shadornemMountain
of BS with absolutely no evidence, just anecodotal stuff. I have never
seen an AES paper proving sound differences of various cables and won’t
ever see one because it is all equipment and component performance
related Perhaps you've never seen such as AES paper because you are not a member of AES. Would that be correct?
Are you familiar with Richard Black's
"Audio Cable Distortion is Not a Myth" treatise? It's from 2006. You might want to review it before you repeat your claim. If you're an AES member you can read it for free.
|
dynaquest4 Our ears and brain have very short term audio memory. There’s a shred of truth to this, but it’s hardly an absolute truth. For example, I’ve haven’t listened to a Bob Dylan album in weeks. But I could easily distinguish his voice from Bruce Springsteen’s anytime. So, unless you have an AB blind test switch as a permanent part of your system, in the time it takes to switch out a set of cables, you will have lost the ability to accurately recall the exact sound of the previous cable or any subtle changes that the new cable "provides. " You don’t need a permanent AB switch to do blind tests of cables, there are comparators that offer that function. Wireworld makes one and there are others. Have you ever experimented with these to test your opinions that you state as fact? Of course, using an AB test - or better yet, an ABX test - is just one way to evaluate an audio component or cable. |
bac2vinylPower
cables can not make a difference…Can not convince me that the power
cables that came with my Marantz MM8077 or my Parasound A21 are
mediocre. This is a good example of the power of expectation bias. If you insist you cannot be convinced, then you are correct.
|
ganainm... the reason the burden of proof is not onthe
sceptics is because of 150 years of Electrical Theory and Engineering
not to mention the huge majority of actual unbiased blinded testing. If
that stuff means nothing to you, well there really isn't a discussion to
be had ... This is a hobbyist group, so there's actually no "burden of proof" on anyone here. No one in this group owes you anything. But since you bring up "actual unbiased testing," please do tell us about those tests. Who designed them, who conducted them, who participated? Please also tell us about what you call the the minority of tests where the results were not consistent with your beliefs.
If you're not willing to share details, "well
there really isn't a discussion to
be had."
|
roberjermanTwo voices of reason amid the howling mob! Howling mob? You have a very active imagination. This "debate" is just a tempest in a teapot. In truth, there really is no debate - many listening tests reveal differences in cables, including some scientific, double blind tests.
|
cd3181There is such a small differnce that the average person would
not be able to pick up. Thos golden ears that will be able to do so will
not experience an enlightenment of their musical enjoyment. Just a
slight difference.
There's PLENTY of blind / double blind test on the net that prove that.
Here's a page with a lot of links ... Some of the test results contained in the link you provided did yield "positive results." That is, the listener could distinguish differences. That's no surprise, even though many blind listening tests arrive at a negative results.
|
geoffkaitGee
whiz, guys, it looks like your humble narrarator is the only one here ... I have no difficulty whatsoever hearing subtle
differences. You are not alone.
|
prof When testing an individual, even if
they "fail" multiple well designed blind trials ... A listener can't "fail" a listening test - that's a common misnomer about scientific listening tests. A double-blind listening test doesn't test the listener. It tests the devices under test.
... that doesn’t mean there
are no audible differences between the cables tested. The result is that
individual simply didn’t demonstrate the claimed ability in a
controlled test. Proper listening tests include a variety of listeners, not only those with a so-called "claimed ability."
|
djones51
In one
wine study the wine experts were being tested not the wines the
researchers dyed a white wine red they were fooled they described the
white like it was a red. That doesn't sound like a valid test at all, but an illusion to influence an outcome. So it's not an objective test.
|
prof... it’s a misnomer to think that
scientists don’t talk of subjects "failing" tests. Of course they do.
For instance study subjects in medical trials can be said to have
"failed to respond to the control treatment," etc.
You're being silly.
The purpose of a drug trial is to test the efficacy of a treatment. It's not to test the patient.
Of course double blind (or single blind) listening tests can test a listener.
What
do you think happens in a hearing test?
You're being silly. Of course you can test a subject's hearing. You can also test a subject for fluency in Spanish, or calculus. But the topic of this thread is, "Do cables really matter?" To ascertain the answer, you test cables, not listeners.
|
roberjerman
"Wire is like a condom. If it works everything is fine. If not ..." If you think wire is like a condom, you're using at least one of them wrong.
|
prof... My son is in a clinical study now, and the study doctors use that term "failed" for studies and test subjects all the time ... You’re playing word games, or perhaps you are just profoundly confused. A clinical drug trial tests the efficacy of a drug. It does not test the patient. (The patient has already been tested - to establish whether he suffers a condition that the experimental drug may help treat. He will be tested again, at the conclusion of the trial, to establish the effects of the drug.) If you are conducting a scientific listening test to evaluate potential differences between cables, then you are testing the cables themselves, which are known as the "device(s) under test," or "DUT." You are not testing the listener. If you want to test the listener himself, that’s a task for an audiologist. There’s no need to "muddy the water" by introducing various cables into that test. You seem intent on exposing the frailty of listeners, which is fine. But that’s a separate mission than studying the possible differences between cables. |
profSo the FDA is also "profoundly confused?" You seem to be conveniently ignoring whatever undermines your claims. It’s now obvious that you are playing word games, @prof. A drug trial tests the efficacy of a drug. It does not test the patient. It’s that simple. But the point is, as I’d already reiterated, that you’d made an unclear, generalized claim about the nature of scientifically testing listeners, and blind testing, which allowed the false impression ... Enjoy all of your "false impressions." Have a nice day. |
elizabeth ... anywhere the sight, or awareness of the product might cause a response
separate from the actual use of the product, blind testing would have
value. Blind testing might have value in that instance, yes. But I wouldn't be certain that it would have value. That would hinge a lot on the details of the test itself. Conducting a scientifically valid double-blind listening test is not as easy as some here seem to think.
Look at a
certain one man company which stuck a Home Depot extension cord inside a
garden hose. then charged $1,500 or more for it. Folks LOVED it,
endless rave reviews, until someone cut one open. LOL(people 'forgave'
him because he was such an honest Christian? That sounds like urban legend, much like your claim that Infinity's attorneys shut down Graz in Australia. Do you have any proof to substantiate it?
|
prof
... if you listened to a song on my system at 70dB sound level, left for a
week then returned to listen again, you would not be able to tell if I'd
raised the volume by a couple db. That difference is far too small to
keep distinct in your memory. Quite so. The ear is rather insensitive to absolute level. But the ear/brain system is much more adept at detecting relative differences in level. That's why the value of quick-switching is not nearly as great as prof's argument suggests.
|
chemmanI understand the test very well. Statements such as: ... confirmation bias is not ordinarily found in an experiment that focuses on empirical data ... and: ... You can’t quantify listening skills ... show you don’t understand scientific listening tests well at all. "ranking listener acuity" is not empirical per se. You are assigning numbers to a qualitative result. You are attempting to control for variability by using a double-blind method of testing. The key is the word attempting. You are in no way controlling for human variability. Actually, you are very much controlling for human variability. That’s the purpose of the testing. Those who have used scientific, carefully controlled double-blind listening tests to design things such as audio codecs have done this with considerable success. You simply don’t know what you are talking about. You also seem rather obsessed with the word "empirical" without actually knowing what it means. It means something based on observation. That’s as opposed to based on theory, which is the basis of your argument. Can knowledge be gleaned from such tests? Yes. Is it definitive? No. Oh, I agree absolutely. There are limits to the value of double-blind listening tests. But to understand those limits, it’s important to understand what they actually can do. That’s where you’re confused or, perhaps, just misinformed. No singular test is absolutely definitive, by the way, so you raising that issue is a bit of a red herring. |
chemman... it seems highly unlikely that someone would pay money for
something they expect to provide an enhancement and not expect it to
work. The "hope" that it will enhance is correlated with the pleasure in
the brain. Before spending serious money on things like audio cables, I think most audiophiles have already experimented with them first. It's very common for audio dealers to hand a customer some used cable with a request that he try it in his system. No cost, no obligation. Many a skeptical audiophile has been surprised at the result, and the sale follows that. So in those instances, it's not the result of "confirmation
bias."
Moreover, confirmation bias is not ordinarily found in an
experiment that focuses on empirical data. It is found in pseudo
science that seeks to pass itself off as veracity. To the extent that confirmation bias exists, it is found everywhere, and the results of listening tests are themselves "empirical data."
You can't quantify listening skills ... You can give hearing tests to determine the
frequencies people can hear, but you certainly cannot attach a number
to what they can hear when listening to subtle music which is comprised
of always changing frequencies from multiple different instruments. This is completely mistaken. Many who have used double-blind listening tests - such as in designing audio codecs - absolutely have ranked listener acuity, usually after a training period to help them understand what they should be listening for in the test. As with many here, you seem to misunderstand the use of these tests.
|
profBut you listening ear is your ear. No one can tell you what you don’t hear. calvinj, Uh...yes they can.
Ever had a hearing test? Yes, I have had a hearing test. Have you? The tests I’ve been part of don’t tell me what I hear at all. Rather, I have to tell the audiologist what I hear. Without that feedback, the audiologist knows exactly nothing about what I hear. Remember the Yanni/Laurel debate? Only you can state what you hear. Anyone else has only a 50 percent chance of guessing correctly. This business of establishing what we hear - and don’t hear - is very tricky. Real researchers know that. Those with simple answers and absolute pronouncements don’t. That’s the only part of the matter that’s simple. |
|
cd318Strangely enough, no high end cable manufacturer ever seems game for the challenge. Not now, not yesterday, not tomorrow. Your knowledge of the future is no better than your knowledge of the present or past. For example, Wireworld not only encourages cable evaluations - including blind evaluations - but it makes its own comparator just for that purpose.
You might want to try such an experiment sometime.
|
cd318
Monster1000 speaker cables vs 4 twisted soldered coat hangers. To date
the coat hangers have remained unbeaten against all comers from the
cable world. It appears this link just repeats information repeated from another website that repeated it from a post on another audio forum. No details are offered on the test. So this is just hearsay ... at best.
|
cd318@cleeds , well there’s plenty of stuff out there regarding cable comparisons ... Of course there is. This is a perennial issue. I've done my own evaluations, and am mostly interested in hearing from those who have conducted their own, first-hand testing. Links to tests conducted by third-parties have little value and almost always lack detail about the specific nature of the test. |
