SO, please explain how your cable directional. If my explanation doesn’t convince you, try making a little test board to put between your amp and your speaker. Just put a simple diode in line with the signal you believe to be directional. That will force your signal to be directional......
Oh, I don’t recommend it, cause I don’t know what a series of positive only electrical pulses will do to your speakers..... I suspect it will be nothing but bad......... But then, I’m only a degreed engineer from a podunk school like GaTech, who spent his entire career building electronics and if you ever heard me sing, I have a tin ear. As I used to tell my management, knowing is much better than thinking, but stop thinking, cause you’re not qualified.
>>>>You convinced me. Cables are not directional. I will email all the High End cable and fuse companies to advise them to please stop scamming naive gullible audiophiles by using those deceptive arrows on all their cables and power cords ASAP. I will also notify the thousands of happy customers who actually can hear wire and cable directionality. 🙄
There is no difference without a blind test, so there is no need for me to try it blind
You’re not making any sense. Blind test advocates such as yourself claim that sighted tests are unreliable. Yet you now seek special exception from being subjected to the rigors of blind/scientific testing, based upon your special privileged use of the same methodology you claim is unreliable when cited by others. That is an extreme example of expectation bias and illogic.
Also, my challenge (undefined but can be worked out) is open to you too
I have a passing interest in double-blind testing, even though I think it has little value to audiophiles and is mostly a waste of my time. But I’m not interested in gambling, and your efforts to turn your challenge into wagering is what I suspect led the moderators to delete your posts.
Scientific. Double blind. Sounds best. Im keen to know how to conduct and quantify scientifically what sounds best to my ears and ears/ brain of other subjects in this double blind test. Am I to insert electrodes in the brain or cerebral circulation to measure an electrical or neurotransmitter response ? Assuming the brief is to ascertain what sounds best using what sounds best to the subjects ears/brains is no problem. Provided you trust my findings. I have tried the latter and found beyond doubt that cables do impart a different sound coming out the speakers into human ears to the brain of subjects familiar with our hobby. All conditions in the experiment were the same. Only cables were changed. Also can confirm that cables have direction bias.
Blind test advocates such as yourself claim that sighted tests are unreliable.
I'm not advocating for anything. So please, lets clear the air.
Cleeds, I think there is some confusion or misunderstanding in general (i.e. not just you) throughout the thread with regard to my posts herein the thread.
What I'm stating (and by extension offering in the way of a challenge), is that in cases where a person claims to be able to audibly hear a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed, the person who is making that claim would NOT reliably audibly hear a difference if said speaker wire were reversed WITHOUT his/her prior knowledge to whether or not the wire was actually reversed.
As an EXAMPLE ONLY, the person making such claim that he/she can RELIABLY audibly hear a difference when/if reversing a cable should receive a passing grade when subjected to the following EXAMPLE PROCEDURE.
(1) The person subject to the test cannot see the equipment, but can hear (unobstructed) sound from it.
(2) A musical passage is played. In our example, lets play the Grateful Dead "Deal" (but we just as well could play the star spangled banner) from start to finish (or a few seconds or a few minutes, whatever).
(3) When Deal finishes, the person subject to the test waits approximately two minutes. The person is waiting for Deal (or the star spangled banner) to resume (play again from the beginning).
(4) During the wait, "another person or persons" would reverse, OR NOT reverse, the wire. In this context, reversing the wire means removing the wire (each channel of a two channel system, one channel at a time) from the speaker and the amplifier. Then, taking the ends of the cable that were on the speaker and attaching the ends to the amplifier, maintaining correct polarity, and repeating for the other channel. The speaker wire ends that were on the amplifier are connected to the speaker.
(5) The other person or persons in this EXAMPLE ONY is a known trusted source, who is/are the only person or persons to record whether or not the wire WAS OR WAS NOT reversed.
(6) The music resumes. The person subjected to the test listens until he/she is comfortable (upon completion or during the playback) in stating, "yes, the speaker wire has been reversed" or "no, the speaker wire has not been reversed". The person subjected to the test must make one or the other declaration within a specified amount of time.
(7) The person or persons other than the one subjected to the test records the response and compares the response to WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID OR DID NOT DO with the speaker wire. Their recording indicates a "pass" or "fail" grade, attributed to the person subjected to the test.
(8) The aformentioned EXAMPLE ONLY procedure is repeated a number of times so that there is a VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE level that the person subjected to the test, passes or fails. For EXAMPLE, the test might be conducted 30 times, in which case Deal (or the star spangled banner) would have played 60 times. So the person subjected to the test (and who purportedly can audible hear a difference as to whether or not the wire has been reversed), would be expected to make the correct response (items 6 and 7) the overwhelming majority of the time (25?).
(9) Of the 30 EXAMPLE ONLY tests, the person or persons who have subjected the person who has listened compares the reponses to the agreed upon majority (25) and on that basis declares "yes, you can reliably detect whether or not ordinary speaker wire is reversed" or "no, you cannot reliably detect whether or not ordinary speaker wire is reversed".
Simple really, for those who purportedly can hear the difference.
gdhal “What I’m stating (and by extension offering in the way of a challenge), is that in cases where a person claims to be able to audibly hear a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed, the person who is making that claim would NOT reliably audibly hear a difference if said speaker wire were reversed WITHOUT his/her prior knowledge to whether or not the wire was actually reversed.”
>>>>That is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard all day, which is saying something. I imagine that theory of yours should be filed under the heading, Wishful Thinking. It’s actually kind of the opposite situation. Folks who hear differences in sighted tests may often not (rpt not) hear them in blind tests because blind tests are inherently flawed - they are too complicated, too stressful, and are often run by extremely persistent skeptics, I.e., biased. You know, like The Amazing Randi. Not too mention there’s certainly reason to wonder about the listeners in many so called reliable blind tests. Where do they get them from - under a bridge somewhere?
I’m not advocating for anything. So please, lets clear the air.
That’s just not true. You wagered $25,000 on this proposed test of yours until the moderators shut it down.
Your proposed testing protocol is inherently flawed, in large part because it doesn’t allow for quick switching between the two choices. Meanwhile, you dismiss with a wave of the hand the suggestion that you undertake a proper test. What is it that frightens you so? Why not conduct your own, valid, double blind test?
I am late to join the interconnect believer group. I am also an acoustical engineer with a full
laboratory and extraordinary facilities for resolving and understand sound. That said, I am late to join the believer
group largely because I could not quantify through measurement or hear a difference in sound
between so called high quality and usually expensive interconnects and average
usually low cost interconnects…..that is until I upgraded by sound system. Now running the Audio Research Ref 6, Bergman
TT, Pass Labs Class A and Wilson Maxx III’s, the use of high quality interconnects make a
huge difference in detail, clarity, staging and overall enjoyment compared to
the simple cables I used to use. I now
use the Morrow Elite series throughout and will never doubt the benefit of
cable technology to high quality sound again. The improvement is day and night....no blind test needed.
Almost everyone who is, you know, an advanced audiophile, for lack of a better term, agrees that cables sound different and that cables, like fuses, are directional. Why should those who claim cables sound different and cables and fuses are directional have to prove anything, much less submit to a test? Shouldn’t it be the skeptics who should submit to testing? Testing someone else devises. Then they should be required to apologize publicly.
gdhal I’m not suggesting that one listens and then comes back to listen 24 hours later. We’re talking a matter of minutes. Those who claim to hear a difference should be able to demonstrate to disbelievers, or they shouldn’t make such claims. Additionally, within the framework of the EXAMPLE PROCEDURE I provided herein in a previous post, I remain open minded to an alternative. Like speaker wire, I’m flexible.
>>>It’s actually a strawman argument to presume that blind tests will demonstrate anything to disbelievers. The plain fact if the matter is nothing can deter the Uber Skeptic from his belief. Not counterargymen, not measurements, not tests. Not ever blind tests, which are for some reason considered sacred by Uber Skeptics. But as we’ve seen all tests, including blind test, can be attached on a number of levels. For one thing nobody agrees on what the protocol of a blind test should be. Therefore, ANY blind test is subject to scrutiny and attack. I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.
Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them. That’s your first mistake from which all your other mistakes naturally flow. 😁
Let me conclude with this excerpt from the intro to Zen and the Art of Debunkery.
“Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics.
As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.”
gdhal.... As to switching quickly,
realistically/practically that doesn't play a role ...We're
talking a matter of minutes. Those who claim to hear a difference should
be able to demonstrate to disbelievers, or they shouldn't make such
claims
There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn't required for a proper audio test. It's a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your $25,000 challenge, which increasingly appears bogus. If you're sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.
In the interim, everyone here is free to offer their observations free of any testing requirement, notwithstanding your insistence that "they shouldn't make such claims."
I remain open minded to an
alternative. Like speaker wire, I'm flexible.
Then why don't you subject yourself to double blind tests?
I agree with cleeds that research has shown that audio memory is short, perhaps no more than a few seconds. That is also one of the most pertinent criticisms of uncontrolled listening tests. I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.
I don't doubt that on a good quality system, different cables sound subtlely different. Whether that subtle difference is worth 5, 10 or even 20K is another story. However, it just stuns me that there is any dispute over the value of double blind testing to test outlandish claims made for any piece of equipment or cables. Perception is reality. People are programmed to like a 20K cable better than lamp cord, or some exotically expensive preamp over one less so. What is wrong with removing the possibility of bias and just make judgments -- albeit subjective ones -- based solely on what one hears, without knowing the components? It just seems so logical to me that it is weird that there is so much angst about it. Imagine if the FDA decided to permit sales of drugs based on whether someone "thought" that it made them better. Why shouldn't the same apply to audio?
I
don't doubt that on a good quality system, different cables sound
subtlely different. Whether that subtle difference is worth 5, 10 or
even 20K is another story.
Agreed! Whether the results are worth the cost is a completely subjective choice.
However, it just stuns me that there is any
dispute over the value of double blind testing to test outlandish claims
made for any piece of equipment or cables .. What is wrong with
removing the possibility of bias and just make judgments ...
What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn't know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement ... based on his performance in the same kind of sighted test that he thinks is unreliable for everyone else. That, and his bogus $25,000 wager, make it clear he has some funny agenda.
I'm not at all convinced of the value of blind testing to the typical audiophile, by the way. But the efforts some go to insist that others submit to such testing, while they enjoy some special exemption, just doesn't make any sense.
Actually, perception is not (rpt not) reality. Why? Because if test results of any test - including a double blind test - are negative you cannot assume there’s no difference between cables OR that device X doesn’t work as claimed OR that wire directionality is a hoax. The test just wasn’t capable of revealing the differences, that’s all. No biggie. Happens all the time. There are too many things that can go wrong with a particular test, including the test conductor is all thumbs, the person who put the system together is all thumbs, the test procedure is faulty, the test subject’s hearing is faulty or he’s inexperienced, the weather. Things of that nature. Now, if there were a number of tests conducted independently that gave negative results of some hypothesis or another then maybe you might have something. It’s the preponderance of the evidence that prevails.
pop quiz Why doesn’t the military or the FAA or NASA any other procurer of technology conduct blind tests on competing devices such as aircraft, launch vehicles, communications radios, smartphones, computers, antennas, etc.?
Why should those who claim cables sound different and cables and fuses are directional have to prove anything, much less submit to a test?
Agreed. You don’t have to. Unless of course you wish to take me up on my challenge and have an opportunity to win some gold.
I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.
True. Forgive me for not wanting to give my gold away.
Now I don’t know but I’ve been told It’s hard to run with the weight of gold Other hand I heard it said It’s just as hard with the weight of lead
Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them.
Nope!
The person does not have to, but should. In the absence of proof, expect the naysayers to scream "balderdash" (or offer challenges, incentives and so forth so as to entice the person making the claim)
There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn’t required for a proper audio test. It’s a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your $25,000 challenge, which increasingly appears bogus.
You can choose to think of this as the beginning of new research, or not. You can also choose to think of this as an improper audio test, or not. Your prerogative. Don’t (or do) participate in my challenge. Your choice. Sorry, I’m not giving away the gold.
The story teller makes no choice, soon you will not hear his voice
If you’re sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.
I’m sincere that it’s *impossible* to *reliably* hear an audible difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed.
I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.
Thank you, @willemj
It just seems so logical to me that it is weird that there is so much angst about it.
If the game is lost, then we’re all the same No one left to place or take the blame
What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn’t know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement .
This isn’t about proper etiquette. It’s about what truth is proof against all lies.
gdhal"You don’t have to. Unless of course you wish to take me up on my challenge and have an opportunity to win some gold." I am very pleased to see that you are again offering your $25,000 challenge to those who compete in your test of audio cables. Because you are making this offer the burden is on you to provide the specific terms of the offer and the means under which this test will be conducted and those means should be reviewed in public here by the forum members to insure that there is no fraud on your part after all you have promised $25,000 at stake!
Because you are making this offer the burden is on you to provide the specific terms of the offer and the means under which this test will be conducted and those means should be reviewed in public here by the forum members to insure that there is no fraud on your part after all you have promised $25,000 at stake!
@clearthink
You did mention (privately) that you and I should refrain on posting any dollar amount, on account of forum moderation (i.e. our posts are likely to be removed).
Realistically, I’ve already posted more than enough in this thread.
You, and everyone else subscribed to the thread and who have been reading it since its inception, are very much aware of the parameters (general framework as outlined in the example procedure) and you and all others are very much aware how to contact me - privately - if you have a genuine interest about pursuing my challenge and demonstrating that you can do the impossible.
I’m done with this thread.
Nothing to tell now; let the words be yours, I’m done with mine.
Why should those who claim cables sound different and cables and fuses are directional have to prove anything, much less submit to a test?
Agreed. You don't have to. Unless of course you wish to take me up on my challenge and have an opportunity to win some gold.
I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.
True. Forgive me for not wanting to give my gold away.
Now I don't know but I've been told It's hard to run with the weight of gold Other hand I heard it said It's just as hard with the weight of lead
Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them.
Nope!
The person does not have to, but should. In the absence of proof, expect the naysayers to scream "balderdash" (or offer challenges, incentives and so forth so as to entice the person making the claim)
There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn't required for a proper audio test. It's a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your $25,000 challenge, which increasingly appears bogus.
You can choose to think of this as the beginning of new research, or not. You can also choose to think of this as an improper audio test, or not. Your prerogative. Don't (or do) participate in my challenge. Your choice. Sorry, I'm not giving away the gold.
The story teller makes no choice, soon you will not hear his voice
If you're sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.
I'm sincere that it's *impossible* to *reliably* hear an audible difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed.
I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.
Thank you, @willemj
It just seems so logical to me that it is weird that there is so much angst about it.
If the game is lost, then we're all the same No one left to place or take the blame
What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn't know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement .
This isn't about proper etiquette. It's about what truth is proof against all lies.
... if test results of any test - including a double blind test - are negative
you cannot assume there’s no difference between cables OR that device X
doesn’t work as claimed OR that wire directionality is a hoax. The test
just wasn’t capable of revealing the differences ... There are too many things that can go
wrong with a particular test, including the test conductor is all
thumbs, the person who put the system together is all thumbs, the test
procedure is faulty ... It’s the
preponderance of the evidence that prevails.
That is quite true. That's why those who promote such tests should be using themselves first as subjects; if they are sincere, they'd want as large a body of test results as possible. They'd also want to ensure that each test be scientifically valid, which is most likely if it's consistent with established testing methodologies, such as quick switching. The poster who is promoting this "challenge" is clearly a con, and I suspect that's why the moderators are removing his posts.
You, and everyone else subscribed to the thread and who have been
reading it since its inception, are very much aware of the parameters
(general framework as outlined in the example procedure)
There's a large body of scientific literature that shows your proposed testing protocol isn't scientific. I can only conclude that your effort here is a con.
Why should those who claim cables sound different and cables and fuses are directional have to prove anything, much less submit to a test?
Agreed. You don't have to. Unless of course you wish to take me up on my challenge and have an opportunity to win some gold.
I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.
True. Forgive me for not wanting to give my gold away.
Now I don't know but I've been told It's hard to run with the weight of gold Other hand I heard it said It's just as hard with the weight of lead
Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them.
Nope!
The person does not have to, but should. In the absence of proof, expect the naysayers to scream "balderdash" (or offer challenges, incentives and so forth so as to entice the person making the claim)
There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn't required for a proper audio test. It's a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your < twenty five g> challenge, which increasingly appears bogus.
You can choose to think of this as the beginning of new research, or not. You can also choose to think of this as an improper audio test, or not. Your prerogative. Don't (or do) participate in my challenge. Your choice. Sorry, I'm not giving away the gold.
The story teller makes no choice, soon you will not hear his voice
If you're sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.
I'm sincere that it's *impossible* to *reliably* hear an audible difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed.
I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.
Thank you, @willemj
It just seems so logical to me that it is weird that there is so much angst about it.
If the game is lost, then we're all the same No one left to place or take the blame
What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn't know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement .
This isn't about proper etiquette. It's about what truth is proof against all lies.
Because you are making this offer the burden is on you to provide the specific terms of the offer and the means under which this test will be conducted and those means should be reviewed in public here by the forum members to insure that there is no fraud on your part after all you have promised <twenty five g> at stake!
@clearthink
You did mention (privately) that you and I should refrain on posting any dollar amount, on account of forum moderation (i.e. our posts are likely to be removed).
Realistically, I’ve already posted more than enough in this thread.
You, and everyone else subscribed to the thread and who have been reading it since its inception, are very much aware of the parameters (general framework as outlined in the example procedure) and you and all others are very much aware how to contact me - privately - if you have a genuine interest about pursuing my challenge and demonstrating that you can do the impossible.
I’m done with this thread.
Nothing to tell now; let the words be yours, I’m done with mine.
For those interested in various blind tests, a few days ago on
03-16 2018
in this thread jssmith posted two links to a large range of blind tests. You can argue with some of the methodologies, but the aggregate weight of the results should give audiophiles pause for thought.
Imagine going through life not being allowed to believe something you can hear, let alone see, taste, smell or touch, because someone else hyperbolically claims that it's not so.
"Fake News" proclamations abound here. Are you going to believe me or your lying ears? It's getting old.
willemj For those interested in various blind tests, a few days ago on 03-16 2018 in this thread jssmith posted two links to a large range of blind tests. You can argue with some of the methodologies, but the aggregate weight of the results should give audiophiles pause for thought.
>>>>Actually they probably shouldn’t give audiophiles food for thought. 🦀 🐬 🐟 The only time anyone should take notice of blind tests, to be completely up front about it, is when the total number of INDEPENDENT blind tests with negative results - for the SAME DEVICE(S) UNDER TEST -outweighs the total number with POSITIVE RESULTS by a WIDE MARGIN. Positive results are more interesting than negative ones because they can obtained in spite of any mistakes in the system, procedure, bad hearing, etc., assuming there are any.
For a single blind test - regardless of the procedure, listeners, etc. - I recommend throwing the test out. Period. Whereas for a single blind test with positive results I’d say, wait a minute, this looks interesting. Let’s wait and see if there are like this. If you get a whole bunch of negative results from independent tests and ZERO positive results then maybe I’ll start to pay attention. Til then, knock yourselves out. Smoke if ya got em.
pop quiz Why have most Uber Skeptics made up their minds completely BEFORE any tests have even been performed?
Apologize for the removal of all of my posts, but that is out of my control.
Realistically, I’ve already posted more than enough in this thread.
Everyone subscribed to the thread and who have been reading it since its inception, are very much aware of MY parameters (general framework as *I* outline in MY example procedure) AND everyone is aware how to contact me - privately - if you have a genuine interest about pursuing my challenge and demonstrating that you can do the impossible.
I’m done with this thread.
Nothing to tell now; let the words be yours, I’m done with mine.
Imagine
going through life not being allowed to believe something you can hear,
let alone see, taste, smell or touch, because someone else
hyperbolically claims that it's not so.
Well said. That's part of why I think that blind testing really has very limited value to most audiophiles.
It is immediately apparrant for even a casual reader of the forum to correctly conclude that gdhal attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the Audiogon community of audiophiles and the many posts of his that have been deleted by the moderators further support this simple observation. I am grateful to the dedicated, alert and well informed staff for taking action to prevent gdhal from defrauding someone of good faith of 10's of thousands of dollars and this is why I insisted with him that all discussion of his "challenge" would be in public because it would expose him. What is a rather strange aspect of his extortion-fraud effort is that it was attempted to have been executed under the cloak of "science" and exploration intended to reveal "truth" when really it was an outright fraud the very type of deception so many of these self-proclaimed "scientists" here accuse others of with their frequent accusations of "snake oil" against those who can hear differences in cables!
I did a blind test as follows: I had two identical CD players playing the same disc and started them at the same time so they were exactly in sync. With two sets of interconnect running into the amp inputs I could use the remote to switch inputs. If I did this switch rapidly at the start of each test I had no idea which input was playing when the test started. I then tested between the two at a touch of the button. As long as I didn’t peep at the amp display I had no idea which was playing.
Initially I ran two sets of identical £14 Maplin interconnect cable (UK electrical retailer) to ensure the two CD players sounded the same. They did. In this test I could not perceive a difference between the two CD players. Next I simply compared different interconnects.
I had four interconnects to trial (Maplin at £14, 3 others ranging from £800 to £1500). I was testing Maplin (cable A) vs another (cable B/C/D) in each case. With two of the Interconnects (B and C) the differences were subtle: results showed I chose the expensive cable more than 50% of the time, but the differences were minor and for me not worth the money. With cable D the difference was massive, and it was immediately obvious which one I was listening to, so much so I choose cable D over A 100% of the time (each test was done around 20 times). I was intending to go on to test B vs C/D etc but as D was so far and away better I didn’t bother. I bought cable D (which incidentally was the cheapest of B,C and D).
This is is such an easy test to do and so easy to set up I'm surprised Hifi reviewers don’t do it. The only downside was that the only way to get two identical CD players for me was to use two 1990s cheapish Denon CD players, rather than the high end CD player usually in my system. I did double check the results by doing non-blind testing between the interconnects with my regular CD player and found the same results. In this instance by the time I had changed the cables I actually could not detect a difference between A and B/C but the difference between A and D was even more apparent.
Yes of course this is another example of a proper, scientific, verifiable, and repeatable excercise that could be replicated by others' who are genuinely interested in exploring the audibility of differences between cables in a Music Reproduction System and those who question such an outcome are suggested to do as you have done and perform there own research before asserting they're beliefs in this forum as though they had scientific validity.
I find it hard to comprehend this verbal diarrhea, but what I do understand is that clearthink thinks science is on his side. Well, have a look at the links I mentioned earlier. Their story is quite different, as anyone here can freely find out. There is no need to take clearthink's garbled words for it.
Speaking of verbal diarrhea, here is an excerpt from one the links willemj referred to, this one apparently minutes of an AES meeting on the dodgy subject of wire directionality. This ought to be interesting, right?
“Steve (guest technician) started by making a distinction between things we can measure in wire (resistance, capacitance, inductance), and those things we can’t measure (soundstage, "detail", "directionality", and other things you can "hear"). There is rarely a correlation between what you can measure and what you can hear.”
>>>>Steve was apparently not aware of the HiFi Tuning data that showed directionality measurements of fuses. Or that ANY wire or cable can be measured with a volt ohm meter and shows resistance differences according to direction. Duh! There is rarely a correlation between what you can measure and what you can hear? Oh, please! Give me a break!
“For best electron flow, you want to use a metal that has low resistance. In circular-mil ohms per foot at 20°C., silver leads the way at 9.9, copper is next at 10.4, gold is 14.7, aluminum is 17, nickel is 47, and steel is 74. Although silver is the best conductor, it has several disadvantages: it tarnishes, which then interferes with connection; it is pretty expensive; and it cannot be annealed. Wire is made by repeatedly pushing metal through ever-smaller dies, until it is the size you want. This process is really boring to watch, and now is all done by robots. After going through the dies, the wire is very brittle and easy to break. Copper wire can be heated to 700 and annealed, which lines up the crystalline structure and removes the brittleness, making it very useful for cable purposes.”
>>>>For best electron flow? Are they kidding? The electrons are not (rpt not) flowing. Photons are flowing. Electrons are barely moving. Hel-loo! I submit that annealing will not “line up” the crystal structure that has been irreparably distorted by being drawn through the die. And establishing directionality! I mean come on, that doesn’t even make sense.
“Directionality, or the idea that electricity flows better in one direction through a cable than the other, is a common concept among certain self-identified audiophiles. Belden did a double-blind test for cable directionality in conjunction with an audiophile magazine. The end result was perfectly random. Belden is still happy to manufacture and sell directional cables to enthusiasts. They make up a long length of cable, cut it in segments, identify the ends of the segments so they know how it came off the spool (length A->B, length B->C, length C->D, etc), and then let the customer identify by careful listening which direction is "better". Over thousands of cables sold, the chosen "best" signal flow is random, for segments cut from the same spool!
>>>>Certain self-identified audiophiles? Whoa! Hey, what are they talking about? Huh? Belden did a double blind test for cable directionality with an audiophile magazine? Where is it? What magazine? Talk is cheap!
>>>>How would Belden or anyone know that the thousands of Belden cables sold were random for directionality? I mean, come, on people! Get real! Where’s the data? Belden must be selling their cables to a different set of enthusiasts since almost everyone on this forum reports obviously directionality. This whole AES report is very hard to swallow. Are they lying? Maybe.
It is immediately apparrant for even a casual reader of the forum to correctly conclude that gdhal attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the Audiogon community of audiophiles and the many posts of his that have been deleted by the moderators further support this simple observation.
I do recall a number of your threads were also deleted.
As to fraudulence, I look at a bit differently. As soon as I mentioned my rationale for wanting to skype - because seeing and hearing you lends credibility to the authenticity of your interest - and that it is a possibility you are merely a 14 year old school girl without the financial means and/or legal authority to enter into any agreement - did I validate your insincerity.
OK, I’ll try one more time. The link to the AES meeting minutes found among all those blind test links (as if sheer numbers are supposed to mean something) revealed - now get this! -BELDEN had supposedly conducted BLIND TESTS for wire directionality with some unnamed audio magazine. AND that the results were supposedly negative. So here’s the $64K Question, y’all: where is the evidence of that Belden blind test? Did it just disappear? Hel-loo!
gdhalm"There is no need to take clearthink’s garbled words for it."
There is no need for anyone to take my word for it unlike you I suggest people conduct they’re own scientific, verifiable, repeatable double-blinded listening tests. The thoughtful and purposeful decision’s of this forum’s moderators to repeatedly delete your posts and provocations is all the proof anyone in this forum should reasonably require to decisively conclude that the undeniable proof is that your $25,000 USD listening "challenge" was a patent fraud and extortion which makes you a fraud or as another contributor observed here in a published and undeleted post a "con." I also note for the benefit of other’s here that you have continued your efforts to pursue your fraudulent test by privately messaging me through Audiogon seeking a skype conversation even though I have already explained to you I will not engage you in private conversation but instead insist that all communications be here in the public forum so that you can be revealed for the fraud that your $25,000 USD challenge is.
Just to mention, the word repeatable can be misleading. The reason being if you mean repeatable by the same person we must insist on independent tests. Even then the word repeatable is a little tricky since the very nature of the initial test could have been flawed. So repeating a flawed test wouldn’t have any value, would it? The tests should be independent in every sense of the word. Different system, different test conductor, different test subject(s). The results, now those should be repeatable.
It’s unfortunate that this thread - which is about the science of double blind audio testing - has become one of the ugliest ever on Audiogon. It’s proof how some want to politicize this issue - and I say that even as I argue that while such testing has its place, it’s of limited value to most audiophiles. geoffkait
Just to mention, the word repeatable can be misleading
I think "repeatable" in this context means that the test can be replicated by others. That requires that the test protocol be explained to at least allow the possibility of independent verification even if - as sometimes happens in science - another conducts the ostensibly same test, but arrives at a different result.
If the testing protocol is inherently unscientific (as proposed by gdhal here), it saves other experimenters the trouble of trying to replicate the test. If you’re trying to apply science, it’s futile to pursue an unscientific protocol.
No, it means the results must be repeatable. Remember Cold Fusion. They had rigged the rest or whatever. You certainly don’t want to replicate phony test procedures. That’s why you want completely independent tests. As I said before one test all by itself has no meaning if the results are negative. Ideally you want a lot if independent tests that come up with the same results. If one is negative you throw that one out. Problem solved.
No, it means the results must be repeatable. Remember Cold Fusion. They had rigged the rest or whatever.
Are you referring to Pons & Fleischmann? If so, you are the first to suggest that they rigged anything. Indeed, the opposite was the case, and they freely shared their test procedure.
As fate would have it, others couldn’t duplicate their results. But, as I said, that’s how science works. Thank goodness.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
