Lounge.
We would all be happy buying that stuff manufactured to up and coming AS/NZS XXXX.01 "construction and specifications for audio cables".. From that monograph we could see the requirement input/output cables for the type input/output devices. I think the "audio" cable may drastically lose weight.
Till then.. the issue is dead in the water. Mr Happy can sell you anything he damn well pleases.
Skeptics should bring standards and codes into the argument a bit more.. It gives a traceable, authoritive position that is best practice at the time.
- @Mark Z: there are some extraordinary claims made by some 'Hi Fi' reviewers and by the manufacturers of various cables; including my favorite, the super expensive power cables leading from wall plug to amp that supposedly improve sound quality.
I think that skeptics should not be the ones trying to test these cables, but the people making the claims and particular those making money from selling this stuff. My take on the interview that Slau simply told of an anecdote about cables and had never personally got into a serious ABX test. He did not appear to make a particular claim; but certainly many companies selling overpriced gear do.
I have personally run a single blind test some years ago which is easy to replicate. I used CDEX to rip one track 6 times to MP3 format at 128, 256 VBR and 320kbps bit rates. I wrote a CD with 2 raw copies of the CD Audio & the six copies. I lent it to a few people who tried to pick the MP3s. Having written the CD, I though I could pick them, but people taking the CD home could only pick the 128 rips; even then, only those with good audio gear and who listened carefully.
Personally I think sound quality is incredibly subjective thing. I have listened to the same music on the same setup different days and had totally different perceptions of the sound. I think it is very easy for people to perceive differences when told that component X is different or when they see brand name Y. I think many reviewers for instance are not trying to rip people off, but simply are swayed into hearing what they expect. I also struggle to believe any claims without very good evidence, such as the requirement for expensive HDMI cables, when computer networks with very cheap cable generally pass gigabit traffic without packet loss over 30m.
--gb
- Do your own homework - Maybe I'm not being clear or maybe you're trolling. I'll assume the former and make one more attempt.
Doing your own homework is a good idea. That is what I was extolling, and I've already done mine.
That's why I knew there were no testing protocols for the Pear Cable challenge and the inference of Slau's expertise based on knowledge of those protocols was flat out wrong. It's also why I know that Slau's opinion is based on his professional experience and not rigorous studies, and why I know Mr. Hitt's study, while a good attempt, has one weakness at least. The information about Slau and Hitt, though, is irrelevant to the point I am making, so I didn't bring it up. For clarity's sake, we don't know for certain whether Slau's and Hitt's positions are right or wrong, but we do know they are unsupported at this time (if we've done our homework, that is).
How many people listening to the interview drew the unwarranted conclusion that there is no difference between the speaker cables because they didn't do their own homework? Again, it may be there truly is no difference but that conclusion is unsupported by the evidence at this time. One last time, that's why everyone should be doing their own homework. Is that clear enough?
Thank you for your time. We now return to our normally scheduled program in progress. ;0) - Mark Z:
"He mentioned the name of the "other guy's" podcast -- maybe you should contact them to get more details? Slau himself said 'contact him' if you had more questions and his site at sessionswithslau could certainly go into it more."
The other guy was from the podcast was Dave Hitt from Quick Hitts and there's an email for him there. You can go to the Hittman Chronicles too, as Slau said.
Interviews are clearly edited to save time -- arguing for the sake of arguing makes skeptics get the bad reputation they do. - confirmationbias - Your claim for Slau's knowledge of testing protocols is unsupported by your example of Pear Cable Co.'s participation in Randi's million-dollar challenge. Pear Cable withdrew from the challenge long before testing protocols could be agreed upon. Also I don't recall Slau's connection with that particular challenge, although there may have been one.
Again, I'm not arguing either for or against a particular position. I am warning against errors in logic and faulty reasoning. Your statement that, "I'd really not doubt that he's just making assumptions on the basis of another professional's experiences," appears to be an example. Are you really saying you don't doubt Slau is making assumptions? Making the leap that you intended the opposite of what you wrote, then aren't you arguing from authority based on Slau's expertise? Slau's comments may well be warranted and supported, but the evidence is lacking.
Acceptance without scrutiny is part of what I am warning against. This can happen within the skeptical community, as it can with any other. - Actually, Mark Z, considering Slau's knowledge of what is required for testing (as demonstrated later in the interview, with the discussion of 'Pear' and the Randi Challenge -- also the points he raised about consumer rights publications), I'd really not doubt that he's just making assumptions on the basis of another professional's experiences. He mentioned the name of the "other guy's" podcast -- maybe you should contact them to get more details? Slau himself said 'contact him' if you had more questions and his site at sessionswithslau could certainly go into it more.
I doubt that Eran, as interesting and opinionative as his segment is, enables him to have equal qualifications to Slau in this matter. - Great interview with Slau! I did have to chuckle during the Think Tank when the subject of UFOs in Darwin came up. Especially regarding the MP who saw something that looked like a meteor shower - um, the Perseid Meteor Shower just peaked mid August, and in Australia the best views would have been in the North . . . ;)
- After listening to the interview with Slau, and as a skeptic and admitted audio nut, I agree that there is plenty of woo in the audio community. I'd also like to caution against errors of reasoning and confirmation bias that we are all subject to.
As illustration, Slau mentions a gentleman who had been in audio retail and conducted a test of Monster speaker cables against generic speaker cables. No difference was found in the test.
As skeptics, we should be asking several questions. What were the conditions of the test? Was this an informal test or a rigorously controlled test? From the description, as given, the test results are no better than an anecdote with very limited application.
However, let's assume the test was done with acceptable controls. The results are only one instance that must be validated and replicated before a wide-ranging conclusion, i.e., Monster is no better than generic, can be drawn. For argument's sake, let's say that the conclusions of the test are validated and replicated. The results would still be applicable only to Monster vs. generic cables and should not be generalized to other cables without careful examination to ensure comparability between new cables and the Monster and generic cables in the test.
I'm neither picking on Slau nor his positions, nor am I advocating my own position on these issues. I am simply advocating caution against faulty reasoning and confirmation bias that all human beings should guard against.
In my opinion, woo in skeptic circles is the worst kind of woo. With his incisive mind and incessant application of logic, I would love to hear Eran do a "Grain of Salt" comment on the subject of audio woo both inside and outside the skeptic community.
Post your comment:
